Disobeying an Unlawful Order
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
11/23/2025
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
11/23/2025
Thomas: What was the seditious behavior, punishable by death, that President Trump was referring to? What was the context of this comment?
Grok: The Seditious Behavior Trump Referred To
President Trump was referring to a video released by six Democratic members of Congress—veterans and former national security professionals—who urged active-duty U.S. military members and intelligence officials to refuse any “illegal orders” from superiors. The lawmakers emphasized that service members have a duty to disobey commands that violate the U.S. Constitution, laws, or ethical standards, drawing on their own oaths of enlistment. Trump characterized this public encouragement as “seditious behavior at the highest level,” labeling the lawmakers “traitors” and suggesting it warranted arrest, trial, and punishment under sedition laws, which he noted could include the death penalty in extreme cases (though sedition itself is not typically capital under current U.S. law; treason is).
In his Truth Social posts on November 20, 2025, Trump wrote:
- “This is really bad and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. LOCK THEM UP???”
- A follow-up post: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
He also reposted content from other users, including one calling for the lawmakers to be hanged, echoing historical sentiments like those attributed to George Washington.
Context of the Comment
The video, posted on social media earlier that day (November 20, 2025), was framed as a reminder of military and intelligence oaths to the Constitution, not to any individual leader. The lawmakers involved included figures like Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), a Marine Corps veteran, and others with backgrounds in the Army, Navy, and CIA. They stated: “We are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution… That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it.” The message was interpreted by critics of Trump as a preemptive caution against potential abuses of power in his administration, given his past rhetoric on using the military for domestic enforcement (e.g., against protests or deportations) and statements questioning the legality of certain orders.
Trump’s response escalated quickly, framing the video as an attempt to incite a “military coup” or undermine chain-of-command loyalty to him as commander-in-chief. This occurred amid heightened partisan tensions post-2024 election, with Democrats voicing concerns over Trump’s nominations and policy proposals (e.g., mass deportations, Schedule F reforms targeting civil servants). The White House later clarified via Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that Trump was “defining the crime of sedition” rather than issuing direct threats, but the posts drew widespread condemnation.
Reactions and Aftermath
- Democrats: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark, and others called Trump’s words “disgusting and dangerous death threats,” urging him to delete the posts and Republicans to condemn them. The targeted lawmakers issued a joint statement: “We unequivocally condemn Donald Trump’s… calls for our murder and political violence. What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law.” They coordinated with Capitol Police for security.
- Republicans: House Speaker Mike Johnson described the Democrats’ video as “wildly inappropriate” and “very dangerous,” defending Trump by saying he was factually noting sedition’s penalties but conceded, “The words that the president chose are not the ones that I would use… Obviously, I don’t think that these are crimes punishable by death.”
- Trump’s Clarification: On November 22, 2025, in a Fox News interview, Trump said he was “not threatening death” but that the Democrats were “in serious trouble,” adding, “If you look at sedition, that’s a form of… a very strong form of being a traitor.”
- Broader Implications: Legal experts noted that the Democrats’ statement aligns with established U.S. military doctrine (e.g., the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires refusing unlawful orders), making sedition charges unlikely. The incident fueled debates on free speech, military loyalty, and escalating rhetoric, with some viewing it as Trump testing boundaries on loyalty oaths in his second term.
This event highlights ongoing divisions over executive power, military independence, and the limits of political speech in a polarized environment.
Thomas: This issue is about two different topics:
1) Sedition: The intent to overthrow a Godly government. Treason/Sedition should rightfully carry the death penalty.
2) Disobeying unlawful orders. Disobeying an unlawful (unGodly) order is a moral requirement of personal agency and responsibility to God. Each person must have a clear and strong moral center, knowing the spirit and the letter of God’s law, and act from that center.
The larger question is the morality of an order. Is it lawful to command troops to quell riots, property destruction, and murder when local authorities do not have the resources or will to resist the force? I believe the Kingdom of God must be defended. I frame our nation as founded on God’s principles. When the grounds/property of the kingdom is under threat by evil, then it is necessary to respond to the invasion by evil with the force appropriate to repel its advance, and to eliminate its presence.
The military, as the arm of force used to defend God’s Kingdom on this earth, must be used to repel an invasion of evil. If the members of the military, sworn to defend the Constitution and God’s Kingdom, from all enemies, foreign and domestic, refuse to execute such orders, such officers and enlisted who refuse such orders are engaged in treason/sedition against the nation.