Trump's Habitual Charges of 'Treason' Reflect His Authoritarian Impulses
The president’s reaction to a supposedly "seditious" video illustrates his tendency to portray criticism of him as a crime.
President Donald Trump says six members of Congress are "traitors to our Country" who "should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL" because they produced a video reminding members of the armed forces that they "can refuse illegal orders." Trump's over-the-top reaction epitomizes his longstanding tendency to portray criticism of him as a crime against the state, which reflects his disregard for freedom of speech as well as his narcissism.
In the video, which was posted online last week, two senators and four representatives, all Democrats with intelligence or military backgrounds, allude to Trump's controversial uses of U.S. forces, including his domestic military deployments and his summary executions of suspected drug smugglers. "Americans trust their military," they say, "but that trust is at risk."
The lawmakers note that "no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution." Although "we know this is hard," they say, "your vigilance is critical," and "we have your back."
That stance is legally uncontroversial. According to the Judge Advocate General's Operational Law Handbook, "soldiers have a duty to disobey" orders that are "manifestly illegal." Examples include intentional targeting of civilians, torture of prisoners, looting of property, and suppression of constitutionally protected protests.
Trump nevertheless claims reiterating this well-established principle amounts to "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS," which he says is "punishable by DEATH!" Yet the video plainly does not qualify as sedition or treason.
Under federal law, a seditious conspiracy is a plot involving the use of force against the authority of the U.S. government. An American is guilty of treason when he "levies war" against the United States, "adheres to" its wartime enemies, or gives them "aid and comfort."
Trump's attempt to portray criticism as a crime runs headlong into the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that even advocacy of illegal conduct is constitutionally protected unless it is both "directed" at inciting "imminent lawless action" and "likely" to do so. Far from trying to incite "imminent lawless action," the legislators Trump wants to prosecute urged service members to "stand up for our laws" and "our Constitution," which they accurately said could require disobeying "illegal orders."
This is by no means the first time that Trump has recklessly accused people of treason. Back in 2019, he described Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of alleged ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian government as an "illegal and treasonous attack on our Country."
After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in 2017 out of anger at the Russia probe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein suggested that Justice Department officials record their conversations with the president. That was also "illegal and treasonous," Trump said.
Even failing to applaud Trump during his State of the Union address might qualify as treason, he suggested in 2018. "Can we call that treason?" he wondered. "Why not? I mean, they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much."
That same year, when The New York Times published an anonymous essay by an administration official who was critical of the president, that was also "treason" in Trump's book. Likewise Democratic opposition to his immigration policies.
In December 2022, the House select committee that investigated the 2021 Capitol riot issued a scathing report that recommended criminal charges against Trump. A few months later, Trump said the committee's members "should be prosecuted for their lies and, quite frankly, TREASON!"
Last July, Trump deployed the same charge against former President Barack Obama, who he said was "caught absolutely cold" trying to "rig the election" in 2016 and 2020. "What they did in 2016 and 2020 is very criminal," he told reporters at the White House. "This was treason."
Trump, in short, habitually equates love of country with love of him, then leaps to the conclusion that anyone who discomfits, opposes, or criticizes him must be guilty of treason. That authoritarian impulse reinforces the concerns raised by that supposedly treasonous video.
© Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
TRUMP SOMETHING SOMETHING AUTHORITARIAN SOMETHING SOMETHING NAZI FASCIST SOMETHING SOMETHING *DRINK*
That stance is legally uncontroversial. According to the Judge Advocate General's Operational Law Handbook, "soldiers have a duty to disobey" orders that are "manifestly illegal."
They also have a duty - an OBLIGATION - to assume that said orders are legal unless obviously otherwise. The Law Office of Some Rando does not just magically create some category called "manifestly" that is based on your Bluesky paint huffing.
Nothing - NOT ONE THING - that Trump has done has been "manifestly illegal." And that includes both rounding up the border jumping scumbags and sending drugrunners to Davy Jones' locker.
Yet the video plainly does not qualify as sedition or treason.
It's pretty clearly seditious. They aim to turn American soldiers against the American people by tricking them into believing, falsely, that their chain of command has broken, and are demanding that they turn against their country and abet our enemies.
That's about as textbook seditious as it gets.
All six senators should,d be summarily convicted of high treason and publicly burnt at the stake. At which time I will do civic duty and provide the marshmallows.
