[snip]
The legal dispute centers on whether the lawmakers crossed into unlawful interference with the military. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, troops must disobey clearly illegal orders, but they cannot make their own constitutional determinations. That authority belongs to the courts, military legal officers, and the chain of command.
The only time service members should refuse a command is when the unlawfulness is obvious, such as orders to commit war crimes. None of Trump’s orders meet that threshold and no such orders have been issued.
[snip]
Urging troops to preemptively disobey orders that have not been given forces them to make speculative constitutional judgments. It turns political disagreement into supposed illegality. This is not how civil-military relations function in the United States.
Trump’s phrasing was blunt, but he was invoking the seriousness of the conduct, not personally threatening to kill anyone. When people say an offense is “punishable by death,” they are describing the maximum historical penalty, not issuing a personal threat. Modern sedition statutes carry prison terms, not capital punishment, but the point remains that undermining military discipline is a severe federal offense.
The most relevant statute is 18 U.S.C. § 2387, which criminalizes advising, counseling, or urging any service member to refuse duty or show disloyalty.
[snip]
Despite this, Democratic leaders portrayed Trump’s comments as a threat to kill members of Congress and requested police protection. Capitol Police, however, cannot shield lawmakers from legal scrutiny if they violated federal statutes. Protection is appropriate only if there are credible threats of violence from third parties, not from a president making a legal argument about the seriousness of their conduct. Their response reframes a legal accusation as a personal threat, which serves political purposes but does not address whether their actions were lawful.
If these lawmakers urged insubordination, the proper process is straightforward: a Department of Justice investigation, a grand jury indictment if warranted, arrest, trial, and sentencing. The Speech or Debate Clause does not protect members of Congress for public videos or political messaging outside official duties. Members of Congress have been arrested and prosecuted many times in American history.
[snip]
Trump’s core argument is simple: encouraging military personnel to reject commands on speculative political grounds is not protected speech. It risks violating federal law designed to preserve discipline in the armed forces. The media’s insistence on framing Trump’s statement as a death threat obscures the real issue, which is whether six elected officials crossed the line into unlawful interference with the military chain of command.
* Original Article:
Trump Is Right: Democrats’ Call for Troops to Defy Orders Crosses Into Possible Sedition