Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Air Force Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe were serving their country while on duty on November 26 in Washington, D.C. on the mission ordered by President Donald Trump to clean up crime in the nation’s capital, when they were shot by an Afghan national and a former CIA special forces partner who targeted the Taliban directly during the War on Terror and who became a refugee after the country collapsed amid the botched 2021 U.S. military withdrawal from that country.
The murder of Beckstrom, who passed away from her wounds on Thanksgiving, came just days after a group of Democratic lawmakers — Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), U.S. Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan and U.S. Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) — posted a video on Nov. 18 saying that Guardsmen were carrying out “illegal orders” in their deployments to U.S. cities.
The video was posted on Sen. Slotkin’s official government X account to promote her legislation, S. 3167, the unambiguously titled “No Troops in Our Streets Act” that would create for Congress a joint resolution of disapproval process to disband any President-initiated military action on U.S. soil to aid in domestic law enforcement.
Specifically, the group of lawmakers in the video, since denounced by President Trump as tantamount to sedition, stated very clearly, “Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniform military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.”
The video then invites members of the military to embark on mutiny: “Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. And right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”
You don’t have to look hard to see where  Democrats think President Trump is pitting the military “against American citizens.” To be fair, a lay person might be confused considering the somewhat inept “What are the illegal orders?” Republican messaging about this, as if it was not merely patently obvious since it is explicitly being stated by the Democratic lawmakers. The video was not nuanced as some have suggested.
The current law that Slotkin’s legislation would amend allows for exceptions that allow the President using the military to assist state and local law enforcement with their duties under 18 U.S. Code Sec. 1385: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
And the bill would also amend 10 U.S. Code Sec. 12406, which grants the President explicit authority to deploy the National Guard domestically, “Whenever… the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; … there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or … the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; … the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”
In these cases, under the bill, Congress could pass a joint resolution disapproving of the deployments.
In other words, there are no “illegal orders” being given in the lawfully ordered National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C. — and the Democratic lawmakers appearing in the video know it.
The bill itself clearly shows that the legislators are cognizant that it is perfectly legal for the President to declare emergencies and to deploy the National Guard to U.S. cities when needed to quell domestic uprisings and other public disorders under the Insurrection Act and other similar statutes ratified by Congress that the President has clearly cited — that is “under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress — to deal with the President’s declared domestic crime emergency.
The entire point of the legislation is to give Congress admittedly limited ability to end such a lawful domestic deployment if Congress disapproves. Even then, the President could just veto the joint resolution, which the bill also contemplates, meaning wielding it would require Congress to override a presidential veto.
The video itself was designed to visibly promote legislation in order to create an attempted Article I, Sec. 6 constitutional Speech and Debate Clause protection for what is otherwise knowingly a deliberate violation of 18 U.S. Code 2387 that states, “Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: … advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or … distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”
They wanted to shout fire in a crowded theater, but rather than make it too easy for federal prosecutors, first needed a seeming constitutional predicate: Legislation. But they should be careful, the referenda by states seceding from the Union in 1861 were legislative acts, too.
The video, like the legislation, was carefully scripted and if prosecuted, the Democratic lawmakers will absolutely argue that they were trying to pass their legislation to change the law, something the Justice Department and the War Department must consider.
Tragically, just a little more than a week after Democratic Senators and Representatives intimated that National Guard members in U.S. cities were carrying out illegal orders, a former CIA partner from Afghanistan gunned a couple of those Guardsmen down in cold blood.
Somebody should really ask Senators Slotkin and Kelly: Were Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe carrying out illegal orders? Because that is the false implication these lawmakers deliberately made that should haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Robert Romano is the Executive Director of Americans for Limited Government.
