The Purpose of the ‘Illegal Orders’ for Military Narrative is Beginning to Take Shape
“It’s about the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis after World War II — and following orders is not a defense. So these soldiers have to pay attention”
We recently highlighted a former CIA officer who appeared on FOX News and said that when Senator Elissa Slotkin put out the video about the U.S. Military defying supposedly ‘illegal orders’ from President Trump, that she knew exactly what she was doing.
It is becoming much easier to believe this now that this idea has had a chance to bleed into our national discussion. Liberals in the media are starting to give the game away.
See if you can spot the common theme in these two media moments from just the last two days.
On The View, Joy Behar said this, via FOX News:
Joy Behar invokes Nazi Nuremberg trials in warning to service members following ‘illegal orders’
“The View” co-host Joy Behar invoked the Nazi Nuremberg trials on Tuesday in her warning to service members who may be following “illegal orders” from the Trump administration.
While discussing the Pentagon’s investigation into the members of Congress featured in the video, Behar recommended the audience watch a recently released film called “Nuremberg,” a movie based on the Allied trials of Nazi leaders after World War II.
“It’s about the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis after World War II — and following orders is not a defense. So these soldiers have to pay attention,” she warned.
Before delivering her warning to service members about “following orders,” Behar played a clip of Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., one of the six members of Congress featured in the “illegal orders” video, explaining why lawmakers decided to release it.
Here’s the clip:
Suggesting that military will be order to carry out atrocities akin to the Nazis, Joy Behar scolds service members that they'll be dragged before a something akin to the Nuremburg Trials:
BEHAR: There's a movie called "Nuremberg" playing. It's about the Nuremberg Trials of the… pic.twitter.com/l5mZDtsieL
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 25, 2025
Meanwhile, over on the newly rebranded MSNOW, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was saying this, via Twitchy:
Psaki and MSNOW amplify the ‘Dems will prosecute anyone taking part in the Mark Kelly investigation’ intimidation campaign:
Psaki: “What do you think the consequences should be for people who are abiding by following these steps from the Commander In Chief?”
Kirschner: “They’re following unlawful commands from Donald Trump. And if you’re committing offenses and your defense is going to be ‘I was just following orders’ — You know, that didn’t work out so well at Nuremberg.”
“When the rule of law comes back into the light of day, that will have to be tackled. They’ll have to be held accountable for those abuses.”
Watch the clip:
Psaki and MSNOW amplify the 'Dems will prosecute anyone taking part in the Mark Kelly investigation' intimidation campaign:
Psaki: “What do you think the consequences should be for people who are abiding by following these steps from the Commander In Chief?"
Kirschner: "They're… pic.twitter.com/0Z0XL7uTxU
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 26, 2025
None of this is a coincidence, and the message being sent could not be any clearer. The left is sending a warning to members of the military. You can obey Trump if you want, just know that you could end up being judged just like the Nazis at Nuremberg.
Writer and literary critic Walter Kirn does a regular podcast with journalist Matt Taibbi. He has been on to this from the beginning. Listen to what he says about Senator Mark Kelly in this video.
"I think Mark Kelly should specify what he believes these illegal orders to be…..This is not funny. This is civil war talk. This is civil war adjacent talk. They are fomenting something…. But I think he hasn't been called out strongly enough…. " @walterkirn on America This… pic.twitter.com/D6CSgRDvTk
— Ellie A (@EllieGAnders) November 25, 2025
I’ll leave you with this tweet from Kirn.
They will make a Luigi-like rebel folk hero of the first GI who mutinies.
Bookmark this.
— Walter Kirn (@walterkirn) November 26, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The defendants at Nuremberg were all high-ranking Nazis and only a few military leaders; no common soldiers(EMs or NCOs) were prosecuted there. Had they been, the ‘following orders defense’ might have worked in some cases.
The Dems will go to any lengths…. see J6’ers.
Please charge this evil Slotkin, for the love of god, arrest her
There were lower level Nazis hung. My grandfather was one of the judges who ordered it. He was on a military war crimes tribunal (O7, 2xO6) for one of the Nazi concentration camps. Most of the guards were spared, because they were just doing the jobs they were ordered to do. Some of them though went above and beyond those orders, and some of those were executed.
