The chain of command isn’t just military protocol—it’s the constitutional architecture that keeps American democracy from sliding into chaos. Six Democratic members of Congress just attacked it.
They wrapped themselves in their veterans’ status like a shield while plunging a dagger into the heart of military discipline. Senator Mark Kelly, Representatives Elissa Slotkin, Mikie Sherrill, Pat Ryan, Seth Moulton, and Jason Crow released a video that sounds noble on its surface: reminding service members of their duty to refuse unlawful orders. But strip away the sanctimony and you find something far more sinister—a calculated attempt to fracture military cohesion before a new administration even takes office.
The Law They Deliberately Distorted
Military law draws a bright line that every veteran knows. Service members must refuse “manifestly unlawful” orders—commands so obviously criminal that any reasonable person would instantly recognize them as illegal. Murder civilians. Torture prisoners. Commit rape. These aren’t debatable policy choices; they’re crimes that scream their illegality.
The threshold is intentionally high. The Manual for Courts-Martial presumes orders are lawful unless proven otherwise. The burden isn’t on the soldier to parse constitutional law or second-guess strategy. It’s to recognize the obvious: when an order violates basic humanity so clearly that no legal training is needed to spot the crime.
The six know this. They served. They understand that “manifestly unlawful” isn’t the same as “politically disagreeable” or “constitutionally questionable.” Yet they deliberately omitted that crucial qualifier, telling troops to refuse “illegal” orders—full stop. No mention of the manifest standard. No warning about the consequences of wrongful refusal. Just a broad invitation to question any order they might dislike.
This isn’t guidance. It’s sabotage.
The Poison They Injected
Consider what they’ve done. Young service members—many barely out of high school—now wonder if they should be constitutional scholars, evaluating every command through a political lens. Should they obey if ordered to support border security? What about disaster response that involves crowd control? These aren’t manifestly unlawful scenarios, but the six’s message plants doubt where certainty must exist.
Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Defense Secretary nominee, nailed it: This is a “politically-motivated influence operation” designed to undermine the incoming administration. It’s despicable and reckless, risking lives and missions for partisan gain.
The military functions on trust. A private trusts his sergeant, who trusts his lieutenant, who trusts his captain, all the way up to the commander in chief. Break that trust, inject political calculation into split-second decisions, and you don’t get thoughtful deliberation—you get paralysis, breakdown, and defeat.
The Principles They Violated
These six didn’t defend military principles; they torched them. The chain of command they once swore to uphold flows from the Constitution through the president—the elected civilian leader—down to every service member. This structure exists precisely to prevent what they’re encouraging: individual service members making political judgments about orders.
Civilian control of the military means elections have consequences. When Americans choose a president, they choose a commander in chief. The military follows that choice, regardless of party. That’s not blind obedience—it’s constitutional democracy.
The six know this. They know that controversial doesn’t mean unlawful. They know the Insurrection Act exists, that presidents have broad authority in national security, that courts—not corporals—determine constitutionality. Yet they chose to muddy these waters, creating confusion where clarity is essential.
The Damage They’ve Done
Imagine a crisis. Troops hesitate, wondering if their orders might be “illegal” in some abstract sense. That hesitation costs seconds, maybe minutes. In military operations, those moments mean lives.
Or consider the corrosive effect on unit cohesion. Some troops follow orders, others refuse based on political leanings. The unit fractures. Trust evaporates. The mission fails. This isn’t hypothetical—it’s the predictable result of the poison these six injected.
They’ve also handed America’s enemies a gift. Every adversary watching knows that American military discipline just took a hit. That partisan politicians successfully sowed doubt in the ranks. That the world’s most powerful military can be weakened from within by those who once wore its uniform.
The Accountability They Deserve
Mark Kelly faces potential recall to active duty for court-martial—he still draws retirement pay, keeping him under UCMJ jurisdiction. While First Amendment protections make prosecution unlikely, the Pentagon’s review sends a message: Veterans who undermine military discipline aren’t untouchable.
The others hide behind congressional immunity and free speech protections. Legally, they’re probably safe. Morally, they’re bankrupt. They know the difference between lawful dissent and destructive incitement. They chose destruction.
The Truth They Fear
Here’s what really drives them: Trump won. The American people chose him as commander in chief. The six can’t accept that verdict, so they’re poisoning the well, hoping to create enough dysfunction to claim vindication later.
They fear Trump might use the military effectively—to secure borders, maintain order, project strength. Not to commit war crimes, but to execute policies they oppose. Unable to win at the ballot box, they’re trying to win through sabotage.
This isn’t patriotism. It’s sedition wrapped in a flag.
The six want credit for their service while betraying everything that service represents. They want to be seen as defenders of law while undermining lawful authority. They want military credentials without military discipline.
They are veterans who violated their oath, representatives who rejected democracy’s verdict, and saboteurs who prioritized party over country. They didn’t protect service members from unlawful orders—no such orders exist yet. They protected their political interests by fracturing military unity before their opponent took office.
That’s not just reckless. It’s repugnant. And every American, especially every veteran who still honors their oath, should call it what it is: a betrayal of the chain of command that keeps this republic secure.
