Veterans have voiced strong disapproval against the politicization of the military following Donald Trump’s recent accusation against Democratic lawmakers of “sedition, punishable by death.” This controversy arose after a group of Democratic representatives and senators, including Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chris DeLuzio, Chrissy Houlahan, Mark Kelly, and Elissa Slotkin, released a video addressing US service members. In the video, they urged military personnel to refuse any “unlawful” orders without specifying what those orders were.
Trump reacted to the lawmakers’ communication with a post on Truth Social, categorizing their actions as seditious and calling for their arrest. He amplified dangerous rhetoric by reposting messages suggesting severe penalties for their dissent. Such comments have alarmed the military legal community, with retired Air Force officer David Frakt asserting that Trump’s characterization of sedition is both inappropriate and ironic, particularly given his past remarks and actions surrounding the January 6 Capitol riots.
The environment created by Trump’s comments poses a serious threat to the safety of lawmakers, Frakt noted, emphasizing that many may now fear for their lives due to the hostile framing of dissension by the President. Frakt also highlighted concerns regarding the legality of recent military actions targeting alleged drug trafficking vessels, which he described as laughably illegal and akin to murder rather than combat.
Don Christensen, a former chief prosecutor of the Air Force, expressed similar sentiments, describing Trump’s comments as “horribly wrong.” He criticized fellow Republican Lindsey Graham for not vocally opposing Trump while questioning the Democrats’ video. Christensen suggested that service members are placed in a difficult position when faced with potentially unlawful orders, yet disobeying such orders could lead to complicated legal consequences.
Military attorneys like Rachel VanLandingham pointed out that while service members can refuse unlawful orders, doing so comes with risks. The legal threshold for what constitutes a manifestly unlawful order is intentionally high, complicating the decision-making process for service members. VanLandingham also criticized the video’s lack of clarity regarding which orders might meet the unlawful criteria.
Coretta Johnson Gray, another former Air Force attorney, expressed concerns regarding the increasing politicization of military legal advice and emphasized the importance of integrity among military lawyers. She urged senior military leadership to reaffirm their oath to the Constitution and maintain political neutrality.
Kevin Courtney, an attorney with the Military Law Center, warned that the public dialogue surrounding unlawful orders could endanger junior service members, potentially dividing them along political lines. He reiterated that all orders are presumed lawful, highlighting the significant legal implications of disobeying a command.
The potential impact of such political discourse on public perception of the military is troubling, as Courtney articulated that the military is meant to represent all Americans, transcending political affiliations. The collective response from veterans and military experts illustrates a growing concern regarding the intersection of the military and politics, underlining the need for a clear and unified stance to protect the integrity of the armed forces and its personnel.