Why the Democrats’ “Unlawful Orders” Video is a Bigger Deal Than You May Think

Two weeks ago, six Democratic members of Congress, all with military or national security backgrounds, released a 90-second video on Facebook reminding military personnel that they have not only the right, but the obligation to disobey “unlawful orders.” This video, which merely quoted and emphasized long-held laws about military conduct, triggered the wrath of Republican politicians and even spurred an F.B.I. investigation into the six lawmakers. President Donald Trump even responded to the video, accusing the congressmen in a Truth Social post of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He also reposted another user’s comment that read, “HANG THEM, GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!” Although one may be quick to dismiss the hostile response that this video received as another symptom of increased political polarization in the Trump era — following the January 6th insurrection and his reelection in 2024 — it is important to recognize that this video is the first congressional denunciation of Trump’s military agenda. 

Trump has repeatedly used military force to carry out his personal political agenda, as recently demonstrated through the deployment of National Guard troops to US cities, as well as through the US Navy raids and proposed strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean. Some suggest the politicians’ video was posted in response to these recent escalations in violence.

Political social media posts typically adopt an upbeat, personality-driven tone in order to garner attention from viewers. The Democrats — Senator Elissa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris DeLuzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlahan, and Congressman Jason Crow — spoke directly to members of the military and intelligence agencies in a measured tone, with patriotic music playing in the background. The video was more serious and existential than anything we have seen before, making it especially striking to myself and to viewers nationwide. 

The ensuing debates about treason online can be attributed to the video’s most controversial line: “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.” Considering again that the president has sent out-of-state Guard troops into American cities, like D.C, without approval from state governors, this claim seems reasonable. During the video, the six issued a preemptive reminder that personal loyalty within the chain of command is not owed to the political ambitions of any one president, calling Trump an illegal actor who must be fought against. Although the video was certainly  bold, sharp partisan rebukes are hardly new in American politics. So the video’s critical nature alone cannot explain the public outrage that followed. Instead, it was its suggestion that Trump was not merely mismanaging the military in an attempt to defend freedom, but actively weaponizing it against segments of the American public. That statement crossed an invisible line. America has not witnessed such a plea — an appeal to the military that implicitly questions the president’s judgment — since the Nixon administration, when military leaders quietly questioned the stability and judgment of the commander-in-chief. Even then, pleas were not as public and certainly not as intimate as the social media video was today.

What makes the lawmakers’ announcement even more interesting to me is how it essentially wipes their hands clean of any potential fallout. By addressing the military directly rather than pursuing legislative action, these six officials effectively shifted the burden of interpreting and resisting executive overreach onto uniformed personnel. It is a politically elegant move — one that lets them highlight the dangers of Trump’s approach without having to confront the messy, institutional consequences of a true constitutional showdown. The issue that the video addresses is urgent and real. Considering that Congress, not the President, designs the rules governing the National Guard’s deployment inside the United States, Congress should be taking a more active stance against this breach of power by holding hearings or drafting guardrail legislation. Instead, the video serves as a warning flare —  both dramatic enough to signal concern and vague enough to avoid committing to an actual confrontation. 

While the video drew public attention to the idea of illegal orders being executed in the modern day, its blame on military servicemen seemed hostile toward the military, ultimately undercutting the Democrats’ intended message. In an interview with CNN, Maj. Gen. James “Spider” Marks  remarked that the six democrats were “inappropriate” in the way they phrased their message, which to him conveyed that they “don’t trust the military, the uniformed leadership.” He continued, arguing that such a statement was an “insult” to the well respected chain of command. Many military officials already understand that they cannot evade moral and legal responsibility under the guise of “just following orders.” While debates over unethical behavior by U.S. service members stationed abroad certainly exist, this video is one of the first times in recent history that Congress has implied, at least publicly, that this is a problem domestically as well. In a political environment where the military is already at the center of countless news headlines, it seems misguided to place even more pressure on service members, instead of their leaders, to act as the arbiters of legality. Democrats should have instead focused on the people — particularly President Trump and U.S. Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth — issuing these unlawful orders in the first place. 

Ultimately, this video could not have been more timely. It addressed a critical and urgent concern that threatens American citizens and uproots constitutional legal structures — yet its approach also reveals the limitations of symbolic warnings. These Democrats were not wrong to alert the military to the dangers of unlawful orders; however, such a warning is insufficient, even misguided, if it shifts responsibility onto service members, most of whom already understand their legal obligations. The real problem lies not within the military’s willingness to resist unlawful commands, but within the six Democrats’ reluctance to directly confront the source of those commands. And while it may be difficult for Congress to realistically draft guardrail legislation against this issue, that does not absolve them of the responsibility to try. If lawmakers believe the threat is serious enough to warrant a public, anti-presidential, statement to the troops, then it is serious enough to demand sustained congressional action to check an administration that increasingly treats constitutional limits as optional.