Democratic lawmakers with military experience, including Rep. Jason Crow and Sen. Elissa Slotkin, have sparked a contentious debate by releasing a viral video urging service members to refuse orders that violate the Constitution. The video, which references constitutional principles and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans who accuse Democrats of undermining national security. The lawmakers argue that service members have a legal obligation to disobey unlawful commands, emphasizing their duty to uphold constitutional principles. However, the video’s lack of clear examples of what constitutes illegal orders has fueled concerns about its potential misuse. Critics, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, have labeled the callout as an example of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ while some Democrats defend the exhortation as a necessary reminder of military ethics and legal obligations.
Democratic leaders, including Rep. Chrissy Houlahan and Sen. Elissa Slotkin, assert that the video represents a call to action grounded in constitutional law. Houlahan, who expressed frustration with how critics have framed the message, emphasized that the video does not instruct service members to ignore all orders. Instead, it focuses on the importance of refusing commands that explicitly violate the law or the Constitution. The lawmakers argue that the video serves as a reminder of the legal framework that protects military personnel from engaging in unconstitutional actions. They point to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as a foundational legal text that outlines the responsibilities of service members in such situations.
Republicans, however, have interpreted the video as an attack on military loyalty and a dangerous encroachment on national security. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth mocked the callout as an example of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ suggesting that Democrats are fixated on discrediting former President Donald Trump. Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri has similarly criticized the video, arguing that it sounds ‘subversive to democracy’ and is motivated by political resentment rather than genuine concern for military ethics. These criticisms have led to calls for greater accountability and a clear delineation of what actions are considered lawful for service members to follow.
The debate has also sparked discussions within the Democratic party about the role of military personnel in upholding constitutional values. Some lawmakers have emphasized the importance of maintaining a clear legal framework for service members to follow when faced with ambiguous or potentially unlawful orders. Others have questioned the practicality of using this exhortation as a guiding principle without more specific instructions. As the conversation continues, both sides have called for greater clarity and a stronger alignment between legal principles and military conduct. The video has become a focal point in the broader discourse on military ethics, constitutional obligations, and the role of politicians in shaping the expectations for service members.