Trump Says Democratic Lawmakers Should Die For Telling The Military To Obey Their Oath
from the we-can-all-see-how-fucked-up-this-is,-right? dept
The President of the United States is calling for the execution of six Democratic lawmakers—all military veterans or former intelligence officers—because they reminded US service members of their oath to the Constitution.
That’s not hyperbole or exaggeration. That’s an actual thing that happened yesterday.
Donald Trump spent hours on social media demanding that Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, along with Representatives Chris DeLuzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow be arrested, tried, and put to death for “seditious behavior” and “treason.”
Their crime? Creating a two-minute video explaining that members of the military have a right—and sometimes a duty—to disobey unlawful orders.
The same oath that the president, in theory, took as well. The president is saying that elected officials of the opposing party should be put to death for telling people to remember their oath to the Constitution.
This comes after weeks of MAGA Republicans insisting that Democrats needed to “tone down the rhetoric” following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It comes after the assassination of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, who was among several Democratic officials on the killer’s target list.
And now the president is calling for elected officials to be put to death for reminding service members of their constitutional oath.
The video is worth watching (though, bizarrely, many news sites wouldn’t post it).
It’s less than two minutes. The six lawmakers simply remind service members that they have a right, and sometimes a duty, to disobey illegal orders.
Trump did not react kindly to this. He started out by SCREAMING that the lawmakers who did this engaged in “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL” and that they “should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL” and that “Their words cannot be allowed to stand.”

That post caused the usual unhinged cultists who egg the senile old man on to try to one-up him, and Trump just kept reposting them all.

Eventually, of course, some of his followers insisted that reminding soldiers of their oath is “treason” and that they were there for “traitors” who should be hanged. And the president of the United States just kept reposting it all.

And, so, it wasn’t long before he directly called for them to be put to death.

Let’s be clear about how unhinged this is, going step by step.
First, what these elected officials said was absolutely true. The military code of conduct does require that they obey lawful orders, which by default means they need not follow unlawful orders. And indeed, the Rules for Courts-Martial make it clear that the defenses for disobeying an order includes if it is unlawful. And the standard there is that “a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.”
Rule 916(d) of the rules states clearly:
Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.
Second, disobeying an order may subject you to a court-martial, but not “sedition” and being sentenced to death. I mean, this should go without saying, but what the fuck?
Third, simply telling people about their rights and obligations under the oath they took to the Constitution is obviously and clearly protected under the First Amendment. Anyone who still thinks the president believes in free speech is a fraud.
Fourth, beyond being protected speech, this has nothing to do with “sedition” or “treason.” Sedition is stirring up rebellion against the government. Treason means levying war against the United States. Reminding service members of their oath to the Constitution and their legal right to refuse unlawful orders is neither. It’s the exact opposite—it’s reinforcing their duties as US service members.
And, look, even if these elected officials had done something wrong (they haven’t), and even if it broke the law (it didn’t), and even if it was seditious (it’s not even remotely close), it’s still wrong and ridiculously, unfathomably out of line for the president to be saying they deserve the death penalty.
Of course, Trump’s tantrum has amplified this message far beyond what the original video would have reached. And according to a Military Times survey, 80% of US troops already understand their duty to disobey illegal orders anyway. All Trump’s rage has accomplished is reminding even more people—including his own supporters in uniform—of something they already knew.
Remember: this comes right after his MAGA colleagues spent weeks demanding Democrats “lower the temperature” following Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Yet here’s the president telling his followers that these officials deserve to die, forcing Democrats to alert the Capitol Police and the House Sergeant at Arms to protect these lawmakers and their families.
It’s fucking insane.
Congress should be calling for impeachment. Instead, you have the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, doing his usual run for cover routine by claiming that “attorneys will have to parse the language.”
That’s a hell of a position from someone who, two months ago, insisted that calling Republicans “fascist” was tantamount to inciting violence:
Seems like quite the double standard. When the president literally calls for his political enemies to be put to death, he deflects and wants “the attorneys” to “parse the language,” but should anyone refer to the authoritarian attacks on the institutions of the United States, he’ll immediately condemn you for inciting violence.
But, of course, that is the MAGA way: they can say what they want, you have to shut up. They can encourage and incite violence, but anything you say that’s a little mean to them is beyond the pale.
History will remember those who did the right thing and those who enabled our mad king and his unhinged violent fantasies.
Filed Under: chris deluzio, constitution, donald trump, elissa slotkin, execution, jason crow, maggie goodlander, mark kelly, oath of office, sedition, treason, unlawful orders


