Dylan and Demi are political candidates who have been outspoken in public interviews and appearances about their understanding of executive power, public order, and accountability. In multiple widely circulated clips and statements, they’ve said they would be willing to refuse or countermand National Guard orders under certain circumstances, arguing that obedience to authority should not override community safety, democratic legitimacy, or moral judgment.
They’ve chosen to make those positions public, knowing they would draw scrutiny. Rather than relying on vague language or procedural deflection, both have been direct about how they would act in moments of crisis. That clarity has put them at the center of debate, with supporters viewing it as principled leadership and critics questioning the risks of such an approach.
Both candidates come from media-visible backgrounds, which shows in how they communicate. They’re accustomed to their words traveling quickly and being tested in real time, and they don’t separate public statements from responsibility. What they say is meant to be taken literally, not walked back quietly later.
Whether one agrees with them or not, Dylan and Demi represent a style of candidacy that challenges traditional norms of deference and forces explicit conversations about where authority comes from, when it should be exercised, and when it should be resisted. Their campaigns are built around those questions, not around avoiding them.