Slotkin, when pressed during an interview, couldn’t come up with a single example of an illegal order issued by the Trump administration.
Yes, having helped foment color revolutions while at the CIA, she knew what she was doing.
Ah, but the song will change the moment a Dem is elected as President. Then the second verse will be “Yes, we did not see any illegal orders issued under Trump until our new President swept the dark cloak of secrecy away from his nefarious orders. Now, we can prosecute every soldier up and down the chain of command, right up to the top.” And they will, for the most stupid charges they can find. Everything from blowing up drug smuggling boats to deploying the National Guard to protect federal property and personnel will fall into their auto-de-fe, and the kangaroo court of the J6 defendants will look small by comparison.
The democrats are preparing to pursue this tactic as soon as they win the House, for the reasons you’ve identified!
Slotkin said in an interview that she was afraid nervous guardsmen would shoot civilians.
Guess the Democrats answer is to shoot guardsmen first to help them decide to refuse to deploy.
I agree. Slotkin should call Sarah Beckstrom’s family for a discussion, or better perhaps visit the to share opinions face to face.
The implication that the rule of law will return when the Democrats return is enough to make me puke. Recent history has shown, and I know for a fact, the exact opposite is true.
D’s are gonna go full banana republic when given the chance:
https://thepostmillennial.com/former-army-prosecutor-tells-jen-psaki-admin-officials-will-be-held-accountable-for-following-unlawful-commands-from-donald-trump
Where are they finding these tools in the armed forces? Purge them. Now. Bolshaya chistka!
https://nypost.com/2025/11/27/us-news/sarah-beckstrom-one-of-the-national-guardsmen-shot-by-a-crazed-gunman-dies/
Sarah Beckstrom has passed away 🙁
Worse. It is setting up in the ideas of vulnerable serving personnel that once the democrats take power again they will prosecute these personnel so they better do what the democrats want now or risk being prosecuted by them in the future.
Kirschner: “They’re following unlawful commands from Donald Trump. And if you’re committing offenses and your defense is going to be ‘I was just following orders’
Implying orders have already been against laws and military personnel have followed them.
They want someone to come out with some plausible case they are orders to commit a act they think is against the law.
They want everyone to become a Comassar questioning every order.
(Oh and remember Barky killed by drone a American citizen. )
No, he’s talking about anyone investigating Kelly. And that could not have been the target of the video, because until the video came out no one was investigating Kelly.
HOW MANY AmCits did the Obama administration kill with drones?
The answer is, “Four”.
Quote from post:
“Sara Haines says it’s important for the military to ignore Trump’s orders because “for the first time in our history they may” be ordered to kill American civilians.”
The Dem-wing is desperately hoping that the Communist-indoctrination (aka, government “school” system) has left everyone with a memory that lasts about as long as a mayfly.
Blackwing, your response is utterly dishonest. 0bama never ordered the US military to kill American civilians. Or any other kind of civilians. He ordered the military to kill enemies of the USA, which is exactly what the military is for. If someone is waging war on the USA, they are a legitimate target. Civilians are not legitimate targets, but inevitably in war there will sometimes be civilians near a legitimate target, and they are killed as well. In NO case does it matter what passport a legitimate target holds.
And what unlawful orders were issued? That would be none.
This is sedition, pure and simple.
There is no such crime as sedition, because it’s protected speech unless it meets the Brandenburg criteria.
Do you want to be the test case before a Military Tribunal or sit for years in MCC brought into US District Court in shackles? How will you waive Brandenburg with your hands constrained?
So you are advocating outright tyranny and defiance of the constitution?! Why don’t you just threaten me with Auschwitz while you’re about it? If Trump is going to violate the constitution, which is what YOU say he will do, then the military SHOULD defy him!
Milhouse does not grasp that the government would take the position that this case is not about speech it is about abuse of authority. The Government would theorize that members of Congress used their positions to intentionally encourage active-duty soldiers to refuse lawful orders from the Commander-in-Chief, with the foreseeable effect of hindering execution of federal law by force via military disobedience.
