Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso appeared on “Sunday Morning Futures” to tackle a serious issue: Democratic lawmakers encouraging U.S. military personnel to defy orders. This kind of rhetoric, he argues, is not just misguided… it’s dangerous.
The discussion began with a social media clip featuring Democrats, including Senators Kelly and Slotkin. They told military members they could refuse to follow what they termed “illegal” orders. In response, President Trump called this “seditious behavior.” It’s a charge worth noting, especially as it frames the broader debate over military loyalty and authority.
When host Maria Bartiromo asked Barrasso for his thoughts, he didn’t hold back. “What they are doing is wrong and I believe it is dangerous,” he stated. Barrasso stressed that it’s inappropriate for any civilian, let alone elected officials, to instruct active-duty military personnel on how to interpret orders from their commanding officers. His assertion underscores a clear principle: the chain of command in the military must remain uncompromised.
Moreover, Barrasso highlighted that it is the Supreme Court’s role to determine the constitutionality of orders, not the judgment of several Democrats on social media. This point reinforces the idea that legal interpretations should come from established judicial authority rather than politically motivated individuals. The seriousness of the matter extends beyond party lines; it questions the very fabric of military discipline and the rule of law.
Barrasso didn’t stop there. He connected the Democrats’ actions to a broader pattern he believes threatens the current administration and, by extension, national governance. “These are the same Democrats who have been doing everything they can in the last 10 months to undermine President Trump, undermine the Republican party and our efforts,” he said. The senator accused Democrats of contributing to the recent government shutdown and proposed tax increases.
He claimed that every one of them voted for a significant tax hike of $4 trillion and was involved in the push for the shutdown, framing it as a testament to their intentions. This contention paints a picture of a party that, according to Barrasso, isn’t genuinely interested in solutions but rather in maintaining a position of opposition.
Bartiromo pressed further about the specific actions Democrats might take to limit President Trump’s effectiveness. Barrasso confirmed her suspicions, asserting that their tactics were aimed squarely at undermining the President’s power. “That was organized and orchestrated weeks in advance. Many of them wish the government was still shut down,” he concluded.
Barrasso’s comments reflect a significant concern about what he views as a coordinated campaign against both the military’s integrity and the functioning of the government itself. By highlighting alleged prior planning among Democrats to disrupt the governmental process, he seeks to frame their actions as not merely impulsive reactions but as strategic moves undermining the presidency and the country’s stability.
In summary, Barrasso’s remarks touch on a profound issue: the respect and loyalty owed to military leadership and the potential ramifications when those tenets are undermined by political posturing. His emphatic defense of the military and criticism of the opposition illustrates a broader narrative of division in American politics, where actions are increasingly scrutinized through the lens of loyalty, legal obligation, and national strength.
"*" indicates required fields
