The Duty to Disobey: Why Troops Must Ignore Trump’s Frivolous Orders

Frivolous Orders and the Constitution

Six Democratic lawmakers — all military or national-security veterans (Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan) — recently delivered a message directly to U.S. servicemembers, intelligence officers, and federal workers.

It hit home for me. I had almost this exact conversation with someone earlier this year.

Back in boot camp, I was taught something simple:

A sailor’s duty is to ignore a frivolous order.

The problem? The average 18-year-old E-1 doesn’t always have the experience, judgment, or confidence to distinguish a lawful order from a frivolous one — or from a full-blown presidential temper tantrum.

That responsibility sits squarely on the upper chain of command.

What Troops Are Actually Taught

Most of Trump’s so-called “orders” — the rants, the tantrums, the Truth Social word-salad shriekings — fit the legal definition of frivolous. A frivolous order, in military terms, is one that is:

  • operationally meaningless
  • outside mission scope
  • issued out of anger, impulse, vanity, or political theater
  • or outright illegal under the UCMJ, U.S. law, or the Constitution

You obey lawful orders.
You ignore the frivolous, nonsensical, or improper.


It’s not radical. It’s the basics.

Enter Pete Hegseth: Reality TV Meets the Pentagon

When Pete Hegseth — a partisan media personality with a short, low-ranking military résumé — strutted onstage as “Secretary of War” (which is not a thing) and started lecturing senior generals on fitness, discipline, and “fat generals,” the contrast couldn’t have been sharper.

The officers he scolded had actual war records.
Hegseth had a television record.

Their faces said the quiet part: this wasn’t insubordination. It was professional shock. It was like watching a political appointee attempt to reboot the military’s culture as if he were hosting a live-action episode of Boot Camp Makeover.

Hegseth set the tone: false bravado, toxic masculinity, and a cartoon version of military leadership. Add to that a commander-in-chief who flirted with violating Posse Comitatus — the 1878 law forbidding presidents from using active-duty troops as domestic police — and you get a deeply confused moment in civil-military relations.

The PSA — and the Meltdown

So when those six lawmakers released a PSA reminding troops of their duty to ignore illegal or frivolous orders, Trump responded exactly the way a man unfamiliar with military service might:

By throwing a fit.

He called the PSA “seditious behavior” and labeled the lawmakers “traitors.” Then he escalated:

  • “Each one of these traitors… should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.”
  • “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

He even reposted a supporter’s gem:

“Hang them — George Washington would!!”

Let’s pause.

Washington Would Not Approve This Message

There is zero historical evidence that Washington ever said anything remotely like that about political opponents. Not one letter, not one speech, not one order. Nothing.

The only vaguely related incident — the Asgill Affair of 1782 — involved Washington reluctantly selecting a British officer for potential execution in retaliation for a war crime. Even then, he released the man due to diplomatic pressure.

The restraint is the point.

Washington didn’t call for hanging domestic political critics. He wasn’t running a colonial comment section.

So when MAGA invokes the Founders to justify their rage, maybe start by reading what the Founders actually wrote.

The White House later claimed Trump didn’t really mean executions — he just wanted the lawmakers “held accountable.”

Sure he did.

And Let’s Talk About Service

Those six lawmakers — Slotkin, Kelly, Crow, Deluzio, Goodlander, and Houlahan — gave blood, sweat, and years of service to the country. They wore the uniform. They know the oath.

Donald Trump received five deferments during the Vietnam era.

The PSA didn’t encourage disobedience. It didn’t undermine the chain of command.

It reminded service members of a truth older than Trump, older than MAGA, older than social media:

You obey the Constitution — not the man yelling the loudest.

And who in America — man or MAGA — seriously believes we should persecute or execute public servants for exercising their First Amendment right to warn troops against illegal orders?

I’m just saying.

