The foundation of American governance rests on a principle that distinguishes it from authoritarian regimes: civilian control over the military. This concept ensures that elected officials—not generals or unelected bureaucrats—command the armed forces. It is a safeguard against military coups and tyranny, preserving the democratic structure envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. When this principle is undermined, the entire system of governance faces existential risk.

Recent events have brought this issue into sharp focus. On November 26, 2025, an Afghan immigrant—Rahmanullah Lakanwal—opened fire on two National Guard members near the White House. This attack, occurring on the eve of Thanksgiving, was not an isolated act of violence. It was symptomatic of a deeper ideological war being waged against law and order, fueled by political rhetoric and systemic failures in immigration vetting. At the center of this controversy lies a video released by six members of Congress, including Senator Mark Kelly, urging military personnel to “refuse illegal orders” from President Trump. While framed as a constitutional safeguard, critics argue that the video constitutes sedition, a crime punishable by death under U.S. law.

Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, ambushed two West Virginia National Guard members—Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe—near the Farragut West Metro station, just blocks from the White House. Armed with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver, he critically injured both soldiers before being subdued and hospitalized. Authorities have charged him with assault with intent to kill while armed, with potential escalation to murder charges if the victims succumb to their injuries.1

Lakanwal entered the United States in September 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden administration initiative to resettle Afghans who assisted U.S. forces during the war. Approximately 76,000 Afghans were admitted under this program, many on humanitarian parole. Lakanwal, a former Afghan special forces commander who worked closely with U.S. and British troops, was granted asylum in 2025.

While the program aimed to honor commitments to allies, critics argue that vetting was rushed, creating security vulnerabilities. The Trump administration has since halted Afghan immigration processing indefinitely pending review.3

The FBI is investigating whether Lakanwal acted as a lone wolf inspired by jihadist ideology or had operational ties to terrorist networks. While no direct links to ISIS or al-Qaeda have been confirmed, authorities are treating the case as potential international terrorism.4

This incident underscores a broader trend: according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the U.S. has averaged three jihadist plots or attacks per year since 2020, most inspired rather than directed by foreign groups.5

The ideological dimension cannot be ignored. Radical Islamists view Western democracies—and particularly Christian-majority nations like the U.S.—as adversaries. Acts of terror serve as both symbolic and tactical blows against these societies. When political rhetoric within the U.S. appears to legitimize defiance of lawful authority, it creates fertile ground for extremists seeking justification for violence.

Who Were the “Seditious Six?”

1. Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ)

2. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (MI)

3. Rep. Jason Crow (CO)

4. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (PA)

5. Rep. Chris Deluzio (PA)

6. Rep. Maggie Goodlander (NH)6

The lawmakers urged military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders” and uphold the Constitution. While they claimed this was a defense against tyranny, critics—including President Trump—argued that the video that the “seditious six” produced constituted sedition, punishable by death under federal law. The Pentagon is reportedly investigating whether Kelly could be recalled to active duty for court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).67

Legal experts counter that advising troops not to follow unlawful orders is correct under military law. Sedition requires intent to overthrow the government by force, which the video did not explicitly advocate.8  And that’s the problem, because the clear intent was to inspire people like Rahmanullah Lakanwal to do it on their behalf while the “seditious six” claim innocence.

Legal Definitions

• Sedition (18 U.S.C. §2384): Conspiracy to use force to overthrow or oppose U.S. authority or hinder execution of law. Punishable by up to 20 years.9

• Insurrection (18 U.S.C. §2383): Violent rebellion against U.S. authority.10

January 6 Context

Prosecutors charged organized groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys with seditious conspiracy for plotting to block certification of the 2020 election.11

Key Difference

January 6 was a reaction to election fraud—a protest against what participants saw as the destruction of democratic governance. The Kelly video, by contrast, sought to influence military obedience, striking at the heart of civilian control. While both raise constitutional questions, the latter arguably poses a more systemic threat because it undermines the chain of command that preserves a representative government that reports to the people and is obedient to them.  With January 6th, the government was picking our president, so we are dealing with a big difference and a major problem in context.  And it’s the same bad players in all cases.  The political left, and moderates in their back pocket, do not want a representative government that reports to a president they pick.  They want to put a complete loser like Joe Biden in power to rule over the masses as a fourth branch of government that rules from Tyson’s Corner mansions. 

