The political climate in the United States has taken a dangerous turn as five out of six Democratic lawmakers who publicly urged military members to refuse illegal orders from the Trump administration have become the targets of bomb threats, according to reporting from Newsweek and Fox News. The latest incident occurred on Friday, November 21, 2025, when Michigan State Police responded to a bomb threat at the home of Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan. Thankfully, as a spokesperson for Slotkin confirmed on X, the senator was not home at the time, and a thorough search by police revealed no immediate danger to anyone on the property.
Slotkin’s ordeal is just one in a string of threats received by lawmakers who, just days prior, released a video message directed at current members of the military. In the video, which was posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, the group—comprised of Senator Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Representatives Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Jason Crow of Colorado—highlighted their own service backgrounds in the military and intelligence community. Their message was clear: "We need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans," they said, urging military personnel to refuse unlawful orders.
The video, titled "Don’t Give Up the Ship," quickly went viral and drew sharp criticism from Republicans and the Trump administration. According to Fox News, the lawmakers’ appeal was seen by some on the right as a direct challenge to presidential authority. President Donald Trump himself responded on Truth Social, calling the Democrats’ actions "seditious behavior at the highest level." In a post on Thursday, November 20, 2025, Trump wrote, "Each one of these traitors to our country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET." He went on to add that such behavior was "punishable by death."
Trump’s rhetoric didn’t stop there. Earlier in the week, he retweeted a post stating, "Hang them, George Washington would." The president’s public statements, which critics say appear to encourage political violence when directed at Democrats, have added fuel to an already volatile situation. This is especially notable given Trump’s previous condemnation of violent rhetoric following the Charlie Kirk shooting, where he accused Democrats of inciting deadly violence with their words. The apparent double standard has not gone unnoticed by observers on both sides of the aisle.
The fallout from the video and Trump’s response has been swift and severe. In addition to Senator Slotkin, the offices of Representatives Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Chris Deluzio, and Maggie Goodlander have all received bomb threats in the days following the video’s release, as reported by Newsweek. The threats have prompted a coordinated law enforcement response, with U.S. Capitol Police launching an investigation to identify and hold accountable those responsible for the threats. Slotkin’s spokesperson expressed gratitude for the "swift and professional response by Oakland County and Michigan State Police," and emphasized that "U.S. Capitol Police will continue to investigate and hopefully hold accountable those responsible."
Beyond the immediate threats, the controversy has brought renewed attention to the broader legislative efforts being pursued by these lawmakers. According to Fox News, Slotkin and her colleagues have recently introduced legislation aimed at limiting President Trump’s ability to deploy National Guard members domestically or to launch military action against suspected narco-terrorists without congressional approval. While none of this context appears in the video itself, the move reflects mounting concerns among some Democrats about the potential for presidential overreach in the use of military force within U.S. borders.
Senator Mark Kelly, a former Navy Captain and one of the lawmakers featured in the video, echoed the urgency of the message. He urged troops to refuse "illegal orders," underscoring the principle that members of the military are bound by law and oath to uphold the Constitution above all else. This sentiment, while controversial in the current political climate, is rooted in longstanding military tradition and legal precedent.
Yet, the reaction from the Trump administration and its supporters has been swift and uncompromising. Trump’s accusation that the lawmakers’ actions amounted to sedition—a crime historically punishable by death—has raised the stakes considerably. "It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL," Trump wrote, reiterating his belief that the lawmakers should face arrest and trial. For many observers, the president’s language represents a dangerous escalation, blurring the line between heated political rhetoric and incitement to violence.
The bomb threats themselves, while not resulting in physical harm thus far, have cast a pall over the already tense relationship between the executive branch and Congress. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the rise in threats against public officials, particularly as the nation heads into another contentious election season. The fact that all the targeted Democrats are former military or intelligence officers adds a layer of irony—and perhaps poignancy—to the situation. These are individuals who have sworn to defend the nation, now facing threats at home for urging adherence to legal and constitutional norms.
It’s worth noting that the video’s message—urging military members to refuse unlawful orders—aligns with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which obligates service members to disobey illegal commands. However, the highly polarized environment means that even such foundational principles are now viewed through a partisan lens. Supporters of the lawmakers argue that their actions are a necessary safeguard against potential abuses of power. Critics, meanwhile, see the video as an inappropriate and destabilizing challenge to civilian control of the military.
As investigations into the bomb threats continue, the affected lawmakers are calling for accountability and a return to civility in political discourse. Slotkin’s office has stated that she is "deeply grateful" for law enforcement’s response and remains committed to her duties despite the threats. The broader question, though, remains unresolved: how can a nation so deeply divided navigate the tension between free speech, political dissent, and public safety?
With the 2026 elections on the horizon and partisan tensions running high, the events of this past week serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of democratic norms and the urgent need for responsible leadership—on all sides of the political divide.
