Six Democratic Lawmakers’ Sparks Accusations of Seditious Conspiracy — Trump Amplifies with Death Threat Rhetoric
Opinion
Washington, DC – Six Democratic members of Congress — Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, and Representatives Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Maggie Goodlander, and Chris Deluzio — released a video urging U.S. military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.”
Their coordinated appeal, denouncing what they claim are law-breaking commands from the Trump administration, has been met by President Trump with a predictable, incendiary response:
Trump labeled their behavior “seditious … punishable by DEATH!” and even reposted a meme calling for their hanging. The rhetoric now raises real concerns of stochastic terrorism and even seditious conspiracy, threatening fundamental norms of civilian-military relations.
The Lawmakers’ Message
On Nov. 18, 2025, the six lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, published a 90-second video emphasizing their shared oath to defend the Constitution. They warned that “the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home,” and insisted, “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders … You must refuse illegal orders.” [1] [2]
Several of these members have long argued that Trump’s actions have violated the law. Representative Jason Crow, for instance, introduced a War Powers resolution on Nov. 18 to block what he characterized as “unauthorized & illegal military strikes” in the Western Hemisphere. [3] Others likewise claim that funding cuts and executive actions under Trump have flouted legal constraints.
The Legal Risk: From Free Speech to Conspiracy
Under U.S. military law, service members are required to obey lawful orders, per UCMJ Article 92, but they are also obliged to refuse “manifestly unlawful” orders — including those that “are contrary to the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”
Legal scholars argue that, by calling generically for disobedience without naming specific orders, the lawmakers’ video straddles a dangerous boundary. When repeated broadly, such messages may constitute stochastic terrorism: individually protected, but cumulatively creating a signal that could encourage disobedience or rebellion.
Taken as a coordinated effort, their plea may even raise issues under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, the federal statute for seditious conspiracy, which prohibits conspiracies “to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States.” Though the lawmakers have not openly advocated violence, urging troops to choose which orders to follow can fragment the chain of command, damaging the principle of civilian control.
Trump’s Violent Retaliation
President Trump responded forcefully, and some might say, predictably. On his platform, Truth Social, he denounced the six Democrats as “traitors” and called for their arrest and trial. He wrote, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” according to multiple reports. [4], [2]
But he didn’t stop there: he also reposted a supporter’s comment that read, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”, amplifying calls for political violence. [5], [6]
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the remarks as “an outright threat … calling for the execution of elected officials.” [6]
The White House later claimed Trump did not literally want to see them executed, but critics argue that the amplification of hanging rhetoric — even indirectly — normalizes political violence. [7] Of course, those same critics say nothing of the incendiary words of the Congressmen.
Constitutional Stakes and Conservative Warning
From a constitutional-conservative perspective, the moment demands serious reflection. The six lawmakers’ message could stem from genuine concern for the rule of law, but it strains credibility that this was their actual intent. By broadly urging military personnel to disobey without specifying which orders are supposedly illegal, they are deliberately trying to erode discipline and undermine civilian control of the armed forces — fundamentals that protect our Republic.
On the other hand, Trump’s response is also deeply disturbing. When the commander-in-chief publicly suggests that lawmakers be arrested and even killed, he flirts with incitement and death-threat rhetoric. Even if his words fall short of criminal action, the tone sets a dangerous precedent: political disagreement being met with calls for violent retribution.
Bottom Line
What this episode truly reveals is yet another escalation from the left — the same kind of escalation that helped create the environment that led to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Their coordinated “refuse orders” campaign demonstrates that many on the left genuinely believe they are in an active war with the right, and they now behave accordingly. They instigate, they inflame, and they knowingly unleash rhetoric designed to agitate the most unstable individuals among their base, allowing a deranged actor to carry out the violence they privately hope for while they publicly feign innocence.
The proper course of action, in this author’s view, is for Trump to stop joking about the situation, stop posting memes about it, and instead act: these members of Congress should be taken into custody, charged with seditious conspiracy, and tried under the law.
The left has already decided they’re at war — it’s time the right acknowledge that reality and respond with the seriousness the moment demands.
