FBI and Pentagon Investigate Lawmakers Over Video Urging Troops to Refuse Unlawful Orders
A troubling situation has emerged as six Democratic lawmakers, all veterans with military or intelligence backgrounds, face federal inquiries after appearing in a controversial video. This video encourages U.S. service members to disobey unlawful orders and has drawn scrutiny from both the FBI and the Pentagon. Their actions underline the tense intersection of political discourse and military protocol and raise questions about the limits of free speech for elected officials.
The FBI’s counterterrorism division has reached out to Congress to set up interviews with the involved lawmakers. Simultaneously, Senator Mark Kelly’s conduct is under review by the Pentagon for possible violations of military law. This dual investigation follows former President Donald Trump’s pointed accusations of sedition and treason against the lawmakers. His words have ignited a bipartisan political firestorm, casting doubts on how federal investigative powers are deployed in the current climate.
At the crux of the issue is a video featuring Senators Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, along with Representatives Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Chris Deluzio, and Maggie Goodlander. These lawmakers utilized their military experiences to address troops directly, urging them to consider the legality of orders they receive. “You can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly stated, referencing a guiding principle of military law rooted in historical codes established post-World War II.
Trump’s swift response to the video included a strident post labeling the actions contained within it as “SEDIOUS BEHAVIOR,” adding that such acts are “punishable by DEATH.” His words have become a rallying point for those who view the investigations as a legitimate response to perceived infractions against military integrity. The federal actions came shortly after his remarks, with the FBI seeking to establish whether there is a lawful basis for investigation, as confirmed by FBI Director Kash Patel.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has indicated that a briefing on Kelly’s military conduct is required. He suggested that Kelly’s statements could jeopardize the reputation of the armed forces. This situation points to potential disciplinary measures ranging from administrative actions to formal court-martial, depending on the findings of the Navy’s legal assessment.
In their defense, the lawmakers assert that their video serves as a constitutional reminder about the validity of lawful orders rather than incitement. Senator Slotkin publicly disclosed that the FBI notified them of the inquiry, labeling it politically motivated and intended to intimidate. Their combined statement emphasized that intimidation would not deter them from fulfilling their duties.
Kelly remained resolute, stating, “If this is meant to intimidate me… it won’t work.” His experience and commitment to the country seem unfazed by the backlash, suggesting a fierce determination to advocate for what he views as constitutional protections for service members.
The video’s release comes at a time when U.S. military operations are facing legal scrutiny. Concerns include potential use of National Guard units in domestic situations and military actions against civilian-style vessels within American coastal waters. The lawmakers reported receiving communication from active-duty personnel seeking legal clarity on their directives, reinforcing the notion that their video aimed to reassure rather than undermine command structures.
The legal landscape surrounding the situation is complex. Legal experts differ in their opinions, with some arguing that calling for troops to disobey orders can be interpreted as incitement to insubordination. However, the obligation to refuse unlawful commands is also a well-established principle, complicating the matter further. The potential ramifications of prosecuting lawmakers for their public statements pose risks of blurring the lines between political disagreement and criminal misconduct.
Some within the political arena express concerns over how these investigations could undermine lawful dissent. Senator Lisa Murkowski remarked on the gravity of Trump’s accusations, claiming they represent a reckless misplacement of federal resources. Her comments reflect broader apprehension regarding the FBI and Pentagon’s focus on such political disputes rather than pressing national security issues.
As the situation unfolds, it has broader implications for civil-military relations. The inquiries delve into fundamental questions about the protection of free speech for elected officials and the potential overreach of federal agencies. Unlike violations involving lower-ranking personnel, scrutiny of Congress members, particularly those with military backgrounds, raises alarm bells over potential selective enforcement of the law.
No formal charges have yet been filed against any of the lawmakers, but the ongoing investigations are poised to generate political fallout. For military personnel, especially those in junior officer roles, this controversy places them in a precarious position as they navigate demands from both elected veterans advocating for legitimate legal rights and military leaders enforcing orders. The complexities of law and discretion are ever-present in this unfolding legal drama.
The core assertion of the lawmakers in their video remains clear: “You can refuse illegal orders… you must refuse illegal orders.” How this principle will be interpreted moving forward remains to be seen, with the outcomes potentially impacting not just the involved individuals but the broader dialogue surrounding the delicate intersection of military authority and legislative freedoms.
"*" indicates required fields
