A short video released by a group of Democratic lawmakers last week urged members of the armed forces and intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders,” and it set off a political firestorm that any serious American should find alarming. The clip was deliberately blunt, aimed straight at those who take an oath to the Constitution — and it was widely shared across social platforms and the mainstream press.
The participants were not random activists but elected officials with military and intelligence backgrounds: Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly and Representatives Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Maggie Goodlander, and Chris Deluzio. That pedigree made the stunt all the more potent, because veterans’ reputations were being used to normalize the idea that troops should pick and choose whose orders to follow.
President Trump and senior conservatives reacted exactly as they should have, condemning the video as reckless and warning that it undermines civilian control and military discipline. The president called the move seditious and demanded accountability, reflecting a growing conservative consensus that public calls for disobedience by political actors threaten national security.
Those reactions produced consequences: the Pentagon opened an inquiry into Senator Kelly and the FBI has sought interviews with several of the lawmakers who appeared in the video. If members of Congress are putting servicemembers in the impossible position of choosing between politicians and the chain of command, investigations are not only reasonable — they are necessary.
Make no mistake: there is a difference between lawful oversight and handing the military a political instruction manual. Encouraging anyone to “refuse orders” in a public, partisan broadcast is irresponsible and dangerous, because it invites confusion and could erode the very discipline that keeps our troops alive and our republic secure. Civilians in Congress have a sacred role to oversee; they do not have the right to sow dissent inside the ranks.
Democrats trying to reframe this as a noble reminder miss the broader context — including questions about domestic deployments and controversial strikes overseas — and are using the uniforms of veterans as rhetorical cover. Political theater that asks soldiers to act as referees in partisan disputes will only politicize an institution that must remain apolitical for the sake of every American family with a service member.
Conservatives should be clear-eyed: defend the men and women in uniform, defend the president’s role as commander-in-chief, and demand that any elected official who recklessly endangers military cohesion be held to account. America’s safety depends on a disciplined, apolitical military and a political class that honors, rather than exploits, that oath.
