\n
“Don\u2019t give up the ship.” This iconic phrase, etched into American military history, is famously attributed to Captain James Lawrence during the War of 1812. He uttered it while mortally wounded aboard the USS Chesapeake<\/em>, which was locked in a brutal battle against the British frigate HMS Shannon<\/em>. Though Lawrence’s words went down in history as a rallying cry for perseverance and loyalty to the mission, the Chesapeake<\/em> was eventually captured. This remains a sobering reminder that slogans, no matter how heroic or well-meaning, do not replace effective strategy, leadership, and disciplined command in warfare.<\/p>\n But in 2025, this same rallying cry is being resurrected \u2014 not in the context of military strategy or leadership, but in a politically charged ad designed to challenge the authority of the U.S. Commander-in-Chief. A group of Democrat lawmakers has posted a controversial video urging active military and intelligence personnel to defy what they determine to be “illegal” orders \u2014 a direct challenge to the established chain of command.<\/p>\n Though the video doesn\u2019t explicitly name Donald Trump, the target is unmistakably clear. The implication is so obvious that even the most casual observer can deduce that this is a veiled call to resist the policies of the former president and to act in opposition to the government. While Democrats may be careful not to cross the line into open calls for insurrection, the language used, especially in the current political climate, raises alarm bells that cannot be easily ignored.<\/p>\n The video, which was posted on social media by Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, features a lineup of Democratic lawmakers who are former military or intelligence personnel. They have taken it upon themselves to speak “directly” to current service members, urging them to stand up to what they deem illegal orders. The lawmakers claim that they want to protect the Constitution and safeguard the laws of the United States, but their words seem to skirt the line between a legitimate call to uphold the rule of law and something more dangerous.<\/p>\n In addition to Slotkin, the video features Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Representatives Chris Deluzio (PA-17), Chrissy Houlahan (PA-6), Maggie Goodlander (NH-2), and Jason Crow (CO-6). All of them are military veterans or intelligence professionals, using their military backgrounds to frame their political message. It\u2019s an image that carries weight, given their service, but this weight seems to be used in service of a dangerous political narrative.<\/p>\n While the video\u2019s rhetoric is not overtly violent or insurrectionist, its implications cannot be easily dismissed. The primary message is repeated several times by Slotkin, Kelly, and Deluzio: \u201cYou can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.\u201d This is a call for military and intelligence personnel to exercise their discretion in determining which orders are legal and which are not, implying that they are morally bound to ignore orders from the current Commander-in-Chief if they believe those orders are unlawful.<\/p>\n The most disturbing element of the video is the implicit invitation to defy lawful authority. While the video stops short of encouraging active rebellion, it plants a seed of doubt in the minds of military personnel and intelligence officers. It implicitly undermines the authority of the commander-in-chief by suggesting that officers can make independent judgments on the legality of orders, which undermines the chain of command that is crucial for the effective functioning of the military.<\/p>\n This concept has dangerous implications. The military operates on a strict hierarchical structure, where orders from superior officers must be followed for the institution to function effectively. The system is designed to ensure that military personnel act cohesively, under unified strategic objectives, without individual interpretation or insubordination.<\/p>\n But the video disregards this essential principle. By suggesting that military and intelligence personnel can unilaterally refuse orders based on their personal sense of legality, the lawmakers are, at the very least, undermining the integrity of military discipline. At worst, they are encouraging a form of insubordination that could destabilize military operations, especially in times of national crisis or conflict.<\/p>\n The video\u2019s language, especially when it calls on military personnel to “stand up for our laws and our Constitution,” also taps into a divisive narrative that Democrats have used in recent years, particularly during Donald Trump\u2019s presidency. It casts Trump as a threat to the very fabric of American democracy, and by extension, as a danger to the Constitution itself. This framing is not only inaccurate but deeply irresponsible, as it conflates legitimate political disagreements with an existential crisis. While the political tension of the Trump era was undoubtedly high, framing a democratically elected president as a threat to the nation\u2019s founding principles is a dangerous form of rhetoric.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s be clear: the language used in this video does not explicitly call for violence or open insurrection. However, it does suggest that military and intelligence personnel should act against the orders of a sitting president if they believe those orders to be “illegal.”<\/p>\n This is not the same as simply protesting or dissenting. Military personnel are not free to protest in the same way as civilians. Insubordination \u2014 refusing to follow lawful orders \u2014 is not a protected form of expression in the military; it\u2019s an act of sedition. If those in positions of power within the military or intelligence communities acted on these suggestions and refused to follow orders from the President, it could result in grave consequences for national security and stability.