Comments on “Trump Says Democratic Lawmakers Should Die For Telling The Military To Obey Their Oath”
If we want to talk about putting people to death for that sort of thing, I can think of one fellow who kicked off an insurrection after losing an election and really should have hanged for it.
What everyone appears to overlook
Trump’s tantrum here clearly shows that he is perfectly aware that orders he puts out and plans to put out in future are illegal.
Otherwise why would he bother?
Re: Someone doth protest too much
I didn’t even catch that on my initial read, that’s a very good point.
Reminding US soldiers ‘You have not just a right but an obligation to ignore illegal orders’ is only a threat to his power and authority if the orders they have been, are being, or will be given are illegal, so the fact that he and his cultists thew such a tantrum really gives away the game that they knows his orders, whether past, future or both do not qualify as legal.
Re:
On the flip side, they are implying illegal orders have already been issued yet neglected to name any
It pretty much cements what republicans really think.
Republicans do not believe in the constitution.
They do believe that trump is god king.
Republicans have fully announced that they are traitors to america.
Re:
Republicans are in it for the power, they have never stood for amy of tge American values they drape themselves with when politically convenient. Supporting freedom of speech? But only them can push their false propaganda without question or consequence. Law and order? Unless they get caught doing something wrong. Free trade? Only for those rimming the orange swine. The list goes on. The only right they seem solid on is the 2nd amendment and I can bet you that they would pivot so fast towards gun control if democrats started pushing people for real to arm themselves as the country is no longer safe. Republicans are our domestic equivalent to the talibans.
Re: Re: It's happened before
Look at how Ronald Reagan and the NRA pushed for gun control in California when the Black Panthers armed themselves. Republicans floated the idea of new gun control in the form of banning Trans people from owning guns, but that got shot down quickly. They 100% would push for more gun control as fast as they could if the left started getting more armed than we already are.
I disagree with your take. Obeying oaths and the constitution is, in fact, an act of stirring up rebellion against the current executive, which is why DJT can’t allow it to stand. Because the current executive is actively instructing individuals to do things that are illegal and against the constitution, with the almost-promise that if they get in trouble for following illegal orders, DJT will pardon them.
You can tell it’s not really sedition because Trump didn’t pardon them.
So trump is aware enough that his orders are sometimes illegal but not aware enough that this is going to Streisand the whole ordeal.
Re:
There was a word for this exact sort of thing long before Barbara Streisand came along: the Nuremberg Defense
There will be a reckoning.
When the Orange Felon and his Confederacy of Sewer Clowns have departed office, there will be Nuremberg-style trials against all those who have engaged in acts contrary to the Constitution of this nation. And, as at the original Nuremberg trials, “I was just following orders” will not be a defense.
(Personally, I would be 100% OK with the next President declaring Trumpist/MAGA ideology as inherently authoritarian and contrary to the Constitution, and that anyone espousing it shall be liable under 18 USC § 2385, advocating the overthrow of the government.)
Re:
I rather hope the trials take long enough to spin up that vigilantism deals with most of them. Any prison not located in a neighbourhood called Evin would be about twenty thousand orders of magnitude too lenient for what they’ve already done to the US alone, never mind the rest of the world.
Fascists neither give nor deserve quarter. At the very least, they need to be made scared shitless to exist again, as they should have remained.
Re:
A worthy goal but they’re going to need to expand the Supreme Court first.
Technically they didn't take an oath
I remember when Trump took his oath, with no hand on the bible, so it didn’t count.
Oaths don’t count if you cross your fingers behind your back.