Possible charges
18 U.S.C. § 2384 — Seditious Conspiracy
Conspiring “to oppose by force the authority of the United States” or “prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law.”
18 U.S.C. § 2385 — Advocating Overthrow of Government (“Smith Act”)
Knowingly advocating or encouraging disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the armed forces.
18 U.S.C. § 371 — General Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
Conspiracy to interfere with any lawful function of government by deceit, craft, trickery, or dishonest means.
18 U.S.C. § 2387 — Counseling or Urging Mutiny, Insubordination, or Refusal of Duty
Doctrine Speech by federal officials directed at the military chain of command is subject to heightened scrutiny because it implicates Article II powers and the structural separation of powers. Roberts and Kavanaugh hold this view.
This is one of the few areas where SCOTUS could redraw the line — not by overruling Brandenburg, but by creating a category exception when federal officials speak in ways that undermine military command.
Milhouse doesn’t understand criminal law at all.
I bet I understand it a lot better than you do. YOU don’t seem to understand that the constitution overrides ALL statutes.
Clerk, that IS speech. The statutes you cite are all unconstitutional unless the speech in question crosses the line into incitement.
It is absolutely black-letter law, in 35-point bold font, that all “mere advocacy” is protected speech. Advocating overthrow of government is protected. Advocating or encouraging disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the armed forces, is protected. Congress has NO AUTHORITY to ban any kind of advocacy whatsoever, unless it counts as incitement, as defined by Brandenburg.
The list of exceptions to the freedom of speech is small and it is fixed. The courts have been very clear that no further exceptions are going to be discovered.
And congressmen are not “federal officials”; they have specific immunity for any speech that relates to their official functions, whether for legislation or for oversight. Warning the military to abide by the law certainly comes under oversight.
Hopefully the FBI investigation will be painfully thorough. Get a warrant to look at the meeting schedules, Emails, phone logs, financial records, campaign donors any/every interaction to shake the tree and see what falls out. The d/prog leftists are always raising the spectre of ‘foreign interference’ and/or dark money in politics so heck fire let’s accommodate them and pursue every possible angle to see who/what was in a position to bring such influence in creating the video. No whining accepted from the purveyors of ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’, J6 lies and Covid Mania. In the words the poet Ice Cube ‘No Vaseline’.
The FBI interviews are voluntary. One of the 6 already said they won’t participate.
I’d like to know how wide an effort this was. Did the 6 communicate with the billboard people? Did they share talking points with media before releasing the video. Was this a conspiracy and how widespread was it? Who coordinated everything?
Kinda. A non custodial interview is voluntary but a custodial interview (interrogation) is definitely not a voluntary exercise.
Your questions are exactly what we should be seeking answers to. I suspect the answers could be found via warrants within the emails, phone records, financial transactions, campaign finance records, personal contacts, list of in person meetings and so on.
No Vaseline would be appropriate for the rectal exam these people need in order to remove their craniums from their rectum…rectum, Hell! I hope the exam kills em!
Make the process the punishment.
If Democrats intend to prosecute military personnel for obeying lawful orders from their democratically elected Commander-in-Chief, plus assorted others obeying presidential orders, then they cannot afford for future elections to be democratic as Republicans could win, and they’d have the precedent of prosecuting personnel who obey the wrong party.
Defendants probably could appeal to SCOTUS to have a conviction for obeying lawful orders overturned, but that assumes Democrats don’t pack SCOTUS and turn it into an arm of the Democrat party, thereby ending the rule of law in America.
As folk are suggesting, America risks going full Banana Republic due to Democrat efforts.
America went full banana republic in 2008 with the ridiculous campaign and America’s steely intent to ignore the Constitution with regards to Barky’s eligibility – which led to all manner of third world criminality from the Executive branch, infecting the Judicial branch with retards who can barely read and hate this nation, and the complete disintegration of Americanism in the federal government.
