Eric Swalwell, Democratic congressman and current California gubernatorial hopeful, has once again made headlines — not for legislative achievements or visionary policy — but for casually suggesting that members of the U.S. military should serve as an informal check on the civilian government, specifically President Donald Trump. On Don Lemon Tonight, Swalwell doubled down on his defense of the now-infamous video featuring six Democratic lawmakers — dubbed the “Seditious Six” — who told service members they could “refuse illegal orders” from Trump.
But Swalwell didn’t stop there.
According to him, unnamed members of the military have confided that they — not Congress, not the courts — are the true backstop against a president they dislike. “They tell me… while Congress is not a check on the president anymore, and the judiciary at the Supreme Court is hardly a check, military members have told me, ‘We can be a check.’”
Let’s pause on that. In a single breath, Swalwell dismissed the authority of two full branches of government and proposed that the military — a non-elected, non-legislative, and non-judicial institution — can and should operate as a political failsafe. That is not civic reassurance. That is the language of soft insurrection.
Swalwell and Lemon eagerly framed this as patriotic, as if a military acting independently of civilian leadership is what the Constitution intended. But in any other era, that suggestion would raise red flags the size of the Pentagon itself. The military is not a “check” on elected government. It’s subordinate to it. That’s not a suggestion — it’s the foundation of American democracy.
This isn’t the first time Swalwell has spoken recklessly when it comes to the role of force. He once joked that the government could nuke gun owners if it really wanted to. Now, he’s implying the military might “save us” by choosing when and if to follow the president’s orders, based on private political sentiment. That’s not saving democracy. That’s inviting a military conscience test for lawful orders — the exact scenario the Founders warned against.
As for the video, it’s already sparked a formal review by the Department of War, specifically targeting Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain. The Pentagon has good reason to worry. The video’s legalese-laden script never defines what constitutes an “illegal order,” and by omitting that clarity, it subtly reframes military obedience as a matter of political discretion. Kelly, and by association Swalwell, knew precisely what message they were sending: don’t trust the commander-in-chief, even before a single order is given.
Swalwell’s logic gets even more twisted. “If you don’t intend to carry out unlawful orders, why do you care that somebody would say that?” he asked. That’s like saying, “If you’re not a criminal, why be concerned about vigilantes telling your neighbors to arrest you?”
The answer is simple: because we live under laws, not feelings. Because the chain of command matters. And because telling the military to preemptively view elected leadership as suspect is not protecting the Constitution — it’s eroding it.
The uniform is not a partisan uniform. And once it becomes one, the republic it protects begins to unravel.
