Have you ever watched a movie where the good guys warn the soldiers not to follow the new president because he might go rogue? It feels dramatic, almost heroic on screen. But when real members of Congress release a tightly scripted video with that exact message just weeks before a new administration takes office, the vibe shifts from Hollywood to something far more unsettling.
Something strange is happening, and it’s moving fast.
A Carefully Timed Message Lands
Six Democratic lawmakers, several with national-security backgrounds, dropped a video telling uniformed personnel and intelligence officers across the country that their oath is to the Constitution, not to any individual, and that they have a duty to refuse unlawful orders. The delivery was calm, rehearsed, almost soothing. The timing, however, was anything but accidental.
Less than two weeks earlier, activist networks began circulating nearly identical language through legal guides, social-media toolkits, and even billboard campaigns. The phrase “refuse illegal orders” started appearing everywhere at once, like a slogan someone had focus-group tested in a war room.
Most people brushed it off as typical partisan noise. Others noticed the coordination and started asking harder questions.
Following the Paper Trail
Independent researchers digging through nonprofit filings, staff bios, and funding flows began connecting dots that probably weren’t meant to be connected. A small advocacy organization that used to go by a different name suddenly became the hub for this messaging. Its major backer? A foundation network famous for bankrolling progressive causes worldwide.
The same group partners with veteran organizations explicitly opposed to military action, with legal networks that have provided counsel to street-level activists for decades, and with hotlines designed to counsel service members thinking about disobeying orders. All of these entities rolled out material using the exact same talking points within days of one another.
“You must refuse illegal orders.”
– Recurring line across multiple campaigns, November 2025
When congressional staff and nonprofit staff lists start overlapping, and when the messaging aligns perfectly across television screens and urban billboards, coincidence becomes a tough sell.
The Playbook Looks Familiar
Anyone who has watched regime-change operations abroad recognizes the sequence:
- First comes the narrative that the incoming or sitting leader cannot be trusted with state power.
- Then sympathetic voices inside institutions are encouraged to resist.
- Parallel protests create the optics of chaos.
- Finally, international pressure is brought to bear until the targeted government collapses or compromises.
We’ve seen it work in multiple countries over the past two decades. The difference now is that the target appears to be domestic.
That realization hits differently.
Street Level Signals Match the Script
While lawmakers polished their video, cities began seeing sporadic but highly photogenic unrest. In Los Angeles, self-driving taxis worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each were set ablaze. The images spread instantly, perfect for anyone wanting to paint a picture of a nation spiraling out of control before the new president even takes the oath.
Whether those fires were spontaneous or orchestrated matters less than the fact that they fit the emerging narrative like a glove. Chaos on the streets reinforces the idea that strong measures, or perhaps no measures at all, are needed from those in uniform.
Why This Particular Message Resonates
Telling service members to refuse illegal orders sounds reasonable on its face. Every recruit learns that unlawful orders can and should be rejected. The military’s own manuals say so.
But notice what’s missing from the video and the accompanying literature: any specific example of what might constitute an illegal order under the incoming administration. The vagueness is the point. It plants doubt without having to defend any concrete accusation, at least not yet.
In the absence of specifics, imagination fills the gap. And imagination can be weaponized.
The Money Trail Rarely Lies
Follow the funding and patterns emerge quickly. Large private foundations that have backed color-revolution infrastructure abroad now support domestic organizations running identical playbooks. Staff move seamlessly between government agencies, think tanks, and advocacy groups, carrying contacts and strategies with them.
When the same relatively small cluster of donors shows up again and again behind campaigns that conveniently align with street action and congressional messaging, it stops looking like grassroots sentiment and starts looking like an orchestrated pressure campaign.
I’ve watched these funding networks for years, and the level of coordination on display right now is striking even by their standards.
What Happens If the Strategy Works?
Imagine a scenario where significant numbers of personnel in key agencies begin questioning routine orders because activist networks have primed them to expect illegality around every corner. Efficiency grinds down. Public trust erodes further. Every policy decision becomes a constitutional crisis in miniature.
That paralysis is the goal for anyone seeking to constrain an administration they oppose. Governing becomes nearly impossible when the machinery of government itself is encouraged to resist.
Historical Echoes Are Hard to Ignore
America has faced internal resistance campaigns before, but rarely with this level of institutional support and funding. The scale of dark-money involvement, the synchronization across media, legal, and street theaters, and the explicit targeting of uniformed personnel feel new, and not in a comforting way.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect is how normalized this has already become. Commentators on certain networks discuss “resistance” as if it’s just another political strategy, rather than a direct challenge to civilian control of the military.
Where This Road Might Lead
If the pattern holds, we’ll see escalation in three predictable phases:
- Continued narrative buildup portraying the incoming administration as uniquely dangerous.
- Increased street demonstrations timed for maximum media impact.
- Mounting calls from influential voices for institutional actors to “save democracy” by extraordinary means.
We’re already well into phase one.
The United States has survived deep political divisions before, but importing tactics designed to topple foreign governments and turning them inward feels like stepping onto unfamiliar and dangerous ground.
Maybe I’m reading too much into synchronized messaging and burning robotaxis. Or maybe, just maybe, what we’re watching unfold in real time is the domestic adaptation of a playbook that has worked dozens of times elsewhere.
Either way, dismissing the coordination as mere coincidence requires more willingness to suspend disbelief than I can muster right now.
The video from six lawmakers was just one piece of a much larger puzzle. When you step back and look at the full picture taking shape, it’s hard to shake the feeling that we’re watching the early stages of something most Americans never expected to see on their own soil.
And that, more than any single billboard or congressional soundbite, is what keeps me up at night.
