Any story about resistance within the military must begin by recognizing that it’s not an easy thing to do. Apparently, that’s true even for a much-decorated retired Navy commander, former astronaut, and sitting United States senator. I’m talking about Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. He was one of six Democratic legislators, all military veterans or former intelligence officers, who, on November 18, released a 90-second video reminding members of the military that the oath they took on enlisting requires them to refuse illegal orders. The implicit context was the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to American cities, but their message took on added urgency after the Washington Post published an exposé about an order coming from high up to kill survivors of an airstrike in the Caribbean Sea.

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who served in the CIA, on the National Security Council, and at the Defense Department, and had three tours of duty as a CIA analyst in Iraq, spearheaded the action. She was joined by Kelly; Pennsylvania Reps. Chrissy Houlahan (former Air Force captain) and Chris Deluzio (former Navy lieutenant with one tour in Iraq); New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander (Navy Reserve lieutenant, intelligence); and Colorado Rep. Jason Crow (Army Ranger, three tours in Iraq).

Speaking directly to the camera, their voices imbued with sincerity, the six stated their affiliations, noted the precariousness of what the military is being asked to do in the second presidency of Donald Trump, and repeated their duty-to-refuse refrain, ending with a rousing, “Don’t give up the ship!” It was pretty straightforward stuff and, except for a few digs at the administration, an accurate statement of legal fact.

On enlistment, everyone in the military takes an oath of loyalty not to a person, a party, or any form of politics, but to the Constitution. Enlistees in all branches also pledge to obey orders from their officers and the president. As stipulated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), it’s clear that this means only lawful orders. Officers take a slightly different oath: They, too, swear to support and defend the Constitution, but their oath doesn’t include anything about obeying orders from their superiors or the president, presumably because they’re responsible for giving orders and ensuring that those orders are lawful. Officers reaffirm their oath whenever they’re promoted. Across the board, the UCMJ, the Nuremberg Principles, and the US Constitution establish the right and responsibility of servicemembers to refuse illegal orders or to refuse to participate in illegal wars, war crimes, or unconstitutional deployments.

Never one to bother with legal niceties, Donald Trump (commander-in-chief, no military service) quickly denounced the video on Truth Social as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” adding, “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” He also posted: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He then backtracked on the death threat on Fox’s “Brian Kilmeade Show.”

Members of his administration followed Trump’s lead with ever more strident outrage. Within days, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (former Army National Guard major, one tour each in Afghanistan and Iraq) called the lawmakers the “Seditious Six.” He then began to investigate Kelly, threatening to recall him to active duty so that he could be court-martialed for misconduct.

He went after Kelly because, as a retired military officer, he’s the only 1 of the 6 who could still fall under the military’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it’s unusual, to say the least, for a secretary of defense (oops, war!) to think about punishing an officer so long after he has retired. Meanwhile, the FBI began investigating all six of those legislators. (Consider it unlikely indeed, however, that the FBI will also investigate the death threats the six have received.)

If the courts and Congress can’t figure all this out, imagine the risk for servicemembers, especially in the lower ranks, trying to do so on their own.

Less half-baked responses came from places like Military.com, which criticized the legislators for attempting to politicize the military by bypassing the chain of command and speaking directly to the troops, while not citing specific examples of illegal orders and so potentially confusing them. If true, this wouldn’t be the first time this country’s troops were confused by orders. As a Marine sergeant testified at the 2008 Winter Soldier hearings, “During the siege of Fallujah [in Iraq], we changed rules of engagement more often then we changed our underwear.” As for politicizing the military, you need look no further than the Trump version of political theater—National Guard deployments to Democratic-run cities on his shitlist.

The straight-speaking six and their supporters were anything but cowed by the accusations. In a joint response to the president, they proclaimed their love for this country and fealty to the Constitution before concluding, “Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty… This is a time for moral clarity.”

In a town hall in Tucson, Kelly said of Trump and Hegseth, “They’re not serious people and I’m not backing down.” At the University of Pittsburgh (repeatedly designated a Military Friendly School), someone projected pictures of the six legislators onto its landmark 42-story Cathedral of Learning under the message, “This is what courage looks like.”

It might normally seem unlikely that Kelly could be punished for such constitutionally protected speech, a protection particularly robust for members of Congress. Unfortunately, “unlikely” could be considered the Trump administration’s middle name and, by now we should have learned that, in this political moment, anything is possible.

Playing armchair psychologist, I have no idea if Trump really believes that video to be seditious or if he even knows what actually constitutes sedition. I doubt it matters to him. For whatever reason—distraction? attention-grabbing? meat for his base? unbridled id?—he used that video to effectively change the subject, while a pliant media and public largely went along with him. In the process, he managed to refocus attention (yet again) on himself and his minions at the—yes, War, not Defense—Department, and the Department of (In)Justice, and on protected versus seditious speech, as well as courageous versus outrageous politicians. Take your pick, just don’t talk about what members of the military are being asked to do these days and how they might themselves think about such orders.

Joy Metzler, a 24-year-old graduate of the Air Force Academy, left the military as a conscientious objector this past April. She credits two required courses on law and ethics at the academy for leading her to first question and then conclude that she couldn’t support her country’s role in the then-ongoing genocide in Gaza. “The thought of being given an order that was illegal or unconstitutional was almost unthinkable to me at the time, I just didn’t think it happened,” she emailed me recently. “Line officers, low ranks, sure—from people who didn’t understand the law—but I never imagined one would come from the president or the secretary of defense.”

How much time and attention are given to the legal and moral intricacies of war making no doubt varies from branch to branch, unit to unit, commander to commander of the military. Whatever enlistees or officers are taught about resisting illegal orders is, of course, wildly outweighed by what they’re taught about the need to obey orders, which is inculcated into them until it becomes a reflexive response. Military units aren’t debating societies for good reason, and........

© Common Dreams