A Last Wire TBR Exclusive— Was The Military “Warning” Video Aimed at Triggering TDS in America’s Liv

[Luis Gonzalez]

A Last Wire TBR Exclusive — Was The Military “Warning” Video Aimed at Triggering TDS in America’s Living Rooms?
By Luis Gonzalez
For The Last Wire

A supposedly apolitical reminder about “oaths” and “extremism” looks a lot less like guidance for service members—and a lot more like a psychological operation targeting their Trump-hating relatives at home.

The moment the Pentagon’s new “behavioral expectations” video began ricocheting across social media, the official story didn’t pass the smell test. The Department of Defense framed it as a neutral refresher on military obligations—something between a PSA and a PowerPoint with better lighting. But the more you watch it, the more it looks like the perfect modern political weapon: a message not meant for the troops, who already have the Code of Conduct drilled into them from boot camp forward, but for the people around them who suffer from varying degrees of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

And make no mistake: the emotional reaction online—rage, panic, and frantic speculation about January 6, “fascism,” and whether uniformed service members will soon be dragging neighbors from their homes—proves the video found its real audience.

So let’s pull this thing apart.

The Code of Conduct Already Exists. So Why the Video?

Every service member knows the Code of Conduct. It’s taught during initial entry training, reinforced during every promotion cycle, and baked into the professional DNA of uniformed life. It’s not obscure. It’s not optional. And it’s certainly not something troops need a soft-focus montage to remind them about.

For reference, here’s the actual text:
Department of Defense: Code of Conduct

If the military wanted procedural clarity or ethical reinforcement, they’d simply direct troops to the existing guidance—something like the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):

Instead, we got a stylized, emotionally-charged video that looks suspiciously crafted for public persuasion, not internal compliance.

Which raises the obvious question: why now?

This Isn’t a Warning to Troops—It’s a Message to Their Trump-Hating Families

The video’s tone is unmistakably political, but it’s not political toward the troops. It’s political through the troops.

Most service members are politically diverse, disproportionately patriotic, and statistically more conservative than the general population (Pew Research data):

The people who react with fear, anger, and existential dread to the idea of Trump returning to the White House aren’t typically in uniform—they’re:

spouses raised on MSNBC panic beats

parents convinced democracy ends next Tuesday

college-aged siblings who speak fluent TikTok

activists who think every Republican is a crypto-authoritarian

In other words: the TDS demographic.

And what does the video do?
It hands these people a moral cudgel.

It gives them a way to pressure the service member in their life:

“You know you can’t follow unlawful orders, right?”
“If Trump wins, you’re not going to participate in some coup, are you?”
“The Pentagon says extremism is rising—have you seen any at your base?”

You can already see this reaction online. It’s not subtle.

The video wasn’t designed to instruct the soldier.
It was designed to activate the soldier’s anti-Trump circle.

A Psychological Pressure Campaign Masquerading as Official Guidance

This tactic—using the troop’s personal relationships as a lever—is not new. The military and intelligence community have long understood the power of social-network-based influence. See RAND’s research on influence operations:

The formula is simple:

Create emotionally charged messaging.

Distribute it publicly, not internally.

Let civilians with strong political identities weaponize it.

Apply indirect pressure on the service member.

It’s political messaging disguised as duty-bound civics.

And because the Pentagon claims it’s not political, the people amplifying it feel morally righteous and operationally justified.

That’s how psychological operations work when you run them on a domestic audience—you never call them PSYOPs.

Why This Is A Problem for Civil-Military Relations

Civil-military relations depend on the perception—real or sustained—that the military stays outside electoral politics. That’s why senior commanders are bound by rules such as DoD Directive 1344.10.

But when the Pentagon amplifies a video timed perfectly to the election cycle, framed around vague “threats,” and interpreted overwhelmingly as a warning about one specific candidate, they’ve effectively crossed the membrane.

Even if their lawyers can argue the content is technically neutral, the impact is not.

To the TDS-sensitized portion of the public, this video functions as reassurance:

“If Trump wins, the military will resist him.”

That is extraordinarily dangerous messaging.

This Isn’t About Extremism. It’s About Narrative Control.

