President Donald Trump issued a sharp warning this weekend after a group of Democrat lawmakers appeared in a video telling U.S. service members to ignore presidential orders. For a country that relies on a disciplined, apolitical military, the idea of elected officials encouraging disobedience struck a nerve—raising concerns about partisan overreach and the erosion of long-standing American norms.
The video, which featured several Democrats including Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), carried the message “Don’t give up the ship,” according to Fox News. That phrase may sound harmless on the surface, but in an environment where political actors increasingly try to pull the military into partisan battles, the message carried obvious implications. Encouraging troops to disregard lawful orders—regardless of who sits in the Oval Office—undercuts the chain of command that protects national security, civilian authority, and constitutional stability.
Trump responded forcefully on Truth Social, writing:
“THE TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW, NOT ROAMING THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THEY SAID WAS OK. IT WASN’T, AND NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!”
In a follow-up post, he added:
“MANY GREAT LEGAL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THE DEMOCRAT TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS, AS PRESIDENT, HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME OF SERIOUS PROPORTION!”
While the left has attempted to frame the video as harmless messaging, the deeper concern is the precedent: elected officials openly signaling to military members that orders can be ignored based on political preference. That type of rhetoric aligns with a growing trend in which certain lawmakers treat institutions not as pillars of stability, but as tools for political pressure—often at the expense of constitutional safeguards.
Senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller didn’t mince words when asked about the clip, calling it insurrection.
“It’s a general call for rebellion from the CIA and the armed services of the United States, by Democrat lawmakers.”
He continued, outlining a broader pattern of behavior that has worried many conservatives observing the past year unfold:
“We have seen the Democratic Party nurse the flames of violence and insurrection against the federal government for the last ten months. When you see this continuous campaign of violence against ICE officers and Border Patrol agents, when you see Democrat sanctuary politicians and Democrat sanctuary governors side with the rioters, side with the assaulters over federal law enforcement, and that spills even into juries and grand juries. When you see Democrat jurors engage in nullification to let off violent attackers who are engaging in physical violence, physical assault against federal officers, this is a dangerous moment.”
The concerns he described highlight a larger trend: selective enforcement, politically motivated leniency, and a system where ideological loyalty often seems to trump law-and-order principles. In that context, a video encouraging troops to ignore directives becomes more than a controversial clip—it becomes part of a growing pattern that undermines the institutions meant to preserve national security and public safety.
Former CIA operations officer and “The Wright Report” host Bryan Dean Wright also criticized the video, arguing that Slotkin knew the impact her messaging would have. As Breitbart News noted, Wright said Slotkin “knew what she was doing when she put that together,” adding:
“As a former CIA operations officer, my job was to go out in the field and collect the intel, conduct the operation. Her job as an analyst was to figure out whether or not things like propaganda operations were successful, if they were effective.”
The Fox News report also noted that Trump initially stated that seditious behavior was punishable by death, though both the president and the White House later clarified he was not seeking such punishment.
Taken together, this episode has become more than a single video or a single statement. It reflects a troubling shift in how some lawmakers approach power—testing boundaries that once ensured clarity, discipline, and unity within America’s armed forces. When civilian leaders begin signaling that military obedience is conditional, the nation drifts toward dangerous territory where politics overrides duty, and institutions built to safeguard freedom become battlegrounds in partisan fights.
For readers concerned about national security, constitutional order, and the preservation of stable institutions, this moment is a clear reminder: the guardrails matter, and they’re only as strong as the people willing to respect them.
