The Veterans' Video: A Legal Reminder or Ethical Overreach in an Ongoing Political Battle?

(Opinion)

In a politically charged era where trust in institutions is at a historic low, a recent video released by six Democratic lawmakers—all veterans or former intelligence professionals—has ignited fierce debate. On November 18, 2025, Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Representatives Jason Crow (D-CO), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), posted a one-minute message on X (formerly Twitter) addressed to U.S. military and intelligence personnel. The video, which has garnered over 1.6 million views, emphasized the oath to defend the Constitution and reminded service members of their right to refuse illegal orders. While no specific illegal directives from the Trump administration were cited, the message framed current policies as pitting the military against American citizens and highlighted perceived, not actual, domestic threats to the Constitution.

This action, while as far as I have learned falls short of legal thresholds for crimes like sedition, raises profound ethical questions about political interference in the military chain of command. It also peels back another layer in what critics describe as a persistent effort by a bipartisan establishment—often labeled the "uniparty"—to obstruct and undermine President Donald Trump's authority, contrary to the clear mandate given by American voters in the 2024 election. To be clear, this critique does not apply to all Democrats or Republicans; many in both parties operate in good faith, prioritizing constituent needs over institutional gamesmanship. Rather, it points to a handful of key figures whose actions and words reveal a pattern of resistance that prioritizes self-benefit and enrichment over the will of the American people.

Legal Safeguards vs. Ethical Concerns

Legally, the video appears protected under the First Amendment as political speech. It restates established principles from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which presumes orders lawful but mandates refusal of those violating the Constitution or laws, such as the Posse Comitatus Act limiting domestic military use. No calls for force, violence, or blanket disobedience were made, and legal experts across the spectrum have noted it does not meet definitions of seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) or incitement. Take that for what you will. President Trump's November 20 response—labeling it "seditious behavior, punishable by death" and calling for arrests—has been critiqued as hyperbolic, though it underscores the tension.

From an ethical standpoint, the video crosses a line for many viewers, including the author. By mentioning "enormous stress" from administration policies without evidence of illegality, it risks undermining the presumption of lawful orders, potentially weakening military unity during global challenges. Critics contend this is not just civic education but a strategic effort to question Trump's legitimacy as commander-in-chief, particularly during ongoing deployments like National Guard support in urban immigration enforcement. The lawmakers' veteran status—emphasized at the beginning of the video—creates an "us-against-them" scenario, presenting them as authoritative insiders warning of a perceived internal threat. This approach, while not illegal, is manipulative, especially since no specific examples of unlawful orders were given, leaving room or creating it for misinterpretation among service members.

Supporters of the lawmakers counter that it's a principled reminder of constitutional duties, born from genuine concerns over past Trump-era rhetoric (e.g., discussions of using troops against protesters). Yet, in a common-sense view, the absence of specifics and the timing—shortly after Trump's electoral victory—suggest a preemptive strike aimed at delegitimizing his agenda before it fully unfolds.

Peeling Back the Layers:

An Ongoing Pattern of Obstruction

This incident does not stand alone; it fits into a broader narrative of resistance that has shadowed Trump since 2016. Through their own actions and words, a select group of establishment figures—Democrats and Republicans alike—have consistently worked to obstruct his policies, often under the guise of "defending democracy." This "uniparty," as it's colloquially termed, isn't a shadowy cabal but a network revealed by voting records, public statements, and bipartisan collaborations that prioritize institutional stability over voter-directed change.

Consider the key players, identified not by labels but by their own deeds: Verify it for yourself.

• Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): As Democratic leaders, they've coordinated messaging against Trump, including defending the video as a stand against "intimidation." Schumer's 2017 warning about the intelligence community's "six ways from Sunday" to retaliate has been cited as foreshadowing tactics like this video.

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC): On the Republican side, they've slow-walked Trump's reforms, voting for massive spending bills that ballooned debt while blocking aggressive oversight of agencies like the FBI.

• Liz Cheney (R-WY, former) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL, former): Their roles in the January 6 committee exemplified cross-aisle efforts to personalize attacks on Trump's character.

• Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly: As video participants, their intelligence and military backgrounds lend credibility, but their alignment with establishment priorities (e.g., supporting Ukraine aid packages) ties them to this network.

  
  

Individuals such as Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have led efforts in impeachments, legal challenges (e.g., multiple indictments dismissed after the election), and funding disputes that hindered Trump's "America First" agenda. The 2024 election—where Trump won the popular vote, all swing states, and 312 electoral votes—was a rejection of Biden-era policies like high inflation and border insecurity. However, obstruction continues after the victory: Senate delays on nominees, bipartisan links of Ukraine aid to spending bills leading to government shutdowns, and now this video is potentially causing hesitation in the military. I emphasize again, look it up for yourself; their actions and words categorize them as a "uniparty," not me.

Importantly, this is not a critique of all Democrats or Republicans. Progressive/Marxist Democrats such as Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have spoken out against corporate influence in both parties, while genuine conservative Republicans like Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) have advocated for reforms against the establishment. The uniparty represents a minority elite, but its influence is magnified through media and institutional channels. They employ coercion, intimidation, or even political blackmail to pressure moderates into compliance. When someone like John Fetterman dares to exercise independent thought, they are quickly vilified, and efforts are made to have them primaried and damage their reputations in the process. These are not kind individuals.

The Conspiracy Revealed:

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

The ongoing nature of this resistance is evident in the players' own rhetoric and votes. Schumer's calls to "fight every step" against Trump, Jeffries' framing of responses as "death threats," and the video's vague warnings all follow a pattern: Accuse opponents of the very tactics being employed—undermining authority while claiming victimhood. This creates confusion, testing public resolve and flipping narratives to portray obstruction as heroism. What this creates is a kind of corruption fatigue or normalization of dysfunction. When corruption becomes the default state of society long enough, people often lose the ability to distinguish genuine reform from manipulative power plays.

Ethically, this amounts to a conspiracy against the American people: By maliciously and constantly attacking Trump's character and authority, these figures obstruct the will expressed at the ballot box. All the while screeching at the top of their lungs that Donald Trump is a danger to democracy. It's not about policy disagreement but a systemic effort to preserve a status quo of endless wars, ballooning debt, and elite grift—often masked as "bipartisanship." As layers peel back, from Russiagate to this video, the pattern reveals itself: A handful driving division to maintain control.

In a balanced evaluation, the creators of the video or, as I see them, the marionettes, might really think they're safeguarding the nation. Personally, I don't believe that for a moment. I suspect they were fully aware of their actions considering their past behavior, but that's just my perspective. Nonetheless, in the realm of public ethics, it undermines trust in our Commander in Chief, our President. Voters deserve leaders who respect mandates, not those who manipulate them. Investigations are ongoing.

---