A few days ago, six Democratic members of Congress posted a public announcement addressing our men and women in uniform. Those who chose to participate in this video had either formerly served in our military or with an intelligence-gathering agency.
Two of these six are U.S. senators, and the other four are representatives in Congress.
These six bravely volunteered to defend our country through their service. They protected our nation, serving as an intelligence officer, an Army Ranger, a CIA officer, a Naval officer, an Air Force member, and as a Navy captain and astronaut.
Their message was clear: for our armed service members to ignore any unlawful orders as directed by civilian leadership.
“Right now, our threats aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders … No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
President Donald Trump’s reaction to this video, even for over-the-top Trump, was surprising. He posted on his social media account that making the video was “seditious behavior punishable by death.”
After Trump’s post, there was an official reaction to the video, which reads in part, “The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Capt. Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.) … a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.”
Wonder why these six are vilified by the executive branch?
Is expressing the opinion that asks to question civilian oversight punishable by death?
Is broadcasting a reminder to our military to follow only lawful orders seditious conduct?
According to the reaction of the Trump Administration, it seems the answers to these questions are both “yes.”
As a former infantry officer, Army Ranger and combat veteran, I reviewed and deployed combat troops into harm’s way. I had been trained and frequently reminded to routinely examine and evaluate the directives I received.
I admit there were some questionable deployments that I felt required explanation. Sometimes my superiors clarified their directives, and thus I administered those orders fully.
Sometimes my orders were modified to avoid misinterpretation. On a few occasions, the orders I received were rescinded.
I never felt hindered or experienced retaliation in my quest for clarification. It was my duty to ask.
Every officer with whom I served understood that our highest obligations are to the Constitution. We were trained to discern lawful from unlawful conduct. This discernment for military leadership is considered a perpetual and ongoing obligation.
A friendly reminder to keep lawful conduct at the top of mind is like telling law enforcement to avoid breaking the law while administering their police duties.
To me, the real story here is that Trump and his Cabinet are pushing back against the military having to question civilian authority.
An aircraft carrier group has been deployed off the coast of Venezuela. Our military has been launching rockets and blowing up speed boats coming out of Venezuelan ports, ostensibly carrying payloads of illegal drugs toward our borders.
Days ago, according to CNN, Trump’s executive branch labelled “Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his government allies as members of a foreign terrorist organization.”
I can imagine how our top military leadership, just a few months ago, was appalled when hearing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth boasting that he encourages modifying the rules of engagement, i.e. who to shoot and who not to shoot. Hegseth claimed that this would streamline combat decisions and empower our troops.
Trump is positioning our military to engage with Venezuela. He has already posted naval and air power nearby, and is now pushing back against a message that asks our troops to evaluate deployment orders from their civilian leaders.
The allegations of sedition directed toward Sen. Mark Kelly, singled out perhaps as a part of a symbolic message, highlight a counterintuitive position that questioning illegal orders is illegal.
Maybe Trump is about to attempt to dethrone Maduro to install a new Venezuelan government?
Maybe Trump is encouraging blind obedience?
Why else might Trump react so strongly to the broadcast by those six members of Congress to disobey what is unlawful?
Jonathan Kraut directs a private investigations agency, is the CEO of a private security firm, is the CFO of an accredited acting conservatory, is a former college professor and dean, is a published author, and is a Democratic Party activist. His column reflects his own views and not necessarily those of The Signal or of other organizations.