If the Dems are not careful, they may create an environment where veterans will not worry about following orders of Democrat Commissars, and simply water the Tree of Liberty with those Commissars for their hateful treatment of their American enemies.
If I could upvote a thousand times, I would indeed do so. Words indeed have both meaning and context, and it is far beyond time to call a lemon a lemon.
They’re telling service personnel they’re susceptible to prosecution for executing unlawful orders. What they’re not telling them is that they’re susceptible to prosecution for refusing lawful orders that they incorrectly consider unlawful.
Personally, I don’t like the latter. They make line troops swear to “support and defend the Constitution” by taking a personal oath, and then leaves the judgment of whether or not an order is lawful up to the individual soldier. The purpose of this is the allow even the private soldier to refuse orders that they believe are unlawful. By what standard? Conscience. If they don’t want private soldiers make such judgments themselves, why do they take a personal oath to defend the Constitution? Are they, or are they not, independent moral agents? And, if they aren’t, why do they take such an oath?
Anyone who thinks this is “dangerous” should consider the alternative – allowing officers and senior commanders to make that determination for the troops. 1.) If they wanted troops to follow orders, they’d have them swear to that; and 2.) I give you the likes General Milley and Vindmans as examples of why officers can’t be trusted to make such judgments. I’d rather have a high-school drop-out from Iowa under oath making his own decisions concerning right & wrong than rely on the likes of those mentioned above.
As I have pointed out to you several times now, if a serviceman is charged with any crime, it is a defense that it was an order from his lawful superior, unless he knew that the order was illegal, or unless it was obviously illegal.
So if someone receives an order that he only suspects is illegal, but he doesn’t know for sure, and it’s not obviously illegal, he has three options: He can take legal advice about it; or he can take a big risk by disobeying it and hope the courts will agree with him that it was illegal; or he can play it safe by obeying it anyway.
Take the drug boats. For the guy controlling the drone to refuse to shoot and not be in any trouble he would have to have conclusive proof that the boat was an ordinary fishing boat filled with civilian fishermen. Since all the videos I have seen have more motors than your ordinary fisherman could afford, no visible fishing equipment, and enough barrels of fuel to go a lot further than any fishing boat like that would ever go that would be a hard task. Also the war dept. has said they have drone and satellite intelligence showing the boat loading drugs that they are not releasing so the drug runners do not know how to get around it. Also Trump declared the drug runners international terrorists and a threat to the US which means you can fire on them rather than taking them alive and I have not seen that challenged in court yet. So if some or all of this is challenged in court later it may have to stop but until then troops need to obey orders. Also I doubt there will be an international outcry. This is one of those things that publicly countries say is horrible but privately are glad we are doing it so they don’t have to.
As I said, if someone suspects that an order he receives is illegal, but doesn’t know for sure, and it’s not obvious, then he has three options: 1) take legal advice; 2) take a big risk by disobeying; if the court agrees with him he gets off, but if it doesn’t then he’s in deep excrement; 3) play it safe by obeying, and if the court decides it was illegal he gets off because he didn’t know; his conscience may bother him about it, but he stays out of prison.
In addition to what Milhouse points out, the regulation clearly states, unlike the video that the 6 made, orders are to be assumed to be lawful and carried out because the chain of command is under a similar duty to not *issue* unlawful orders. What people who focus on “following orders is no defense” miss is the prosecution has the initial burden of convincing the court that the order was unlawful in the circumstances it was issued. The standard is not merely technically illegal or disputable or politically incorrect or even unlawful in 20/20 hindsight but “manifestly unlawful” which I would assume is so shocking that no reasonable person would either give or obey such an order at the time it was given (shooting obvious non-combatants when not in combat, for instance, not just killing some who you can’t see in the same building being used as an enemy firing position). Only then can a soldier be held liable for following a directive.
That isn’t quite correct. If the order isn’t obviously illegal, but the prosecution can somehow prove that the defendant knew it was illegal, then he can still be prosecuted for it. Following orders is only a defense if both factors are present: you didn’t know, and it wasn’t obvious.