The Biden-era national security apparatus has repeatedly tried to frame “extremism” as a domestic political issue rather than a violent threat—something many critics argue is used to shape public opinion. Consider the immediate pivot following January 6 and the DHS “domestic violent extremist” advisories:


Now, with Trump leading most national polls, the same institutions are pushing a message that looks designed to:

mobilize fear among anti-Trump voters

inoculate the public from accepting a Trump victory

frame military loyalty as conditional

signal that “resistance” is patriotic

This is why the video wasn’t deployed quietly inside secure military platforms.
It was deployed publicly, into the bloodstream of social media—where its psychological effect would hit the exact group most primed to react emotionally: civilians with anti-Trump anxiety.

The Pentagon Knows Exactly What It’s Doing

The U.S. military is one of the most sophisticated communications institutions on Earth. Nothing this polished, timed, and publicly distributed is accidental.

They knew the video would:

✔ Trend on X
✔ Get clipped into viral outrage content
✔ Trigger partisan interpretations
✔ Stoke fear among anti-Trump households
✔ Invite journalists to “explain” why the military is “worried”
✔ Allow the DoD to claim neutrality while benefiting from political panic

It is strategic ambiguity wrapped in bureaucratic aesthetics.

The Bottom Line: This Is a Political Act—Targeted Indirectly, Executed Deniably

If you believe the Pentagon suddenly felt an urgent need to remind soldiers of rules they already know, you probably believe Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation.

This video wasn’t guidance.

It was influence.

A pressure campaign.
A narrative injection.
A psychological tool aimed at the country’s most reactive political cohort.

And it worked—just not on the people they claim.

This was never about reminding troops of their obligations.

It was about weaponizing the people around them.

It was about activating TDS, not enforcing discipline.

And every American—regardless of party—should understand the danger of a military communications apparatus that wades, even indirectly, into electoral politics.

Because once that door is open, it rarely closes.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is what I've been thinking.  The target of the commercial isn't the soldiers, it's their families who the Democrats hope will pressure the soldiers over the holidays to claim "illegal orders," as they see them.  The result will be wedges driven into families, which Democrats would consider an ancillary benefit.

[Luis Gonzalez]

This is what I've been thinking.  The target of the commercial isn't the soldiers, it's their families who the Democrats hope will pressure the soldiers over the holidays to claim "illegal orders," as they see them.  The result will be wedges driven into families, which Democrats would consider an ancillary benefit.

Yes.

On the original "Illegal Orders" thread, you brought that same thought into the conversation, and I kept thinking about it, so I ended up writing this one up.

[Timber Rattler]

The target of the video was 1) aimed at certain officers and service members in the U.S. Southern Command who've quietly been complaining and leaking because they're squeamish about blowing up the drug runners off the Venezuelan coast.

Case in point:

Head of the U.S. Military’s Southern Command Is Stepping Down, Officials Say

https://thelocal.to/investigating-scam-journalism-ai/

The military commander overseeing the Pentagon’s escalating attacks against boats in the Caribbean Sea that the Trump administration says are smuggling drugs said on Thursday that he was stepping down.

The officer, Adm. Alvin Holsey, is leaving his job as head of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees all operations in Central and South America, even as the Pentagon has rapidly built up some 10,000 forces in the region in what it says is a major counterdrug and counterterrorism mission.

It was unclear why Admiral Holsey is suddenly departing, less than a year into what is typically a three-year job, and in the midst of the biggest operation in his 37-year career. But one current and one former U.S. official, both of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters, said that Admiral Holsey had raised concerns about the mission and the attacks on the alleged drug boats.

And 2), National Guardsmen who have been deployed to help ICE, with the underlying threat that they may be prosecuted and punished once Trump is eventually out of office.

It really is reprehensible because it is a direct attack on the military command chains for petty partisan purposes.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The target of the video was 1) aimed at certain officers and service members in the U.S. Southern Command who've quietly been complaining and leaking because they're squeamish about blowing up the drug runners off the Venezuelan coast.

Case in point:

Head of the U.S. Military’s Southern Command Is Stepping Down, Officials Say

https://thelocal.to/investigating-scam-journalism-ai/

And 2), National Guardsmen who have been deployed to help ICE, with the underlying threat that they may be prosecuted and punished once Trump is eventually out of office.

It really is reprehensible because it is a direct attack on the military command chains for petty partisan purposes.

Some more great points!

Thanks for the info.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes.

On the original "Illegal Orders" thread, you brought that same thought into the conversation, and I kept thinking about it, so I ended up writing this one up.

I really appreciate this!  I could never have fleshed it out the way you do....