Stories are out that Kelly might be called back to active duty and court-martialed for his comments.
Fascist cunt much?
Sullum decides to write this even after the retard 6 have all walked back their video giving embarrassing interviews.
Which, of course, was the point. Garner attention with "truthy" Overton Window stretching.
Ram it into the passed-out victim for a second, pull it out, ejaculate, apologize afterwards.
Ordering sailors to kill noncombatants in the Caribbean is manifestly illegal. Hegseth fired the JAG Officer that said it was illegal. Summary execution of drug traffickers is murder by international law. Admiral Holsey of the Southern Command resigned rather than carry out that order.
They're not non-coms.
I'm eager to read your definition of "combat."
Do you have a child? Because I'm going to bring the materials to poison them to death. And I'm going to encourage - groom, really - them to use them to poison themselves. Definitely to addiction, possibly to death. I'm going to do this to make money and care nothing whatsoever about its effects on your child, you, or your family at large. In fact, as you lament it, I'm going to openly laugh and mock you to your face - and then move on to the next victim.
Am I your enemy? A mortal enemy, perhaps? Would you regard me as combative against you and yours? Because make no mistake, I AM trying to kill them and ruin their/your life.
AT, you're missing the point. The point is not (and under our Constitution it cannot be) only that the kind of people that Trump claims he's summarily executing are our mortal enemies. That kind of attitude would replace virtually our entire Constitution with mere labels that any despot would use (and past despots have used) to purport to justify absolute despotism and tyranny.
Our Constitution mandates a specific legal regime (criminal) and specific process of law to ensure that the people being killed for criminal (or potential future criminal conduct) truly are the mortal enemies of the sort that Trump (merely) claims they are; ensure that they are committing the conduct of which Trump merely claimed they were; and ensure that they are punished only for conduct and in the manner consistent with our Constitution.
Sullum's article and its caption accurately address the problem here: Trump's mere "Charges of 'Treason' Reflect His Authoritarian Impulses." Two of the most relevant SCOTUS decisions were unanimous and they have constituted binding precedent for more than 60 years (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Garrison v. Louisiana, both issued in 1964).
For hundreds of years, claims of "seditious libel" were among the most common asserted by tyrants and despots to justify all kinds of vicious abuses of power. That is not the system prescribed or permitted by our Constitution.
In Sullivan, SCOTUS emphasized that no mere "epithet" or "labels" assigned by any purported public servant could trump the principles and provisions of our Constitution. "In deciding the question now," neither "precedent nor policy" permits giving "any more weight to" a chosen "epithet" than given to other "mere labels" because, like all "the various other formulae for the repression of expression," any label assigned by Trump "can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment."
"The protection of the public requires” both “discussion” and “information” about official conduct and misconduct. The opposite view merely “reflect[s] the obsolete [seditious libel] doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors.” “The interest of the public" in the truth about purported public servants “outweighs the interest” of “any [offended] individual." Even the Sedition Act of 1798 expressly permitted bringing federal officials “into contempt or disrepute” or “excit[ing] against them” the “hatred” of the “people” unless such criticism was proved to be both “false” and “malicious.”
Such speech “should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” and it may “include vehement, caustic,” and “unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
In Garrison, SCOTUS emphasized that such “speech concerning public affairs” is “the essence of self-government” (the essence of American government). SCOTUS also emphasized that the “public interest in a free flow of information to the people concerning public officials, their servants” is “paramount,” so “anything which” even “might touch on an official’s fitness for office is relevant” and protected, including any purported public servants' “dishonesty, malfeasance, or improper motivation.”
“Truth may not be the subject of” any type of content-based “sanctions” “where discussion of public affairs is concerned,” so “only” such “statements” as were proved to be “false” may be punished with “either civil or criminal sanctions.” Our Constitution “absolutely prohibits” any content-based “punishment of truthful criticism” of any public servant’s public service.
The statements by the people Trump accused of sedition or treason were true. They even were previously stated by courts, officials in the Armed Forces, and many other commentators. Those statements did not advocate any use or force or any otherwise unlawful conduct. They apprised people of two crucial facts that our Constitution, itself, emphasizes.
Article VI emphasizes that "the supreme Law of the Land" consists exclusively of our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance thereof" and "all Treaties" (not any contrary order of anyone in the executive branch) and all "Members" any state or federal "Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support this Constitution" in all official conduct.
