Imagine this holiday season, with millions of brave military personnel gathered around tables laden with Thanksgiving feasts, the conversation turns inevitably to a single congressman whose actions have stirred a national uproar. But here's the shocking twist: his move wasn't outright treasonous, yet it posed a real threat to the very foundation of our armed forces. Stick around as we dive into the details of Colorado Representative Jason Crow's controversial video and explore why it could undermine the trust soldiers place in their leaders—something that's crucial for keeping our nation safe. And this is the part most people miss: the fine line between political expression and endangering military discipline.
Let's start by giving credit where it's due. Jason Crow is no stranger to sacrifice; he's a decorated former Airborne Ranger who risked his life serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading troops through the perils of war. Accusations labeling him a "traitor" on social media are way off base. He's a true patriot, deeply aware of the hardships and selfless dedication that define military life. He understands better than most the unbreakable bond of trust between commanders and those under their command—it's not just a nicety; it's the backbone of effective operations, both at home and on the front lines. Yet, in a move that's baffled many, Crow targeted that very oath that binds our servicemen and women.
For beginners trying to wrap their heads around this, let's break down the military oath. Every enlisted service member in the U.S. armed forces swears the same solemn pledge: 'I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.' This isn't just ceremonial—it's the legal and ethical framework that guides their actions. Soldiers are rigorously trained to follow lawful orders without question, while also recognizing and refusing unlawful ones. Think of it like a doctor in an emergency room: they follow protocols to save lives, but they must also spot and halt dangerous mistakes. Our troops have never needed—or benefited—from politicians sowing seeds of doubt about their superiors' directives. It's counterproductive and, frankly, unnecessary.
Fast-forward to November 18, just five days after a flattering profile in The Washington Post painted him as a rising star. Crow introduced a resolution aimed at preventing the Trump administration from destroying Venezuelan drug boats, and then dropped a bombshell: a video that urged military personnel to scrutinize and potentially defy their orders. This wasn't just informative; it was designed to sway minds. Crow explicitly stated his intent to 'speak directly to members of the military,' bypassing the usual channels of communication. He knows firsthand how corrosive doubt can be in a military structure that thrives on unity and obedience. But here's where it gets controversial: was this a harmless reminder of their rights, or a reckless push toward insubordination?
Far from being a simple 'reminder' of legal principles—as Crow later claimed—the video ramped up the drama with phrases like 'right now' to create a false sense of immediate urgency. He pleaded for action 'now more than ever,' encouraging young soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen to question their chain of command. Crow warned that public trust in the military 'is at risk' because 'this administration is pitting our uniform military... against American citizens,' and even suggested the administration posed 'threats to our Constitution... coming... from right here at home.' Yikes, indeed! This rhetoric frames the government as an internal enemy, which could easily confuse or demoralize troops trained to protect the nation.
To drive his point home, Crow acknowledged the 'enormous stress and pressure' on these service members, calling it 'hard,' but then insisted they 'must' refuse orders they deem illegal. He capped it off with the assurance that 'we have your back' for those who disobey. Huh? As a thought-provoking counterpoint, some might argue this empowers troops to stand up against tyranny, echoing historical examples like the Nuremberg Trials where following orders wasn't a defense for atrocities. But is that a fair comparison here, or just a stretch to justify political theater?
The fallout was swift and intense. Crow and his allies scrambled to clarify what 'illegal orders' they meant, with Crow backpedaling by saying they weren't calling for disobedience 'right now.' Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin chimed in, noting she wasn't aware of any such illegal directives. When those responses fell flat, the group conjured up hypothetical scenarios of unlawful commands that have never materialized, spinning their yarn on every media outlet willing to listen.
Crow was on the brink of admitting defeat—eating crow, if you will—but got a lifeline from the President, whose unconventional tactics shifted the spotlight. Suddenly, questions about Crow's judgment morphed into sympathetic inquiries about his feelings. From his perch on the soapbox, Crow boasted he wouldn't be intimidated, bizarrely claiming his video was about ensuring people follow the law. But wait, that's the executive branch's domain! Congress, outside of amending the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)—the legal standard governing military conduct—or declaring war, doesn't directly oversee military operations. This confusion might stem from a misunderstanding of governmental roles; perhaps Crow sees himself as a watchdog, but in reality, he's overstepping.
Crow defensively brushed it off as 'just informing them of the law and their oath.' Nonsense, says the author. He even conceded that the military is expertly trained and unlikely to be swayed by political grandstanding. So why bother? There's no historical precedent for such meddling, unless it's pure partisan politics. The timing, tied to a resolution against the administration, screams opportunism.
And this is the part most people miss: Crow's encouragement to 'don't give up the ship' might sound inspirational, but Coloradans—and Americans—should hold onto reason. While not outright sedition (a crime of inciting rebellion against the government), his actions were dangerously misguided. He owes the military an apology and a reminder to trust their superiors. A true leader would own up and rebuild that faith.
What do you think? Did Rep. Crow go too far by sowing doubt in the military's chain of command, or was it a necessary check on potential abuses of power? Could this video actually empower troops to resist unlawful orders, or does it risk chaos in our armed forces? Share your opinions in the comments—do you agree with the author's take, or see a controversial angle we've overlooked?
George Brauchler serves as the 23rd Judicial District attorney and previously held the role of district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He's also been an Owens Early Criminal Justice Fellow at the Common Sense Institute. You can follow his insights on X at @GeorgeBrauchler.