Patel took it with his eyes crossed. Not sure if his oath counted.
Re:
If the oath didn’t count, he ainn’t teh prez.
This is the same guy whose lasting legacy will be inciting the Jan 6th insurrection. Why is everyone surprised by this escalation?
Re:
Is there a more tedious response to an article than “I’m not surprised”?
Nobody asked you to be. It’s not a goddamn Shyamalan movie.
White House Karoline Leavitt: “They are suggesting that the President has given illegal orders, which he has not.”
I think she deserves the “Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy Government” award.
Re:
Sounds like she’s trying the Nixon defense, ‘It’s not illegal if the president does it’, but even then that fails to answer why he threw such a fit over the message reminding US soldiers not to follow illegal orders if Trump isn’t giving and/or planning on giving illegal orders.
Re: Re:
We should probably call it the Roberts defense going forward; “Nixon” implies a failed defense prior to resigning in disgrace, whereas curently the law is that it really isn’t illegal if the president does it.
'How dare you suggest soldiers shouldn't murder on my command, that's treason!'
But remember, it’s the democrats/left that are the violent ones…
Re:
Well, if you don’t fight like hell, we won’t have a Nobel Peace Prize any more.
Don’t you need the courts to decide what is legal or not?
Re:
No. If you tell me it’s okay to murder someone, I’m not going to kill them and hope a court rules that it’s okay later. You disobey unlawful orders when given because the law is that you are responsible for your conduct, especially if you knew it was illegal or a reasonable person would know it was illegal. Otherwise, you’re just a fascist apologist pretending the Nuremberg Defense is valid. You can commit all kinds of evil as long as you were “just following orders.”
Re: No.
The courts don’t get to decide what is legal or illegal. That is the job of the lawmakers. The courts then get apply the laws faithfully.
The courts are umpires, not rulemakers. Sometimes the lawmakers make such a mess of the rules that the courts have to disentangle them best as they can. Some are better at it than others.
Re: Re:
Tell that to the Roberts Court.
I sure do love the imminence standard under Brandenburg on days like today
Re:
Yeah, but under the Schenck standard Trump could have had them arrested.
I’d like to think there’s a happy medium between Schenck and Brandenburg, but I sure as hell don’t trust the current Supreme Court to define it.
As far as “seditious behavior” and “treason” are concerned, no one meets those criteria more than Trump himself. Therefore, Congress should take up the task of impeaching Trump, AGAIN!, and actually using the abundant evidence to do what Trump says is proper for such people. So, thanks, Donnie, for providing yet more evidence as to your guilt.
Turn up the volume
Once again, Trump’s response lets us know that the Democrats did the right thing. The louder he screams, the better.
Re:
It kinda also seems like maybe groceries aren’t the only thing they should be talking about.
You know, I think this is actually a substantial improvement for Trump.
He’s calling for these lawmakers to be put on trial instead of executed on the spot, they’re citizens of the same country, and they did act in opposition to Trump even if said acts are unambiguously lawful and ethical.
A vast improvement over bombing innocent Venezuelans under the pretense of ‘drug war’, or any of the other extrajudicial killings the Trump administration has committed.
Re:
Except I don’t Trump is actually calling for that. He’s just lashing out and suggesting anything that would delight his followers and appease his authoritarian ego. He would be just as delighted if one of his followers decided to assassinate one of these people as he would for a show trial in which they don’t actually receive due process.
Seems like quite the double standard
Sure does. Don’t see you condemning those calling the right literal nazis
Re:
You don’t see the difference between random people calling out actual fascism happening with people who are, in fact, platforming literal nazis and… the President of the United States calling for the death penalty for people reminding soldiers of the oath they signed?
Seems like a YOU problem. A big one.
Re:
Why would any sane or moral person condemn accurate descriptions?