“If you look at popular culture, like, you watch, you know, A Few Good Men, like we have plenty of examples since World War II, in Vietnam, where people were told to follow illegal orders, and they did it, and they were prosecuted for it,” Senator Elissa Slotkin thinks she’s Tom Cruise confronting Jack Nicholson.
If context matters as they say, then clearly we should consider the context of Congressional Democrats’ recent message to the military reminding them of their duty to defy illegal orders and urging them to do so. For the past ten months, Democrats, aided and abetted by the mainstream media and activist courts, have declared essentially every action President Trump has taken as variously illegal, unconstitutional, or unauthorized. In fact, the effort has been so frequent that even the latest and greatest Artificial Intelligence can’t keep track of all the instances. When asked, Google’s Gemini responded, “It is impossible to provide an exact count of how many times Democrats have claimed Donald Trump did something illegal since January 2025, as such statements occur frequently in political discourse and media coverage” these “claims manifest as numerous individual statements, official lawsuits filed by the Democratic National Committee or individual members, and ongoing congressional oversight actions.” The claims themselves have included both military and non-military matters, the large and the small, basically everything you can think of. Domestically speaking, Democrats have insisted the closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was “an illegal shutdown of a congressionally created agency and a violation of the separation of powers,” leading me to joke that Democrats believe the President is nothing more than a drunken sailor, spending ever dollar allocated with no control whatsoever. When the Department of Government Efficiency requested access to government data, over 150 House Democrats questioned the legality, and demanded answers from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The firing of Inspector Generals without 30 days’ notice prompted the same, as did various immigration enforcement measures including the use of the National Guard on US soil. The immigration front alone has prompted numerous accusations of illegality including various violations of due process, complete with claims that innocent people are being kidnapped and disappeared, the ignoring of court orders, the illegal ending of Temporary Protected Status and other immigration programs, and corresponding funding violations. Claims that President Trump has acted illegally on the domestic front are so extreme, some insisted that something as simple as building a White House ballroom was yet another violation. For example, the Milwaukee Independent reported that “Legal experts said the demolition violates federal preservation law because no agency approval or budget authorization exists to alter the White House during a government shutdown. The National Park Service, which manages the property, and the National Capital Planning Commission, which reviews construction on federal grounds, are both shuttered and cannot issue permits or oversight. Without those clearances, they said, the work proceeds without lawful authority — making the demolition itself illegal under federal statute.”
For better or worse, the same has been true on the military and international affairs front. When President Trump struck Iran’s nuclear program in June, Democrats roundly criticized the move as illegal. “I’ve been briefed on the intelligence — there is no evidence Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States. That makes this attack illegal,” Senator Chris Murphy said in a statement at the time. “Trump said he would end wars; now he has dragged America into one,” Senator Christopher Van Hollen added, also in a statement. “His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution – ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.” Senator Bernie Sanders put it this way, “It is so grossly unconstitutional. All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress; the president does not have that right.” For her part, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wrote on social media, “Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization.” “He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,” progressive firebrand and member of the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed. Her squad counterpart, Rashida Tlaib echoed the thought on X, writing “President Trump sending U.S. Troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of our Constitution.” Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US International Crisis Group and former State Department lawyer, said the attack was “patently illegal.” “Even under the prevailing executive branch doctrine, this is likely to constitute ‘war’ requiring congressional authorization,” he added. Perhaps needless to say, the media agreed. The Guardian declared the acts illegal, and went on to claim “In rejecting diplomacy and choosing war, not only in breach of international law but at the behest of a country pursuing annihilation in Gaza, the US has delivered a resounding blow to the architecture of global affairs. It has signalled that countries that negotiate (Iran) face stark consequences, which those which rush to own the bomb (North Korea) can avoid. Its embrace of pre-emptive strikes is handy for Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and any leader who might want to carry out their own. Even if the immediate crisis in the Middle East can be contained, the cost of this reckless act may not be fully felt or comprehended for decades.”
Less than three months later, the same accusations accompanied President Trump’s decision to use lethal military force against drug cartels operating in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Representatives Jason Crow, Gregory Meeks, Adam Smith, and Sara Jacobs all said the strikes were illegal or completely illegal. Senators Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, and Tim Kaine all questioned the legality and demanded the President prove they were legal, as though that were the standard rather than the presumption of legality. As Congressman Crow put it, “The illegal flow of drugs into the U.S. is a huge problem. But President Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes in the Caribbean, or anywhere else, without congressional approval. The American people do not want to be dragged into more foreign wars. I put on the uniform to serve this country and did three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and decades of lost opportunity. We owe the public a debate and vote before we ever send our servicemembers into harm’s way,” he added, despite that no servicemembers have been sent anywhere and there are no plans for any kind of land invasion that anyone is aware of. Not surprisingly, the media echoed these claims. The Washington Post reported that the “White House blew past legal concerns” while the Reuters asked, “Are the deadly US strikes on alleged drug vessels legal?” According to their reporting, “Human rights groups including Amnesty International have condemned the strikes as illegal, extrajudicial killings of civilians” and “The strikes may violate international law as well as U.S. laws against murder and prohibitions on assassination, according to some legal experts. International law allows for the use of force in self-defense, which applies to an armed attack, or to an imminent armed attack. The Trump administration told Congress that actions by the cartels constitute an armed attack on the United States, citing the increasing flow of illegal drugs, paramilitary capabilities of the groups and significant loss of life in countries that are combating the groups. Legal experts said that rationale falls short of what has been accepted by U.S. administrations and under international law. Declaring the cartels terrorist organizations has no bearing on whether military action is justified, experts said. They also said cartels cashing in on demand for illegal drugs do not fit the traditional definition in international law of non-state armed groups, such as al Qaeda, which are organized to carry out sustained attacks for political and ideological reasons.”
