November 24, 2025

President Donald Trump’s blatant disrespect for the law was on full display on November 20. In a post on Truth Social, he called for the execution of Democratic lawmakers who, in a publicly available online video, reminded members of the military and intelligence community that under American law they “can refuse illegal orders; you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or the Constitution.”

This video message from military veterans comes at a moment when Trump has been directing the military to undertake illegal acts. It is firmly grounded in law and history, as we recently discussed. In 1804, in Little v. Barreme, the Supreme Court held, through an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, that a president is bound by statutory commands and may not order soldiers or sailors to violate the law. Trump’s outburst, unbecoming of a U.S. president who swears an oath to defend the Constitution and bears the responsibility to “take care” that the laws are “faithfully” executed, reflects the character of a man who has long shown disdain for lawful governance. In his Truth Social post, Trump declared that the lawmakers “should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL” and called them “traitors” for engaging in “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

White House aides have misrepresented the content of the video. Lawmakers did not, contrary to Stephen Miller, call “for insurrection,” nor did they, contrary to Press Secretary Karoline Levitt, urge service members to disobey “lawful orders.” They simply reminded military personnel that they “can refuse illegal orders; you must refuse illegal orders.” As Andrew McCarthy, a legal analyst for Fox News and a columnist for National Review, correctly stated, “Disobeying an unlawful order is required.”

This principle has long been established. In 1806, a Federal Circuit Court decision written by Justice William Paterson reaffirmed the reasoning of Barreme. In United States v. Smith, the court reviewed the indictment of Col. William S. Smith for actions taken against Spain. Smith claimed his expedition was undertaken with the “approbation of the executive department.” Paterson rejected this defense. Even if President Thomas Jefferson had approved the mission, the order would have violated the Neutrality Act of 1794, which barred any person from assisting a military expedition against a nation at peace with the United States. Paterson asked, “Supposing then that every syllable of Smith’s affidavit is true, of what avail can it be? Does it speak by way of justification?”

Echoing Barreme and speaking directly to President Trump, Paterson declared that the president “cannot control the statute, nor dispense with its execution, and still less can he authorize a person to do what the law forbids. If he could, it would render the execution of the laws dependent on his will and pleasure.” He added that “the law is paramount. Who has dominion over it? None but the legislature.” The president, he concluded, has no authority to grant a “license” to violate the law.

The precedents in Barreme and Smith, contemporaries of Marbury v. Madison (1803), confirm that the framers did not give the president monarchical power to disregard or revise the law.

Trump’s attack on lawmakers who reminded the military of their legal obligations reveals a leader uninterested in the constitutional mechanisms designed to restrain executive power. Restoring a constitutional presidency begins with fulfilling the Article II duty to “faithfully” execute the laws, the framers’ central rationale for creating the office, which we will examine next week.

-David Adler