References
- [1] The Guardian, “Outrage after Trump accuses Democrats of ‘seditious behavior, punishable by death’”
- [2] NBC Chicago (AP), “Trump says Democrats’ video message to military is ‘seditious behavior’ punishable by death”
- [3] Office of Rep. Jason Crow, “Crow Leads Resolution to Block Illegal U.S. Military Strikes”
- [4] CBS News, “Trump condemned by Democrats after he accuses 6 lawmakers of ‘seditious behavior’”
- [5] TIME, “Trump Calls for Arrests of Democrats Who Urged Troops to Refuse Illegal Orders: ‘Seditious Behavior, Punishable by Death’”
- [6] Fox News, “Schumer accuses Trump of calling for ‘the execution of elected officials’”
- [7] The Guardian, “White House walks back Trump’s suggestion of executing Democrats, stands by…”
Council
Refugio’s Government Meltdown: Mayor, Secretary and Three Council Officials Arrested in Two Days
Refugio, TX — It is one thing when a Texas mayor gets arrested. It is quite another when the mayor, city secretary and three current or former council members are all swept into the same criminal investigation within roughly 48 hours. That is what happened this week in Refugio, a small South Texas town where local government has suddenly become the subject of a Texas Rangers investigation and multiple felony charges.
Mayor Wanda Dukes and City Secretary Callie Shreckengost were arrested Wednesday on first-degree felony charges involving the alleged misapplication of fiduciary property valued at $300,000 or more, according to reporting by Crossroads Today and Texas Municipal Watch. The allegations involve the town’s Economic Development Corporation funds.
Then came Thursday.
Mayor Pro Tem Ixtlazihuatl “Lala” Vasquez, along with former council members Michael Rocha and Frank Hosey, surrendered at the Refugio County Jail and were arrested on third-degree felony charges alleging abuse of official capacity involving government property valued at more than $30,000 but less than $150,000.
The Texas Rangers reportedly told Crossroads Today that Thursday’s arrests stem from the same grand jury indictment that produced the charges against Dukes and Shreckengost. Texas Municipal Watch reported that it had not independently reviewed the indictment and was relying on Crossroads Today’s account of the Rangers’ statement.
Under Texas Penal Code Section 39.02, abuse of official capacity involves a public servant intentionally or knowingly misusing government property, services, personnel or other resources under that official’s control for an improper benefit or to harm or defraud another person. At the dollar range alleged in the Thursday arrests, the offense is classified as a third-degree felony.
The identities of the officials involved are not in question. Refugio County records list Dukes as mayor, Vasquez as Alderman Place 1, Rocha as Alderman Place 3, and Hosey as Alderman Place 4. Town financial records also identify Shreckengost as city secretary.
But there is still a great deal the public does not know.
Texas Municipal Watch reported that the specific conduct allegedly underlying the charges against Vasquez, Rocha and Hosey had not yet been independently confirmed, nor had the outlet confirmed their release conditions or upcoming court appearances. The underlying indictment had also not been obtained at the time of its Thursday report.
The town council has apparently recognized that it has a problem. Council members Robert Jaso and Dana Alsop issued an identical statement Wednesday saying the town was aware of criminal accusations against officials, could not comment on an ongoing investigation, and intended to take steps to protect municipal resources. They also said a special meeting would be held as soon as possible to consider whatever action might be necessary.
Granbury, TX – A Granbury political fight that escalated into a criminal prosecution has ended with a jury refusing to convict Eva Royer, a Hood County Republican Party official who was arrested after questions arose over the address she used when filing to run for Granbury City Council.
Royer was found not guilty after facing charges of perjury of certain election procedures and election fraud stemming from her 2024 City Council candidacy, according to reporting by Erin Anderson of Texas Scorecard. The verdict closes a case that had already raised uncomfortable questions about how aggressively local government pursued what began as a dispute over residency.
The case began after Royer filed to run for Granbury City Council Place 5 in August 2024. She listed a Granbury address and stated that she had lived within the city for approximately two years and nine months. City officials later questioned whether that address was actually her primary residence.
Royer withdrew her candidacy before a scheduled City Council meeting could determine whether she met the city’s residency requirements. That could have been the end of the matter.
It wasn’t.
In April 2025, Granbury police arrested Royer on one count of perjury of certain election procedures, a state jail felony, and one count of election fraud, a Class A misdemeanor. She posted bond and was released the following day. The charges were based largely on allegations that she used a Granbury property as her residence even though officials believed she primarily lived elsewhere.
The prosecution focused heavily on three locations: Royer’s Granbury property, a home in Pecan Plantation belonging to her former boyfriend, and a Dallas condominium.
