Rep. Jason Crow joins fellow lawmakers in responding to Donald Trump’s accusation of “seditious behavior” over a video advising service members on illegal military orders. Learn how Crow, Elissa Slotkin, and others address rising threats, military concerns, and the broader debate over presidential authority and military conduct.
Lawmakers Push Back After Trump Accuses Democrats of “Seditious Behavior” in Military Orders Video
A heated political dispute erupted this week after former President Donald Trump accused several Democratic lawmakers of engaging in “seditious behavior.” The lawmakers appeared in a video advising U.S. service members to consult military legal officers if they ever doubt whether an order is lawful. Trump’s criticism — which referenced sedition and its potential punishment — sparked concern from both major parties and reignited debate over military authority, presidential power, and political rhetoric.
At the center of the exchange is Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst and one of the Democrats featured in the video. Speaking on ABC News’ This Week, Slotkin said Trump’s claims were an effort to intimidate critics and redirect attention away from other major national stories.
“He’s trying to get us to shut up because he doesn’t want to be talking about this,” Slotkin told host Martha Raddatz. “Repeating these attacks is a distraction from last week’s headlines — the Epstein files and the economy.”
Republicans Reject Trump’s “Traitor” Accusations
Although Trump later insisted he was not calling for the death penalty for the lawmakers, his online remarks escalated into labeling them as “traitors” and claiming they “SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW.”
Some Republicans quickly distanced themselves from the comments.
Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, made clear that he does not support such extreme language.
“I don’t speak for the president in terms of hanging members of Congress,” McCaul said. “I would tone down the rhetoric.”
His pushback reflects a rare moment of bipartisan agreement — that Trump’s remarks went too far. Several Democratic lawmakers featured in the video have since reported receiving threats and have increased their personal security.
What the Controversial Video Actually Said
The video includes six Democratic lawmakers with backgrounds in national security or military service. Their message highlights a longstanding principle: troops are not required to follow illegal orders. This concept is grounded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and has been a cornerstone of military ethics since World War II.
According to Slotkin, the video was created after service members reached out privately with concerns.
“We’ve had legal officers coming forward repeatedly, saying they were unsure about the legality of certain directives,” she said. “It’s a completely standard reminder of what the law already requires.”
When asked whether Trump has issued illegal orders, Slotkin said she had no evidence of that — though she noted that some actions related to Venezuela and recent Caribbean strikes have involved “legal gymnastics.”
Debate Over U.S. Military Actions Near Venezuela
The conversation on This Week expanded into questions about the legality of U.S. strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats in waters near Venezuela. Critics argue the operations may stretch presidential authority, while supporters say they fall within the powers of national self-defense.
McCaul defended the administration’s actions, saying they are intended to stop dangerous drug flows into the country.
“These are not illegal orders,” he said. “They’re based on Article II self-defense authority.”
Slotkin, however, was more focused on another issue: the possibility of the U.S. military being used on American soil for domestic policing.
Slotkin Raises Alarm About Potential Domestic Military Deployment
Slotkin expressed deep concern about increasing discussion of deploying federal military forces in U.S. cities. Courts have already blocked certain efforts to use active-duty troops domestically, and she fears the consequences of using military personnel in tense urban situations.
“It makes me incredibly nervous that we may reach a point where stressed officers, in uniform, are facing American civilians,” she said. “It’s dangerous for communities and for those serving.”
She reiterated that service members always have the right to consult JAG officers if they believe an action or order may violate the law.
Calls for Transparency on Venezuela Policy
Turning back to Venezuela, Slotkin noted the scale of the recent U.S. military buildup — from aircraft carriers to F-35 fighters — and warned that such a concentration of force typically signals that operations may advance beyond reconnaissance or deterrence.
“When superpowers move that much hardware into a region, it’s reasonable to assume it might be used,” she said.
If the administration is considering broader military engagement, Slotkin argued that the American public deserves transparency. She highlighted the country’s reluctance for another conflict abroad.
“Americans are not looking to enter another war,” she said. “They are not looking for regime change.”
A Debate That Continues to Grow
The controversy surrounding the video and Trump’s reaction has fueled broader debates about civil-military relations, presidential authority, and how political leaders communicate in an era of intense polarization.
Slotkin and the other lawmakers say they will continue to speak out despite the uptick in threats, while Trump has shown no signs of moderating his tone. Republicans remain split, with some defending the former president and others urging caution.
As domestic tensions rise and global stakes increase, the conversation over military responsibilities, lawful orders, and political rhetoric shows no sign of fading from the national spotlight.
