"Don't Give up the Ship"

[wing2000]

Members of Congress, comprised of former US Military and Intelligence officers, released a video this week reminding members of the military that they can, and in fact, have an obligation to disobey illegal orders.

Today, on Truthsocial, the POTUS reacted:

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand.”

...later he posted:

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
He also reposted a post from a Truth Social user proclaiming: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/20/trump-democrats-seditious-behavior/

To be clear. Our military serves the U.S. Constitution - not the President of the United Sates. The UCMJ clearly indicates military members are to obey lawful orders. Should the President issue an illegal order, military members may disobey the order.

 

[durangodawood]

Politicians should be very careful when calling for the death of other politicians.

If they cant do that, it calls into question their suitability for office.

 

[Vambram]

Members of Congress, comprised of former US Military and Intelligence officers, released a video this week reminding members of the military that they can, and in fact, have an obligation to disobey illegal orders.

Today, on Truthsocial, the POTUS reacted:

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand.”

...later he posted:

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
He also reposted a post from a Truth Social user proclaiming: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/20/trump-democrats-seditious-behavior/

To be clear. Our military serves the U.S. Constitution - not the President of the United Sates. The UCMJ clearly indicates military members are to obey lawful orders. Should the President issue an illegal order, military members may disobey the order.

President Trump has never issued an illegal order to the military.

 

[Pommer]

President Trump has never issued an illegal order to the military.

Is it even possible?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

President Trump has never issued an illegal order to the military.

Then he should have nothing to worry about.

 

[Always in His Presence]

What illegal orders?

Or is it yet another gratuitous post from the left. Just the suggestion of impropriety is enough to get the juices flowing.

 

[wing2000]

President Trump has never issued an illegal order to the military.

Good. And hopefully never will. His reaction suggest otherwise.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Should the President issue an illegal order, military members may disobey the order.

Has he?

If not - what is the purpose of the video?

 

[wing2000]

Has he?

"Should he..."

If not - what is the purpose of the video?

....to let service members Congress, or at least some members of Congress, has their back.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I wonder if the sedition/treason statute of limitations has run out on all the folks who publicly supported Terry Lakin's refusal of a what-he-wrongly-considered an unlawful order.

 

[timewerx]

Is it even possible?

You can legally set a guilty criminal free or legally pass a death sentence to an innocent person.

You can also legally commit atrocities.

If you're asking if everything is possible legally, the answer is YES.

If you're an evil person wanting to do evil and you have lots of money/influence, you don't have to do things illegally to get what you want.

 

[Gene2memE]

What illegal orders?

Do multiple violations of the Posse Comitatus Act count?

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both"

18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus

www.law.cornell.edu

Or deployment of National Guard in violation of the terms of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 ?

Whenever--

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-12406/

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is there a chance, just a slight chance, that their video was specifically intended for drawing this reaction of out him and the predictable "Truth Social Frenzy" that would undoubtedly go along with it?

Obviously it was foolish for him to take the bait (and doesn't demonstrate level-headed leadership)

...but I'm not sure that we're living in the best time for "hey, lemme stir the pot just to rile up the other side so everyone can see how crazy they are"


That aside, is their video implying that every military member is qualified to make constitutional judgments for things that haven't even been officially decided by actual judges yet?


If the shoe was on the other foot, and another contentious issue was the focal point - guns.

If a bunch of republican congressmen made a montage video telling local police officers (who, like most servicemen, are not constitutional experts qualified to make some of these types of judgement calls) "Hey, you all swore an oath... the constitution clearly states that people have the right to bear arms, so if those governors in California and New York are trying to get you to enforce their gun control restrictions, you can, and in fact...have a duty to, refuse to enforce those, and if you see someone carrying a gun without permit, you can let them go"

Would that style of activism be well-received by the left half? (hint: no it wouldn't, because that actually happened in Oregon with Measure 114, where various state leaders in law enforcement agencies publicly declared that they were going to ignore it because they personally thought it was unconstitutional, and instructed their officers not to enforce it - the left in Oregon was none too pleased about that)


Here's how this little PR stunt they did actually plays out in the real world:
They're needlessly going to provoke and paint a target on some peoples' backs
And
Well-intentioned (but misguided) servicemen are going to get court marshalled and/or dishonorably discharged and lose their benefits


Interpreting whether or not an order from a commander-in-chief to the military is unconstitutional is rarely is something so simple and clear cut that a 19-23 year old kid can make an accurate on-the-spot judgment call.

 

[Vambram]

Is there a chance, just a slight chance, that their video was specifically intended for drawing this reaction of out him and the predictable "Truth Social Frenzy" that would undoubtedly go along with it?

Obviously it was foolish for him to take the bait (and doesn't demonstrate level-headed leadership)

...but I'm not sure that we're living in the best time for "hey, lemme stir the pot just to rile up the other side so everyone can see how crazy they are"


That aside, is their video implying that every military member is qualified to make constitutional judgments for things that haven't even been officially decided by actual judges yet?


If the shoe was on the other foot, and another contentious issue was the focal point - guns.

