Army Ranger turned legislator faces violence after urging military to refuse unlawful orders
When Reminding Soldiers About The Constitution Becomes Controversial
Colorado Congressman Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, found himself facing bomb threats and death threats after doing something remarkably uncontroversial: reminding service members that they have a constitutional obligation to refuse unlawful orders. In the current political climate, this apparently qualifies as sedition, treason, and grounds for execution, according to President Trump’s recent social media posts that accused Crow and five other veteran lawmakers of crimes punishable by death.
The controversy erupted when Crow and five fellow Democratic lawmakers, all with national security backgrounds, released a video message to troops emphasizing their duty to refuse illegal orders. The video came after concerns from service members about recent military strikes on Venezuelan drug boats and deployments that might violate U.S. criminal law. Trump’s response was measured and presidential: he suggested they should be arrested for crimes that carry the death penalty. It’s democracy in action, assuming your definition of democracy includes threatening to execute members of Congress for quoting the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Jerry Seinfeld observed: “A president threatening to execute Congress members for reminding the military about the Constitution is like a teacher threatening to expel students for reading the textbook. Something’s backwards here.”
The Video That Sparked Presidential Fury
The six-minute video featured Crow alongside Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, Representative Chris DeLuzio of Pennsylvania, Representative Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Representative Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, all veterans or former intelligence officers. Their message was straightforward: service members have an obligation to refuse orders that violate the Constitution or U.S. criminal law. This is not revolutionary doctrine; it’s literally in the military oath and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
But Trump interpreted this basic civics lesson as an attempt to undermine his authority, posting that the lawmakers should be “arrested for Treason” and face punishment “that can include the death penalty.” The president’s inability to distinguish between “reminding people about existing law” and “treason” suggests either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional government or a deliberate attempt to intimidate critics. Possibly both.
Dave Chappelle noted: “When you get mad at people for quoting the law, maybe you’re the one planning to break it.”
The Death Threats That Followed
Crow’s Aurora, Colorado office received a bomb threat, and his family has been subjected to death threats and murder threats so severe that CBS News felt compelled to bleep them in their broadcast. The calls ranged from the straightforward (“I hope you all get murdered”) to the ideologically confused (“You ain’t an American, you’re a communist”). Apparently, reminding the military about the Constitution is now communist, which would news to the framers who wrote that Constitution.
During an appearance on “Face the Nation,” Crow addressed the threats calmly, noting that “this president has made numerous threats to use the military in lawless ways.” He cited Trump’s threat to have the military shoot peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square, send troops to polling stations (a violation of federal law), and “napalm the City of Chicago.” When the president’s rhetoric consistently involves military force against American citizens, reminding soldiers about legal limits isn’t treason; it’s self-preservation.
Bill Burr quipped: “Getting death threats for saying ‘follow the law’ is peak America right now. We’ve turned basic civics into a contact sport.”
The Republican Response and Military Law
Not all veterans in Congress agreed with Crow’s video. Fifteen House Republicans, also veterans, released their own video accusing the Democratic lawmakers of undermining military integrity. Retired General Jack Bergman suggested the message could weaken the military, apparently under the theory that reminding soldiers about their constitutional obligations somehow damages unit cohesion. This is like arguing that reminding drivers about traffic laws undermines road safety.
The reality is that every service member takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They don’t swear allegiance to the president; they swear allegiance to the Constitution. The Uniform Code of Military Justice explicitly requires service members to disobey unlawful orders. These aren’t controversial positions; they’re foundational to civilian control of the military and preventing war crimes.
Chris Rock reflected: “When half the veterans in Congress think reminding troops about the Constitution is fine and the other half think it’s treason, we’ve got a problem that goes way beyond which party you vote for.”
The Venezuelan Drug Boat Strikes and Legal Questions
One of the triggers for Crow’s video was the military’s conduct of multiple strikes against boats suspected of drug trafficking from Venezuela. Critics have expressed opposition to what they call illegal extrajudicial killings of civilians. The strikes raise serious questions under international law and the War Powers Resolution, particularly when conducted without congressional authorization or even adequate briefing to Congress.
