The comparison you’re highlighting points to a perceived double standard in how orders from the Commander-in-Chief are treated based on political affiliation.
The core of the argument rests on the definition of an “illegal order.” The Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for the military was enacted as a lawful order through established DoD policy, framed as a necessary measure for military readiness and unit health. Service members who refused were processed for separation under existing regulations for disobeying a lawful general order.
In the current situation, the “Seditious Six” video preemptively labels potential, unspecified orders from a President Trump as “illegal” and encourages troops to prepare to disobey them. Critics argue this is a political, not legal, judgment that actively undermines the chain of command before any specific order is given.
The contrasting reactions you note underscore a deep political divide:
One side views the vaccine mandate as a lawful order essential to national security, and the separations as a consequence of insubordination.
The other side sees the video as a patriotic defense of the Constitution against a potential authoritarian, and the vaccine mandate as an overreach of federal power.
This dichotomy lies at the heart of the current political conflict, where the very nature of a “lawful order” is often defined by which side of the political aisle one stands on.
