‘Sedition Is a Major Crime’: Trump Hammers Democrats Who Told Military to Defy ‘Illegal Orders’

Breitbart ^ | 11/23/2025 | AMY FURR

[SmokingJoe]

The group of Democrat lawmakers who told military members to disobey orders should be locked up, President Donald Trump proposed Saturday.

Trump made his statements after those lawmakers, including Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), were featured in a video on Tuesday urging troops to ignore orders in the clip that said “Don’t give up the ship,” per Fox News.

In his post on Truth Social, Trump said, “THE TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW, NOT ROAMING THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THEY SAID WAS OK. IT WASN’T, AND NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!”

In a subsequent post, the president wrote, “MANY GREAT LEGAL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THE DEMOCRAT TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS, AS PRESIDENT, HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME OF SERIOUS PROPORTION!”

[SmokingJoe]

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin Admits That Trump Has Not Issued Illegal Orders to U.S. Military

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/11/23/michigan-sen-elissa-slotkin-admits-that-trump-has-not-issued-illegal-orders-to-u-s-military/

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Article II, Section 3 of the constitution, REQUIRES the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, which includes enforcing immigration laws.

Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States

But why even point this out, why even complain about what they said because we all know NOTHING is going to happen to them!!

[cld51860]

While the “illegal orders” part of this idiotic video is important, there needs to be more discussion about when they said this administration is “pitting the military against American citizens.” Both of them together are not only incredibly dangerous but certainly illegal. It sounds like a call to arms within the military against the duly elected president.

18 U.S. Code Section 2387.

[vpintheak]

If these smarmy jackwagons didn’t mean anything by it, let them explain exactly why they felt they had to release this message right now.

[Fido969]

Democrap politicians have said Trump moving NG to cities is “illegal”.

Does that give the right for troops to refuse to follow those orders?

Democraps are setting some very naive and vulnerable soldiers up to be martyrs to their TDS cause.

Also, why haven’t the seditious 6 been confronted with that paradox?

[aquila48]

I hope he sics the DOJ after them! They truly should be in jail!

[SENTINEL]

I am sick and tired of hearing Trump WHINE to us about crime. He alone has the power and duty to order MILITARY TRIBUNALS and immediate arrest.

Still ZERO arrests.

DERELICTION OF DUTY!!

[Forward the Light Brigade]

They tried to hedge their bets by not naming a “crime” that was illegal—implying that using National Guard to help clean up blue cities was somehow a crime because the Blue Governors didn’t approve. Please wait until Trump has really done a crime before speculating that he will. Clearly an attempt to undermine the President’s authority with the military—Watch, they have a corporal in the wings going to resist an order to help the police or ICE Agents. He is all set up with weeping Mom (life long Democrat), saddened wife and three young children as he is sent to the Brig or worse. Maybe they hope some soldier-Democrat will shoot the president for his “dictatorial” crimes. Then they will be so sad—they didn’t mean it that way-—etc...

[Kudsman]

Words mean things.

No one is above the law.

Senators are not above the law.

Mutiny is a capital offense.

Justice is blind.

[gundog]

Trump is supposed to waltz in and do the work of State and local Executive branches?

[Reynoldo]

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin Admits That Trump Has Not Issued Illegal Orders to U.S. Military

Did someone say that Trump issued illegal orders?

[Kudsman]

Absolutely. Try Governor JB Pritzger. This attack on President Trump is multi faceted. One insurrectionist calls President Trump's orders illegal. Then 6 different insurrectionists call for mutiny. Nice try. Try again.

Uses the exact word: Illegal

[clearcarbon]

"Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin Admits That Trump Has Not Issued Illegal Orders to U.S. Military"

Shitcan slotkin!

[Kudsman]

In addition to my previous. This now constitutes a conspiracy. Put that in your pipe and blow it.

[Kudsman]

She is caught. So she does what all evil Dems do. She lies again. Someone needs to ask her if Pritzger said the President is issuing illegal orders. Or Greasy Gavin said similar. Don’t allow her to say she never said he issued illegal ordsrs. Plenty of Dems already have. She called for mutiny. End of story.

[hillarys cankles]

He’s the damn president of the United States. If that’s such a tall order then why do we even vote anymore? If he can’t hold politicians accountable for telling the military to ignore his orders then this entire thing we are doing is a huge charade.

