Unfortunately, former President Donald Trump has deepened this major controversy. He claimed that Democratic lawmakers had perpetrated “sedition, punishable by death.” That comment came on the heels of a release of their own from a gaggle of Democratic legislators. Among them were congressional representatives with military backgrounds who emphatically urged U.S. service members to question the legality of orders before carrying them out. Video Congressional champions Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chris DeLuzio and Chrissy Houlahan on the introduction of H.R. 3107 Facebook video It has sounded serious warnings about the health effects it could have on military service members.
That video from Democratic lawmakers misses a very crucial point in following lawful orders. Most importantly, the DOD guidance underscores the accountability that service members must uphold when faced with unlawful or unlawful-seeming orders. Trump’s remarks in response to their initiative cut them to the core. They provoked a passionate discussion about the increasing politicization of the military and the well-being of those who serve.
In the wake of Trump’s remarks, concerns emerged regarding the impact on service members who might feel pressured to refuse orders. Don Christensen, a retired Air Force colonel and the former chief prosecutor at the UCMJ criminal justice above, called Trump’s statement on sedition “horribly wrong. He wanted to make a point about what happened if you defied a command. He added, “A 10-minute decision to disobey an order may take 10 years to truly remedy.”
Legal experts voiced their apprehensions. Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor at Southwestern Law School and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, pointed out that junior service members are now in a precarious position due to Trump’s rhetoric.
“If a service member thinks an order is unlawful, they can disobey it, but they disobey at their peril.” – Rachel VanLandingham
Kevin Courtney, an attorney with the Center for Military Law and former captain in the Marine Corps, sounded the alarm. He thinks that Trump’s remarks create a toxic atmosphere for young service members. He cautioned about the dangers that arise when the political discussion crosses over into military directives.
For Coretta Johnson Gray—former Air Force attorney and founder of Veterans for Common Sense—the implications of what Trump was saying were alarming. As she pointed out, the duty to disobey illegal orders has long been an unshakeable cornerstone of military law. Gray highlighted the troubling trend of military lawyers resigning from service due to fears of potential pardons from Trump.
Enough.” — Lindsey Graham, former Air Force attorney and Republican US Senate Lindsey Graham’s letter to the Democratic lawmakers. He pressed them to provide examples of which orders they found to be unlawful, but he sidestepped the question of condemning Trump’s vitriol. This remarkable silence from influential military figures has come under even greater scrutiny.
Trump’s subsequent reposting of a message calling for firing squad level punishment against all those he has stigmatized as traitors has heightened the outrage. Please execute these criminals in the manner that George Washington would! Veterans and national security legal experts including VERA have vehemently rebutted this rhetoric. They contend that it weakens confidence in the military chain of command.
Though David Frakt, law professor and former military defense counsel, has been unequivocal in his harsh judgment Trump. Ross rightly objects to Trump’s invocation of sedition and treason. He remarked on the irony of the situation:
“He uses sedition and treason very broadly and inappropriately.” – David Frakt
In closing, Frakt pondered the fear that might soon be widespread among personnel whom Trump has now effectively targeted. He implied that Trump would decide not to sue them. Those being called “enemies of the people” is an existential danger that they need to overcome.
“I think all of those people are very likely in fear for their life now…they’re going to say, ‘Well, Trump will pardon me.’” – David Frakt
Veterans and legal experts are rightly alarmed by Trump’s intervention. Perhaps more consequentially, they fear this trend is accelerating the politicization of the military justice system. Veterans of all stripes have vocally criticized this change as harmful to the public trust and to the conduct of our military operations.
Trump’s remarks have sparked a urgent a national conversation about what it means to commit sedition and treason—the bar for which should be, and is appropriately high. These comparisons have been widely drawn to past events such as the My Lai massacre, further underscoring the fact that grave accusations demand serious and credible supporting evidence.
The Twitter exchange that ensued after Trump’s remarks highlights the precarious line between the realm of politics and that of military service. Now, veterans are going public with their concerns. They are concerned with what may happen to active-duty service members who find themselves on the wrong side of this political crossfire.
As the debate moves forward, many are hoping that military honor will triumph over political opportunism. They advocate for clarity in communication regarding lawful orders to ensure that service members can fulfill their duties without fear of retribution or misunderstanding.