Trump and Hegseth’s Hysterical Reaction to an Ad
In a recent turn of events, a group of Democratic military veterans in Congress released an ad urging service members to refuse illegal orders, a move that has sparked a fierce backlash from the Trump administration. Instead of addressing the ad’s core message—an appeal for military personnel to uphold their constitutional duties—the administration responded with accusations of “seditious behavior” against the lawmakers involved. President Trump labeled the ad as insurrectionist, suggesting that those who promote such ideas could face severe penalties, including death. This reaction raises questions about the legality and morality of the orders being given from the White House, particularly in light of Trump’s controversial military policies and extralegal actions, such as unauthorized strikes against suspected drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean.
The ad itself does not advocate for disobedience to lawful orders; rather, it serves as a reminder for military members of their rights to avoid complicity in unlawful acts. The administration’s response, however, has been to escalate tensions, with White House adviser Stephen Miller claiming the ad incites rebellion. This is particularly concerning given Trump’s history of encouraging illegal military actions, such as advocating for torture and pardoning service members accused of war crimes. The administration’s aggressive stance seems to reflect a broader strategy to suppress dissent within the military ranks, as evidenced by the appointment of Pete Hegseth—who has openly criticized the military’s adherence to legal norms—as a key figure in the Defense Department. Hegseth’s ideology promotes a dangerous view that dismisses the importance of due process and the rule of law, suggesting that military actions should be free from legal constraints.
The administration’s reaction highlights a troubling trend where the boundaries between state authority and personal interests are increasingly blurred. By targeting those who uphold the Constitution and encouraging a culture of loyalty to Trump over legal obligations, the administration risks undermining the very principles upon which the military is founded. The ad’s premise—that the Trump administration’s commitment to lawful conduct is questionable—strikes at the heart of this issue, revealing a potential threat to democratic norms and the integrity of the armed forces. As the situation unfolds, it remains crucial to scrutinize how these developments may impact the military’s role in upholding constitutional values versus serving the interests of a singular political figure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Ic6Ox9nl4
Sign up for
Inside the Trump Presidency
, a newsletter featuring coverage of the second Trump term.
W
hen a group of
Democratic military veterans who serve in Congress released an ad last week urging service members to refuse orders if they are illegal, the Trump administration could have deployed an obvious defense:
What are you talking about? We’re not issuing or planning any illegal orders.
Instead, the administration has opted for a rebuttal that is considerably more self-incriminating. President Donald Trump swiftly took to social media to call out these lawmakers for “seditious behavior” that is “punishable by death.” “It is insurrection,” the White House adviser Stephen Miller
charged
. “It’s a general call for rebellion.”
In light of the administration’s undeclared military campaign in the Caribbean, which has included extralegal strikes against boats that are allegedly smuggling drugs, it might have made sense to let this controversy die down. Instead, Pete Hegseth’s self-styled Department of War took to
X
yesterday to announce that Senator Mark Kelly, a former Navy combat pilot and one of the Democrats who appeared in the ad, will be investigated for a possible court-martial owing to “serious allegations of misconduct.” The post goes on to remind military retirees that they are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits “actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces.”
It bears noting that the ad does not call for ignoring legal orders. It’s merely a public-service announcement reminding members of the military and the intelligence community of their right to avoid implication in crimes. The ad can be interpreted as a call for rebellion only if the orders coming from above are in fact illegal.
The problem is that the president seems to think that an action is just as long as he calls for it. Trump ran for office in 2016 openly and repeatedly calling for the military to illegally torture prisoners for intelligence purposes. “If I say, ‘Do it,’ they’re going to do it,” he insisted. Though he later conceded that the U.S. is in fact bound by “laws and treaties,” he
regularly pardoned
service members in his first term who were credibly accused or convicted of war crimes, often against the advice of his own military leadership.
In 2019, Trump reportedly
told
the head of Customs and Border Protection that he would pardon him for crimes he committed in service of Trump’s immigration-enforcement agenda. He has devoted much of his second term to making good on promises to pardon allies imprisoned for crimes committed in his service. Ed Martin, the U.S. pardon attorney at the Justice Department, publicly articulated this attitude when he claimed, “No MAGA left behind.”
[
Jonathan Chait: Trump’s campaign of vengeance is already backfiring
]
In Hegseth, Trump has found a willing partner. In his book,
The War on Warriors
, Hegseth
argues
that the military should enjoy a wide berth to commit war crimes. He came away from his time at Guantánamo Bay firm in the belief that people detained by the military do not deserve due process, and dismisses “the debate about the ‘rights’ of assholes (I mean, ‘detainees’) at Gitmo.” Hegseth goes on to mock the notion that wars should follow rules: “Our enemies should get bullets, not attorneys.”
In sum, the ad’s premise—that the Trump administration’s commitment to the law is less than unshakable—is well-founded.
Why the administration has responded so hysterically to this ad is obvious. Trump and Hegseth do not merely believe that they should be free to give illegal orders and that the rank and file should have to follow them. They are also keen to use the power of the state to suppress political dissent.
In his first term, Trump was rebuffed by top military officials when he
suggested
the military might shoot peaceful protesters. In his second term, he has placed the Defense Department under Hegseth, whose only qualification is a fanatical partisan loyalty. Hegseth has proceeded to carry out a purge that is driving out suspected non-loyalists, stripping the military of talent and sending a message to remaining officers that the faintest signs of political disloyalty could end their careers.
Trump’s purge of the armed forces and his “l’etat, c’est moi” approach to the law all spring from a single impulse to merge the state with his own interests. An ad instructing members of the military that they serve the United States and its Constitution, and don’t have to act as Donald Trump’s capos, strikes at the heart of his ethos. His demand to punish anybody who merely endorses the Constitution vindicates the charge that he is the document’s greatest enemy.
