Federal Investigation Opens Into Lawmakers’ Video Calling on Troops to “Refuse Illegal Orders”
The recent decision by federal authorities to investigate six Democratic lawmakers over a video urging military personnel to reject unlawful orders marks a significant moment in American political discourse. Launched by the FBI and the Department of Defense in early December 2023, these inquiries stem from former President Donald Trump’s severe accusations of “sedition” and “treason,” elevating the situation into a high-stakes examination of military obedience, constitutional authority, and the political landscape.
Many supporters of the probe echoed sentiments of outrage, as highlighted by commentator Eric Daugh’s tweet describing the actions as “#Treason & #Sedition at the highest levels.” This reaction mirrors a broader sentiment—many view the lawmakers’ video as a serious threat to military integrity.
The Video at the Center of the Probe
The focal point of this investigation is a video featuring six Democrats, all with military or intelligence service backgrounds. In the video, they appeal directly to U.S. service members, urging them to honor their oaths and reject any illegal commands. While specific examples of unlawful orders are not mentioned, the video highlights growing concerns among troops regarding potential misuse of military force for political purposes.
Among the lawmakers highlighted are Senator Mark Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy combat pilot, and Senator Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst. Other participants share strong backgrounds in national security. This adds weight to their statements, as each has firsthand experience in military and defense matters, lending an authoritative voice to their warnings.
Trump’s Accusations and Institutional Response
Former President Trump’s swift response came via social media, where he asserted that the lawmakers were inciting insubordination within the ranks. He boldly stated, “This is SEDITION. Punishable by DEATH,” which spurred the FBI’s inquiry. Director Kash Patel confirmed the investigation, emphasizing the necessity for a lawful basis for these inquiries. “What goes through my head is the same thing that goes through my head in any case: is there a lawful predicate to open up an inquiry and investigation, or is there not?” Patel remarked.
Trump urged the Department of Defense to scrutinize Senator Kelly’s actions, leading Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to initiate a review. Depending on the findings, Kelly, as a retired officer subject to recall, could face serious consequences under the Uniform Code of Military Justice if found guilty of undermining military authority.
Pentagon Review of Kelly’s Conduct
Taking the matter seriously, Defense Secretary Hegseth formally referred the issue to the Navy for investigation. He remarked, “Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.” A Navy review board must complete its assessment by December 10, determining whether any actions could be deemed harmful to military discipline under Article 88 of the UCMJ.
In response to the investigations, Senator Kelly asserted, “I will not be intimidated,” voicing concerns about threats directed towards him since Trump’s statements became public. His words reflect the high tensions surrounding this controversy.
Defense from Across the Aisle
In an unusual show of bipartisanship, several Republican lawmakers defended Kelly. Senator Lisa Murkowski described the treason accusations as “reckless and flat-out wrong,” emphasizing Kelly’s right to address matters of constitutional duty. Senator Dan Sullivan, a former Marine Corps officer, while critical of the video’s content, cautioned against entangling the military in political backlash. He vocally opposed formal investigations, stating, “The last thing our military needs is to be entangled in political retaliation.”
Concerns about constitutional protections were also raised. Sullivan’s office noted the Speech or Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers from prosecution for legislative actions, underscoring the complexity of the situation as it relates to free speech and military law.
Lawmakers Stand Firm Despite Escalation
The six lawmakers under investigation released a united statement decrying the inquiries as political “scare tactics.” Slotkin explained that the video was largely a response to Trump’s reaction, asserting it demonstrates why they took action: a push to protect service members from potentially unlawful orders, especially in sensitive contexts like domestic deployments. Highlighting her conversations with troops, she noted, “I’m concerned I’m going to be asked to do something that I don’t know if I should do,” illustrating the weight of their message.
Other Democratic House members have echoed these sentiments, accusing Trump of utilizing the FBI as a tool for intimidation. They assert, “No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution.” Such responses emphasize a belief in the lawmakers’ duty to uphold their constitutional responsibilities.
Legal and Policy Implications
The essence of the debate revolves around the balance between protected advocacy and acts that could undermine military discipline. Legal scholars stress that military personnel are not only permitted but obligated to disobey illegal orders. Historical examples, like the My Lai massacre trials and Nuremberg principles, reinforce this principle. However, public calls from lawmakers to disobey orders—even vague ones—pose challenges to command structure and military order.
The FBI’s preliminary inquiry, managed by its counterterrorism division, has started reaching out to the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms for interviews with the implicated lawmakers. As of now, no formal charges have surfaced, and evidence remains limited to the video and social media interactions.
Conclusion
This situation marks a rare instance where Congress members face federal scrutiny concerning their speech in relation to military law. The outcome could set far-reaching precedents for civil-military relations and the nature of political dialogue in an increasingly divided society. The grave accusations of treason and sedition highlight the deepening rifts within the nation and the apparent intertwining of legal systems with partisan conflicts.
As investigations continue into mid-December 2023, their potential for leading to charges, court-martials, or changes in policy remains uncertain. Yet, the salient issues they bring to the forefront—loyalty, lawful commands, and the intersection of military service with political expression—will likely persist in public consciousness.
"*" indicates required fields
