United States President Donald Trump has accused several Democratic members of Congress of “seditious behaviour” over their call for the military not to obey “illegal” commands.

On Tuesday, six Democrats – all veterans of the US military or its intelligence services – published a video on social media advising military and intelligence officials to “refuse illegal orders” that they might receive.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

In a furious string of posts on his Truth Social platform, Trump responded to the video, saying the US lawmakers should be arrested and even suggested that their behaviour could be “punishable by death”.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, however, clarified to reporters in Washington, DC, on Thursday that Trump does not intend for members of Congress to be executed.

What is behind the Democrats’ warning video and Trump’s latest threats?

Here’s what we know:

What did Democrats say?

On November 18, Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, Pennsylvania Representative Chris Deluzio, New Hampshire Representative Maggie Goodlander, Pennsylvania Representative Chrissy Houlahan and Colorado Representative Jason Crow posted a video on social media, directly addressing the country’s current military and intelligence officers.

In the video, the six Congress members said: “We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.”

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats coming to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” they added.

Advertisement

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

The Democratic congresspeople, however, did not specify which orders or policies from Trump’s administration might violate the US Constitution.

How has Trump responded?

In a post on Truth Social on Thursday, Trump lambasted the lawmakers and said their behaviour was “seditious”, seeking to incite people to rebel against his authority.

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” he wrote.

“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,” he added.

In another post the same day, Trump shared a report by the Washington Examiner on the Democrats’ video and suggested arresting them.

“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”

An hour later, Trump appeared to suggest sentencing the Democrat lawmakers to death because of their behaviour and wrote on Truth Social: SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Asked by White House reporters if the president would actually sentence the congresspeople to death, press secretary Leavitt said, “No.”

However, she insisted that none of the President’s orders or policies so far had been against the law.

“Every single order that is given to this United States military by this commander-in-chief and through this chain of command – through the secretary of war – is lawful,” she told a news briefing on Thursday.

“We do things by the books. And to suggest and encourage that active-duty service members defy the chain of command is a very dangerous thing for sitting members of Congress to do,” she said, adding that the Democrats “should be held accountable” for “their dangerous rhetoric”.

What do Democrats mean by ‘illegal orders’?

The six Democrats did not specify which orders they were referring to as being “illegal” or against the Constitution.

Before Trump responded to the video, Republican Representative of Arizona Eli Crane told Fox News that if the Democrats could not “name the unlawful orders”, it would be cowardly.

“If you can’t name the unlawful orders that these guys are bringing up in their video, you know, that just shows me that you don’t have the courage to even call out what you’re talking about,” he said.

Advertisement

In a separate segment of Fox News, also on Thursday, anchor Martha Callum grilled Colorado Democratic Representative Crow about what orders they considered illegal.

Referring to the unrest which took place after the killing of Black man George Floyd by a police officer in 2020 during Trump’s first term as president, Crow responded, “The protests at Lafayette Square, where he said, ‘Can’t you just shoot them in the legs or something’, that’s his direct quote.”

Callum said it was not an order, but “a comment”.

Crow replied: “That’s coming from the president of the US to your generals … he’s also threatened to send the military into Chicago and other cities and go to war with those cities. That is a very disturbing thing.”

Crow added that Trump had also alluded to sending troops to polling stations during elections and said that would be a violation of US law.

“US criminal law prohibits troops from going to polling stations,” he added.

In a separate post on X on Wednesday, Crow pointed out that the recent US bombing campaign of alleged Venezuelan drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea also violates US law.

“The President is trampling on the Constitution,” Crow wrote. “Stop politicizing our troops. Stop illegal military strikes. Stop pitting our servicemembers against the American people.”

More than 60 people have been killed in US strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Last month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said: “These attacks – and their mounting human cost – are unacceptable.”

The Trump administration has argued that the strikes are necessary for anti-drug and counterterrorism operations, but Volker added that operations to counter illicit drug trafficking must adhere to international law.

“Under international human rights law, the intentional use of lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life,” he said and called on the US to stop what he said were “extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats”.

How have Democrats responded to Trump’s ‘sedition’ comments?

In a joint statement late on Thursday, the Democrats in the video said: “No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation.”

“What’s most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law,” they said and added that Americans should unite and “condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence”.

Advertisement

“This is a time for moral clarity. In these moments, fear is contagious, but so is courage. We will continue to lead and will not be intimidated. Don’t Give Up the Ship!”

Referring to Trump’s threats against them, Pennsylvania Representative Deluzio told US broadcaster NBC News on Thursday: “It’s a dark day in the country for any president to say such a thing.”

“We have to end this scourge. And yet Donald Trump is the person with the most power who can bring the temperature down, and instead, he threatens to have us killed,” he said.

Meanwhile, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told the Senate on Thursday that what the president wrote “is an outright threat, and it’s deadly serious”.

“When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen,” Schumer added. “He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline.”

What does the US military oath of enlistment say about following legal and illegal orders?

Article 92 of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice states that any person who “violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation” or has “knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces” and fails to obey it, or “is derelict in the performance of his duties”, shall be punished.

The US Code of Military Justice is a federal law enacted in 1951 and applies to all active armed forces members, armed forces students, as well as active National Guard members.

According to the office of US Attorney Peter Kageleiry Jr, who specialises in military law, failure to obey lawful orders can lead to punishments like “dishonourable discharge (from duty) and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.”

However, an order is considered unlawful if it violates the US Constitution.

Has Trump given any illegal orders?

It is debatable. Some judges have said some of Trump’s policies or orders in the recent past do violate US law.

Earlier this month, federal Judge Karin Immergut ruled that Trump had unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.

Immergut, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration’s claim that protesters at an immigration detention facility were waging a rebellion that legally justified sending troops.

On Friday this week, federal Judge Jia Cobb said Trump’s military takeover of Washington, DC, in August – to combat violent crime there, he said – violates the Constitution and ordered the president to end the deployment of troops there.

Cobb ruled that the president cannot deploy soldiers for “whatever reason” he wants, and gave his administration 21 days to appeal the order before it goes into effect.

In October, a federal judge in Chicago temporarily blocked Trump’s deployment of hundreds of National Guard soldiers in Illinois. That ruling was upheld by the Chicago-based US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit later in the month.

In response, Trump threatened to use the Insurrection Act to send soldiers to US cities, as the states of Illinois and Oregon continue to fight federal military deployments in court.

“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If I had to enact it, I’d do that,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has said the maritime strikes on Venezuelan boats by US forces amount to “extrajudicial killings”.

“US officials cannot summarily kill people they accuse of smuggling drugs,” said Sarah Yager, Washington director at HRW. “The problem of narcotics entering the United States is not an armed conflict, and US officials cannot circumvent their human rights obligations by pretending otherwise.”

Salvador Santino Regilme, a political scientist who leads the international relations programme at Leiden University, told Al Jazeera in October that under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the use of force by one state against another is prohibited except when authorised by the UN Security Council or exercised in legitimate self-defence under Article 51.

And the US claim that strikes against “drug traffickers” near Venezuela amount to self-defence “appears legally untenable”, Regilme said.

But Trump has often indicated that he considers himself above the law.

In February, he wrote on X: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”

In April 2020, during his first term as president, when the US was under lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump told reporters that only he and no public health expert or local leader had the authority to lift lockdown orders.

“When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and that’s the way it’s got to be … It’s total,” he said.