President Donald Trump’s comments accusing Democratic lawmakers of «seditious behavior» following a video encouraging members of the military to refuse «illegal orders» have drawn criticism across party lines.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, one of the six Democrats featured in the video, told ABC News’ «This Week» co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday that she believed Trump’s attack, threatening the punishment of death for sedition, is «a tool of fear.»
«He’s trying to get us to shut up because he doesn’t want to be talking about this,» Slotkin said. «In fact, I would argue that one of the things that he’s been doing by repeating it and talking about it is trying to distract us from the big stories of last week, which were the [Jeffrey] Epstein files and then the economy.»
Republican Rep. Michael McCaul also sought to distance himself from the comments, telling Raddatz, «I don’t speak for the president in terms of hanging members of Congress.»
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., appears on ABC News’ «This Week» on Nov. 23, 2025.
ABC News
«I would tone down the rhetoric and tone down the theme here,» McCaul added.
The White House and Trump have denied Trump was threatening death upon the lawmakers, who have military or national security backgrounds, but the president’s attacks have continued despite the lawmakers reporting they’ve experienced a deluge of threats and have had to increase their security as a result.
On Saturday night, Trump again referred to them as «traitors,» asserting the individuals «SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW» rather than defending themselves to the media.
On «This Week,» Slotkin said the lawmakers put out the video because officers had approached them directly with concerns.
«You don’t have to take my word for it. We’ve had report after report of legal officer, JAG officers, coming forward and saying, ‘Look, I push back on this. I’m not sure that this is legal,'» Slotkin said. «There is such things as illegal orders. That’s why it’s in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Going back to Nuremberg, right? And it’s just a — it’s a totally benign statement. And if the president is concerned about it, then he should stay deeply within the law.»
However, when pressed by Raddatz on whether she believed the president had issued any illegal orders, Slotkin said, «To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.»
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, appears on ABC News’ «This Week» on Nov. 23, 2025.
ABC News
McCaul said that as far as Venezuela and the strikes on alleged drug boats is concerned, he doesn’t believe anything illegal has occurred.
Popular Reads
«These orders that they’re talking about, in my judgment, are not illegal orders to follow. They are orders based upon Article 2 self-defense of the Constitution to stop a threat, in this case, the threat of drugs coming into our country and killing Americans,» McCaul said. «And so, you look at it from that perspective, there are no illegal orders to follow here.»
Here are more highlights from Slotkin’s interview:
«Primary concern» is military use within the U.S., Slotkin says
Slotkin: My primary concern is the use of U.S. military on American shores, on our city — in our cities and in our streets. We’ve seen now the courts overturn the deployment of U.S. military into our streets, including here in Washington, D.C. When you look at these videos coming out of places like Chicago, it makes me incredibly nervous that we’re about to see people in law enforcement, people in uniformed military, get nervous, get stressed, shoot at American civilians. It is very — a very, very stressful situation for these law enforcement and for the communities on the ground. So it was basically a warning to say, like, if you’re asked to do something, particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back.
Raddatz: And with these service members calling you, couldn’t you have done a video saying just what you just said? If you are asked to do something, if you are worried about whether it is legal or not, you can do this. It does imply that the president is having illegal orders which you have not seen.
Slotkin: I think for us, it was just a statement widely, right? We say very quickly and very — to all the folks who come to us — this is the process: Go to your JAG officer, ask them for explanation, for top cover, for their view on things. We do that on a case by case basis, but we wanted to speak directly to the volumes of people who had come to us on this.
On potential for further military action targeting Venezuela
Slotkin: Certainly, the sheer size of the military buildup in and around Venezuela — I mean, you have to assume that when superpowers put that much force into an area that they’re going to use it. They brought in aircraft carriers. They brought in F-35s. … Certainly if we’re going to actually think about prosecuting some sort of war or military action against the mainland of Venezuela, I would hope that the president would want to have that conversation publicly, bring in the American people who are not looking to get into another war, who are not looking to get into regime change.