You didn't answer the question.
I'm on a boat. I've got a whole bunch of stuff I'm going to use to intentionally string your kid out and probably kill him.
Am I your enemy?
"...Ordering sailors to kill noncombatants in the Caribbean is manifestly illegal..."
TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit says so!
The Southern Spear task force, a thirty billion dollar build that costs 6.5 million a day plus wages and ammunition has sunk ten or so go fast boats carrying roughly as many tons of drugs.
For a moment, forget what Miller & Hegseth want them to be and consider what they are: Throwaway outboards lacking the range to make it to the USA.
The business being interdicted is not that of supplying America's urban drug lords with fentanyl, but catering to the cocaine tourist trade. The combined naval forces and coast guards of 13 British Commonwealth , seven Dutch, and umpteen French islands have interdicted literally thousands of such boats in recent decades , and collared thousands of perps without blowing anybody to smithereens as a first resort.
In time of war, the laws of war allow the declared parties to sink each other's ships at will. But whoever deliberately kills, or orders to be killed survivors in the water after sinking one becomes hostis humani generis as a murderer or a party to murder and so subject to arrest and trial. Ignorance of the Law of the Sea is no excuse.
Here is a case in point:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1997/february/peleus-war-crimes-trial
They were designated as terrorists by the government. We’re not blowing up random criminals at sea. We’ve blown up Islamists overseas without giving them any due process.
Whether they should be designated as terrorists is up to debate. If you disagree and resign, that’s an honorable thing to do. If you tell soldiers directly to disobey orders to blow up terrorists that’s subversion.
XM, merely "designating" an entire organization a "foreign terrorist organization" and then merely claiming someone is somehow part of such organization is not sufficient under our Constitution to authorize Trump to have people summarily executed. It's not sufficient regarding either the people Trump is actually killing or the people Trump claims can be punished by death
Trump's use of epithets and labels (regarding the people he's actually killing or the people he claims can be punished by death) is not even novel. This is something that was addressed very long ago (in our Constitution) and more recently in SCOTUS precedent. See my comment above quoting a unanimous SCOTUS in Sullivan and Garrison.
Just so- epithets are not names, and as far as can be seen, the orders given the drone and Hellfire shooters are not predicated on having a roster of those aboard the targets.
Operations aimed at stopping suspicious vessels and seizing contraband drugs at sea have a clear claim to lawful authority. The literally unwarranted killing of parties unknown who have not directed fire at a vessel puts the perpetrators in legal jeopardy as grave as Somali pirates or submariners who toss hand grenades into the life rafts of ships they sink.
One federal statute seems to govern at least some of the killings even if Trump's claims were true that his victims were, at some point, enemy combatants.
"War crimes" are defined in 18 U.S. Code § 2441 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441). Subsection (b)(2) confirms that the following can be found guilty: any "member of the Armed Forces of the United States" or any other "offender" (e.g., Trump or Hegseth) who "is present in the United States, regardless of the nationality of the victim."
War crimes include the following. An offender is guilty of "Murder" if he "intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill" or even if he kills "unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause."
An offender is guilty of "Intentionally causing serious bodily injury" if he "intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war."
Jake knows nothing of the military and UCMJ but like quite a few commentators does not hesitate to interpret for us. Trump was incorrect in calling it treason, it's sedition, but his saying treason can be punishable up to death is quite correct. Sedition in this instance carries a 10 yr prison sentence. Kelly is a different story as he can be recalled to active duty and subjected to the military judicial system which does not look kindly on this type of behavior. 10 USC 894 Art. 94 might apply to him. The penalty is up to death, which is not on the table, but the court is allowed to do just about anything else they want including life in Leavenworth. The most likely thing if he is convicted would be reduction of rank and dismissal from service which would put his retirement at risk.
diver, there's nothing about UCMJ that anyone needs to know. These issues are governed by our Constitution because our Constitution is the paramount law.
Article VI emphasizes that "the supreme Law of the Land" consists exclusively of our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance thereof" and "all Treaties" (not any contrary order of anyone in the executive branch) and all "Members" any state or federal "Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support this Constitution" in all official conduct.
Any power of any executive branch employee to kill anyone anywhere is governed by our Constitution. The power of the president to order anyone to kill any (purportedly) foreign citizen outside the U.S. is governed by our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance thereof" and "all Treaties" that are relevant.
