A short video posted by six Democratic lawmakers has ignited a much larger fight over military loyalty, presidential power, and political intimidation in the United States.
The controversy began when the lawmakers — including Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona and retired U.S. Navy captain — released a message reminding members of the military and intelligence community that their oath is to the Constitution, not to any single person. In the video, they warn that “threats to our Constitution are coming from right here at home” and emphasize that service members have both the right and the duty to refuse unlawful orders.
They reassure their audience: no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or the Constitution and close with a phrase familiar to naval history: “Don’t give up the ship.”
According to commentary in the clip you shared, this message prompted sharp backlash from allies of former President Donald Trump. The Pentagon is described as investigating Kelly over “serious allegations of misconduct,” and right-wing media figures and Trump himself are portrayed as framing the lawmakers’ video as sedition.
Ken Harbaugh, a former congressional candidate and the host in this segment, argues that the uproar reveals fear rather than strength. He says that veterans across the country quickly rallied to support Kelly and his colleagues, not because the senator needed protection, but because they agreed with the core message about lawful orders and constitutional duty.
Harbaugh brings on Chris Goldsmith, a combat veteran and founder of Veterans Fighting Fascism, to unpack the situation. Goldsmith stresses that the oath taken by service members is explicitly to the Constitution, and he views the intense reaction from Trump and his allies as a warning sign about how far they believe presidential authority should extend.
The conversation moves to a recent Supreme Court decision addressing presidential immunity. Goldsmith and Harbaugh criticize the idea that almost any act taken under the “auspices of presidential authority” could be immune from prosecution. They discuss a hypothetical example raised during legal arguments: an order to use a special operations unit, like SEAL Team Six, against political rivals. They argue that if impeachment is the only remedy, and the president can intimidate or remove those who might impeach him, then genuine accountability breaks down.
They also highlight the White House’s need in the past to clarify that the president does not want to execute Democrats, calling it a sign of how extreme the rhetoric has become when reporters even feel compelled to ask that question.
From there, Goldsmith lays out what he sees as the next likely steps: attempts to punish lawmakers and veterans who spoke out by targeting their military pensions or recalling them to active duty for potential court-martial. He notes how financially devastating the loss of a pension can be, especially for those who are not independently wealthy, and suggests that this leverage could be used to silence dissent.
A key concern both speakers raise is the climate of threat surrounding these six Democrats. They point to bomb threats and death threats already being directed at them and argue that, in their view, the current administration has not forcefully condemned such intimidation. They contrast this with how, they say, Democratic leaders typically respond when violence is directed at Republicans, emphasizing that democratic norms require consistent rejection of political violence from all sides.
They also connect this moment to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, arguing that Trump has repeatedly refused to clearly condemn violence when it serves his political aims, and that this has created what they describe as a “permissive environment” for extremist groups and individuals.
By the end of the segment, Harbaugh and Goldsmith frame the conflict over the lawmakers’ video as part of a broader struggle over whether the United States will maintain robust checks on presidential power and uphold the principle that military and government officials must refuse unlawful orders — even when it is politically risky to do so.
Leave a Reply