Comments

Post a Comment

-- OSG Share bar

Popular posts from this blog

Access Journalism Has Entered the Chat

Image
  The following is an interview Jake Tapper aired with Donald Trump on October 4, 2025 Tapper:  “What happens if Hamas insists on staying in power in Gaza?” Trump:  “Complete obliteration!” Tapper:  “Lindsey Graham says Hamas’ response — no disarmament, Palestinian control of Gaza, and tying hostages to negotiations — means rejection. Is he wrong?” Trump:  “We’ll find out. Only time will tell!!!” Tapper:  “When will you know if they’re serious? And is Netanyahu on board with ending the bombing and backing your peace proposal?” Trump:  “Yes on Bibi. Soon on rest!” Tapper:  “I hope your vision for peace becomes a reality.” Trump:  “I HOPE! Working hard.” Tapper:  “How do you think the government shutdown ends?” Trump:  “Good. We’re winning, cutting costs big time!” My primary issue with this “interview”? It was conducted via  SMS. What the hell? Why in the particular fuck would CNN, Jake Tapper, or anyone with a press badge think...
Read more

‘I Don’t Even Know What That Means’: Theatrics Over Accountability

Image
  JD Vance’s Permission Slip for Racism Today, JD Vance stepped into the White House press room to deliver remarks. As he took questions from reporters, one asked about the AI-generated meme Donald Trump posted, showing Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer in sombreros: “Hakeem Jeffries said it was racist. Do you agree with that allegation?” Vance brushed it off, saying he “doesn’t even know what that means,” and argued it couldn’t be racist because Jeffries “isn’t Mexican.” He added that “the president is joking” and “we’re having a good time,” framing it as harmless fun rather than a serious insult. Here’s the problem: That is what racism is, poking fun at ethnic groups because, well, “you know how they are.” Vance exposed his own ignorance last summer with his grotesque “they are eating the dogs and cats” lie. What Vance is really doing here is confusing racism with stereotypes. Stereotypes are the engine of racism. Assigning a stereotype to the “wrong” group doesn’t make it harmle...
Read more

Make Up a Date, Make Up a Deal

Image
 On  April 2nd  —Trump’s self-declared  Liberation Day  —he announced tariffs on over  100 countries  . According to him, this was to combat trade deficits with nations that were “ripping us off.” But even as he declared  economic war on the entire planet  , he added a  90-day delay  to give countries time to “make deals.” America, he said, was done taking it lying down—this was economic shock and awe. And sure, 90 days from April 2 is  July 2  . But as the deadline approached and the results failed to match the rhetoric, the White House  quietly moved the deadline to July 9  . No announcement. No correction. Just a new date—as if  90 days = 97 days  , and math was optional. Then, on  Monday, July 8  —one day before that stealth extension expired—Trump signed another executive order,  pushing the deadline to August 1  . This was framed as the final, tough-guy moment. The foot is do...
Read more

Who Get's to Be an American?

  On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump issued nine executive orders, all of which were either unnecessary, unwarranted, or unconstitutional. The sixth order announced— Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship —besides being a misnomer, is the subject of this post. First off starting  (as my grandmother used to say), a constitutional amendment cannot be repealed or rewritten by executive order. Only a new constitutional amendment—requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states—can change an existing amendment. That has happened only once: the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment. The primary problem with trying to end birthright citizenship is that  98 out of every 100 Americans  can trace their lineage to someone who was not an American citizen, not born on American soil. That necessarily means that, without the concept of birthright citizenship, the onl...
Read more

ICE Agents Are Wearing Masks — and the Public Should Be Alarmed

It has come to public attention that ICE agents are now wearing masks to conceal their identities during enforcement operations. According to ICE and DHS officials, this practice protects agents from retaliation. They cite threats of doxxing, harassment, and even physical targeting of agents and their families following immigration raids. ICE Director Todd Lyons defends the policy, claiming it shields agents from harassment and violence. But there’s a serious problem with this logic. ICE enforces civil immigration law—not criminal law—in public spaces, often without affording immigrants even a baseline concern for safety, privacy, or dignity. People are detained in front of children, coworkers, and neighbors. Families are torn apart with no warning. If safety is truly paramount, why does it only apply to those wearing badges, not to those being handcuffed and deported? And if the threat is real, use real words. Don’t hide behind internet slang like “doxxing” when lives, liberties and t...
Read more

