Sponsor Advertisement
Trump Calls for Arrest of Democrats Over Military Directive Video

BREAKING: Trump Calls for Arrest of Democrats Over Military Directive Video

President Trump demands the arrest of Democratic lawmakers for a video advising military personnel to refuse illegal orders, labeling it seditious. The video discussed constitutional duties during armed conflicts, sparking political debate.

President Donald Trump has called for the arrest of several Democratic lawmakers following the release of a video in which they urge U.S. military and intelligence personnel to disobey orders they consider illegal. The former president described their actions as "seditious" and a threat to national security. "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," Trump stated emphatically on Truth Social.

The 90-second video, entitled "Don't Give Up the Ship," features Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), as well as Representatives Jason Crow (D-CO), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), all of whom have military or intelligence backgrounds. In the clip, they stress that service members and intelligence officials must prioritize their oaths to the Constitution above potentially unlawful directives. "We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk," the lawmakers stated, according to OANN. "You can refuse illegal orders…you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution."

The video comes in the context of past concerns regarding Trump administration proposals during 2020's domestic protests, including the potential deployment of troops in U.S. cities and directives for forceful crowd control. Slotkin also promoted her "No Troops in Our Streets Act," a piece of legislation aimed at giving Congress the authority to halt domestic military operations and provide additional funding for civilian law enforcement.

The message has been met with swift criticism from conservative commentators. War Secretary Pete Hegseth referred to it as "Stage 4 TDS," while social media users have labeled the lawmakers' statements as encouraging treason. Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt (R) warned that the message appeared "subversive to democracy."

The backdrop of the lawmakers' warnings includes recent U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean targeting drug-trafficking vessels from Venezuela and Colombia. Since September, these operations have reportedly resulted in the deaths of at least 80 suspected smugglers, as reported by The Washington Post. Democrats have raised concerns over the potential legal liability for service members involved in such strikes, prompting the Department of Justice to clarify that personnel cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions taken during armed conflicts with cartels.

The video frames the discussion as a constitutional obligation rather than a political statement. Crow, Deluzio, and Slotkin repeatedly emphasized that threats to the Constitution can emerge domestically, not only abroad, highlighting the duty of uniformed personnel to uphold the law in all circumstances. The lawmakers do not explicitly encourage illegal behavior or violent action. However, their messaging has triggered sharp criticism from the Trump administration and conservative commentators, who interpret it as a direct challenge to lawful authority within the military and intelligence communities.

The video concludes with the repeated phrase, "Don't give up the ship," a historical reference to military resolve. By combining personal military experience with warnings about potential unlawful orders, the lawmakers aim to inform service members of their constitutional responsibilities. As debate intensifies over the boundaries of civilian-military authority, the video underscores the tension between legal obligations, political disagreements, and public perception of national security. Officials and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to weigh the implications of urging troops and intelligence officials to navigate potential conflicts between orders and constitutional duties.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

The video released by Democratic lawmakers, which advises military and intelligence personnel to refuse illegal orders, is a reflection of a progressive commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution. From a liberal perspective, it is imperative that individuals serving in the military and intelligence communities are reminded of their duty to uphold the Constitution above all else, including potentially unlawful directives from superiors.

The progressive viewpoint values the principles of democracy and the checks and balances that prevent the abuse of power. The lawmakers in the video, who have military or intelligence backgrounds, are not inciting insubordination but rather reinforcing the importance of legal and ethical conduct within the armed forces. This is particularly relevant given the concerns that arose during the Trump administration's proposals for troop deployments during domestic protests.

Furthermore, the emphasis on constitutional duties is a reminder that military personnel are not above the law and should be guided by it in all their actions. The video serves as an educational tool, informing service members of their rights and responsibilities. It also addresses the very real concerns of legal liability that could arise from following unlawful orders, as seen in the recent U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean.

Progressives argue that it is crucial to have open discussions about the boundaries of civilian-military authority and the potential conflicts that service members may face between orders and constitutional duties. The video represents a proactive approach to preventing unlawful actions and preserving the trust that the American public has in its military and intelligence agencies.

Ultimately, the progressive stance is that

Conservative View

The recent video released by Democratic lawmakers, encouraging military and intelligence personnel to refuse orders they consider illegal, has understandably caused an uproar among conservatives. The notion that elected officials would appear to undermine the chain of command in the military is deeply troubling. From a conservative perspective, this can be seen as an affront to the foundational principles of military discipline and respect for authority, which are essential for national security and operational effectiveness.

Moreover, the timing and context of the video raise questions about the true intent behind the message. It is no secret that these lawmakers have been critical of the Trump administration's policies, and the video could be perceived as a politically motivated act rather than a genuine concern for constitutional adherence. The promotion of the "No Troops in Our Streets Act" by Senator Slotkin within the video adds to the suspicion that this is more about political posturing than upholding the law.

The conservative viewpoint often stresses the need for strong national defense and the unwavering support of our military personnel. Any action that could potentially sow discord or insubordination within the ranks is not only irresponsible but could also have dangerous consequences. It is essential to maintain a clear and undisputed chain of command, especially during times of crisis. The message sent by these lawmakers could be interpreted as encouraging a form of mutiny, which is unacceptable.

In addition, the use of charged terms like "seditious" by President Trump in response to the video is indicative of the severity with which this message has been received on the right. It is a call to preserve the integrity of the military institution and to protect it from becoming a tool for political gains. The conservative stance is clear: military personnel should follow lawful orders, and any guidance to the contrary, especially from those in positions of political power, is a dangerous precedent.

Common Ground

Areas of agreement between perspectives.