Civilian oversight of the military is not a mere tradition; it is a constitutional mandate. Article II of the Constitution vests executive power in the President, who serves as Commander-in-Chief. This structure prevents military autonomy and ensures accountability through elections.

When elected officials encourage defiance of presidential orders, they erode this foundation. If the military becomes a political actor, democracy collapses into oligarchy or dictatorship. The Kelly video, regardless of intent, introduced ambiguity into a system that depends on clarity.

The Afghan shooter’s attack illustrates the real-world consequences of ideological destabilization. Political rhetoric that delegitimizes lawful authority does not exist in a vacuum; it reverberates globally, influencing actors who seek chaos. Immigration policies that prioritize mass over security compound the risk.

Moreover, the selective application of legal standards—aggressive prosecution of January 6 participants versus leniency toward lawmakers flirting with sedition—undermines public trust. Lawfare becomes a weapon, not a shield, when used to destroy political rivals rather than uphold justice.

The events of November 26, 2025, are a warning. When civilian control of the military is questioned, when immigration vetting fails, and when political discourse normalizes defiance of lawful authority, the republic teeters on the brink. Sedition is not a partisan label; it is a legal reality with grave consequences. Whether the Kelly video meets that threshold will be decided in courts and history books, but its implications are undeniable.

The Afghan shooter’s bullets were not just aimed at two soldiers; they were aimed at the constitutional order itself. Preserving that order requires vigilance—not only against foreign threats but against domestic rhetoric that erodes the foundations of governance.

• Operation Allies Welcome admitted approximately 76,000 Afghans between 2021 and 2022, with DHS reporting that 40% lacked full biometric vetting. [Footnote: DHS Report, 2023]

• CSIS data shows an average of 3 jihadist-inspired plots annually since 2020, with 68% involving lone actors. [Footnote: CSIS Terrorism Trends, 2024]

• Gallup polling (2024) indicates only 45% of Americans trust civilian control of the military, down from 62% in 2010. [Footnote: Gallup, 2024]

Legal Framework:

• Sedition prosecutions surged post-January 6, with DOJ charging 17 individuals under 18 U.S.C. §2384 in 2021–2023. [Footnote: DOJ Annual Report, 2023]

• Comparative analysis: Brazil faced 11 sedition-related prosecutions after Bolsonaro supporters stormed government buildings in 2023. [Footnote: Latin American Security Review, 2024]

Both Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation and Kelly’s video highlight systemic stress points: erosion of institutional norms and the weaponization of rhetoric. Greene’s failure to govern parallels Kelly’s flirtation with sedition—each case underscores the fragility of democratic guardrails when political actors prioritize ideology over institutional responsibility.

Academic Perspectives:

• Huntington’s “The Soldier and the State” remains foundational, warning that politicization of the military invites democratic collapse. [Footnote: Huntington, 1957]

• Recent scholarship (Feaver, 2022) argues that partisan signaling to military personnel correlates with declining trust in democratic institutions. [Footnote: Feaver, 2022]

Policy Recommendations:

1. Reinforce UCMJ clarity on unlawful orders.

2. Mandate bipartisan oversight for immigration vetting programs.

3. Establish congressional ethics review for rhetoric impacting military obedience.

References:

– DHS Report on Operation Allies Welcome (2023)

– CSIS Terrorism Trends (2024)

– Gallup Polling Data (2024)

– DOJ Annual Report (2023)

– Huntington, S. (1957). The Soldier and the State.

– Feaver, P. (2022). Armed Servants: Agency and Control in Civil-Military Relations.

Cross-Reference: Greene’s governance failure illustrates parallel institutional stress.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707