Three Democrat lawmakers—Reps. Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, and Maggie Goodlander—are now in the crosshairs of federal prosecutors following their participation in a video urging military personnel to disregard illegal orders. They revealed on Wednesday that U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro has reached out for interviews with them or their legal representatives, as reported by The New York Times.
Crow did not hold back in his reaction to the scrutiny. He took to X, claiming, “Trump’s political cronies at the Justice Department are trying to threaten and intimidate us.” He emphasized his commitment to his oath, stating, “Well, he’s picked a fight with the wrong people. I will always uphold my oath to the Constitution.” His determination was clear as he vowed not to be silenced: “We will not be threatened, we will not be intimidated, and we will not back down.”
The crux of the investigation stems from a video posted last November, which featured Crow along with Houlahan, Goodlander, and several others, including Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly and Rep. Chris Deluzio. With backgrounds in military and intelligence, these lawmakers took a stand amid a heated national debate over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard. In the video, they appeared to encourage a level of resistance against orders from the President and his Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth.
Trump responded with sharp criticism. He branded their statements as “seditious behavior,” insisting in various posts on Truth Social that those involved should face arrest. He wrote, “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” calling for “an example” to be set for their actions. His language underscored both his indignation and the seriousness with which he viewed their message. This was not simply a disagreement but a direct challenge to authority, as Trump described such conduct as “punishable by DEATH!”
In the fallout, Slotkin commented on the threat posed by the investigation. She reflected, “Facts matter little, but the threat matters quite a bit.” For her and her colleagues, this isn’t just a personal matter; it raises concerns about the potential ramifications of dissent against the administration. The implicit intimidation is palpable, with Slotkin highlighting that legal threats extend beyond personal consequences, affecting families and staff as well.
Nonetheless, Goodlander maintained her resolve in the face of these actions. She lamented how simply affirming a fundamental principle of American law has led to the President targeting her with potential violence. “It is sad, telling and downright dangerous,” she noted. Her sentiment echoes a broader concern about governmental overreach, especially when the judiciary is leveraged as a tool for political intimidation.
Echoing this sentiment, Houlahan remarked that the targeted approach taken against her and her colleagues is indicative of a larger issue. She articulated, “The six of us are being targeted not because we said something untrue, but because we said something President Trump and Secretary Hegseth didn’t want anyone to hear.”
The investigation led by Pirro remains under a veil of silence as her office has not confirmed nor denied its existence. However, the inquiries towards the lawmakers stand as a stark illustration of how political dissent can attract legal scrutiny in today’s landscape. This situation serves as a critical moment that raises questions about accountability, duty, and the limits of political rhetoric in America. The response from these lawmakers underscores a refusal to falter in the face of pressure, embodying a fierce dedication to their constitutional duties amid serious threats.
"*" indicates required fields
