A group of Democratic lawmakers released a short, viral video this week urging members of the U.S. armed forces to refuse what the lawmakers called “illegal orders,” a move that deliberately injects partisan drama into the sacred bond between civilian leadership and the military. This was not a casual comment; it was a coordinated message from elected officials with military or intelligence backgrounds that will echo through bases and barracks across the country.
The lawmakers featured in the montage included well-known veterans and former intelligence officers, and the scripted message repeatedly urged service members that they could and must refuse unlawful orders. Framing such a politically timed production as a public safety warning disguises a reckless campaign to erode trust in the chain of command.
When confronted on Fox News, Representative Jason Crow — one of the video participants — was pressed by host Martha MacCallum to name a specific illegal order he feared might be issued, and the exchange grew tense as Crow referenced past statements and hypothetical threats. The interview underscored the central problem: broad insinuations without specifics are designed to sow fear, not to responsibly inform troops about the narrow, well-defined legal duty to refuse truly unlawful commands.
President Trump predictably escalated the rhetoric, blasting the lawmakers as engaging in “seditious behavior” and suggesting severe consequences for what he framed as attempts to encourage insubordination. Whether one agrees with the president’s tone or not, his reaction highlights how Democrats’ stunt has already inflamed partisan flames instead of calming the serious constitutional questions they invoke.
Outside observers and military legal experts have long said that troops are obligated to refuse manifestly unlawful orders, but that’s a technical legal principle, not a political slogan to be brandished in campaign-season videos; even the Pentagon has tried to steer clear of the partisan spectacle. Responsible leaders explain the law and the risks in measured terms; what we saw from these Democrats was theater, not stewardship.
This whole episode exposes a disturbing new tactic: weaponize vague fears about the commander in chief, then use those fears to build political pressure. It is dangerous and unpatriotic to encourage young service members to doubt every command from civilian leadership without offering any clear legal framework or context. Our military deserves better than to be turned into a pawn in a political grudge match.
Conservatives should be clear-eyed here: defending the rule of law includes defending the institution of civilian control and the integrity of military order. That means calling out reckless provocateurs on both sides and insisting that anyone who plays politics with the morale and cohesion of our troops be held politically accountable. Martha MacCallum’s refusal to let vague accusations stand was the kind of plain-speaking Americans want to see more of in a media landscape that too often rewards performative outrage.
