1. United States
2. Mich.
3. Letter

I urge you to reject H.Res. 932, which condemns six Members of Congress for reminding servicemembers of their existing legal obligations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This resolution mischaracterizes a fundamental principle of military law and sets a dangerous precedent for congressional speech. The resolution attacks Senator Mark Kelly, Senator Elissa Slotkin, Representative Jason Crow, Representative Christopher Deluzio, Representative Maggie Goodlander, and Representative Chrissy Houlahan for a November 18, 2025 video in which they discussed servicemembers' duty to refuse obviously unlawful orders. This is not sedition. It is a restatement of established military law that every servicemember learns in training. Article 92 of the UCMJ requires obedience to lawful orders, not blind obedience to all orders. Military members have both a right and a duty to refuse orders that are obviously illegal. The Nuremberg trials established that following orders is not a defense for war crimes. Our military justice system has consistently held that servicemembers must exercise judgment when faced with clearly unlawful commands. The resolution claims these Members provided no proof of illegal orders, yet Senator Slotkin's own statement that she was "not aware of things that are illegal" demonstrates they were speaking preventatively about legal principles, not inciting immediate disobedience. Reminding servicemembers of their legal obligations before potential violations occur is responsible oversight, not sedition. This resolution weaponizes congressional condemnation against Members exercising their First Amendment rights and fulfilling their oversight responsibilities. It chills legitimate debate about the proper use of military force and the limits of executive authority. The allegation that discussing legal obligations creates "disallegiance" conflates loyalty to the Constitution with loyalty to any individual commander. Congress should focus on substantive policy disagreements rather than condemning colleagues for constitutional speech. I ask you to oppose H.Res. 932 and defend the ability of all Members to engage in robust debate about military law and presidential authority.