On November 18, 2025, six congressional Democrats, including Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), released a video urging military and intelligence officials to reject orders from President Donald Trump that they deemed illegal. The lawmakers, who are veterans and national security professionals, emphasized their commitment to the Constitution and framed Trump's comments about sedition as a significant threat to democratic principles.

Slotkin reiterated the importance of refusing illegal orders in her response to Trump's remarks, which included threats of severe punishment for dissent. The video, which featured the phrase 'Don’t Give Up the Ship'—a historical reference from the War of 1812—has been interpreted by some as incitement to mutiny against the current administration. This incident reflects ongoing divisions within U.S. politics regarding military loyalty and the interpretation of lawful orders.

On November 21, 2025, President Trump clarified his earlier comments, accusing the Democratic lawmakers of engaging in "seditious behavior." He stated, "I'm not threatening death," despite having previously suggested that such behavior was historically punishable by death. His remarks followed the release of the video, which emphasized the duty of military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Slotkin, a former CIA and Defense Department official, highlighted that threats to the Constitution can arise from within the country.

In response to the video, Trump made several posts on Truth Social, including one that stated, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" Following these comments, Slotkin reported receiving threats, prompting increased security measures for her safety. Representative Jason Crow characterized Trump's posts as threats, indicating they have led to a rise in violent rhetoric directed at lawmakers. He has requested an investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police into the implications of Trump's statements.

House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged the increase in threats against public officials but suggested that heated political rhetoric is a broader issue affecting all parties. The situation underscores ongoing concerns about the intersection of political discourse, public safety, and the responsibilities of military personnel in upholding constitutional values. The debate also highlights the need for a clearer understanding of military oaths, which obligate service members to refuse unlawful orders, thereby ensuring accountability within the armed forces.