Martha MacCallum Has Intense Interview With House Dem In Controversial Video
On Wednesday night’s edition of The Story, Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum did what few network hosts manage to do in a single segment: expose the hollow underpinnings of a politically-charged narrative with nothing more than persistent, focused questioning.
Her guest, Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), a former Army Ranger and member of the House Intelligence Committee, had recently appeared in a widely circulated video alongside other Democrat lawmakers — many of whom are veterans or have served in intelligence — urging U.S. military personnel to disobey “unlawful orders.” The subtext was impossible to ignore: the target was Donald Trump, and the implication was that a second Trump administration might lead the country — and the military — down a path of legal and constitutional crisis.
But when MacCallum confronted Crow with the most basic journalistic question — what specific unlawful orders are you referring to? — his answers were revealing in what they failed to provide: a single concrete example.
Democrat Rep. Jason Crow is asked FOUR TIMES what “illegal orders” he and his Democrat colleagues are referring to in their video calling for an insurrection.
He can’t answer — because they are lying. pic.twitter.com/vNQGGOegEQ
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 19, 2025
Crow cited the 2020 Lafayette Square protests, in which President Trump allegedly asked whether protesters could be shot in the legs — a deeply controversial anecdote but, as MacCallum pointed out, not an actual order issued to the military. Undeterred, Crow tried to reframe the comment as a “request,” arguing that coming from a commander-in-chief, such a request carried the weight of a de facto command.
MacCallum didn’t let that slide. “That was not a military order,” she countered. “That’s a comment. That’s not a military order.”
Crow’s next examples were similarly speculative: Trump’s past threats to “send the military into Chicago” or to “go to war” with certain cities. He also claimed Trump “alluded” to using troops at polling stations — which, if true, would be a violation of federal law. But again, MacCallum pointed out the obvious flaw: allusions are not policy. No actual orders were ever given, and certainly none were carried out.
When pressed further, Crow deflected with a tone of condescension: “Here’s a novel idea: how about we actually prevent things from happening before they become a problem.” MacCallum countered immediately — “I think that’s what they’re trying to do,” she quipped, referencing Trump’s 2020 anti-narcotics operations, including the controversial deployment of military assets to intercept drug shipments headed for the U.S.
The exchange laid bare the larger issue: the video Crow and others released hinges not on concrete examples of unlawful commands, but on implications, assumptions, and feared hypotheticals. MacCallum asked, again and again, for specifics — and none were offered.
In the end, Crow defaulted to generalizations: Trump has made “disturbing comments.” That may be true in the court of public opinion, but in the arena of legal and constitutional interpretation — especially when invoking the gravity of military insubordination — comments aren’t enough.
The implication that American service members should be prepared to disobey potential orders from a democratically elected commander-in-chief based on speculation, hypotheticals, and media reports is, to say the least, a serious assertion. That such a message was packaged as a public service announcement — without clear legal grounding — only raises the stakes.