8:01Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, is featured on ABC News’ “This Week” on Nov. 23, 2025.ABC News
President Donald Trump's remarks accusing Democratic legislators of "treasonous conduct" after a video urging members of the armed forces to disobey "unlawful commands" have sparked disapproval from both sides of the aisle.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, one of the six Democrats highlighted in the video, told ABC News' "This Week" co-host Martha Raddatz this past Sunday that she considered Trump's condemnation, which included the possibility of capital punishment for sedition, as "a tactic of intimidation."
"He is attempting to silence us because he wishes to avoid discussion on this issue," Slotkin stated. "Actually, I would contend that by constantly repeating it and addressing it, he aims to divert our attention from the major developments of the previous week, namely the release of the [Jeffrey] Epstein documents and the state of the economy."
Republican Rep. Michael McCaul also sought to disassociate himself from the words, conveying to Raddatz, "I cannot speak for the president regarding the potential execution of members of Congress."
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., appears on ABC News’ “This Week” on Nov. 23, 2025.ABC News
"I would lessen the intensity of the speech and soften the overall message," McCaul added.
The White House and Trump have refuted the claim that Trump was posing a death threat to the legislators, who possess experience in the military or national security sectors, but the president’s attacks have persisted even as the legislators have reported experiencing a surge of menaces, obligating them to reinforce their security measures.
On Saturday evening, Trump once more labeled them as "traitors," asserting that these individuals "SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW" instead of defending their actions to the press.
On "This Week," Slotkin stated that the legislators released the video due to direct concerns raised by officers.
"You are not required to simply accept my statement as fact. We have seen a continuous stream of reports from legal officers, JAG officers, who have voiced, 'Look, I am resisting this. I am uncertain of its legality,'" Slotkin commented. "Unlawful commands do exist. That's why they are addressed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Returning to Nuremberg, correct? It is a completely harmless declaration. And if the president finds it alarming, then he ought to adhere strictly to the bounds of the law."
However, when questioned by Raddatz if she believed the president had issued any unlawful commands, Slotkin responded, "To the best of my knowledge, I am unaware of any outright illegal activities, but there are indeed some questionable legal maneuvers occurring with these Caribbean operations and all matters pertaining to Venezuela."
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, appears on ABC News’ “This Week” on Nov. 23, 2025.ABC News
McCaul expressed that concerning Venezuela and the interventions against suspected drug-smuggling vessels, he does not believe any illicit actions have transpired.
"These directives they reference, in my estimation, do not constitute illegal orders to obey. They are commands rooted in Article 2’s self-defense provision of the Constitution, aimed at neutralizing a threat, specifically the menace of narcotics entering our nation and causing fatalities among Americans," McCaul explained. "Examining it from that angle, there are no unlawful orders to comply with here."
More notable segments from Slotkin’s interview are listed below:
"Chief concern" is military deployment within the U.S., Slotkin notes
Slotkin: My paramount worry centers on the employment of the U.S. military on American soil, within our cities and on our streets. We have recently seen courts invalidate the deployment of U.S. military forces onto our streets, notably here in Washington, D.C. The videos emerging from regions like Chicago deeply concern me, as I fear that law enforcement personnel, uniformed military members, will become agitated, stressed, and potentially fire upon American civilians. The circumstances are exceptionally tense for both law enforcement and the affected communities. Consequently, the video served as a preemptive caution, advising individuals that if they are instructed to undertake actions, especially against American citizens, they retain the capacity to consult their JAG officer and seek clarification.
Raddatz: Given that these service members are contacting you, could you not have conveyed the same message through a video that simply stated: ‘If you are directed to carry out an action and you harbor concerns about its legality, you can seek counsel’? It seems to imply that the president is issuing unlawful orders, which you acknowledge you have not witnessed.
Slotkin: For us, I believe it was a broad statement, correct? We convey rapidly and expressly to all those who seek our counsel: ‘This is the procedure: consult your JAG officer, request their perspective and justification.’ We address each situation on a case-by-case basis, yet we wished to directly reach the vast numbers of individuals who had approached us regarding this matter.
On the likelihood of additional military initiatives targeting Venezuela
Slotkin: Certainly, the sheer volume of the military presence amassed in and around Venezuela suggests that when major powers deploy that significant amount of force into an area, it is reasonable to expect they intend to utilize it. Aircraft carriers and F-35s have been deployed…Should we truly be contemplating initiating some form of armed conflict or military engagement against the Venezuelan mainland, I would hope that the president would be willing to initiate that discussion publicly, to include the American populace who have no desire to engage in another war or to pursue regime change.
Sourse: abcnews.go.com