If a bunch of republican congressmen made a montage video telling local police officers (who, like most servicemen, are not constitutional experts qualified to make some of these types of judgement calls) "Hey, you all swore an oath... the constitution clearly states that people have the right to bear arms, so if those governors in California and New York are trying to get you to enforce their gun control restrictions, you can, and in fact...have a duty to, refuse to enforce those, and if you see someone carrying a gun without permit, you can let them go"

Would that style of activism be well-received by the left half? (hint: no it wouldn't, because that actually happened in Oregon with Measure 114, where various state leaders in law enforcement agencies publicly declared that they were going to ignore it because they personally thought it was unconstitutional, and instructed their officers not to enforce it)


Here's how this little PR stunt they did actually plays out in the real world:
They're needlessly going to provoke and paint a target on some peoples' backs
And
Well-intentioned (but misguided) servicemen are going to get court marshalled and/or dishonorably discharged and lose their benefits


Interpreting whether or not an order from a commander-in-chief to the military is unconstitutional is rarely is something so simple and clear cut that a 19-23 year old kid can make an accurate on-the-spot judgment call.

Quoted For Truth

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Is there a chance, just a slight chance, that their video was specifically intended for drawing this reaction of out him and the predictable "Truth Social Frenzy" that would undoubtedly go along with it?

I don’t think so because

They're needlessly going to provoke and paint a target on some peoples' backs

At this point the target is now on their backs.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

At this point the target is now on their backs.

Not to the degree that it will be for some random enlisted guy who decides to refuse an order and gets court marshalled and kicked out of the service, and then has to face the social backlash back home without the luxuries of 24/7 security and gated neighborhoods like Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin have the privilege of having.

Does anyone featured in that video montage unilaterally have the power to legally protect a servicemen who refuses an order from their commanding officer?

If the answer to that is "No" (which it is), then they shouldn't be encouraging them to go rogue.

That'd be like me going down to the accounts payable department at my company, and encouraging them to disobey their boss over a personal beef I have with him. I can't protect them if he decides to fire them, so it'd be unethical and irresponsible of me to encourage that behavior, as I won't be the one who faces the the brunt of the consequences of it.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Do multiple violations of the Posse Comitatus Act count?

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both"

18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus

www.law.cornell.edu

Or deployment of National Guard in violation of the terms of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 ?

Whenever--

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-12406/

And where is this happening? Cite Court case if you would please.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And where is this happening? Cite Court case if you would please.

Congress spoke clearly in 1878 when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibitingthe use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law. Nearly 140 years later, Defendants—President Trump, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and the Department of Defense—deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, ostensibly to quell a rebellionand ensure that federal immigration law was enforced. There were indeed protests in LosAngeles, and some individuals engaged in violence. Yet there was no rebellion, nor wascivilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.

Because there is an ongoing risk that Defendants will act unlawfullyand thereby injure Plaintiffs, Governor Newsom and the State of California, the CourtENJOINS Defendants from violating the Posse Comitatus Act as detailed below.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Because there is an ongoing risk that Defendants will act unlawfullyand thereby injure Plaintiffs, Governor Newsom and the State of California, the CourtENJOINS Defendants from violating the Posse Comitatus Act as detailed below.

From an ai check - 40 different resources:

• In June 2025, a federal district judge (Charles Breyer) initially ruled that Trump's federalization of ~2,000–4,000 California National Guard troops for operations in Los Angeles was illegal (violating statutes and the Constitution).
• The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals quickly stayed (temporarily blocked) that lower court order, allowing Trump to retain federal control of the troops while appeals proceeded. This effectively overturned the block in the short term.
• Subsequent rulings (including in August/September 2025) went back and forth, with some lower court decisions again finding aspects of the deployments unlawful, but appeals have generally kept federal control in place for the LA-related operations for now.
• Separate but related cases blocked deployments of California Guard troops to Oregon/Portland.

That failed -

What was the video's purpose - what order was illegal - answer - not a one.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Congress spoke clearly in 1878 when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibitingthe use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law. Nearly 140 years later, Defendants—President Trump, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and the Department of Defense—deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, ostensibly to quell a rebellionand ensure that federal immigration law was enforced. There were indeed protests in LosAngeles, and some individuals engaged in violence. Yet there was no rebellion, nor wascivilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.

Because there is an ongoing risk that Defendants will act unlawfullyand thereby injure Plaintiffs, Governor Newsom and the State of California, the CourtENJOINS Defendants from violating the Posse Comitatus Act as detailed below.

But there are provisions elsewhere in the law (in the insurrection act) that allow the military to be used if state and local executive entities are either inadequate, or flat out refusing to enforce federal mandates.

That's the 101st airborne division making sure Black kids could go to school after a governor refused to abide by federal desegregation mandates, and ordered police to ignore white people blocking black kids from getting to school.

So where do we draw the line for "state level rebellion"?

When the governor of Arkansas said "nah, I don't agree with the federal administration's stance on desegregation of schools, it goes against my values, so we're not gonna do it"... I would hope we'd all agree that Eisenhower made the right call, right?

In a purely legalistic sense, how are state governors that are refusing to enforce federal immigration mandates any different?