The United States government is now investigating members of Congress for the crime of accurately stating military law. This isn’t hyperbole or partisan exaggeration. The Pentagon has announced it may court-martial Senator Mark Kelly, while the FBI is seeking to interview the lawmakers, all for appearing in a video that reminded service members they can and should refuse illegal orders. When a president threatens elected officials with death for reciting legal statutes, and then deploys federal law enforcement to pursue them, impeachment isn’t just warranted—it’s constitutionally required.
The message released by Democratic lawmakers was simple, that service members can and must refuse illegal orders.
President Donald Trump’s response to this was immediate and extreme. He posted that the lawmakers engaged in “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and called for them to be “ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” He reshared a post stating “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!!” The administration has since activated federal law enforcement machinery against these elected officials.
What makes this not just alarming but legally absurd is the fact that the lawmakers stated basic military law with precision. Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice explicitly requires service members to obey only “lawful” orders. The Manual for Courts-Martial confirms that the requirement to obey orders “does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Service members can face prosecution for following unlawful orders—Lieutenant William Calley’s conviction for the My Lai massacre established this principle definitively.
The administration’s position creates a logical impossibility. It claims that publicly stating what the UCMJ requires constitutes seditious conspiracy. By this reasoning, every military oath ceremony becomes an act of sedition. The UCMJ itself becomes criminal literature.
The constitutional violation of Trump’s position runs even deeper. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress explicit power to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” When Congress enacted the UCMJ, including Article 92’s requirement to follow only lawful orders, they exercised a core constitutional authority.
Congress designed the military justice system. They mandated that service members refuse illegal orders. Now the executive branch claims that reminding service members of this congressional mandate constitutes criminal conspiracy. It’s governmental gaslighting of the highest order.
The Pentagon’s targeting of Senator Kelly in particular reveals the pretextual nature of these proceedings. Hegseth announced via social media that Kelly could face court-martial proceedings—a public threat before any formal investigation. Defense secretaries don’t typically announce investigations on Twitter. They follow proper procedures designed to ensure due process and prevent political interference. Hegseth’s tweet served one purpose: intimidation.
The FBI’s parallel investigation of all six lawmakers compounds the constitutional violation. These aren’t military personnel subject to the UCMJ—they’re sitting members of Congress exercising their First Amendment rights and core constitutional duties. The Justice Department investigating them for accurately stating the military law their branch of government enacted represents the weaponization of federal law enforcement against protected political speech and the separation of powers.
This demands impeachment for both Trump and Hegseth.
The impeachment standard asks whether officials committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Using military and federal law enforcement to prosecute protected congressional speech unambiguously qualifies. The founders feared precisely this scenario: executives wielding investigative and prosecutorial power to silence legislative critics. They designed impeachment as the remedy for such abuses.
The Trump administration has created a situation where stating factual information about military law triggers federal criminal investigations. This is government by intimidation, not government by law. It represents exactly the kind of executive overreach the impeachment power was designed to stop.
The precedent we set now will define whether Congress can function as a co-equal branch of government or whether it operates at the executive’s pleasure, perpetually one investigation away from silence. That’s not a republic worth saving—it’s not a republic at all.
Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
