Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan found herself in a tight spot on Sunday, unable to pinpoint a single illegal order from President Donald Trump despite promoting a video that encouraged military personnel to disobey him.

Slotkin, alongside five other Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds, featured in a video urging servicemembers to ignore what they deemed "illegal" orders from Trump, as reported by the Daily Caller. The video drew sharp criticism from Trump, who labeled it "sedition at the highest level" on Truth Social.

Host Martha Raddatz didn't let Slotkin off easy, pressing her to name any specific illegal directive from the president. Slotkin's response was a dodge, admitting she wasn't aware of anything explicitly illegal but pointing vaguely to "legal gymnastics" around Caribbean strikes targeting Venezuelan drug runners.

Video Sparks Concerns Over Military Loyalty

Slotkin defended the video by claiming it addressed confusion among young officers unsure of their duties. She mentioned, "The sheer number of frankly, young officers who are coming to us and saying, 'I'm not sure, what do I do?'" without offering concrete examples of problematic orders.

Her reasoning seems to rest on a hypothetical fear rather than hard evidence of wrongdoing. If the concern is so widespread, one wonders why no clear instance of an unlawful command has surfaced to justify such a public stand.

Trump's administration has indeed taken bold action, including military strikes on vessels linked to drug trafficking since early September. These operations, tied to his designation of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a terrorist group upon taking office on Jan. 20, 2025, have stirred debate but hardly seem to cross into illegality.

Strikes on Drug Traffickers Draw Scrutiny

The Caribbean strikes, which include sinking a boat carrying 11 gang members, have been a focal point of contention. Slotkin's mention of "legal gymnastics" suggests unease with the aggressive approach, though she stops short of calling it unlawful.

Critics might argue that these actions are a necessary response to transnational crime threatening American security. Waiting for endless legal debates while drugs flood our borders isn't a strategy; it's surrender.

On Nov. 13, the Senate rejected a resolution to disapprove these strikes under the War Powers Act, with a close 51-49 vote. This outcome signals that a slim majority sees the operations as within executive authority, undermining claims of overreach.

Slotkin's Nuremberg Reference Falls Flat

Slotkin attempted to bolster her stance by referencing the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Nuremberg, stating, "There is such things as illegal orders. That's why it's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice going back to Nuremberg, right?"

Invoking Nuremberg to discuss a duly elected president's orders feels like a stretch, especially absent any evidence of atrocities or war crimes. It's a heavy-handed comparison that risks trivializing historical horrors for political points.

Her argument implies servicemembers should preemptively question lawful directives based on personal or partisan unease. This sets a dangerous precedent, eroding the discipline that keeps our military effective and apolitical.

A Call for Clarity Over Posturing

Slotkin's inability to cite a specific illegal order undermines the urgency of her video's message. If the goal was to protect troops from moral dilemmas, a clearer case should have been made before sowing doubt in the ranks.

President Trump's policies, like the Venezuelan strikes, may be contentious, but they’ve passed muster in the Senate and align with national security priorities. Disagreeing with a leader's approach is one thing; encouraging defiance without proof of illegality is a step too far.

Our military deserves guidance rooted in facts, not vague warnings that fuel division. Slotkin and her colleagues would do better to focus on constructive dialogue with the administration rather than stoking distrust through public stunts.