Sedition? Democrats’ Video Creates Political Storm

Man speaks at podium with U.S. flag background.

A video urging military defiance against Trump ignites accusations of sedition and partisan conflict.

Story Highlights

Democratic lawmakers release a controversial video urging military and intelligence personnel to refuse unlawful orders.
Donald Trump and Republicans accuse Democrats of promoting sedition and undermining military command.
Pollster Frank Luntz criticizes the Democrats, warning of the risks to institutional trust and civil-military relations.
Expert opinions suggest the video accurately reflects legal obligations but question its political wisdom.

Democrats’ Video Sparks Controversy

On November 18, 2025, a group of Democratic lawmakers, many with military and intelligence backgrounds, released a video urging U.S. service members to refuse to carry out illegal orders. This bold move quickly drew the ire of former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies, who accused the Democrats of encouraging sedition.

The video, released amid a period of heightened political tension, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over civil-military relations and the potential misuse of executive power.

Pollster Frank Luntz, a prominent Republican figure, publicly criticized the Democrats’ strategy, questioning the wisdom and impact of releasing such a video. Luntz warned that the move could undermine trust in institutions and escalate partisan conflict, echoing concerns shared by other conservative voices about the politicization of the military. The video raises questions about the boundaries of lawful dissent and the responsibilities of elected officials in times of crisis.

Legal and Historical Context

The U.S. military’s obligation to refuse unlawful orders is well-established under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Nuremberg Principles, which make it clear that following manifestly illegal orders does not absolve individuals of responsibility for criminal acts.

This principle has gained renewed attention following events such as the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack and ongoing concerns over the politicization of the armed forces. The video taps into these fears, emphasizing the need for military personnel to adhere strictly to legal norms.

Despite the video aligning with legal standards, experts like Geoffrey S. Corn from Texas Tech University find its necessity “remarkable” in today’s political climate. While some view the video as a responsible reaffirmation of legal obligations, others, including Luntz, see it as performative and potentially destabilizing, highlighting the risks to the chain of command and institutional trust.

Responses and Implications

The release of the video has prompted a swift and polarized response. On one side, Democratic lawmakers defend their actions, emphasizing the duty to follow only lawful orders. On the other, Trump and Republicans warn of chaos within the military chain of command and accuse the Democrats of subversion.

This controversy underscores the deepening partisan divides and anxieties about the politicization of the military, with potential long-term consequences for civil-military relations and the conduct of elected officials.

In the short term, the video has increased partisan tensions and could lead to confusion or anxiety within military ranks about their obligations. In the long term, it risks eroding trust in the military’s nonpartisan status and setting a precedent for future political appeals to the armed forces.

The incident serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between civilian control and military independence in maintaining a stable democracy.

The broader public, elected officials, and military personnel are all affected by this controversy, which has no direct economic impact but significant political and social implications. As the debate continues, the need for clear communication and adherence to legal standards becomes ever more critical in navigating these complex issues.