This incident involving 6 Democrat Members of Congress has garnered extensive press coverage over the past few days but unsurprisingly, this is the first Washington Post (WaPo) mention of it. Below I have posted The Old Colonel’s take on the subject and why the Dem-6’s comments could be characterized, in Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) terms, as “conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.”
The president said lawmakers who appeared in a
video committed “seditious behavior” and should be arrested and put on trial
for treason.
By Maegan Vazquez and Dan Lamothe 20 November 2025
President Donald Trump accused a group of Democratic lawmakers
on Thursday of “seditious behavior” and called for their arrest for appearing
in a video in which they reminded members of the U.S. military and intelligence
community that they are obligated to refuse illegal orders.
“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” Trump
wrote on Truth Social. “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be
ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand.”
The video released Tuesday features a group of six Democrats who
served in the military and intelligence community. Addressing active service
members, they caution that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from
abroad, but from right here at home.”
The article goes on for quite some time but this is the essence
of it and here is the Link to the entire WaPo Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/20/trump-democrats-seditious-behavior/
The
Old Colonel’s sage take on the subject
This
incident involving 6 Democrat Members of Congress has garnered extensive press
coverage over the past few days but unsurprisingly, this is the first Washington
Post (WaPo) mention of it. Although
5 of the 6 have served in the Military, I did an extensive look at their
service records and noticed NONE have ever served in a command position so have
NEVER exercised UCMJ authority. Hence, they are ALL giving some poor advice. This is coming from a Retired 30 year Army
Colonel that commanded 4 companies, was a battalion XO/acting Commander, a
Battalion Commander and a Brigade level Commander where I not only exercised
UCMJ authority in all the positions but in the last one I was a Court Martial
Convening Authority.
The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) which contains the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as an appendix states Service Members have a duty to disobey an order that “a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal.” Hence, a Service Member might have a duty to refuse to obey orders that are manifestly illegal but in the military justice system there is a presumption that orders are lawful unless proven otherwise so disobedience is done at one's own peril. There are plenty of stupid ill advised orders given that are still lawful orders that must be obeyed. It is easy for a Member of Congress to counsel a gullible young Service Member to disobey orders "they think may be illegal" but in 99 out of a 100 cases a General Court Martial will find the order lawful and rule against that young inexperienced Service Member defendant that was foolish enough to listen to a Member of Congress. The result for the poor badly advised Service Member is a Federal conviction on their record that will follow the offender for the rest of their life.
Of
course, The Dem-6 attempts to put “the fear of God” in young Service Members by
telling them that in the rare instance where they do obey orders that are
subsequently found to be unlawful, they are subject to discipline under the
UCMJ for obeying the order. This may be
technically true but almost unheard of.
Even in the case of the infamous My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, 26 Soldiers
were charged with criminal offenses but ONLY Lieutenant William Calley, the
Platoon Leader, was convicted. Bottom line is the Members of Congress advising young Service Members to
disobey orders suffer no adverse consequences while Service Members foolish
enough to listen to them have successfully sabotaged their futures.
Here
are the six Members of Congress advising Service Members to disobey orders they
“deem” illegal:
Congresswoman Elissa
Slotkin: (D MI-8) Never
served in the Military so was NEVER even subject to the Code let alone exercised Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) authority.
Congressman Jason Crow: (D CO-6) Spent 4 years as an Army
Ranger Officer completed three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and left the
Army as a Captain but NEVER
served in a command position where he exercised UCMJ authority.
Congresswoman Chrissy
Houlahan: (D PA-6) Served
3 years on Air Force active duty as a project manager working on air and space
defense technologies and left active duty in 1991 finally separating from the
Reserves as a Captain. She NEVER even served in a supervisory position let alone in command where
she would have exercised UCMJ authority.
Congresswoman Maggie
Goodlander: (D NH-1) Like
Hunter Biden, she got one of those political Naval Reserve Direct Commissions
because it looked good on a resume. Although she served as a Navy Reserve Intel
Officer for 11 years, she had no appreciable active duty time and never held a command nor
exercised UCMJ authority. Unlike Hunter Biden, she was honorably
discharged as a Lieutenant instead of being cashiered out with "Bad
Paper" for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and
discipline."
Congressman Chris Deluzio: (D PA-17) Graduated from the Naval
Academy and served as a naval officer from 2006 to 2012, where he was a surface
warfare officer. For a short time served as the executive officer of an Army
Civil Affairs company in Iraq while assigned to the USS Higgins (DDG-76) but he NEVER held a command position
nor exercised UCMJ authority.
Senator Mark Kelly: Democrat from Arizona is a retired
Navy Captain having served 24 years as an astronaut and Naval Aviator including
flying 39 combat missions during the Gulf War. He became an astronaut detached
from the Navy early in his career so he NEVER held a command position where he exercised UCMJ
authority.
Disobeying a lawful
order in the military is a serious offense under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) and can result in severe penalties,
including non-judicial punishment (Article 15), court-martial, a punitive
discharge (Bad Conduct or Dishonorable), forfeiture of pay and allowances, and
confinement.
The
specific charges and maximum punishments depend on the nature of the order, the
rank of the person who issued it, and the potential outcomes of the
disobedience.
Potential Legal
Consequences
Consequences
for failure to obey a lawful order vary based on the specific UCMJ article
violated:
Article 90: Willfully Disobeying a Superior
Commissioned Officer. This is considered one of the most severe offenses due to
its direct challenge to the chain of command.
Maximum
Punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
up to 5 years of confinement. In times of war, the penalty can even be death,
though this is rare.
Article 92: Failure to Obey an Order or
Regulation. This article covers a broader range of offenses, including violating
general orders, other specific orders, or being derelict in duty.
Violating a Lawful General
Order or Regulation:
Maximum
Punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
up to 2 years of confinement.
Failure to Obey Other
Lawful Orders:
Maximum
Punishment: Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and up
to 6 months of confinement.
Other Potential Actions
In addition to
court-martial, other actions may be taken:
Non-judicial
punishment (Article 15): Less severe violations may be handled at the unit
level, resulting in reprimands, extra duty, or loss of pay/rank, without a full
court-martial.
Administrative
Separation: A service member may be referred for administrative separation from
the military, potentially resulting in a less-than-honorable discharge and loss
of veteran benefits.
SOME OLD COLONEL FINAL THOUGHTS
The
military justice system is built on discipline and adherence to the chain of
command, so all violations are taken very seriously. Only blatant and flagrantly
illegal orders should be disobeyed but even then, remember orders from a
superior officer are presumed lawful so a Service Member must be prepared for
the consequences if the order is later deemed lawful.
This
is reminiscent of what happened during Vietnam. A collection of disgruntled
Military officers, many even service academy graduates, founded an anti-Vietnam
War organization called the Concerned Officers Movement (COM). One of their
most despicable activities occurred in 1971 when the aircraft carrier USS Constellation
was ordered to sail for Vietnam. A group of COM members met with and encouraged
crew members to desert so the ship couldn’t deploy. Although a few crew members
did miss movement in violation of The UCMJ Article 87, the ship departed on
schedule. What made this despicable was these COM members were already
discharged so were in no jeopardy of any punishment but the junior enlisted
members that they convinced to miss movement were in jeopardy of having a
Federal felony conviction on their record for the rest of their lives. These
COM Clowns neglected to mention to them this “little” detail and its adverse
effect on the rest of their lives.
