Veterans are speaking out against the growing politicization of the military, especially after Donald Trump accused Democratic lawmakers of “sedition, punishable by death.” This heated exchange began when several Democratic representatives with military backgrounds shared a video urging U.S. service members to disregard any “unlawful” orders.
In the video, lawmakers like Maggie Goodlander and Jason Crow warned that the current administration is putting the military against American citizens. They emphasized that soldiers should refuse illegal orders, although they didn’t specify which orders might be deemed unlawful.
Trump responded angrily on Truth Social, calling for the arrest and trial of those lawmakers and even sharing a post suggesting they deserved execution. This rhetoric raised alarms among military legal experts.
David Frakt, a retired air force officer and legal advisor, criticized Trump for broadly misusing terms like sedition and treason. He highlighted the irony, pointing out that those who truly behaved treasonously were the individuals he encouraged during the January 6 Capitol riots, many of whom he later pardoned.
Frakt also expressed concern for the safety of the lawmakers involved. “They could find themselves targets,” he said. He criticized the Trump administration for pushing the military into morally gray situations, citing instances where the U.S. has sunk boats suspected of drug trafficking, calling such actions “murder, not combat.”
Don Christensen, another retired air force officer, echoed Frakt’s concerns, describing Trump’s comments as “horribly wrong.” He also took aim at Senator Lindsey Graham, saying he should publicly denounce Trump’s remarks, as he knows the law regarding unlawful orders.
The discussion around whether service members should follow orders has become increasingly tense. Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor and retired air force lieutenant colonel, emphasized that disobeying an order is risky, and service members often operate under a presumption that orders are lawful. Only those that are blatantly illegal—like orders involving violence against civilians—are clear grounds for disobedience.
“The legal duty to disobey is high,” she noted, referring to standards established during past military conflicts, like the My Lai massacre.
The lawmakers’ video missed the nuance of military law, according to VanLandingham. While they rightfully raised concerns about legality, she cautioned against vague declarations encouraging disobedience without clear guidance on lawful versus unlawful orders.
Political tension impacts military operations, as highlighted by Coretta Johnson Gray, a former air force attorney. She noted a growing unease within the ranks, especially with recent leadership changes that hint at political influences within the military justice system. She urged current military leaders to reinforce their commitment to political neutrality.
Kevin Courtney, a former Marine captain, warned that the politicization of the military poses a severe threat. He noted that differing political ideologies could drive a wedge within the ranks, leading service members to choose which orders to follow based on personal beliefs rather than legality.
In today’s climate, military members face complexities that can lead to anxiety and fear about following lawful orders. With growing concern about politicization, it’s essential that clear guidelines are established to safeguard service members and uphold the rule of law.
For more expert insights on military laws and the implications of political rhetoric, you can check out the American Bar Association’s resources on military justice.
