Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
name one ILLEGAL order the Lord Emperor Donald Commander In Chief has issued?
we'll wait
|
They can't answer that, any more than the 6 Democrat video participants could answer it when they appeared on the Sunday talk shows 11 days ago. All they can do is dissemble and obfuscate.
The ‘Illegal Orders’ Controversy
Democrats initiate a dangerous debate.
By James Freeman
Nov. 24, 2025 3:25 pm ET
One doesn’t have to approve of the way President Donald Trump responded to several congressional Democrats to deplore their reckless suggestion that U.S. troops should disobey the president’s orders. A video published by the Democrats deserved widespread condemnation, not death threats.
Today the Defense Department posted on X about a Democratic senator from Arizona who appeared in the video urging resistance to illegal orders—without claiming that any particular Trump order is illegal. According to the Pentagon:
"The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, 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. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.
The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.
All service members are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A service member’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order."
This message was rather tame compared with Mr. Trump’s online posts last week when he responded to news of the video that Sen. Kelly and his party colleagues had posted. Mr. Trump wrote:
"It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.
Mr. Trump later posted:
SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"
The next day, Mr. Trump told Brian Kilmeade of Fox News that he wasn’t threatening the lawmakers with death but that they were in “serious trouble.” So even Mr. Trump is acknowledging that he overreacted wildly, and the overreaction hasn’t necessarily ended.
Better than court-martial proceedings would be a bipartisan censure of the video participants in the Congress, but Democratic leaders are rarely willing to cross party progressives.
A series of recent media appearances suggests that the
video participants who started this poisonous controversy were acting out of partisanship, not patriotism. Members of the video gang keep showing up for TV interviews and
refusing to name any illegal Trump order while pretending they were simply offering standard affirmations of the rules soldiers must follow. This is false, as the Democrats’ video clearly presented this moment as a crisis of lawbreaking that soldiers must resist.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D., Mich.) posted the video to X, adding:
"We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.
The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.
Don’t give up the ship."
Speaking directly to members of the military and the intelligence community, Sen. Slotkin says in the video: “We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.” But why, if there is no law-breaking?
In the video the Democratic lawmakers go on to claim that Americans’ trust in their military is “at risk” and state: “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.”
The
Democrats’ unsubtle message in the video continues: “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”
“We know this is hard,” says Rep. Jason Crow (D., Colo.) in the video, but ask him precisely why this would be a hard time for soldiers to act lawfully and he starts doing a
rhetorical tap-dance.
Last week on Fox News, Mr. Crow couldn’t give Martha MacCallum an example of an illegal Trump order and under her questioning he suggested that he was simply conducting military training, which would seem to be a violation of the separation of powers.
Managing U.S. troops is the job of the executive branch, not the legislative. This column will go out on a limb and guess that the executive branch didn’t request congressional help in the form of partisan videos on social media implying that the executive branch is violating the law.
Mr. Crow repeated his line with Margaret Brennan on CBS on Sunday. According to the CBS transcript he noted Mr. Trump’s history of harsh rhetoric and said that “if we wait until the moment that he gives a manifestly unlawful order to a young soldier, then we have failed them. We have to start that conversation now and get people thinking about the distinction, which is exactly what we did.”
So there’s still
no specific allegation of illegal orders and Mr. Crow is still pretending that it’s the job of Congress to train soldiers and that the video was just standard rule-of-law stuff. He added on CBS that “it’s very telling that simply restating their obligation to the Constitution and the law, which we do constantly with our service members, gets this type of response from the president.”
Mr. Kelly followed him on the CBS program and was willing to call Trump targeting of alleged drug boats “questionable, at best” but suggested he needed to receive more briefings on the subject. He then made his case for the video based in part on disturbing comments Mr. Trump had made as a candidate prior to the 2016 election!
Sen. Slotkin appeared with ABC’s Martha Raddatz on Sunday and similarly avoided making any specific claim of an illegal order. Here’s an excerpt from the ABC transcript:
RADDATZ: ... Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
SLOTKIN: To my knowledge, I — I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.
But when pressed by the ABC host for specifics, the senator then moved on to sharing concerns about U.S. troops in U.S. cities, but again with no specific allegation of an illegal order.
There are certainly arguments to be made against the use of federal troops in various situations from offshore drug interdiction to urban violence. But the Democratic video crew seems to lack either the competence or the confidence to make them.
This suggests their media stunt was about finding ways to win over progressives with anti-Trump ferocity instead of having to endorse the left’s latest politically toxic demands on issues like gender and climate.
The
American people must always be on guard against presidents abusing their authority and also against members of Congress abusing their authority. This essential
vigilance isn’t strengthened, but is significantly weakened, when people in positions of power launch partisan accusations of such abuses without specific claims.
James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-ille...versy-03740a7e
