The White House on Thursday formally defended President Donald Trump's call for the execution of several Democratic legislators. The controversy stems from a social media video in which the lawmakers urged military service members to refuse orders they deemed illegal.
During a press briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt argued that the officials' statements posed a threat to the military chain of command, declining to condemn the President's suggestion that the group should be hanged.
The White House Defence and the 'Department of War'
President Trump used his social media platform, Truth Social, to accuse Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with Representatives Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan, of 'seditious behavior'. In his posts, he labelled the officials 'traitors to our country' and stated they should be 'arrested and put on trial'. He later escalated his rhetoric, reposting a user's call to 'HANG THEM' and asserting that their actions were 'punishable by DEATH'.
When questioned about these threats, Leavitt accused the lawmakers—all veterans of the military or intelligence community—of delivering a 'radical message'. She contended that their comments misused their credentials to 'signal to people serving under this commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, that you can defy him'. Leavitt described the video as a 'very, very dangerous message' that might require legal intervention. 'I'm not a lawyer. I'll leave that to the Department of Justice and the Department of War to decide,' she said, referring to a government department that was renamed the Department of Defense in 1947.
Legal Analysis of Treason Claims and Military Law
Leavitt claimed the legislators 'conspired together' to incite chaos, despite the video explicitly urging troops to 'refuse illegal orders'. Legal analysts point out that the administration's position appears to lack a basis in current US law. The Uniform Code of Military Justice mandates that service members obey 'all lawful orders'; however, the definition of 'lawful orders' excludes commands to commit crimes, target civilians, or engage in prohibited civilian law enforcement activities.
It remains unclear what legal grounds would exist to prosecute the representatives, as legislators possess broad immunity for statements made in their official capacities. Additionally, the specific charge of 'seditious behavior' referenced by Trump is not present in the US criminal code in the form he suggested. Congress repealed the Sedition Act of 1918 more than a century ago, in 1920.
While 'seditious conspiracy' is a federal crime, it applies to conspiracies to 'levy war against the government' or 'oppose the government of the United States by force'. This statute was last utilised against participants in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, rather than elected officials discussing constitutional obligations.
@fox4newsdallasfortworth White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addresses the controversy surrounding a recent Truth Social post by President Trump regarding Democrats and seditious behavior punishable by death.
♬ original sound - Fox4News
Legislators Reaffirm Their Stance on Lawful Orders
Even if the accusations of sedition were legally viable, the President's claim regarding capital punishment is inaccurate. Under the US criminal code, 'seditious conspiracy' carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, not the death penalty.
In a joint statement issued Thursday, the targeted Democratic legislators addressed the threats. They noted it was 'most telling' that the President 'considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law'. The group maintained that their guidance to service members was consistent with their oaths.
'Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty,' the statement read. This position stands in contrast to Leavitt's assertion that 'the sanctity of our military rests on the chain of command', a view that did not address the distinction between lawful and illegal orders raised by the lawmakers.
