Editorial illustration
The speed at which Democrats abandon their principles would be impressive if it weren’t so predictable. Just months ago, six Democratic lawmakers with military backgrounds were urging American service members to disobey presidential orders they deemed illegal. Now those same voices are wrapping themselves in the flag, declaring that questioning the chain of command undermines our brave men and women in uniform. The only thing that changed? The president’s last name.
Senator Richard Blumenthal called the conflict with Iran an “illegal war” while carefully noting that “the troops are in no way to blame.” Representative Darren Soto echoed the sentiment, saying “we support the troops always” because “they’re following orders.” This is quite the pivot from last November, when Senator Elissa Slotkin was telling service members directly to “refuse illegal orders” and “don’t give up the ship.” What happened to that energy?
The inconvenient truth for Democrats is that their previous rhetoric wasn’t about principle or constitutional fidelity. It was about undermining a president they despised. Slotkin, along with Senators Mark Kelly and Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow, didn’t just express policy disagreements. They actively encouraged military insubordination, a line that previous generations of politicians understood you don’t cross regardless of which party holds the White House.
Now that their own words are being thrown back at them, these lawmakers have gone silent. When asked how their calls for troops to disregard orders square with their current posture, they had no comment. Of course they didn’t. There’s no coherent explanation for telling service members to resist presidential directives in November while demanding unquestioning obedience in April, unless the only variable you’re actually concerned about is who occupies the Oval Office.
The war powers debate itself reveals the hollowness of Democratic opposition. They cite the War Powers Act’s 60-day limit, ignoring that the conflict hasn’t reached that threshold. They call it an “illegal war” while admitting they don’t have accurate information about what’s actually happening. They demand classified briefings while voting against resolutions that would actually exercise congressional authority. It’s performance art, not governance.
Even within their own party, the hypocrisy is too much for some. Senator John Fetterman, the only Democrat who has consistently supported the operation against Iran, pointed out the obvious: we’re 48 days in, and none of this has been illegal. He’s right, of course, which is why his colleagues prefer vague accusations to specific legal arguments. When you can’t win on the merits, you change the subject.
The deeper issue here is what this behavior reveals about the modern Democratic Party’s relationship with American institutions. They don’t see the military as a nonpartisan institution serving the nation. They see it as a tool to be weaponized against political enemies and then defended when convenient. The troops aren’t human beings with families and convictions; they’re props in a political drama that resets every election cycle.
For voters watching this spectacle, the lesson is clear. The next time Democrats wrap themselves in constitutional language or military deference, remember this moment. Remember that their commitment to institutional norms lasts exactly as long as it takes for the polling to shift. Remember that the same people who encouraged troops to resist lawful orders are now pretending to be their greatest defenders. And remember that in Washington, the only principle that never changes is the pursuit of power by any means necessary.
About The Author