But in 99% of cases this distinction isn’t going to matter. This video isn’t about such doubtful cases, it’s about orders that are blatantly and obviously illegal. Orders that the military already knows not to obey, and that Trump is never likely to give.
The “illegal orders” sedition video serves three purposes:
1) To provoke an insurrection/rebellion among military/intel personnel
2) To threaten military/intel personnel with lawfare if they do NOT rebel against Trump’s orders
and, even more importantly,
3) To signal to civilians that military actions are “illegal” and they should rebel against all military/federal personnel they see (exactly as the Afghan dem pet just did in DC)
Their robotic recital of the day’s talking points is intended to convince the public of one of their key religious tenets: Orange Man Bad. Fear, Sowing Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Chaos must be manufactured. It’s all they have.
Can’t think of a clearer case of fomenting insurrection. Add terroristic threatening to boot. Sadly all Republicans are absolutely gutless and won’t do anything ever about anything
There is no such crime as “fomenting insurrection”, unless it crosses the line into incitement. And there is no threat at all.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying since this started. The video was not about any order that Trump has given so far, but about potential Nazi-like orders that he might one day give.
The six Dems warned the military that if they ever receive such orders it will be their duty to disobey them. And that is perfectly true, but there’s no need to warn the military because they already know it, and in the extremely unlikely event that they ever did get such orders they would certainly disobey.
And the Dems know this, so their true purpose wasn’t to warn the military at all. The video wasn’t targeted at the military, it was targeted at the general public. The entire purpose was to create an impression among the general public that Trump is Literally Hitler™, a fascist lunatic who at any moment is likely to order the military to start loading US citizens into cattle cars. That’s what it’s all about.
If there were a real possibility of this happening then they’d be right to warn us about it. But there isn’t. So they’re just playing cynical politics.
Complete and absolute BULLSH*T.
That video was about things that had been happening and how the treasonous democrats wanted to try and shape or use them. The dems, who had been calling ICE “Nazis” and had claimed that ICE was “kidnapping” – yes, KIDNAPPING – people had already made clear that they aimed to frame Trump orders as being “illegal” and part of him “destroying our democracy!!”. There is NO QUESTION that the dems have been accusing Trump of crimes (all of which were complete BS) for a while and that is what this seditious video was meant to work on.
This ain’t rocket surgery and none of this was secret … or even quiet. Not a single Dem turd (outside of Fetterman) has pushed back on any of these ridiculous accusations that the Democrats have been making, with them escalating over time. This video was the left’s organized attempt to build on that line and to try and convince military/intel personnel to join the rebellion, or to threaten them with potential lawfare in case they do not join the rebellion, and to signal to their lunatic supporters that the law enforcement actions by Trump are all illegal and they can feel free to continue attacking every federal officer they see knowing that the dems are fully behind them.
>> their true purpose wasn’t to warn the military at all.
Granting the above, some of the heat is due to the possible side-effect, or “unintended consequence” that some active duty service members will be influenced by the video.
Kurt Schlichter (read the whole thing, former officer and lawyer)
From https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2025/11/27/seditionist-blue-falcon-democrats-stunned-to-be-held-accountable-for-their-behavior-n2667042
Not only were these creeps improperly undermining the man elected to be commander-in-chief, but some dumb young soldier – including dumb young officers (which Super Agent 003 Slotkin mentioned specifically on TV) is going to listen to these guys and get himself/herself/themself (one JAG has sacrificed – hopefully – her career on the altar of trans perversion by insisting she will not follow orders regarding discharging them) into a ton of trouble and carry a bad conduct discharge with him/her/them for the rest of his life. These jerks are not going to care.
The video was not about any order that Trump has given so far, but about potential Nazi-like orders that he might one day give.
Then why do they keep saying IS, Democrat? Instead of ‘may’?
You are beneath contempt, and don’t deserve any answers. If a decent person asks me questions I will answer. Not you, you filthy demon.
No, it’s an attempt to undermine the administration, pure and simple, with the addition of threats of retaliation against anyone following orders and doing their job if the Dims ever get back into power. Context is everything. Lawyers often miss context or ignore it all together.