The state presented evidence that Royer’s vehicle entered and exited Pecan Plantation regularly. A security director testified that Royer had a guest pass connected to the vehicle, but also acknowledged under questioning from defense attorney Rob Christian that regularly visiting a boyfriend does not necessarily make someone a resident. He further testified that a guest tag indicated the person was not a resident.
Prosecutors also pointed to the fact that Royer’s Granbury property had been approved for short-term rental use. But testimony established that a short-term rental permit did not require the property to be rented for any particular number of days. In other words, having a permit to rent a house does not automatically establish that its owner doesn’t live there.
Then came the homestead exemption argument.
Hood County Chief Appraiser Jeff Law testified that Royer had not claimed a homestead exemption on the Granbury property. Her attorney countered that the property was owned through Royer’s LLC, making her ineligible for the exemption under the circumstances. Royer’s driver license also listed the Granbury address.
The trial also produced testimony about the investigation itself, including the use of license plate reader technology (FLOCK) to locate Royer. Texas Scorecard reported that her former boyfriend’s license plate had been placed on a “hot list” because of his association with Royer. Police eventually arrested Royer after locating her with Bolton.
And there was considerably more.
Defense questioning raised issues involving city officials, police leadership and communications concerning the prosecution. According to Texas Scorecard’s trial coverage, Granbury Police Chief Mitch Galvan acknowledged providing incorrect testimony during earlier proceedings and acknowledged that text messages concerning the case had not initially been produced despite court orders.
Royer’s acquittal ends the criminal case, but it leaves questions about how the dispute escalated to that point. Why was so much pressure brought against her over the address she used on her election paperwork? Why did multiple officials at the City of Granbury become so deeply involved in pursuing the matter after she had withdrawn from the race? And given the issues raised during the trial about the investigation and the handling of evidence, are there additional questions about how and why the case was pursued? Those questions remain unanswered, and whether there is a deeper problem within Granbury’s political or administrative structure is something that warrants further examination.
Montgomery, AL – The woman who spent years telling America which organizations were dangerous has now been arrested by the federal government in a fraud case involving secret payments, extremist informants, alleged shell companies and donor money.
Heidi Beirich, former director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project and former chief financial officer, was arrested Wednesday in California as the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the SPLC widened. Beirich faces charges of wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to make false statements to a federally insured bank and conspiracy to conceal money laundering.
That’s quite a turn for someone whose professional career was built around exposing other people’s alleged extremism.
According to federal prosecutors, the case involves an SPLC informant identified in court documents as “F-9,” who operated inside the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization. The Justice Department alleges the SPLC secretly funneled approximately $1.2 million to F-9 over more than two decades as part of its intelligence-gathering operation.
The indictment does not name Beirich. Instead, it identifies a former senior SPLC employee as “Employee-2,” describing that person as someone who would later become director of the organization’s Intelligence Project. Multiple news organizations, including The Associated Press, have identified Employee-2 as Beirich. Her attorney, Michael Proctor, confirmed Wednesday that she had been charged in the federal case.
And the allegations get considerably stranger from there.
Prosecutors allege Beirich and F-9 were romantically involved and shared a residence and two bank accounts. Between 2015 and 2021, roughly $140,000 in SPLC donor money allegedly flowed into those joint accounts. The indictment says that money accounted for about 66 percent of the deposits into the accounts and was used to pay the couple’s personal living expenses.
Federal prosecutors also allege that SPLC officials helped establish bank accounts using fictitious company names to disguise the source and purpose of payments to informants.
This wasn’t simply a matter of paying someone for information. According to the indictment, the government believes the financial arrangements were deliberately structured to conceal what was happening from banks and donors. The original federal indictment against the SPLC alleges that, between 2014 and 2023, the organization secretly funneled more than $3 million to people associated with violent extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations and the National Socialist Party of America.
The SPLC itself was indicted in April on 11 counts involving wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The FBI investigated with assistance from IRS Criminal Investigation.
Beirich’s attorney has rejected the prosecution as politically motivated, saying that the justice system should not be used against political opponents. The SPLC has also maintained that its informant program was legitimate intelligence work designed to gather information about extremist organizations.
Beirich left the SPLC after leading its Intelligence Project from 2012 through 2019. She later co-founded the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism and continued to appear publicly as an expert on political extremism.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login