Sen. Eric Schmitt’s recent comments highlight growing tensions surrounding military discipline and political rhetoric. He argues that some Democrats are waging a subtle campaign aimed at undermining the integrity of military command, labeling it a potential “color revolution” against former President Donald Trump.
On Fox News, Schmitt voiced concerns over remarks made by Democratic lawmakers, particularly after a video was released urging military and intelligence personnel to resist “illegal orders” should Trump return to power. By interpreting these comments as a call to disobedience, Schmitt shines a light on the risks he sees in such rhetoric—risks that reach beyond politics and into the realm of military order and cohesion.
In the viral video, several Democratic representatives implicitly suggest that hypothetical orders from Trump could be disregarded by military members. Schmitt responded emphatically, warning that this kind of dialogue fosters an environment where soldiers feel empowered to disobey lawful directives. He stated, “That’s the first step… this is the language of a color revolution.” Essentially, he argues that the integrity of military discipline hinges on a consistent expectation for service members to follow lawful orders without question.
This sentiment is echoed by other military veterans and Republicans, who warn that such encouragement for disobedience could erode fundamental principles of military unity and constitutional authority. One House Republican veteran remarked that allowing soldiers to decide which orders to obey based on ambiguous and speculative situations is “corrosive.” The suggestion is clear: even the appearance of political influence within the ranks can weaken the bond between service members and the civilian leadership they are sworn to support.
In an attempt to defend their stance, some Democratic representatives, including Rep. Jason Crow, cite examples of orders they deem unlawful, stressing the need for service members to recognize and resist illegal commands. Crow, a former Army Ranger, noted, “He cannot handle that and he resorts to threats of violence.” This defensive posture highlights a growing divide where each side views the political landscape through a distinct lens of legality and morality.
The discussion becomes richer with Trump’s own fiery response on social media, describing the Democratic lawmakers’ video as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR” deserving of severe consequences. This intense reaction escalates an already charged atmosphere. Trump’s statement reveals a willingness to frame political opposition not just as a disagreement but as a direct threat to national integrity itself. This marks a sharp pivot from the democratic process into a battleground for authority and control over military loyalty.
The underlying issue here is one of compliance and authority—how military personnel are expected to navigate their oaths within a politically fraught environment. Schmitt’s critique also addresses what he describes as historical obstructionism from Senate Democrats, accusing them of delaying Trump’s cabinet nominees. He contends that these procedural tactics hinder Trump’s ability to effectively lead, thereby creating an atmosphere where civilian control of the military is jeopardized by political maneuvering.
Legal experts remain divided on the practicality of the video’s implications. While military law does allow for troops to defy unlawful orders, the interpretation of what constitutes an unlawful command remains high. Experts note that merely being hypothetically problematic does not justify rejecting orders from an elected leader. This speaks to a larger issue: the potential for politicizing military actions while navigating a highly polarized environment.
Veterans and defense analysts warn that any hint of partisanship within military ranks could have dire consequences, potentially diminishing public trust. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates once articulated this danger, emphasizing that even the perception of bias in military policy can fracture the stability of the military institution and the faith the public places in it.
Schmitt’s assertion that some Democrats are setting a reckless precedent is notable. He argues, “They are telling active-duty military members to reject orders—not because they are illegal, but because they don’t like who’s giving the order.” In this, Schmitt draws a line between protest, patriotism, and what he perceives as a form of subversion. The larger discourse about military loyalty in a politically charged environment continues to evolve, raising critical questions about how such divides will influence governance as the 2024 election cycle approaches.
This flashpoint challenges traditional views on military obedience and showcases how deeply intertwined military conduct and political ideologies have become. As these discussions unfold, their implications will undoubtedly ripple through the layers of American governance and trust in the military’s role within it.
"*" indicates required fields
