The tantrum that won’t go away
When six Democratic lawmakers – veterans and intelligence professionals all – released a 90-second video on November 18 reminding U.S. military and intelligence personnel that they have a duty to refuse illegal orders, they expected debate. What they got was a firestorm from President Donald Trump, who branded their words “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” in a series of Truth Social posts on November 20. Trump amplified calls to “HANG THEM,” later clarifying on Fox News that he wasn’t directly threatening execution but believed the lawmakers were “in serious trouble” under “old days” standards. The video, posted by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and featuring Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Slotkin alongside Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), restated a core tenet of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Service members must disobey patently unlawful commands, such as those violating the Constitution.
Legal experts swiftly dismissed Trump’s sedition charge as baseless. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, seditious conspiracy for civilians carries a maximum of 20 years in prison – not death – and requires intent to use force against the government, a threshold the video doesn’t meet. As Villanova law professor Brenner M. Fissell noted, the lawmakers were “merely re-stating the military law” that only lawful orders demand obedience, failing any “imminence” test for protected speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio. Yet the administration’s response has escalated into what Democrats call a “retribution campaign,” blending threats, investigations, and heightened personal risks.
A Surge in Threats and Security
Trump’s posts ignited immediate backlash. Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger, released audio of voicemails including “traitors like you deserve to be hanged” and “we’re coming for you,” reporting “several death threats” tied directly to the rhetoric. Sen. Slotkin described receiving “hundreds of threats,” prompting 24/7 Capitol Police protection for all six lawmakers and their families – a step coordinated by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leaders. Five reported bomb threats, leading to office evacuations. The group issued a joint statement: “No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation” to defend the Constitution. Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, condemned the posts as an “outrageous call for political violence,” while Republicans like House Speaker Mike Johnson called the video “wildly inappropriate” but distanced from the “death” language.
The Pentagon’s Move: A Court-Martial Threat Against Kelly
On November 24, the Pentagon announced a “thorough review” of Sen. Kelly, a retired Navy captain and combat veteran with 25 years of service, for “serious allegations of misconduct” under 10 U.S.C. § 688, which allows recall of retirees who interfere with military “loyalty, morale, or good order.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posting on X, warned of potential “recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures,” citing the video’s impact. Hegseth referred the matter to the Navy for a briefing by December 10.
Kelly, the only one of the six formally retired (thus eligible for recall), fired back: “If this is meant to intimidate me… it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies.” Military law experts call the threat “a real stretch” and “politically charged,” unlikely to succeed. Hurdles include the Speech or Debate Clause shielding congressional speech, protections against “unlawful command influence” from biased superiors like Hegseth and Trump, and the fact that Kelly’s words echo the Manual for Courts-Martial: Orders to commit crimes are “patently illegal” and need not be followed. Southwestern Law professor Rachel VanLandingham noted Kelly could challenge any recall in federal court, arguing no “impartial tribunal” exists under Trump. Precedents are rare – the last similar recall was in 1925 – and experts like retired Lt. Col. Mick Wagoner predict it’s “dead on arrival.”
The move fits a pattern: Trump once eyed court-martials for critics like Gen. Mark Milley. Democrats like Sen. Ruben Gallego decried it as “fascist,” urging Republicans to speak out.
FBI’s Counter-Terrorism Inquiry: A “Scare Tactic”?
The plot thickened on November 25 when the FBI’s counter-terrorism division contacted House and Senate sergeants-at-arms to schedule interviews with all six lawmakers, probing potential violations tied to the video. Sen. Slotkin called it a “scare tactic,” revealing the FBI’s note arrived the night before: “They are opening what appears to be an inquiry against the six of us.” Reps. Crow, Deluzio, Houlahan, and Goodlander echoed: “President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress.”
