The oath taken by every U.S. service member is a sacred and non-negotiable vow. It is a commitment to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution—a commitment that stands above any individual President, any political party, or any order that violates the law. This ultimate principle has recently become the focus of a stunning political confrontation, as six U.S. Senators, most of whom carry the weight of military rank and battlefield experience, publicly reminded active-duty personnel of their core obligation: to refuse illegal orders.

The public video released by the group of Senators—including Alyssa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow, with service records spanning the Navy, Army, Air Force, and CIA—was not a call for sedition. On the contrary, it was a simple reiteration of a fundamental principle instilled since the first day of boot camp: no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or the Constitution. Yet, this message of adherence to the law was met by the Trump administration and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth with outrage, threats of punishment, and brutal political retaliation, plunging the civil-military relationship into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

The Politicized Oath: Trump’s “Traitor” Reaction

The initial reaction from President Donald Trump was an explosion of indignation, accusing the Senators of committing “sedition” and calling them “traitors” simply for repeating standard military training. Astoundingly, he went so far as to imply that they should be punished by death. Although the White House later attempted to walk back this statement, Trump’s adamant stance that something punitive should happen to them remains.

The “pearl clutching” by the former President—a man who dodged the draft five times—in accusing these Senators with impressive records of national service of being “traitors” is a remarkable piece of irony. This is the same individual who incited a truly seditious riot on January 6, 2021, and has since sought to pardon 1,600 of those who stormed the Capitol, some of whom have been rearrested on completely heinous charges. This politician, who attempted to overthrow election results, is now condemning a reminder of constitutional duty as an act of betrayal. This hypocrisy forces any service member to question the real motivation behind his reaction.

In reality, the action taken by the members of Congress is not only their right but their constitutional obligation. The U.S. Constitution mandates that Congress is responsible for raising, funding, and setting the rules and standards of operation for the military, including training. Therefore, Congressional oversight to ensure the military acts in accordance with American law and international law is both expected and required.

The Secretary of Defense Targets “Captain America” Mark Kelly

If Trump’s words were astonishing, the actions of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth were even more ludicrous and dangerous. Hegseth, who has been accused of having the biggest “imposter syndrome” in Washington, chose to retaliate by publicly seeking to recall Senator Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) to active duty, organize a court-martial, and strip him of his rank and eliminate his pension.

Out of the six Senators, Hegseth picked an inexcusably ridiculous target: Mark Kelly. Kelly is a former U.S. Navy Captain who flew multiple combat missions, narrowly avoiding being shot down repeatedly. After completing his military service, he continued his national contribution as a highly successful astronaut and Space Shuttle pilot. Furthermore, he is married to former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot and nearly killed while meeting with constituents. Kelly’s life and the sacrifices of his family stand as irrefutable testaments to service and loyalty to the country.

The act of a Secretary of Defense threatening a Senator with such an unmatched service record—especially when compared to a five-time draft dodger or an underachieving Major who failed to meet command requirements—is utterly preposterous and only highlights the deep political motivations within the administration. Fortunately, Senator Kelly is not a man to be intimidated, and he has vowed to continue delivering the message: “Hey, do lawful things while you’re in the uniform.”

The Dangerous Context: Unlawful Strikes in Venezuela

The real reason active-duty officers were questioning orders emerged from a preceding crisis. The administration had executed unauthorized military strikes in Venezuela, justifying the indiscriminate killing of Venezuelan citizens by labeling them “narco-terrorists” without providing any verifiable proof.

These baseless strikes caused active-duty military officers to seek legal opinions outside the Pentagon because they knew in their core that these actions made no sense and were potentially illegal. The culmination of this silent protest was the resignation and retirement of Admiral Hally, who was in charge of the U.S. Southern Command, as he could no longer tolerate the operation orders lacking legal basis.

In the Navy, the standard procedure for suspected smuggling involves “Visit, Board, Search, Seizure (VBSS)”: approaching the boat, searching, and if contraband is found, arresting the individuals and turning them over to proper authorities to ensure due process is followed. The act of indiscriminate killing without proof, instead of adhering to this protocol, is fundamentally different and a severe violation of the laws of war, eroding international trust in the American military.

The Historical Lesson of Vigilance

The Senators’ message to “refuse illegal orders” is not a new invention. It is a necessary reminder because, as history has shown, even the great American military has had instances where its actions were completely off-base and illegal. Historical blemishes such as the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, the Abu Ghraib scandal during the Global War on Terrorism, the Iran-Contra affair under Reagan, and General MacArthur’s blatant disregard for President Truman’s orders during the Korean War, all serve as critical examples.

Without vigilance, and without empowering soldiers to act on their legal instincts, illegal actions can occur, resulting in disastrous consequences and causing other nations to lose trust in the American military.

That is why the standards for U.S. military operations must remain high. And the core oath of every service member is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution by obeying the law, not through personal loyalty to a President or political party. Questioning or punishing those who dare to reiterate this fundamental principle is not their problem; it is the problem of those attempting to bend the law to serve their political interests.