Crow has been vocal about Congress being cut out of military decision-making, noting that “I’ve had enough of Congress being cut out” after serving three combat tours in wars that lasted two decades with questionable outcomes. His frustration is shared by many who remember that Iraq and Afghanistan cost $3 trillion, 7,000 American lives, and ended poorly at least in part because Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility to debate and authorize military action.
Amy Schumer observed: “We spent 20 years in Afghanistan because Congress didn’t ask enough questions. Now when a Congressman asks questions, the president threatens to execute him. We’ve learned nothing.”
The Polling Station Threats and Criminal Law
Crow specifically mentioned Trump’s threat to send military troops to polling stations, which violates U.S. criminal law. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits using federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement, including election monitoring. Trump’s threat to deploy troops to polling places isn’t just bad policy; it’s illegal. Reminding military members that they can refuse such orders isn’t undermining the military; it’s protecting service members from being forced to commit federal crimes.
The president’s response to this legal reminder was to threaten Crow with execution, which is either the most ironic thing ever or a deliberate attempt to prove Crow’s point about lawless use of military force. When you threaten to kill people for saying “don’t break the law,” you’re essentially admitting you plan to break the law.
Ricky Gervais deadpanned: “The president saying ‘I’ll kill you for telling troops not to do illegal things’ is like a bank robber saying ‘I’ll shoot you for calling 911.’ It’s confession disguised as threat.”
The Congressional Oversight That Isn’t Happening
Crow expressed frustration that Congress hasn’t received adequate briefings on military operations, particularly regarding Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted military strikes, built up forces in the Caribbean, and taken aggressive postures toward South American nations without the usual congressional consultations. This isn’t just constitutional norms breaking down; it’s the executive branch operating as if Congress doesn’t exist.
The congressman noted that Congress needs to be “debating this before the American people,” making the case for why Americans should send their children into conflict and spend billions of dollars. This used to be called representative democracy. Now it’s apparently grounds for arrest and execution. The evolution is not encouraging.
Trevor Noah concluded: “Congress asking ‘What are we doing with the military?’ is literally their job. If doing your job gets you death threats, we’ve moved past dysfunction into full dystopia.”
The Servant Leadership Philosophy Under Fire
Crow has built his political career on what he calls “servant leadership,” a concept he learned in the Army: putting the needs of those you lead ahead of your own. As an Army Ranger, he rose to the rank of Captain but always remembered what it was like to march in the boots of a private. This philosophy has driven his work on veterans’ issues, including introducing multiple bills to address ALS rates among veterans, improve mental health services, and help justice-involved veterans.
His recent legislative efforts include the BRAVE Act to ensure the Department of Veterans Affairs meets the needs of rural and female veterans, and the Justice Involved Veterans Support Act. He’s worked on bipartisan legislation to improve veterans benefits, fix the transition from military to civilian life, and address the elevated suicide rates among veterans. This is the work that qualifies him for death threats in 2025 America.
Kevin Hart summed it up: “He served three combat tours, came home, became a lawyer helping veterans, got elected to Congress, worked on bipartisan veteran legislation, reminded troops about the law, and got threatened with execution. Service really isn’t what it used to be.”
The Ranking Democrat on Intelligence and Special Operations
Crow serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Armed Services Committee, where he’s the Ranking Democrat of the Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee. These positions give him access to classified information about military operations and intelligence matters that most members of Congress never see. When he expresses concern about the legality of military actions, he’s not speaking from ignorance or partisan opposition; he’s speaking from informed oversight.
His concerns about Trump’s threatened uses of military force aren’t hypothetical. He cited specific instances: threatening to shoot protesters, sending troops to polling stations, threatening to napalm Chicago. These aren’t campaign rhetoric or policy disagreements; they’re statements about using military force against American citizens in ways that violate federal law. When someone with Crow’s background and security clearances says “we need to remind troops about refusing unlawful orders,” perhaps the appropriate response isn’t execution threats.
As the congressman processes bomb threats against his office and murder threats against his family for doing his constitutional duty, the broader question looms: when did reminding the military about the Constitution become controversial? The answer is depressingly clear: when the president started planning things that the Constitution prohibits.
Auf Wiedersehen, amigos.
