Did Donald Trump every say to hang the six seditious lawmakers
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that six Democratic lawmakers’ message to troops was “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and he reposted a user saying “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” (multiple outlets reporting) [1] [2]. Major news organizations — AP, Reuters, CNN, NPR, Fox News and FactCheck — documented the posts and showed Democratic leaders called them death threats while the White House said Trump did not literally want executions [3] [4] [1] [5] [6] [2].
1. What he wrote and what he amplified
In response to a video of six Democratic members of Congress telling service members to “refuse illegal orders,” Trump wrote on his platform that their conduct was “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and he also reposted a third‑party message that read “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” — a sequence that multiple outlets independently reported [1] [2] [6] [7].
2. Which lawmakers and why this started
The target was a group of six lawmakers — members of Congress with military or intelligence backgrounds — who produced a video urging troops and intelligence personnel they “can refuse illegal orders” and “must refuse illegal orders.” News coverage identifies the video as the catalyst for Trump’s posts [5] [4] [3].
3. Immediate political fallout and safety concerns
Democratic leaders condemned the president’s posts as threats that could incite violence and said they contacted Capitol security to protect the lawmakers; some lawmakers received threats afterward, and state police or law enforcement inquiries were reported by local outlets [8] [9] [3].
4. Administration response and denials
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president did not literally want members of Congress executed, despite the wording of the posts; that assertion is reported by NPR and AP as the official reply [5] [3]. Media outlets recorded both the posts and the administration’s subsequent statements [1].
5. Legal and expert context about “sedition”
Legal analysts and fact‑checkers said the lawmakers’ video did not meet legal definitions of sedition. FactCheck and Reuters quoted experts noting that urging refusal of illegal orders is a restatement of established law and that the seditious‑conspiracy statute carries different standards and limits [2] [4]. FactCheck cited the Brandenburg standard on speech that incites imminent lawlessness as a reason the video would likely not qualify as sedition [2].
6. Media consensus and differences in framing
Mainstream outlets uniformly reported the factual elements — Trump’s posts and the reposted “hang them” message — but framed the implications differently: some emphasized immediate threats and calls for security (AP, CNN), others highlighted legal analysis that the lawmakers did not commit sedition (FactCheck, Reuters), and some Republican figures urged restraint or defended the president’s concern about alleged “seditious” behavior [3] [2] [4].
7. Congressional action and political consequences
The episode was cited in formal congressional texts; for example, House impeachment resolution language later referenced Trump’s posts calling for execution of lawmakers as part of allegations of abuse of power (Congress.gov text cites the posts verbatim) [10]. That demonstrates lawmakers on the other side treated the posts as material to impeachment and oversight debates [10].
8. What reporting does not say (and limits of available sources)
Available sources do not mention Trump personally leading or organizing violence beyond the social‑media posts; they also do not provide evidence that he ordered any specific law‑enforcement action to seek death sentences for the lawmakers — reports instead record calls for arrest and trial, and a later White House denial about literal intent [1] [3] [5]. Sources do not document any legal charges of sedition against the lawmakers [4] [2].
Conclusion — what matters going forward
The record in major outlets is clear: the president publicly labeled the lawmakers’ actions “seditious” and used language invoking death while amplifying a post urging hanging, prompting bipartisan alarm, security steps, legal pushback and inclusion in congressional oversight materials [1] [3] [10] [2]. The central factual dispute now is interpretive: whether the lawmakers’ video legally constituted sedition (experts say no) and whether a president’s social‑media amplification of violent rhetoric constitutes an incitement that should trigger criminal or political consequences (fact reporting above) [2] [10].