The power of the president to order anyone to kill any U.S. citizen for purportedly seditious speech is governed by our Constitution and copious SCOTUS precedent. See, e.g., my comment above quoting Sullivan and Garrison (and Sullum's use of Brandenburg).
Participating in a colour revolution against the US is treason. Providing propaganda for it is as well.
They can execute Sullum along with the Seditious Six.
JS;dr
Thanks, JS, for speaking the obvious truth, even though Orange Caligula and Shit's followers don't like it!
Democrat Gallego actually threatening troops.
“Donald Trump is going to be gone in a couple of years,” he said. “And if you’re part of the military that is going after sitting senators, sitting members of Congress, and part of the weaponization of government, there will be consequences, without a doubt.”
Discuss jakey.
When shit cums to weaponizing Government Almighty UNWISELY (Government Almighty is ALWAYS a weapon, or is weapons-based, in the first place), then in the future, ALL parties will have many EXCELLENT examples to follow, in Our Dear Orange Caligula!
Gallego is talking out of his ass. If he thinks he can do anything to the military who reactivates an officer still subject to UCMJ and punish him if warranted then he is even more stupid than I think he is. What is that mental midget going to do, arrest JAG officers? Who is he planning on getting to carry that out? He thinks the military is going to allow a local cop on base to arrest an officer? Just like that?
Is Trump habitual about this or is it Reason being habitually TDS?
The president’s reaction to a supposedly "seditious" video illustrates his tendency to portray criticism of him as a crime.
He didn't portray criticism of him as a crime, moron. He portrayed calls from opposition political leaders outside the COC to our troops to forsake their oaths and obey them instead as a crime.
For anyone who is serious about taking war powers back from The President rather than simply undermining the military, defense, cohesion, and/or morale this should be and probably is obvious. It's not really being done for any higher moral purpose than to sew discontent and unrest.
And, again, you retards run into the issue of original sin. "Don't listen to *his* illegal orders, follow *my* illegal orders." doesn't absolve anyone of anything. Pointing at an act you believe to be illegal or immoral and saying "Let your conscience be your guide." is the best you can do.
Again, for the longest time, I didn't really believe in existential evil. Yes people were evil but it wasn't some unseen malevolent force that could spread like a virus, or several, and destroy people's good nature and intellect. If it was, that was long ago and God was dead. I no longer believe that to be true and you retards show up every day and announce your intentions under a veil of lies to prove it.
Trump isn't God or the second coming. Not even close. He isn't even a very good or moral preacher. He is, however, mercurial; as opposed to the consistent, dedicated, mendacious, deceitful, and pernicious efforts you and your associates and contemporaries put forth.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelabramwell/reactions-trumps-tweet-about-law-violation
"He who saves his Country does not violate any Law." Said Dear Orange DicKKKTator.
"Wants to be a dictator. If you don't see it it means you don't want to," former Trump White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci said.
Mussolini: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
Shitler: “The good of the state stands above the law.”
Napoleon: “I am the revolution.”
Francisco Franco: “I am responsible only to God and to history.”
Shitler: “The good of the state stands above the LAW.” For emphasis... Of all of the quotes, this one most clearly shows that Shitler and Orange Shitler are Bros... Piss in a pod, who want to piss on us all, and turn us all into Pod People!
And, as mentioned a little earlier, they ALSO directly threatened troops. Just as they have directly threatened ICE personnel.
He portrayed calls from opposition political leaders outside the COC to our troops to forsake their oaths and obey them instead as a crime.
You're a fucking liar. They called on the troops to obey their oaths by refusing illegal orders. But I suppose to cultists like yourself, there's an implicit oath superseding all previous oaths, which is an oath of loyalty to Dear Leader, fuck the Constitution.
...but when Trump tells followers to peacefully and patriotically march to the Capitol --- he REALLY meant for them to commit a coup.
That has been your stance for years.
"Whatabout?"
Trump is a fascist. This is nothing new. The US will soon have political prison camps.
If they imprison you, I'm all for them.
He's safe in Beijing.
If they stop you from making stupid comments then I'm all for it. I'm old enough to remember when the left was screeching that Trump was going to be a dictator, put opponents in political re education camps and declare himself President For Life under martial law. Didn't quite work out like that, did it but that hasn't stopped midwits like yourself yelling about it again.