Perhaps it is time to mimic the left’s tactics as applied to Federal agents enforcing immigration law and others wirh which they disagree. Perhaps identifying the persons who contribute to the left’s various constructs i.e., doxing ICE agents, identifying ICE agents, following Ice agents home, etc, etc .Perhaps if the hosts of the view and others of their ilk, their emoloyees, relatives, friends etc etc were made uncomfortable by those who disagree with their views they would modify their trajectories to a more civil dialog.
Golly gee, Wally…they are itching for a fight.
It would not hurt my feelings if Trump got ahead of the curve by jailing opponents. It will happen the instant that the radical left has the opportunity…come Hell or high water in their eyes.
You can’t do that until they actually commit a crime and are convicted in a fair trial. As soon as both sides start doing that then we really are a banana republic and lost. If only one side is doing it we still have hope of pulling ourselves away from the chaos.
With each passing day, the vile, stupid, evil and brazenly totalitarian Dhimmi-crats become more like the Khmer Rouge, in their neo-communist, ideological fanaticism.
This is just one more plan to derail Trump’s agenda and cast him as the villian. First the Russian hoax that was finally revealed, then two failed impeachment hoaxes and then the J6 “Insurrection” hoax that was planned and executed by Pelosi and the Dems. Later the lawfare hoaxes attempt to stop him from running and then the Epstein files hoax that Trump called their bluff on. And now attempting to get the military to turn on the commander in cheif is their latest hoax. I am still undecided on the two assassination attempts as to whether or not they were planned by the Dems. These people are dangerous traitors of the Benedict Arnold kind and should be hung when caught!
I’m torn. I don’t want the nation divided but I also want an opportunity to do harm to the vile neighbors that chose to make this issus “My business” by being a thorn in all our sides.
These men have chosen islands to isolate themselves on and rebel when the neighbors dislike their content of character.
The Democrats are outraged by Trump’s efforts to reverse the influence of Critical (name your perceived grievance) Theory in the military–and the resulting rapid return of white males (already categorized as dangerous extremists by the Party) and patriotic Hispanics (race traitors! White adjacent) to volunteering for military service.
The groundwork is being laid for a Leftist purge of the military, with selected illegals fast tracked, and imported if necessary, to serve as occupation troops once the Color Revolution is completed.
‘Former’ CIA agent issues warning to military about the dangers of following Trump’s ‘illegal’ orders.
Days afterward, CIA asset kills military members.
Just a coincidence, of course.
Any chance the CIA did water boarding? Handling Iraq prisoners? Wasn’t that illegal? Ask Slokins about that? Never mind.
The spin coming from the Dems is a brazen lie.
Kelly and his co-conspirators were not “simply stating accurately what the military law provides,” as some sort of a forward-looking statement, as Kirschner and others try to frame it.
Quite to the contrary, without the goods — since they cannot identify a single illegal order — they were advancing the notion that illegal orders had already been issued by the Trump administration. Cue the transcript:
Simply stating the law? (As if a PSA were needed?) Not at all. Kelly should be hoisted with his own petard.
Yes, they were “simply stating accurately what the military law provides,” and your quote proves nothing. They claim that the administration is creating division and is a threat to the constitution, and it is therefore likely at any moment to start issuing blatantly illegal orders of the sort that the military must disobey. The point isn’t to tell the military anything it doesn’t know; the point is to convince American voters that Trump is Literally Hitler™ so they will be scared into voting Democrat. The irony is that by voting Democrat people would be inviting the very violations of the constitution that they warn us Trump intends.
The Democrats want a soldier or officer to refuse orders and get court-martialed. They know that all appeals from the military courts go to the DC Federal District courts, and their guy Boasberg is the chief judge and therefore decides which judge hears the case.
I think Hegseth is mostly smart enough not to fall into this trap. If a military member gets cold feet about an order, that member will be transferred to another command for reasons of “resource allocation”. Nothing about refusing an order will ever go into the official record, so it will not be litigated. However, if a military member goes public with objections, it has to be litigated – that is what the Democrats are hoping for.