Trump calls six Democratic veterans traitors and threatens death for "refuse illegal orders" video

Six Democratic veteran lawmakers — Sens

ESElissa Slotkin (D-MI) and MKMark Kelly (D-AZ) and Reps

Jason Crow (D-CO), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) — posted a 90-second video on Nov. 18, 2025 They spoke directly to service members and intelligence officers saying: 'Our laws are clear You can refuse illegal orders No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.' All six are military veterans or former intelligence officials.

The video's legal premise is accurate and established. The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires service members to follow only lawful orders.

The precedent for refusing illegal orders traces back to the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, and was codified in U.S. military law in United States v. Keenan (1969), where a military court ruled that following a 'patently illegal order' does not provide a defense. UCMJ Article 92 distinguishes lawful from unlawful orders explicitly.

President Trump responded on Nov. 20 with a series of Truth Social posts calling the lawmakers 'traitors' and demanding their arrest and trial. He wrote 'SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!' and reshared a post reading 'HANG THEM GEORGE 🌲WASHINGTON WOULD.' The White House didn't retract the execution language — Press Secretary KLKaroline Leavitt defended it at the briefing, claiming the lawmakers told troops to 'defy the chain of command.'

Leavitt's characterization was factually inaccurate. The video said troops can refuse 'illegal orders' — not all orders.

Slotkin later clarified the video was 'a warning to say, like, if you're asked to do something, particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back.' She said she wasn't aware of specific illegal orders but had concerns about Caribbean boat strikes and domestic military deployments courts have ruled unlawful.

The reaction split sharply along party lines. Senate Minority Leader CSChuck Schumer said on the Senate floor: 'The president of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials.

This is a threat, and it's deadly serious.' House Democratic leaders demanded Trump delete the posts 'before he gets someone killed.'

Rep. Goodlander's office said death threats spiked immediately after Trump's posts. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called the 'traitors' language 'not something we should be encouraging,' while Speaker Mike Johnson declined to condemn it.

Legal scholars across the spectrum rejected the sedition framing. FactCheck.org cited Victor M. Hansen, a professor at New England Law in Boston and former Army JAG officer: 'Trump's efforts to cast this legal speech as seditious is nonsense. These statements are not seditious or any evidence of a conspiracy. Simply reminding service members of their legal rights and obligations is not criminal in any way.'

Former federal prosecutor Berit Berger called it 'so far from seditious behavior.' The legal penalty for seditious conspiracy is a maximum of 20 years in prison — not death.

Sen. Kelly's unique legal exposure became a flashpoint. Unlike the other five who separated from the military, Kelly formally retired from the Navy as a captain, meaning he receives retirement pay and technically remains subject to the UCMJ.

On Nov. 24, the Pentagon announced it was reviewing 'serious allegations of misconduct' against Kelly and that recall to active duty for court-martial was possible. Georgetown law professor SVSteve Vladeck told CNN: 'Prosecuting [Kelly] for saying something that is literally true is going to raise the mother of all First Amendment objections.'

A coalition of former and retired military judge advocates issued a rare joint statement calling the potential court-martial of Kelly 'partisan in nature, legally baseless and compromised by unlawful command influence.' The FBI Counterterrorism Division separately contacted congressional sergeants-at-arms requesting voluntary interviews with all six lawmakers. All six declined and, in a joint statement, called it 'political intimidation using federal law enforcement powers against elected officials exercising First Amendment rights.'