The recent video released by several Democratic lawmakers urges members of the military and intelligence community to refuse orders they believe are illegal, invoking the historic phrase “Don’t give up the ship.” The clip features former service members turned legislators and directly addresses uniformed personnel, repeating that they “can refuse illegal orders” while tying their oath to protecting the Constitution into the message. Critics see the piece as a provocative push that risks politicizing the armed forces and encouraging internal dissent during a tense moment in national politics. The conversation it sparks touches on loyalty, civilian control of the military, and where duty to the Constitution intersects with obedience to civilian leaders.
The original naval rallying cry “Don’t give up the ship” came from Captain James Lawrence after his ship was mortally wounded in the War of 1812, and it has long symbolized perseverance in the face of defeat. The new video repurposes that phrase as a call for vigilance among service members and intelligence officers, framing their role as guardians of constitutional limits. The lawmakers in the clip are all veterans or former intelligence personnel, which gives their message credibility among some audiences but raises concerns about the mixing of partisan politics with military identity. For those who view the military as apolitical, any exhortation that urges selective obedience is troubling.
The short clip features Sen. Elissa Slotkin alongside Sen. Mark Kelly and House members Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan, Maggie Goodlander, and Jason Crow, each with prior military or intelligence experience. Their intent, they say, is to speak directly to service members and remind them of the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution. To many conservatives, timing and tone matter: urging rank-and-file personnel to evaluate the legality of orders amid heated political conflict looks like a recipe for confusion and potential breakdowns in command. Civilian leaders have the authority to shape policy; when lawmakers start advising defiance, the line between lawful dissent and undermining order becomes fuzzy.
Embedded in the piece are segments where the participants make forceful claims about current threats to constitutional norms. The video implies serious danger coming “from right here at home,” and repeatedly stresses the importance of individual judgment among public servants. Critics argue this is a targeted suggestion aimed at current administration actions, even if no names are mentioned. The responsibility of elected officials is to debate and legislate, not to instruct troops on when to disobey orders during political disputes.
In her post on X, Slotkin said the group wanted to speak “directly” to service members, claiming “the American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.”
Kelly, a former Navy pilot, accused the Trump administration of “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” echoing similar claims from Crow and Slotkin.
At several points in the video, Kelly, Slotkin, and Deluzio repeat the line: “You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”
Goodlander joined Kelly in reminding viewers that “like us, you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.”
Language matters, and the phrase “You can refuse illegal orders” walks a fine line between lawful civil disobedience and encouraging fragmentation within the chain of command. The framers set civilian control of the military for a reason, and conservatives worry that when elected officials urge selective noncompliance, they undermine the very discipline that keeps forces ready and accountable. Military law already provides mechanisms for service members to refuse manifestly illegal orders, but invoking that principle from the floor of politics is different from legal counsel or judicial review. The concern is practical: in the heat of political battles, the threshold for what counts as “illegal” can become politicized and vague.
Supporters of the video say it is a prudent reminder of constitutional duties, not an incitement to rebellion, and they emphasize that the speakers are appealing to judgment and legal standards. Opponents see a pattern of rhetoric from some Democrats that increasingly frames political opponents as existential threats, which makes calls for exceptional measures more likely. In a polarized climate marked by assassination attempts and angry rhetoric, urging troops to interpret orders with a political lens risks further destabilizing the norms that separate military service from partisan fights. The stakes are high: undermining trust in civilian leadership or in the uniformed chain could have long-term consequences for national security.
The lawmakers close their message by returning to the historic line “Don’t give up the ship,” intending it as a rallying call to defend constitutional governance. For critics, that closing only amplifies the worry that the video is pushing for resistance rather than restraint. Debate over where duty to the Constitution intersects with obedience will continue, but the core question remains whether elected officials should be encouraging active judgment calls by uniformed personnel during an intense political moment. The short video ensures that argument won’t fade anytime soon.
Add comment