Whistle While You Lie: The Subtle Art of Coded Speech

One of the so-called "reforms" to Medicaid in the Big Beautiful Bill is the addition of a work requirement. There’s no real need to argue whether this is necessary or even effective, because it’s not a policy; it’s a dog whistle. I doubt anyone reading this needs a refresher, but for the record: a dog whistle—in political or social contexts—is a phrase that sounds harmless or reasonable to the general public but sends a loaded, often divisive, message to a targeted audience. Just like a literal dog whistle, it goes unheard by most, but loud and clear to the ones it's meant for. Examples? “States’ rights” was long used to oppose civil rights while pretending it was about federalism. “Globalists” often serves as an antisemitic euphemism, dressed up to sound like economic policy. The Medicaid work requirement operates the same way. The surface-level message sounds logical: “If you want benefits, you should work.” But the subtext—the part heard by those tune...
Read more

When Courage Ducks and Covers

Image
 As the U.S. Senate debates Donald Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has stepped forward to voice serious concerns. Tillis delivered a sharp, substantive critique—one of the most forceful GOP floor rebukes in recent memory. He focused on real consequences for North Carolina, highlighted broken promises, and warned of fallout—all while avoiding a direct clash with Trump. While I applaud his focus and concern for his constituents, a few things need to be pointed out. Quoting Senator Tillis directly, he said: "The last time I saw a promise broken around healthcare, with respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, is when somebody said, 'If you like your healthcare, you could keep it. If you like your doctor, you could keep it.' We found out that wasn’t true." First of all, that’s misleading. If you lost a plan you “liked” under the Affordable Care Act, it’s likely because: The plan didn’t meet minimum coverage standa...
Read more

Regime Change

First of all, that’s just not something you say out loud. That’s the kind of thing traditionally whispered in smoke-filled rooms, behind thick curtains, or under the cone of silence. It gets kicked around in backchannels and plotted out in three-letter agencies—not announced at press briefings or screamed into the void on some unhinged social media platform. It’s the kind of conversation that ends with everyone swearing it never happened. You don’t say— publicly , into a microphone—that you think it might be a good idea if a foreign leader were taken out. You don’t casually float the suggestion that maybe a world leader should be dead. And you especially don’t brag about how another head of state came to you, asked for the green light to kill someone, and you said no—but now, on second thought, maybe that wasn’t the right call. And you have the unmitigated gall to say it like it’s no big deal—like you just ordered DoorDash and now regret not double-dashing for a pint of Cherry Gar...
Read more

Healthcare Was Never the Enemy

Okay America—Let’s talk about Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act has been the law of the land since 2010. For 15 years, it has helped Americans—yes, including you—pay for medication, get covered despite pre-existing conditions, and gain access to the kind of care that saves lives. So let’s be honest: You didn’t hate the policy. You hated the president behind it. Republicans lied to you—said it would ruin the country, kill jobs, and create death panels. None of that happened. The controversy, the heated debate, the summer of hate, and all the associated backlash had an impact. They stirred up enough fear and outrage to take back the House in 2010 in a red wave. And once in power, they had one obsession: repeal and replace . The problem? “Repeal and replace” was a catchphrase, not a plan. Repeal sounded easy. Replace never showed up. Then, in 2017, with Trump in office, they finally held a vote to gut the ACA. And in one of his last acts of defiance, John McCain gave it a d...
Read more

We Dropped the Bomb, He Wore a Hat.

Okay… So the United States has just, in an act of war, dropped an arsenal of weapons on specified targets in Iraq. Americans are on edge. To reassure us of the awesome power of the U.S. presidency, they show us pictures of the national security team assembled in the Situation Room — a matter of all seriousness — and Donald Trump is wearing that stupid hat. WTF? Nobody else present is wearing a hat. There are generals and admirals, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of various ranks and designations present — none of them wearing hats (primarily because it's indoors). There are other dignitaries assembled, but only one hat. So if you are the leader of the free world, and you decide to let the media take pictures of the sausage being made, and you think you need to be wearing a hat (even though no one else is), shouldn't that hat be something spectacular — like a crown (since you want to be king)? But no. You appear in that same stupid golf cap that could have been pr...
Read more

-- More Posts