Senator Slotkin’s “You Must Refuse” Video Flirts With the Line on Sedition, Experts Say

“Taking this performative, self-aggrandizing message public to chase likes while pretending it’s ‘outreach’ to ethical military and intelligence personnel is gross—and unmistakably insurrectionist,” said Dr. Amber Brittain-Hale, Director of Policy Research at BrainStates.

A video released recently by Senator Elissa Slotkin has exploded across social media. It features Slotkin alongside several Democratic colleagues including Senator Mark Kelly, Representatives Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow, and Maggie Goodlander. Speaking directly to U.S. military service members, the Congressmen and women tell troops they “can” and “must” refuse “illegal orders” and that “no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

They never specify what orders they are talking about. They offer no examples of the supposed violations. They leave it vague; open to interpretation; perhaps deliberately incomplete.

In the words of Dr. Amber Brittain-Hale, Director of Policy Research at BrainStates—who holds a Ph.D. in Global Leadership—the Democrats’ message was “embarrassing and seditious.”

“Taking this performative, self-aggrandizing message public to chase likes while pretending it’s ‘outreach’ to ethical military and intelligence personnel is gross—and unmistakably insurrectionist,” Brittain-Hale said in response to the video.

Similar sentiments were echoed by Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Steve Miller: “Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection.”

Sen. Slotkin shot back telling Miller to “buff up on the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.”

The UCMJ does not contain a standalone article for “insurrection,” but that acts resembling it are charged under multiple provisions. Article 94 treats sedition—defined as creating or joining a revolt against lawful civil authority with the intent to overthrow it—on the same level as mutiny. Punishments can reach life imprisonment or death. Related acts fall under Articles 104 and 134 or can be charged through incorporated federal statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which criminalizes “incitement of insurrection.”

Similarly, Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to call forth the militia to suppress uprisings. Article II states that the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Article III treats levying war against the United States as treason. The Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies from office any individual who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and later engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

While Slotkin never provided direct clarification on what “illegal orders” prompted the viral video, she has since posted (and resposted) several videos of her speaking out against domestic deployments, including when President Trump ordered the 82nd Airborne Division to move toward Washington DC during nationwide unrest in 2020. In this very same video—which Slotkin posts—a legal expert reminds her that "the Department of Justice has looked at this issue going back to the 1970's when the Pentagon was under duress, as well as Washington D.C., and it was the opinion then that the President would have the authority to use federal troops to protect federal functions and property."

In another post, she wrote about how officers “up and down the chain” were allegedly “seeking legal cover” to avoid potential liability for “what could be illegal strikes.” 

“Could be illegal” is a much more measured attitude than the initial message of “you must refuse illegal orders.” Perhaps this change was prompted by the widespread backlash. After all, the video has been viewed over tens of millions of times across just the Senator’s X account alone—magnitudes more than the several thousand Slotkin typically gets on less controversial posts. Add to that a repost from the popular Libs of TikTok account with around 7 million views and another on Instagram by Fox News, plus national media coverage from countless news outlets across the country, and it’s clear the video got around. 

Indeed, the Senator’s feed is now filled with thousands of replies from service members or veterans—the overwhelming majority of which express concern and anger. Many use descriptors such as “reckless” and “dangerously incomplete,” implying the video’s ambiguity encourages rank-and-file service members to make ad-hoc legal judgments about their orders.

“What these Congresspeople are advocating for is nothing less than mutiny,” said Senior Advisor for the Director of National Intelligence at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Thomas Speciale, who is also a veteran. “Do not buy into the suggestion to be mutinous to the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of War.” 

Another X user simply posts the language of 18 U.S. Code § 2387 which forbids “advising, counseling, urging, or in any manner causing or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces” as well as "distributing any material with intent to cause such mutiny or disloyalty,” the penalty for which is “up to 20 years in prison, a fine, or both.”

“If Trump posted this exact same message asking military and intelligence personnel to resist a Democrat administration, what would happen? The New York Times would run front-page stories. Washington Post would have their entire team on it. CNN and MSNBC would have wall-to-wall coverage for weeks demanding sedition investigations. Rachel Maddow would dedicate her entire show to it every night. But when you do it? Crickets. Absolute silence from your media allies,” writes retired Army combat medic Mike Bski.

While Slotkin has faced the brunt of the criticism—the video originated on her account, after all—her colleagues have also had their feet held to the fire. In a live exchange on Fox News, Martha MacCallum put Rep. Crow on the spot, repeatedly asking the Congressman to name a specific illegal order that military personnel were being told to refuse. After a ten minute discussion, Crow failed to name anything specific illegal action beyond citing "comments" and "insinuations." 

“I’m trying to figure out specifically what your issue is,” MacCallum responded. “For members, prominent members of the United States Congress to tell young men and women of the military that they should not abide by illegal orders and to leave it so vague and to talk about comments that have been made in the past and what they might lead to, I think could potentially be very confusing for young men and women who have committed to service.”

Elsewhere, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth simply remarked that the Democrats’ video represented “Stage 4 TDS,” the popular acronym for Trump derangement syndrome.

“Hey @grok, what is the penalty in the U.S. for committing sedition?” asks one X user.