The President Kicked Off A Firestorm. His Followers Supplied The Death Threats.
Six Democratic lawmakers — all with military or intelligence backgrounds — cut a sober, almost boring video about the rule of law. Then Donald Trump turned it into a question of who should hang.
In the video, Sens. Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly and Reps. Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Chris Deluzio, and Maggie Goodlander remind troops and intelligence officers of something every JAG and basic training manual already says: you must refuse illegal orders and uphold your oath to the Constitution.
Trump’s response from the Oval Office was not legal argument. It was escalation.
On Truth Social, he branded their message “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL”, called them “traitors,” said they should be “ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,” and then posted, in all caps:
“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
He also boosted a supporter’s post that cut to the chase:
“HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”
That’s not subtext. That’s a sitting president narrating his political opponents’ conduct as a capital crime and elevating calls to execute them.
And out in the country, his most ardent followers heard him loud and clear.
The Video That Triggered A Death-Penalty Rant
The Democrats’ video is straightforward. Speaking as veterans and former national security officials, they tell current service members:
- “You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”
- “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
- “Know that we have your back. … Don’t give up the ship.”
They never tell anyone to disobey “lawful orders.” They explicitly focus on illegal ones — exactly what U.S. military law requires. Under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, troops are obligated to disobey “manifestly unlawful” orders; blind obedience is not a defense.
But the context here matters. They’re speaking into a landscape where Trump has:
- Repeatedly floated or ordered operations that legal experts and allies view as illegal — including lethal strikes on suspected drug boats in international waters that UN officials have condemned as “extrajudicial killings.”
- Long insisted that if he gives an order, the military will carry it out, legality be damned.
So Democrats are trying to put a constitutional speed bump between the president and the chain of command. Trump treated that as treason.
From ‘Seditious Behavior’ To ‘HANG THEM’
Trump’s posts did three things in rapid succession:
- Criminalized dissent
He called the video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” labeled the lawmakers “traitors” and demanded they be “ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” - Attached the death penalty to their speech
He followed up with the standalone post: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” — and did so while sitting atop the executive branch that controls federal prosecutions and the military. - Platformed explicit execution fantasies
He amplified a post saying, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” to his massive audience, using the presidency as an outrage amplifier for vigilante fantasies.
After the backlash, the White House press secretary insisted Trump wasn’t literally calling for executions, even as she said the Democrats’ video “perhaps is punishable by law.” Later, in a friendly radio interview, Trump claimed, “I’m not threatening death,” but added that in “the old days” what they did was “punishable by death” and that they’re in “serious trouble.”
This is the familiar Trump pattern: escalate to the edge of explicit incitement, then backfill with deniability. Legally cautious, politically poisonous.
When Online Rage Becomes Offline Threats
The threats did not stay on Truth Social.
- Elissa Slotkin says that as soon as Trump’s posts went up, the death threats followed. She told NBC that Capitol Police informed her she would be put on 24/7 security, and that law enforcement is now stationed outside her home after Trump circulated calls to hang her and her colleagues.
- A CNN report notes that Slotkin was escorted by U.S. Capitol Police officers to an event off Capitol Hill, additional security requested after Trump’s posts and the surge in threats.
- Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger, has reported a sharp rise in violent messages, calls, and emails. His office formally asked the U.S. Capitol Police to investigate Trump’s posts, describing them as “intimidating, threatening, and concerning,” and documenting a “significant uptick” in threats since the president’s “punishable by death” rhetoric.
- House Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries and his team say they’ve been in touch with the House Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police to ensure the safety of the targeted lawmakers and their families, and demanded Trump delete his “unhinged” posts before “he gets someone killed.”
These aren’t abstract concerns about tone. These are members of Congress who now live with round‑the‑clock police presence and credible death threats because the president told the country they’d committed an offense “punishable by death” and blasted out a post screaming “HANG THEM.”
You don’t get to light that match and then claim you’re surprised there’s a fire.
The Law Is Not On Trump’s Side
Strip away the capital letters and the violence-curious crowd, and what’s left is a basic question:
Who is closer to the law here — the Democratic veterans, or the president?
On the Democrats’ side:
- U.S. military law has long required troops to refuse unlawful commands; “I was just following orders” died at Nuremberg.
- Article 92 of the UCMJ only punishes disobedience of lawful orders.
- Courts have repeatedly held that carrying out “patently illegal” orders is itself a crime.
On Trump’s side:
- He suggests that reminding troops of their legal obligations is itself sedition.
- He tries to turn a guardrail of democracy — loyalty to the Constitution over any one leader — into a hanging offense.
This inversion is the whole ballgame. In healthy democracies, armed forces exist to defend the constitutional order, not the personal power of the president. Trump is openly testing whether he can flip that script — whether he can characterize constitutional fidelity as treason and personal loyalty as law.
A Pattern Of Turning Justice Into Retribution
If this felt familiar, it’s because it is.
Trump has spent nearly a decade training his movement to see prison, prosecution, and now execution as acceptable tools against political enemies:
- “Lock her up” against Hillary Clinton over emails.
- Social media calls to jail those involved in the Russia probe, pressuring DOJ to go after people like James Comey and Letitia James — several of whom now face indictments they say are retaliatory.
- Fantasizing about a firing squad for Republican dissident Liz Cheney, joking about “nine barrels shooting at her” and having guns “trained on her face,” later brushed off as metaphor.
- Declaring the “enemy from within” the “big thing” the military will handle going forward, blurring the line between domestic opposition and enemy combatants.
So when Trump tags elected officials as traitors, attaches “punishable by DEATH” to their conduct, and blasts out “HANG THEM,” it is not an isolated outburst. It’s the logical next step in a years‑long project: normalize state and mob punishment for political disagreement.
And it’s working. Members of Congress now need armed protection from citizens radicalized by their own president.
Why This Moment Matters Beyond One Outrage Cycle
It’s tempting to file all of this under “Trump being Trump” and move on. That’s dangerous.
What’s at stake here isn’t just the safety of six Democratic lawmakers, though that should be enough. It’s the operating system of American democracy:
- Civilian control of the military: If the political system accepts that reminding troops to obey only lawful orders is “seditious,” we edge closer to a model where the commander in chief’s will, not the Constitution, is the ultimate authority.
- The line between politics and prosecution: When a president routinely frames dissent as a capital crime, it softens the ground for the actual use of state power — prosecutors, courts, even military tribunals — against opposition figures.
- Stochastic terrorism: Trump doesn’t need to sign an execution order. He just has to keep telling millions of angry followers that specific lawmakers are traitors whose conduct merits death, and then stand back as the most unhinged among them pick up the slack.
We’ve seen this movie around the world: strongmen who brand political rivals “traitors,” hint at capital punishment, let supporters menace them, and then insist they never meant anything by it. Democracies don’t collapse only when tanks roll; they decay when this kind of talk becomes background noise.
Some Republicans have inched away from the brink — Sen. Lindsey Graham calling Trump’s rhetoric “over the top,” Sen. Rand Paul saying it’s not “a good idea” to talk about jailing or hanging political opponents, Speaker Mike Johnson admitting he wouldn’t have used Trump’s words even as he blasted the Democrats’ video.
That’s not nearly enough. If you believe in rule of law, you don’t just critique the tone. You say, clearly: No president in a constitutional democracy gets to dangle execution over the heads of his elected opponents for restating the law.
Because if that becomes acceptable, the death threats and the police cordons around political figures won’t be an aberration. They’ll be the new baseline.