The White House swiftly defended President Donald Trump on Thursday following his controversial remarks advocating for the execution of several Democratic legislators. This backlash arose from a social media video featuring lawmakers urging military personnel to refuse illegal orders. During a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the officials’ statements jeopardized the military chain of command while refraining from condemning Trump’s incendiary suggestion that these lawmakers should be hanged.
President Trump made these remarks on his social media platform, Truth Social, where he accused Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with Representatives Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan, of “seditious behavior.” He described them as “traitors to our country,” calling for their arrest and trial. Trump later amplified his rhetoric by sharing a post advocating for their execution and asserting that their actions warranted punishment by death.
In response to media inquiries about these threats, Leavitt characterized the lawmakers’ military and intelligence backgrounds as an attempt to deliver a “radical message.” She contended that their claims misled those serving under Trump, suggesting they could defy lawful orders. Leavitt labelled the video a “very, very dangerous message,” hinting at potential legal repercussions. “I’m not a lawyer. I’ll leave that to the Department of Justice and the Department of War to decide,” she noted, mistakenly referencing the Department of Defense, which has been known by that name since 1947.
Leavitt accused the legislators of conspiring to incite chaos, despite their clear message urging troops to “refuse illegal orders.” Legal experts argue that the administration’s stance lacks grounding in current United States law. The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires service members to obey “all lawful orders,” yet this definition excludes commands that involve committing crimes or targeting civilians.
The legal framework for prosecuting these representatives appears tenuous, as legislators enjoy substantial immunity for statements made in their official roles. Moreover, the charge of “seditious behavior” mentioned by Trump does not exist in the U.S. criminal code as he suggested. The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1920, and while “seditious conspiracy” is a recognized federal crime, it pertains to plots to “levy war against the government” or to oppose the government by force. This statute was most recently invoked in relation to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, not in the context of elected officials discussing their constitutional obligations.
Even if the accusations of sedition were legally plausible, Trump’s assertion regarding capital punishment is incorrect. Under U.S. law, “seditious conspiracy” can lead to a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, not the death penalty.
In a joint statement released Thursday, the Democratic lawmakers addressed the threats they received. They remarked that it was “most telling” that the President deemed it punishable by death for them to reiterate lawful obligations. The group emphasized their commitment to supporting service members as they uphold their oaths. “Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and their obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty,” they stated.
This position stands in contrast to Leavitt’s assertion that “the sanctity of our military rests on the chain of command,” a statement that did not adequately address the distinction between lawful and unlawful orders raised by the lawmakers. The unfolding events raise critical questions about the safety of political discourse and the interpretation of legal frameworks governing military conduct.