<\/p>\n The idea of calling on military personnel to defy orders has a long history in American politics, often tied to moments of intense political division. In the lead-up to the Civil War, for example, there were widespread calls for defying the Union government\u2019s orders in the South. Similarly, during the Vietnam War, the question of whether soldiers should follow orders in an unpopular war led to widespread protests and some forms of military dissent. But this current call, made by elected representatives of the United States Congress, comes in a very different context. It is an implicit invitation to refuse lawful orders during a time of relative peace, with little justification beyond political disagreement.<\/p>\n While the First Amendment protects the right to free speech and political dissent, the same protections do not extend to military personnel when it comes to defying orders. If military members start interpreting the legality of orders based on their personal political opinions, the consequences could be catastrophic. Military forces are only as effective as their cohesion, and the integrity of their command structure is crucial to their ability to act as a unified force.<\/p>\n In this sense, the rhetoric put forward by these Democratic lawmakers borders on sedition, as it calls for resistance within the very institutions tasked with protecting the American republic. Whether intended or not, this rhetoric sends a message that undermines the authority of elected leaders, weakens the rule of law, and creates a dangerous precedent for future political conflicts.<\/p>\n This video is not an isolated incident in terms of the language used by Democrats in the Trump era. Over the last several years, many prominent Democrats have increasingly adopted confrontational and at times violent rhetoric in their political messaging. This rhetoric has been aimed not just at Trump himself, but at his supporters, his policies, and even the institutions that uphold American democracy.<\/p>\n From calls to “resist” Trump’s administration to public figures like Maxine Waters urging people to “get in the faces” of Trump\u2019s supporters, the political language used has become progressively more radical. And while these instances may not represent the views of every Democrat, they illustrate a broader trend of increasingly divisive language in American politics.<\/p>\n In the case of this video, the lawmakers\u2019 message is especially troubling because it combines the use of military service as a form of political legitimacy with an explicit call for disobedience. It tells active-duty military personnel that if they disagree with the President’s orders, they have not only the right but the moral obligation to defy them. This rhetoric is dangerously close to advocating for civil disobedience, but in a domain where disobedience has far more dire consequences.<\/p>\n Imagine for a moment if Republicans had made a similar video during Joe Biden\u2019s presidency. The outrage would be deafening. Democrats, and particularly their media allies, would be apoplectic. Calls for sedition or insubordination, particularly when aimed at the military or intelligence community, would be condemned as dangerous, unpatriotic, and irresponsible. Yet, when the roles are reversed, this rhetoric seems to be met with little more than a shrug or even tacit approval from some corners of the left.<\/p>\n This hypocrisy is not lost on the public, especially when one considers that the same lawmakers who are pushing for military resistance to the President’s orders are the ones who, just a few years ago, were fiercely defending the need for unity, civility, and respect for constitutional processes. It\u2019s hard to reconcile these contradictory positions, and the resulting confusion only serves to deepen the political divide in the country.<\/p>\n Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this video is the normalization of political division. In a functioning democracy, political disagreements are natural and necessary, but there are limits to how far these divisions can go before they threaten the fabric of society itself. When individuals in positions of power begin to encourage government officials, military personnel, and intelligence officers to resist a duly elected president, it crosses a line from political discourse to political sabotage.<\/p>\n America has survived periods of extreme political tension before, from the Civil War to the McCarthy era. But in each of those periods, there were still boundaries \u2014 a sense of decorum and an understanding that despite deep divisions, the institutions of government must be respected if the country is to function. Encouraging military personnel to defy orders and question the legitimacy of the president sets a dangerous precedent for future political<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" “Don\u2019t give up the ship.” This iconic phrase, etched into American military history, is famously attributed to Captain James Lawrence during the War of 1812. He uttered it while mortally wounded aboard the USS Chesapeake, which was locked in a brutal battle against the British frigate HMS Shannon. Though Lawrence’s words went down in history…<\/p>\nThe Video and Its Implied Message<\/h3>\n
A Call to Defy Authority<\/h3>\n
Sedition and the Line Between Protest and Subversion<\/h3>\n
The Democratic Rhetoric: A Pattern of Escalating Language<\/h3>\n
Hypocrisy in Democratic Responses<\/h3>\n
The Dangers of Normalizing Political Divisions<\/h3>\n