Slotkin Silent After DC National Guard Shooting as Her Warnings About “Illegal Military Orders” Draw Renewed Scrutiny
Sen. Elissa Slotkin has stayed silent after a deadly Washington D.C. shooting involving a National Guard member, even as her earlier warnings to troops about refusing unlawful orders — and an FBI inquiry into a video — draw renewed scrutiny.
- Sen. Slotkin and other Democrats urged service members to refuse unlawful orders, citing constitutional risks and concerns raised by accounts in Mark Esper’s memoir (Michigan Public Radio, ABC News).
- The D.C. National Guard shooting renewed focus after one guard member was killed and another critically injured; authorities are treating the act as terrorism (Fox News).
- Slotkin did not respond to requests about any connection between her video and the attack while she remains the subject of an FBI counterterrorism inquiry and has faced escalating threats (Michigan Public Radio).
- Legal debate persists over when orders become unlawful under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and how presidential authority should be constrained to prevent misuse of federal troops (ABC News).
Background: Slotkin’s warnings and the video message
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and senior Pentagon official, has been vocal about the limits of presidential power over the armed forces. In early November, she and six other Democrats released a short video directed at active-duty military and intelligence personnel asserting that service members have a legal right — and duty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse unlawful orders. The lawmakers cited concerns from service members who feared being asked to participate in illegal domestic operations. (Sources: Michigan Public Radio, ABC News.)
Those lawmakers explicitly referenced allegations in former Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s memoir, which claims former President Trump suggested using airborne forces in Washington during 2020 protests and asked, “can’t you just ‘shoot at their legs?’” Slotkin echoed Esper’s account during congressional hearings, arguing such remarks raise constitutional concerns about employing federal troops against civilians. The former president has denied making those statements. (Source: Fox News.)
Why the video sparked backlash
The video provoked an immediate and fierce reaction from the former president and allies. Trump characterized the lawmakers’ message as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” a post that amplified tension and public debate. White House officials later said the post was not intended to advocate violence against lawmakers, but the comment intensified scrutiny of the video and its authors. (Source: Michigan Public Radio.)
Federal investigators responded: the FBI opened a counterterrorism inquiry and reportedly sought interviews with the lawmakers involved. Slotkin said the inquiry underscored the very risks the video sought to highlight — namely the danger of using federal troops against civilians and the need for service members to know their legal obligations. (Sources: Michigan Public Radio, YouTube reporting.)
Personal security and threats
Slotkin has reported a sharp increase in threats against her and her family following the controversy. She described an immediate rise in death threats, including a bomb threat at her family farm, and said her security detail was expanded as a precaution. Slotkin has suggested these threats have affected her public profile and may shape how she responds to sensitive events. (Source: Michigan Public Radio.)
The DC National Guard shooting and Slotkin’s silence
On Wednesday, Washington law enforcement reported a shooting that killed one D.C. National Guard member and left another critically injured. The FBI has identified the suspect as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national and former member of a counterterrorism team. Authorities are treating the incident as an act of terrorism while the investigation continues. (Source: Fox News.)
Reporters repeatedly asked Senator Slotkin whether the attack could be linked to her earlier warnings — and whether her video might have influenced the attacker’s thinking. Her office did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Observers note the silence is notable because of how prominently Slotkin’s 2025 video featured in national debate. (Source: Fox News.)
Legal and constitutional questions: illegal military orders and presidential authority
Legal scholars and former military lawyers emphasize that the obligation to refuse unlawful orders is a well-established principle in military law. The Uniform Code of Military Justice and longstanding doctrine require service members to disobey orders that are manifestly illegal, including directives to fire on U.S. civilians. Yet the distinction between lawful and unlawful orders can be complex during rapidly evolving domestic crises.
Slotkin’s reference to the Esper allegation highlighted broader worries about unclear command lines and the scope of presidential authority. Debates persist over how and when a president can deploy federal troops to U.S. cities — with statutes like the Insurrection Act delineating some limits, but questions remaining about political pressure and potential misuse.
Implications for San Diego, California
Economic: San Diego hosts large active-duty and reserve communities, defense contractors, and naval installations. National debate about federal troop deployment rules and the risk of “illegal military orders” could affect local morale, recruiting, and contractors who depend on stable Navy and Marine operations.
Political consequences: San Diego’s mixed electorate values both national security and civil liberties. Local leaders and members of Congress may face pressure to clarify positions on presidential authority over military forces; the topic could surface in town halls, candidate debates, and campaign messaging.
Social effects: Many San Diego families include active-duty service members. News about the D.C. National Guard shooting and debates over refusing unlawful orders may raise anxiety among service families and veterans, increasing demand for counseling and legal guidance from community organizations.
Cultural relevance & practical steps: Conversations about limiting military action on U.S. soil will resonate in a city tied closely to the military. Local commands, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, and municipal leaders may review training for Guard and reserve personnel, while lawmakers could pursue clearer statutory limits or oversight mechanisms.
Sources and reporting
Reporting note
This story draws on reporting from the outlets listed above and on public statements and documents related to the events described. Times Media Service and correspondent reporting were used; Slotkin’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article. (Sources repeated: Fox News, Michigan Public Radio.)
