Democratic lawmakers defend video urging troops to resist illegal orders as FBI probe unfolds

A group of Democratic lawmakers with military backgrounds say they will not be cowed by a federal inquiry into a video urging service members to disobey illegal orders. They argue the move is a political tactic, not a threat to national security.

What sparked the inquiry

The FBI's counterterrorism unit notified six lawmakers that an investigation had begun. The participants include Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow. The video was released last week and features each member discussing the role of service members in upholding the Constitution.

Reactions and rhetoric

Slotkin said the inquiry would not deter them: "No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution." Others stressed they swore an oath to defend the Constitution and would not be bullied. The video drew a sharp rebuke from President Donald Trump, who labeled the actions as seditious and advocated punitive measures. He later softened his stance, saying in a television interview that he was not threatening death.

Legal and military considerations

The Pentagon announced it would review the conduct of Senator Kelly, a former Navy captain and astronaut, to decide whether he should be recalled for possible court-martial proceedings. Even after retirement, service members remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which the Defense Department says Kelly may have violated.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized Kelly for using his rank to lend authority in the video. Kelly pushed back, stating he has given too much to the country to be silenced by those who care more about power than the Constitution.

Media reports indicated the FBI and Department of Justice have asked Capitol Police to arrange interviews with the lawmakers. The FBI declined to comment when contacted by INLIBER.

What comes next

As investigations progress, officials have signaled that formal interviews and further inquiries could follow. The episode has amplified questions about the boundaries between political speech and military discipline during a period of heightened tensions with the White House and Congress.

Conclusion

The episode highlights a clash between political messaging and the duties of public service, with federal investigators weighing potential legal implications against lawmakers’ rights to speak on national security matters. The discussions also reflect wider debates about accountability and the use of federal authorities in domestic politics.

Key Takeaways

• The FBI reportedly opened an inquiry into a video featuring six Democratic lawmakers who urged troops to resist illegal orders.
• Lawmakers insist they will not back down and emphasize their oath to the Constitution.
• The Pentagon is reviewing the conduct of Senator Kelly to determine potential military-law implications.
• Trump criticized the video, drawing bipartisan backlash and later retracting some statements.

Expert Perspective

Legal analyst Dr. Alex Reed notes that public officials can debate policy publicly, but actions that appear to misuse rank or influence could raise questions under military law. The investigation’s outcome will hinge on whether any specific orders or actions crossed legal lines rather than on political speech alone.

Summary

As the inquiry unfolds, lawmakers defend their right to speak on national security matters while authorities assess potential legal boundaries. The situation underscores the ongoing tension between political rhetoric and the duties of national service, with the path forward likely shaped by ongoing interviews and formal reviews.

Key insight: The episode reveals a friction between political advocacy and military obligations, as federal investigators weigh potential legal boundaries while leaders defend constitutional speech. Source