Swalwell Tells Don Lemon Military Can Be a “Constitutional Check” on Trump as Video Urges Service Members to Refuse Illegal Orders
Rep. Eric Swalwell told Don Lemon that service members can act as a “constitutional check” on President Trump, after a video by six Democratic lawmakers urged troops to refuse unlawful orders — sparking controversy and a formal review.
- Six Democratic lawmakers released a video urging U.S. service members to refuse unlawful orders from President Trump; reporting includes Fox News as a source.
- The video prompted sharp criticism and a formal review into retired Navy captain and Sen. Mark Kelly’s participation, according to Fox News.
- Swalwell told CNN (on Don Lemon’s program) that troops’ oath is to the Constitution and they may refuse unlawful presidential orders, as also reported by WCCS Radio.
- Sen. Ruben Gallego warned of consequences if the military targets elected officials involved in the video, per coverage at Fox News.
On Don Lemon’s show: Swalwell frames military as constitutional check
Appearing on Don Lemon’s program, Rep. Eric Swalwell described conversations with service members who told him they could serve as a last line of defense for the Constitution. “What gives me hope…they tell me…’We can be a check.’”
“They’re essentially saying, ‘We’re not going to betray our oath to the Constitution because this guy tells us to,’” Swalwell said.
Swalwell emphasized the oath — that troops swear allegiance to the Constitution — and said many have told him they would refuse to carry out what they considered unlawful commands.
The video and the fallout
A video featuring six Democratic lawmakers urged service members to decline unlawful commands from the president. The clip drew swift backlash from the Trump administration and Republican critics, who warned it risked politicizing the military and undermining the chain of command.
Controversy escalated when a formal review was announced into Sen. Mark Kelly’s participation; Kelly is a retired Navy captain and a U.S. senator from Arizona. Administration allies argued public appeals to troops could create confusion and weaken discipline.
Swalwell’s interpretation of the administration’s response
Swalwell pushed back on critics, arguing the investigation into Kelly signals a worrying intent. “To me, the only reason you’d go after Mark Kelly…is if you intend to carry out unlawful orders,” Swalwell told Lemon.
His point: the pushback reflects, in his view, a readiness to use the military in ways some Democrats view as unconstitutional — effectively urging service members to “ignore the Constitution.”
Related congressional warnings
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) warned on CNN that there would be consequences if military leaders or personnel targeted Kelly or other elected officials. “Donald Trump is going to be gone in a couple of years… there will be consequences, without a doubt,” Gallego said, framing his remarks as a caution against weaponizing the military.
Legal and practical questions: when can service members refuse orders?
Swalwell’s comments highlight a sensitive legal area: while military law and U.S. criminal codes require service members to disobey clearly illegal orders (for example, orders to commit war crimes), the line between lawful and unlawful commands is often complex in real time.
Military leaders and legal scholars typically warn against public political instruction to troops, stressing civilian control and the chain of command. Critics say public appeals risk eroding discipline; supporters counter that reminders of the oath are an essential safeguard when other branches appear weak.
Use of language — “Department of War” and official review
Reporting referenced a “Department of War”, an archaic term that is not the modern name of the executive department overseeing the armed forces; the current cabinet department is the Department of Defense. The choice of language underscores how fraught and fast-moving the controversy has become.
Political stakes and public reaction
For conservatives, the focus is preserving the military’s apolitical nature and clear civilian control. For Democrats, the concern is preventing a leader from using the military to override constitutional limits. Both sides frame their concerns as defending the Constitution, but they start from different fears: one of politicization, the other of presidential overreach.
Implications for the United States
Economic: Immediate effects are limited, but prolonged politicization could harm readiness, recruitment, and confidence in military institutions, with possible budget and planning impacts.
Political: The episode sharpens the 2024 election fight and could be used as a campaign talking point on both sides, including the Department of War review into Sen. Mark Kelly.
Social & cultural: The controversy may deepen public divides over patriotism and loyalty; service members, veterans, and their families could face additional stress amid mixed messages about lawful orders.
Practical: Active-duty personnel and commanders will need clear guidance. Military legal offices and the Department of Defense may issue reminders about political speech limits, duty to follow lawful orders, and reporting processes.
Reporting and sources
This article draws on recent TV interviews and reporting, including statements by Rep. Eric Swalwell and Sen. Ruben Gallego and coverage of the review into Sen. Mark Kelly. See original reporting at Fox News and WCCS Radio.
