Six Democratic lawmakers with military or national security backgrounds released a video urging U.S. troops and intelligence personnel to uphold the Constitution and refuse unlawful orders. President Trump responded on Truth Social, calling their actions seditious and “punishable by DEATH,” and amplifying posts that suggested they should be hanged, according to NPR and Slate. The White House later said Trump was not literally calling for executions of members of Congress.
Six Democratic lawmakers with military or national security backgrounds released a video in mid-November reminding U.S. service members and intelligence officers of their duty to refuse illegal orders, a message that quickly drew the ire of President Donald Trump.
According to NPR and other outlets, the lawmakers are Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, all of whom have military or intelligence experience.
In the roughly 90-second video, the lawmakers urge troops to uphold their oath to the Constitution and not carry out unlawful commands. NPR reports that the message stresses that U.S. personnel "do not have to" or "must not" follow illegal orders, echoing long-standing military training on the law of armed conflict and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Trump responded with a series of Truth Social posts on Nov. 20, accusing the lawmakers of treasonous conduct. In one post, quoted by PolitiFact, he wrote that it was "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL" and that such behavior is "punishable by DEATH!" He also declared that "each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL" and warned that "we won’t have a Country anymore" if their words were allowed to stand.
PolitiFact and Slate report that Trump went on to reshare Truth Social posts from other users calling for the Democrats to be indicted or hanged. Slate noted that some of the reposted messages explicitly suggested hanging the lawmakers for treason.
On Fox News, Trump ally and former White House adviser Stephen Miller characterized the Democrats’ video as "a general call for rebellion from the CIA and the Armed Services of the United States by Democrat lawmakers," according to coverage of the interview.
The escalating rhetoric prompted questions at the White House briefing. PolitiFact reports that press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the president was not literally calling for the execution of members of Congress. She argued instead that the lawmakers’ message could undermine the military chain of command, saying that if that chain is broken, it can lead to chaos and put lives at risk.
One of the lawmakers featured in the video, Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger from Colorado, told NPR he has received death threats since Trump’s posts circulated but said he would not be intimidated and would continue speaking out.
The controversy has unfolded against a broader backdrop of concern among veterans and national security experts about the politicization of the military. NPR’s reporting notes that veterans’ advocates have warned for years about drawing active-duty forces into partisan conflicts and domestic law enforcement roles. In recent days, groups of veterans and former national security officials have publicly defended the video as a restatement of service members’ legal obligations, not an incitement to mutiny.
Military law and training emphasize that U.S. troops swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution and that they are obligated to disobey manifestly unlawful orders. Legal experts interviewed by NPR, PolitiFact and other outlets say reminders of that duty do not meet the constitutional definition of treason, which is limited to levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. Nor, they say, does the video clearly amount to sedition or seditious conspiracy, which under current federal law requires concrete efforts to overthrow or wage war against the U.S. government, rather than a general statement about refusing illegal commands.
Historians and legal scholars have also pointed to the fraught history of sedition laws in the United States. The 1798 Sedition Act, which criminalized criticism of the federal government, expired in 1801 and is now widely regarded as an overreach that violated free-speech principles. Modern statutes on sedition and seditious conspiracy remain on the books but have been used sparingly and typically in cases involving violence or plots to overthrow the government.
Debate continues over specific scenarios in which orders to use U.S. forces might be unlawful, including potential domestic deployments or certain military strikes that could raise questions under U.S. or international law. But legal experts cited by PolitiFact and The Washington Post say the core principle at issue in the Democrats’ video—that service members must refuse clearly illegal orders—has been embedded in U.S. military doctrine since the post–World War II Nuremberg trials.