[Political Junkie Too]

Below is an AI rewrite into narrative essay form of a conversation that I had with the AI over this story.

Political Theater and Double Standards: The Death Penalty in Contemporary Treason and Sedition Rhetoric

Introduction

Recent events in American politics have exposed deep rifts not only in ideology and governance but in the nature and reception of accusations themselves. The history of treason and sedition in American discourse is well known—most famously, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed in the 1950s for passing atomic secrets to the USSR. Today, such language resurfaces amidst a heated environment, where allegations fly between left and right in a struggle not just for power but moral high ground.

Russiagate and the Power of Accusation

During the original Russiagate investigation, prominent Democrats—including former CIA Director John Brennan and Representative Maxine Waters—publicly accused President Trump of treason over alleged ties to Russia. Brennan called Trump's actions “nothing short of treasonous” after the Helsinki summit, and Waters asserted that Congress "missed our opportunity to impeach him for treason". These accusations were grave; under federal law, treason is a capital crime, punishable by death or a lengthy prison term. Yet, as the Durham investigation and intelligence disclosures later revealed, the underlying evidence—including the infamous Steele dossier—was opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign, not verified intelligence. The public record now indicates that after Clinton's unexpected defeat, the Obama administration orchestrated an abrupt reversal of intelligence community assessments to bolster a narrative of Russian interference favoring Trump. This narrative, promoted at the highest levels, fueled years of investigation, media coverage, and public divisiveness.

Trump's Response and the New Outrage

Fast forward to November 2025: President Trump, angered by Democratic lawmakers' calls for military members to disregard what they deemed illegal orders, accused his opponents of seditious conspiracy. He invoked language surrounding the death penalty, stating that “seditious behavior” is “punishable by DEATH”. Legally, sedition is a serious federal crime but does not carry the death penalty—treason does. Nonetheless, this remark sparked immediate outrage among Democrats and the media, who decried Trump's language as dangerous, unprecedented, and tantamount to incitement.

Symmetry and Selective Outrage

From the perspective of the general public, these distinctions—treason versus sedition, directness versus innuendo—are largely invisible. Americans saw Democrats accuse Trump of a crime historically resulting in execution, later revealed to be based on manufactured evidence and coordinated intelligence choreography. When Trump subsequently weaponized similar rhetoric, albeit about an actual public act, the response was outrage and alarm. This double standard raises questions about selective outrage and political theater, particularly when the initial framing now appears to have been more damaging and less substantiated than the subsequent presidential rhetoric.

The Enduring Credibility Gap

The credibility gap is striking: accusations of treason were made and amplified for years based on opposition research disguised as intelligence, then reversed in their reception when Trump made similar accusations about Democratic conduct. Both episodes relied on emotionally charged language that, in historical context, carried the gravest possible consequences—execution. The difference in how these episodes are received is not simply a matter of law or rhetorical nuance, but of partisanship and political expediency.

This ongoing pattern reveals the weakness in America's contemporary political climate: the selective moral outrage of those who would wield accusations of death-worthy crimes, only to recoil when similar charges are brought against them. It is not merely a matter of technical distinction, but of a dangerous precedent set by the co-opting of America’s most severe criminal terminology in the battle for power.

⁂

-PJ

[Kudsman]

You still here? Or did you jump to another account? Cat is going get your tongue.

[Liz]

The Trump administration has often cited “out-of-control” crime in these cities as justification for Ntl Guard deployments.

Trump has recently deployed or attempted to deploy the National Guard to Democratic-led (”blue”) cities as part of an anti-crime initiative. The “crime” referred to in the user’s query likely refers to the various legal and political challenges and criticisms that these deployments have faced from local and state officials.

Critics, including Democratic officials and some criminologists, have described the deployments as “political theater” or a “stunt” designed to appeal to Trump’s political base rather than a genuine or effective crime-fighting strategy.

Local Opposition: Governors and mayors in cities like Portland, Chicago, and Baltimore have strongly objected to the federal deployments, arguing that they did not request the assistance and that the presence of military personnel could damage community trust in law enforcement.

Several legal battles have erupted over the deployments, particularly regarding the interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally restricts the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. A federal judge in one case ruled that the use of troops in Los Angeles was illegal, though an appeals court later overturned a related ruling.