Rep. Eric Swalwell is drawing new attention after saying that some U.S. service members have privately told him they would refuse any unlawful order from President Donald Trump and view themselves as a safeguard if such a moment ever came.
The California Democrat made the remarks during an appearance with Don Lemon, where he addressed the fallout from a recent video featuring several Democratic lawmakers, many of them veterans, reminding troops that they must reject illegal directives. In the video, the lawmakers say service members “can refuse illegal orders” and “must refuse illegal orders.” Their message prompted criticism from Trump’s allies and a Defense Department review of the involvement of one senator.
Swalwell said he regularly hears from military personnel who express concerns about Trump’s leadership and emphasize their commitment to the Constitution. “Members of the military have told me they see themselves as a check on Donald Trump,” he said. According to Swalwell, those who contacted him stressed that their oath guides them, and that they would follow existing military law if confronted with an improper command.
The initial video sparked a sharp response from Trump, who posted on social media that the message amounted to “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!!” He also claimed such conduct was “punishable by DEATH.” The Trump administration has since faced questions from legal experts about those statements, as military law already instructs service members to disobey unlawful orders.
Defense officials have not commented publicly on the status of the Pentagon’s review, but the issue has continued to circulate in political circles as both parties react to Swalwell’s claims.
During his interview, Swalwell said that the service members who have contacted him do so on their own and not as representatives of their branches. He said they often describe feeling uneasy about political pressure placed on the military and want reassurance that their oath remains the guiding principle. “They tell me they will uphold their oath,” he said.
Republicans in Congress have pushed back on Swalwell’s comments, saying that any suggestion of the military acting as a “check” on a president risks creating confusion about the chain of command. Conservative commentators have also accused him of misrepresenting what service members are allowed to do.
Legal scholars, however, have noted in separate interviews with national outlets that the statements in the video align with long standing military rules. They emphasize that rejecting unlawful orders is a required duty, not a political position.
For now, Swalwell’s remarks continue to fuel debate about the responsibilities of service members and how far political leaders can go when addressing them. The Department of Justice has not indicated whether it will pursue further action related to the video, and Congress has not announced any hearings.
Swalwell said the messages he receives reflect a concern among some in uniform about maintaining the integrity of their oath, though he did not identify the service members or specify how many have contacted him. He said their comments underscore what he views as a steady focus on the Constitution, even amid shifting political tensions.