Whatever you may personally believe, this is undeniable the context within which six Democrats chose to release a video urging military leaders not to follow illegal orders. In the video itself, Senator Elissa Slotkin, Senator Kelly, Representative Crow, Representative Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chris Deluzio, and Representative Chrissy Houlahan all claimed “threats to our Constitution” are coming “from right here at home,” and as result, the military and intelligence community should “refuse illegal orders.” “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law, or our Constitution,” they said. “Know that we have your back… don’t give up the ship,” they added in solemn tones. Though the video was rather conspicuous in its failure to mention any specific orders, Senators Kelly and Representative Crow had both previously questioned the legality of certain orders, making it reasonable to assume they had at least some in mind that prompted them into action, but when when questioned about it afterwards, everyone has insisted that’s not the case, far from it in fact. Instead, they would have us believe the video was some sort of Congressional Public Service Announcement, something they did as an explainer or a reminder without any clear political purpose. “I said something that was pretty simple and non-controversial – and that was that members of the military should follow the law,” Senator Kelly explained without naming a single order that he believed was illegal, pretending this was entirely normal.
Senator Slotkin refused to name an order as well, telling ABC New Martha Raddatz it was a general statement prompted by some unspecified and unidentified young officers. “So, I think the reason we put that statement out is because the sheer number of, frankly, young officers who are coming to us and saying, I just am not sure. What do I do? You know, I’m in SOUTHCOM and I’m involved. In the National Guard, I’m just not sure, what do I do? And I think, look, you don’t have to take my word for it. We’ve had report after report of legal officer, JAG officers, coming forward and saying, look, I push back on this. I’m not sure that this is legal,” but when Ms. Raddatz pressed her on the issue, asking “Do you — so — so, let’s talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?” The Senator replied that she wasn’t aware of any, “To my knowledge, I — I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela. And I think that’s why –” To her credit, Ms. Raddiz pressed her again, saying “And be specific about that,” but still Senator Slotkin only noted a “primary concern,” whatever that means rather than an actual illegal order, “Yeah. So, for me, my primary concern is the use of U.S. military on American shores, on our city — in our cities and in our streets. We’ve seen now the courts overturn the deployment of U.S. military into our streets, including here in Washington, D.C. When you look at these videos coming out of places like Chicago, it makes me incredibly nervous that we’re about to see people in law enforcement, people in uniformed military get nervous, get stressed, shoot at American civilians. It is very — a very, very stressful situation for these law enforcement and for the communities on the ground. So, it was basically a warning to say, like, if you’re asked to do something particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back.” Despite no instances of this occurring or anything close to the military opening fire on civilians, when she was pressed once more, the Senator continued to be so evasive, she resorted to referencing the Nuremberg trials and popular culture, as if the two had anything to do with, well, anything. “I don’t — I mean, going back to Nuremberg, right, that, ‘Well, they told me to do it, that’s why I murdered people,’ is not an excuse. If you look at popular culture, like, you watch, you know, A Few Good Men, like we have plenty of examples since World War II, in Vietnam, where people were told to follow illegal orders, and they did it, and they were prosecuted for it.”
Thus, we have two alternatives, neither of which the Democrats are readily admitting to because, to paraphrase A Few Good Men itself, they can’t handle or quite possibly admit the truth. There only are two alternative interpretations, neither of which are flattering to them. Either we can believe that the Congresspeople in question decided to produce the equivalent of a Public Service Announcement about the military’s illegal orders policy generally rather than President Trump or one of his policies in particular. This is essentially what they are claiming in interviews and what their progressive supporters are arguing. There’s nothing to see here, no call for sedition at worst or chaos in the military at best because they were simply reminding everyone of the law, but if you accept that explanation, they’re also admitting that despite all of their prior claims, President Trump has not issued any illegal orders, meaning they are vindicating him rather than impugning him. Personally, I find it hard to believe that was their intention, leading to the second interpretation: The video should properly be seen in the context that Democrats believe everything President Trump does is illegal and they were encouraging the military to resist his status as Commander in Chief, which would amount to sowing the seeds of sedition. To be honest, I would be inclined to at least give them some credit for having the courage of their convictions if that was the case, but rather than owning it, they’re all denying that was the case and refusing to name the orders in question.
Lastly, it has not escaped my notice that after several days of fumbling around for a potentially illegal order, The Washington Post just happened to have found two leakers who claim we struck a ship multiple times with the express purpose of killing any survivors. Alas, the news, if you can call it that, came out after I finished writing this and I will have to cover it another time, but ultimately it doesn’t change anything I would’ve written here.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 