Details remain sparse – no formal charges, just interview requests routed unusually through security channels rather than the Justice Department’s Office of General Counsel. FBI Director Kash Patel insisted any probe would be led by “career agents,” but Slotkin tied it to Trump’s directive, saying, “This is exactly why we made this video.” The inquiry’s counter-terrorism angle baffled experts, as the video mentions no violence or threats – only lawful oaths. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche had vowed a “close look” at the “abhorrent conduct,” but as of November 27, no interviews have occurred, and Democrats vow to cooperate while decrying the “frivolous” effort.
Broader Implications: Weaponising Institutions?
As investigations loom, the six stand united, with Slotkin declaring on X: “This is not the America I know.” Critics see echoes of Trump’s first-term tactics – pardoning Jan. 6 seditious conspirators while targeting foes – and warn of “lawfare” eroding democratic norms. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) questioned the probes’ priorities: “The Department of Defense and FBI surely have more important [things] than this frivolous investigation.”
The story doesn’t quietly fade just because the news cycle moves on; beneath the surface, the threats keep coming. With a Navy briefing due soon and FBI interviews pending, this clash tests the bounds of free speech, military justice, and executive power. For these lawmakers, it’s personal: As Crow put it, “People listen to [Trump].” The nation watches to see if words alone can summon the full weight of the state.
See also:
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
The penultimate judgement is coming for Trump, and that’s non-negotiable.
These six lawmakers are being castigated and threatened by Trump and his rabble.
Our thanks should be directed to these brave souls in a time of US infamy, for stating the law on Superior Orders :
Nuremberg Principle IV states:
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
The reference to moral choice can present a legal dilemma, but Nuremberg Principle IV speaks of “a moral choice” as being just as important as legal decisions: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”. The guiding rule states that one has a right to just treatment, and therefore has a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others.
You can see why the likes of Trump and Netanyahu don’t like being reminded of matters involving morality!
Michael is absolutely right to sound the alarm here. When elected representatives simply restate a foundational principle of military law, and the response from a president is to label them traitors and unleash threats of death, that is not normal political disagreement – it is dangerous escalation.
The reaction these six lawmakers have faced shows exactly why their reminder was necessary. No democracy can function when speaking up for the Constitution results in bomb threats, security details, and attempts to weaponise institutions like the Pentagon or FBI against political opponents.
This is not how a healthy society behaves. It is how fear and intimidation are used to shut down lawful dissent. The fact that experts overwhelmingly call these “investigations” baseless tells us everything.
Michael’s reporting shows the stakes clearly: if leaders can threaten critics with state power for upholding the law, the rule of law itself is at risk. The public should be deeply concerned, because protecting democratic norms is never “sedition”, it is a duty.
The stupidity of Trumps’ outburst is only surpassed by the stupidity of the Democrats video.
When a countries elected leader endeavors to manipulate both the legal system and the Constitution, that country is in deep trouble. Here we have a person who claimed he’d “make America great again”, when in fact he is destroying it from the inside!!!
Mediocrates:
Excuse me? What is stupid about reminding Armed Forces personnel that they are not obliged to follow illegal orders? It’s true that in the current USAnian political climate it paints a target on their backs – that is courageous, but “stupid”? What alternative do you propose?
Usually those giving the orders are not around when the chickens come home to roost or they deny they gave the orders – closer to home, remember Breaker Morant, their order was to take no prisoners evidently straight from the lips of Lord Kitchener who subsequently denied giving the order and the poor bastards, Morant and Handcock were executed by firing squad after a court martial.
Where is the guts, nurdering tens of thousands of little tots?
Seems it’s not only ‘orders’ to deliver arms to Israel, and participating in the deadly GHF aid program, and the bunker-busting bombing of Iran, but more contemporary arbitrary bombing of Venezuelan boats in international waters, and the mounting of the massive siege in the Caribbean pointed at Venezuela & Maduro.
It’s all out in the open as T-Rump is so narcissistically brazen and can’t resist bragging. Nevertheless, such military manoeuvres are standard m.o. for the USA for many years, albeit, most often covert.
Clakka, that’s my next piece. 😀