A new political video released by several Democratic lawmakers has sparked debate across Washington, drawing sharp reactions over its message encouraging military and intelligence personnel to refuse “illegal orders.” The lawmakers—many of whom are former military officers or intelligence professionals—say their intent is to emphasize constitutional obligations. Critics, however, argue that the timing and tone of the video suggest a pointed message aimed at the next presidential administration.
A Message Wrapped in Symbolism
The video opens with a reference to the Navy’s well-known phrase, “Don’t give up the ship,” a historic rallying cry attributed to Captain James Lawrence during the War of 1812. The expression has long been connected to duty, courage, and adherence to principle.
Democratic lawmakers used the phrase to frame their message, though some observers noted that the video carries a far more modern political subtext. The video, posted by Sen. Elissa Slotkin, appears to address military and intelligence communities directly, urging them to remain committed to the Constitution above all else.
Slotkin published the clip across multiple platforms and stated, “The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.” While the video never mentions former President Donald Trump, the implication that it relates to concerns about his leadership or potential directives is widely understood.
Who Is Behind the Video
The video features a group of lawmakers with backgrounds in uniformed or intelligence service:
- Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) – Former CIA analyst and Pentagon official
- Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) – Retired naval aviator and NASA astronaut
- Rep. Chris Deluzio (PA-17) – Navy veteran
- Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (PA-6) – Air Force veteran
- Rep. Maggie Goodlander (NH-2) – National security attorney
- Rep. Jason Crow (CO-6) – Former Army Ranger
Their combined backgrounds lend the message an authoritative tone, particularly on matters of defense, service, and constitutional obligations.
A Clear—and Controversial—Message
Throughout the video, the lawmakers repeatedly stress a single point: military and intelligence personnel must refuse illegal orders.
“You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” Kelly, Slotkin, and Deluzio state in different segments.
Goodlander adds, “Like us, you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution,” emphasizing that the oath is to a founding document rather than to any individual leader.
The lawmakers frame the video as a reminder rather than a warning, though critics argue the tone suggests preparation for political conflict rather than a neutral civics lesson.
Why the Video Is Causing Debate
The message itself—refusing illegal orders—is not controversial from a legal standpoint. U.S. military personnel are trained extensively on lawful versus unlawful orders, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it clear that service members are not obligated to follow an order that violates the law.
However, the political context surrounding the video has amplified the reaction.
1. Implicit reference to a specific political figure
Even though Trump’s name is never mentioned, the message appears directed toward fears about a future administration potentially issuing controversial directives. This indirect framing has triggered accusations that the lawmakers are encouraging military resistance to a potential commander-in-chief.
2. Concerns about escalating political messaging toward the military
Political messaging aimed at service members is rare and often viewed cautiously. Critics argue that involving the military—an institution built on hierarchy and discipline—in political disputes could risk creating tension within the ranks.
3. Assertions about “illegal orders” without clear examples
Because the video does not identify which hypothetical orders would be unlawful, some observers worry that the message may inadvertently weaken trust between military personnel and civilian leadership.
Supporters Defend the Video
Those defending the lawmakers say the message is nothing more than a reminder of longstanding constitutional principles. Supporters argue that the legal obligation to refuse unlawful directives is a fundamental military doctrine, not a political invention.
They also emphasize that the video does not instruct troops to resist authority, but rather to remain faithful to the oath they took upon entering service. The goal, supporters say, is reinforcing stability and the rule of law.
Some national security analysts also point out that the video’s emphasis on the Constitution mirrors training already present within every branch of the Armed Forces.
Critics See Something Different
Opponents, however, argue the timing—combined with the group’s political affiliations—makes the video appear closer to a partisan call to resist a specific future administration.
Political commentators have raised several concerns:
1. Messaging aimed at active military personnel is highly unusual
Historically, lawmakers avoid addressing service members directly in a partisan context. Critics claim that doing so undermines the apolitical nature of the military.
2. The video could be interpreted as a call to preemptively distrust civilian leadership
By telling troops to “refuse illegal orders” without context, some argue the message implicitly assumes such orders are imminent, which politicizes military duty.
3. It may unintentionally drag military personnel into political conflict
Some critics warn that messages like this risk encouraging junior personnel to second-guess commands or question motives, which could affect readiness and morale.
The Broader Context: Civil-Military Relations
Recent years have seen increased debate around the role of the military in domestic political disputes. High-profile disagreements between presidents and military leaders, public commentary from retired officers, and concerns about politicization have all brought heightened sensitivity.
Experts in civil-military relations note that while the oath to the Constitution is paramount, any message that appears partisan—whether from the left or the right—can be disruptive.
The military relies on a strict chain of command, clear legal guidelines, and nonpolitical professionalism. Outside messaging directed toward the rank and file can challenge those traditions if not handled carefully.
Why Reference to History Matters
The use of Captain Lawrence’s famous quote—“Don’t give up the ship”—adds a symbolic layer. The original phrase reflected courage and perseverance even during overwhelming adversity. By invoking it, the lawmakers appear to encourage resilience and loyalty to principle.
However, some historians note that the quote’s historical context also involves command failure, defeat, and misjudgment—unintentional parallels that critics were quick to highlight.
What Happens Next
The video has already generated strong reaction online, drawing praise from those who see it as a principled reminder, and criticism from those who view it as politically risky or provocative.
There is no indication that the lawmakers plan to pull or revise the video. Slotkin and others continue to defend it publicly, framing the message as civic guidance rather than political strategy.
As the political climate intensifies heading into election season, analysts expect civil-military relations to remain a topic of conversation—especially if similar messages continue to emerge from either side of the political spectrum.
Conclusion
The video released by the group of Democratic lawmakers highlights a recurring theme in American governance: the responsibility of military and intelligence personnel to uphold the Constitution above any individual authority. While the principle itself is widely accepted and deeply rooted in military law, the political environment has made the message more contentious than usual.
Supporters insist the video simply reinforces long-standing legal obligations. Critics argue it could plant seeds of mistrust and drag military institutions into partisan conflict.
For now, the video stands as a stark example of how even foundational constitutional principles can take on new meaning—and spark debate—when delivered in a charged political atmosphere.