Congressional Democrats to troops: "Don't murder people"
Cultists: "How dare you tell troops not to obey orders?"
Why weren't they saying that when Obama or Biden were president?
Ask them. Did any Republicans make similar comments? Perhaps they felt that there was no danger of Obama or an autopen giving illegal orders.
I'm confident we already know the answer.
"Ask them."
Why weren't you objecting, asswipe?
No Jacob, this whole episode shows just how far Democrats and journalists have run away from responsible governance and any semblance of "peaceful transfer of power". You commie scum are the ones threatening people with consequences for legal orders you don't like one fomenting a revolt against the lawful government. Fuck you with this DARVO crap.
Trump has ordered sailors to kill noncombatants in the Caribbean which is murder by international law. They have the right to ask JAG whether that order was legal or not because following orders is not a defense as established at Nuremberg.
"...Trump has ordered sailors to kill noncombatants in the Caribbean which is murder by international law..."
TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit says so!
After their trial and conviction in Hamburg for killing survivors of a ship their U-Boat sank by throwing hand grenades into life rafts, Capt. Eck, & Lts. Hoffmann, and Weisspfennig were executed by a British firing squad at 0840 hours on 30 November 1945.
Their accomplices got life.
Right wingers will stop using "treason" as soon as left wingers stop using "racist".
You're right. It isn't treason. It is Sedition.
Well, treason is specifically defined in the Constitution and whatever one may think of the Democrats who commented, their comments are clearly not treasonous.
All Trump's venting will only cause people to look into his ordering the killing of noncombatants in the Caribbean which is murder by international law. He would have been much better off not saying anything.
They are combatants, delivering chemical weapons to the US for the purpose of killing Americans. Hundreds of thousands are dead. We must defend ourselves.
There is no such thing as "international law". There are international agreements regarding the conduct of war to which the US is signatory, and those agreements allow the summary killing of irregular combatants not in uniform, and pirates.
Jesus Christ, "delivering chemical weapons to the US"? IF there are drugs on those boats, it's almost certainly cocaine and not fentanyl, and almost certainly not headed to the US, at least not directly. AND if it was fentanyl, that's a "chemical weapon" that's used in medical care every day. If there's weaponization, it's in the way the drugs are used here in the US.
Fucking cheeseburgers, also willingly consumed, kill lots of Americans. Are they also weapons? Should we start blowing up beef shipments?
How about just do what libertarians have been saying for decades, and end the War on Drugs, so people who ARE going to use drugs whether or not they're illegal can reliably know what's in the drugs they're using?
"...end the War on Drugs, so people who ARE going to use drugs whether or not they're illegal can reliably know what's in the drugs they're using?..."
So long as we also end the 'free' treatment centers, ambulance rides, ER visits and other valuable goods consumed by ODing junkies.
That sounds pretty libertarian to me. And a LOT cheaper than blowing up boats at doubtless millions per mission.
"And a LOT cheaper than blowing up boats at doubtless millions per mission."
Got a cite for that?
"For the fiscal year 2024-2025, San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) has allocated $846 million to address homelessness."
Most goes to junkies, and that doesn't include ER visits and ambulance rides, for ONE city. Not even close.
You lose.
Do you know how most people will respond when they find out that drug smugglers are being blown to smithereens? Cheers of joy
In the Dark Ages, they also cheered ass the witches were burned! In the USA, they cheered ass the Japanese-Americans were hauled off to cuntcentration camps! I could go on...
"All Trump's venting will only cause people to look into his ordering the killing of noncombatants in the Caribbean which is murder by international law."
TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit says so!
Morning linx?
"Prosecutor drops Trump’s criminal case in Georgia"
[...]
"President Trump’s criminal prosecution in Georgia came to its end Wednesday, as the prosecutor who took over the case announced he will not move forward.
Pete Skandalakis, the executive director of Georgia’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council (PAC) who took over Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s (D) 2020 election subversion case against Trump and his allies, filed a motion indicating to the judge that he is declining to prosecute them further.
“Never before, and hopefully never again, will our country face circumstances such as these,” he wrote in a 22-page takedown of the state’s case..."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutor-drops-trump-s-criminal-case-in-georgia/ar-AA1Rd7VX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6927d475d0c947a09fe7006f35f35094&ei=13