Sedition is not a vague construct; it has a clear meaning.
It’s conduct or speech that incites rebellion against the authority of the government, often involving efforts to undermine or overthrow established constitutional order. In U.S. law, it’s treated as a serious crime, reflected in statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2384, which addresses conspiracies to use force against the government or its laws.
With that in mind, let’s talk plainly about what happened on January 6, 2021.
On that day, the man who served as the 45th President stood before a crowd and told them, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Those words weren’t delivered in a vacuum. They came in the context of weeks of lies about a stolen election, directed at a crowd already primed to believe that their government had been illegitimately seized.
What followed was, in any ordinary sense of the word, a rebellion against the authority of the government: a mob storming the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop the lawful counting of electoral votes. That day was not a protest that got out of hand. It was an attempt, however chaotic and poorly organized, to derail a constitutional process by force and intimidation.
In my view, that’s exactly the kind of conduct people should have in mind when they use the word sedition.
A Second Injury: Pardoning the Rebellion
Fast-forward to the same individual now serving as the 47th President. One of his first acts in office was to pardon or commute the sentences of nearly 1,300 people convicted for their seditious roles in that assault on the Capitol, roughly half of whom were incarcerated at the time.
Think about what that says:
- The attack was aimed at stopping a lawful constitutional process.
- The people involved were investigated, charged, prosecuted, and convicted in courts of law.
- Then, almost as soon as political power shifted back into the hands of the very man whose rhetoric fueled the attack, those convictions were wiped away or softened.
That may not be sedition in the strict technical, legal sense, but it absolutely undermines accountability for a violent attack on our democratic process. It sends a message that loyalty to one man is more important than loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. To me, that’s a second blow against our system—different in form, but similar in spirit to the first.
Lawful and Unlawful Orders: What the UCMJ Actually Says
Now we come to the latest twist. A small group of six members of Congress recently emphasized a very basic fact about military service:
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), service members are obligated to obey lawful orders—and they are not obligated for carrying out unlawful ones. In fact they can be punished.
- Article 92 criminalizes the failure` to obey lawful orders or regulations.
- Article 90 criminalizes willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer—again, assuming the order is lawful.
Courts and military practice have long recognized that an order is lawful only if it:
- Serves a valid military purpose,
- Is clear and specific, and
- Does not conflict with U.S. law or the Constitution.
This is not a radical idea; it’s basic military ethics and long-standing law. Service members are not supposed to be unthinking tools. They swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a particular president.
These members of Congress simply pointed out that if a president issues an illegal order, military members not only have no duty to follow it—they may have a duty to refuse. That’s not sedition. That’s a reminder of the legal and moral structure that keeps our military under constitutional control instead of personal control.
Yet the very same man who once incited a crowd that went on to attack the Capitol now wants to label this reminder as “sedition.” To me, that doesn’t reveal strength; it reveals fear—fear that someone might refuse to carry out an unlawful command.
The Oath: Bedrock of the Republic
Both military members and members of Congress swear an oath:
To support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That oath is the bedrock of our democracy. It is not an oath of personal loyalty to a president, a party, or a movement. It is an oath to the Constitution itself.
So when elected officials or officers remind us that unlawful orders must not be followed, they are not undermining the country. They are doing exactly what their oath requires—insisting that no one, not even the president, stands above the law.
My Vote, My Voice
Here’s something else that doesn’t count as sedition: disagreeing with the current administration.
Having a different opinion than the president does not make me a “domestic enemy.” Criticizing decisions, policies, or rhetoric is not rebellion; it’s part of my duty as a citizen paying attention.
As a registered voter, I have a quiet but powerful tool:
I can walk into a polling place, step into a booth, and express my opinion in complete secrecy with my vote.
That vote:
- Might be seen as a “threat” by those who want obedience instead of accountability.
- Might upset those who prefer a strongman over a constitutional system.
- Might annoy people who think loyalty to a leader should override loyalty to the law.
But in a healthy democracy, that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.
My opinion, expressed through my ballot, is not sedition. It is my right, my responsibility, and one of the last clear ways I can say:
I stand with the Constitution, not with any one man.
And I intend to keep using that power as long as I draw breath.
So when a man who should easily have been convicted of sedition. Who has been convicted as a felon; decides to call people who are upholding their oaths, the UCMJ, and our Constitution, “seditious”, it lands like an insult to every one of us who ever swore an oath. In my opinion (and I’ve got plenty), we need more people who stand firmly to their oaths and the Constitution and a lot fewer folks like old Number 47 and his cadre of grifters...
