Several Democratic members of Congress have turned to the U.S. Capitol Police for protection after President Donald Trump publicly backed a call for them to be hanged. The lawmakers involved—Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris DeLuzio of Pennsylvania, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania—filed official reports because they felt Trump’s posts created a real and immediate threat to their safety. Their concerns intensified after Trump aggressively attacked them on Truth Social, accusing them of sedition simply for appearing in a video that reminded U.S. military personnel of their legal duty to refuse illegal orders.
The video, which also featured Representative Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, focused on a basic principle of military law. All of the lawmakers in the video have served either in the U.S. military or in intelligence roles, and they explained that military members swear an oath to defend the Constitution—not any individual leader. Their message emphasized that service members must follow lawful commands but are required to defy orders that clearly violate the law or direct them to commit crimes. This principle is deeply rooted in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which explicitly states that the obligation to obey orders does not apply when the order itself is illegal.
Trump reacted harshly. He wrote that their statements amounted to “seditious behavior” that could be punished by death. He also reposted a supporter’s message calling for the six Democrats to be hanged, adding comments of his own urging that they be arrested and put on trial. He claimed their statements threatened the future of the country and that an example needed to be made of them. For many observers, these comments crossed a dangerous line, because when a president amplifies calls for violence against elected officials, it can inspire unstable individuals to act.
That concern quickly became reality for some of the lawmakers. Houlahan’s office reported that, shortly after Trump’s posts, two of her district offices received bomb threats. Her staff members were overwhelmed by thousands of angry and sometimes threatening messages from people responding to Trump’s statements. She said that even if Trump did not personally intend violence, telling millions of followers that lawmakers deserve death inevitably unleashes dangerous behavior from people who may take those words literally. She stressed that this puts her, her team, and even her family at real risk.
The seriousness of the situation is heightened by the fact that these lawmakers were not urging disobedience in general—they were reinforcing a legal obligation every service member is taught from the moment they enter the military. U.S. law makes it clear that troops must refuse an unlawful command. That includes orders to commit war crimes, target civilians, torture prisoners, or take any action that breaks U.S. or international law. This principle is meant to prevent abuses of power and to protect service members from being forced into criminal acts.
Despite this, Trump’s response turned a basic explanation of military duty into a national controversy filled with threats, fear, and heightened security concerns. Lawmakers who were simply restating established military rules suddenly became targets of anger, threats, and intimidation from people who believed Trump’s accusations. The involvement of the Capitol Police underscores how seriously these threats are being taken and shows how quickly political rhetoric can escalate into real-world danger.
The expanding fallout around this incident highlights the fragile state of political discourse in the country. A routine explanation of military law became a trigger for violence-related threats when elevated by the president’s platform. The lawmakers now must focus not only on their duties but also on their personal safety, while law enforcement officials work to address threats that emerged directly from the president’s words.
