Rep. Pat Fallon: Where was the left when Obama used drones to take out Islamic terrorists?

.
.

The Constitutional Clash: Congressman Pat Fallon Blasts Democrats Over “Illegal Orders” and Subversion of Military Command

A heated congressional debate has erupted over the Democratic party’s repeated attempts to instruct U.S. troops on the legality of obeying orders, a controversy that reached a flashpoint when Republican Congressman Pat Fallon (R-TX), a former junior officer, sharply condemned the rhetoric as “subversive” and “dangerous.”

The debate centered on statements made by Democrats referencing the movie A Few Good Men and the principle of disobeying unlawful commands. Congressman Fallon argued that this political grandstanding exhibits a fundamental ignorance of basic military law and constitutes a severe interference with the chain of command, particularly given the current threats of asymmetrical warfare and the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.

I. The Core Controversy: Subversion of the Chain of Command

The political clash stems from the Democratic strategy of empowering service members to question commands by citing the well-known military principle: U.S. troops do not have to follow illegal orders.

Congressman Pat Fallon, who sits on the House Oversight, Intel, and Armed Services Committees, and served as a junior officer 30 years ago, immediately dismissed this rhetoric as politically motivated and dangerous.

Fallon’s Stance:

Basic Military Law: Fallon stated that the principle of not following illegal orders is “basic 101 military stuff.” Every service member is already taught this, particularly referencing Article 91 [and] 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Manual for Courts-Martial.

Redundancy and Danger: He labeled the Democrats’ constant repetition of this principle as “not only redundant [but] dangerous and subversive.” Fallon argued that by making it a political talking point, Democrats are attempting to “interfere” with the chain of command and sow distrust.

Political Grandstanding: Fallon categorized the Democrats’ efforts as a “pathetic attempt to steal some spotlight from the Squad,” suggesting the debate is rooted in media spectacle rather than genuine concern for military readiness or legal education.

The exchange grew tense as Democrats were challenged to provide specific, modern examples of illegal orders, with one Democrat only managing to reference general conflicts from World War II. Fallon used this failure to argue that the debate is a shallow political performance.

II. Asymmetrical Warfare and the Failure to Defend America

Congressman Fallon argued that the Democratic focus on internal military discipline is a massive distraction from the genuine, external threats facing the United States, which the Biden administration failed to address.

The Opioid Crisis as War: Fallon reframed the opioid epidemic as a form of “asymmetrical warfare” being waged against the U.S.

“We lost 80,000 Americans [to the] opioid [epidemic]… is asymmetrical warfare being waged against the United States, and I’m glad President Trump is stepping up and defending us.”

Fallon highlighted the source of the threat: “Most of the precursors are made in Communist China [and are] funneled through Latin America.” He contrasted this aggressive national security posture under Trump with the alleged inaction under the previous administration, arguing that Biden was “doing jack about it.”

The Venezuelan Threat: Fallon, speaking from his position on the Intelligence Committee, addressed the growing crisis in Venezuela, issuing a clear warning to the Maduro regime:

“It would end badly for the regime if they want to take on the United States of America… What Donald Trump and JD Vance have done is they put them on notice.”

This aggressive stance confirms a shift in U.S. foreign policy toward proactive defense against threats in the Southern Hemisphere, a sharp departure from the policies Fallon attributes to the previous administration.

III. The Hypocrisy of the Left: Drones and Accountability

Fallon condemned the Democratic party for its selective application of moral and legal scrutiny, particularly concerning the use of military force.

Drones and Military Assets: Fallon questioned the left’s silence when former President Barack Obama was in office:

“Where was the left when Barack Obama was using drones and military assets to kill Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? They were defending them… They were defending the Biden administration.”

He argued that the Democrats’ outrage is purely conditional, based on who holds the White House, not on genuine moral principle. This hypocrisy undermines their claims of protecting civil liberties and the rule of law.

IV. The Epstein Files: Democrats’ Contamination Problem

Fallon concluded by connecting the military debate to the systemic corruption facing the Democratic party, as revealed by the ongoing disclosures related to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Democrat Ties to Epstein: Fallon highlighted the documented coordination between Epstein and Democratic leadership, which directly contradicts the party’s narrative that Epstein was primarily a Republican problem.

Hakeem Jeffries: The campaign of House Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was exposed for soliciting funds from Epstein and offering a private meeting in exchange for a large donation.

Stacy Plaskett: Congresswoman Stacy Plaskett was documented communicating with Epstein to conspire against Donald Trump.

Systemic Donations: Fallon pointed out that Epstein was a significant donor to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, and gave tens of thousands to prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and John Kerry.

Fallon categorized the entire episode as a problem of “deception, reflection, and spin” by the Democrats, noting that Epstein was a major donor to their side, a fact they intentionally obscure. The reason the files were not released during the Biden administration, Fallon suggested, was because the scandal is “code problematic for the Democrats.”

The core takeaway from the heated exchange is that the Democratic party’s credibility is collapsing due to its willingness to engage in subversive political rhetoric, its hypocrisy regarding military enforcement, and its attempts to cover up the documented corruption within its own ranks.

.