FBI Scheduling Interviews With Democratic Lawmakers Over Military Video Controversy

The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into six Democratic lawmakers who released a video encouraging military personnel and intelligence officers to disregard orders they deemed illegal from the Trump administration. The FBI is now scheduling interviews with each member of Congress involved in what has become known as the “Seditious Six” controversy.

The lawmakers under investigation are Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Rep. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado. All six are veterans who appeared together in the video that has sparked this federal investigation. None responded to requests for comment.

Let us be clear about what happened here. These six Democrats, all of whom should understand military chain of command given their service records, released a video directly addressing service members and intelligence professionals. They claimed to speak to those “under enormous stress and pressure,” warning that “this administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.”

The video’s language was calculated. “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” the lawmakers stated. They continued, “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution. We know this is hard, and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you are serving in the CIA, the army, or navy, the air force, your vigilance is critical. Know that we have your back.”

Here is the problem with this approach, and it is a significant one. The video never specified which orders were allegedly illegal. It created ambiguity rather than clarity. It used carefully scripted language designed to sound reasonable while fundamentally undermining military discipline and chain of command.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who coined the term “Seditious Six,” correctly identified this as a “politically-motivated influence operation.” Hegseth explained that while the video might appear harmless to civilians, “it carries a different weight inside the military.”

“In the military, vague rhetoric and ambiguity undermines trust, creates hesitation in the chain of command, and erodes cohesion,” Hegseth warned. He argued the video “subtly reframed military obedience around partisan distrust instead of established legal processes.”

This is precisely accurate. The military already maintains clear procedures for handling illegal orders. Service members receive training on this matter. There are established legal channels and processes. What these six Democrats did was bypass those established procedures to inject partisan politics directly into military decision-making.

President Trump has characterized the lawmakers’ actions as “seditious behavior,” noting such conduct is “punishable by death” under existing law. The president later clarified he was “not threatening death” to the lawmakers but rather emphasizing the gravity of their conduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and relevant statutes.

The facts here are straightforward. Six Democratic lawmakers, unhappy with the current administration, chose to release a video encouraging military personnel to second-guess their orders based on vague claims of illegality. They provided no specific examples. They cited no particular orders. They simply attempted to sow doubt and discord within the ranks.

The Justice Department is now treating this matter with appropriate seriousness. Both the DOJ and FBI have confirmed they are scheduling interviews with these lawmakers as part of their investigation. This is not political persecution. This is a legitimate inquiry into whether elected officials crossed a constitutional line by attempting to undermine military discipline and chain of command for partisan purposes.

The investigation will proceed through proper channels. The facts will be established. But the principle at stake should concern every American regardless of political affiliation: elected officials cannot be permitted to weaponize the military against lawful civilian authority simply because they disagree with that authority’s policies.

Related: Federal Prosecutor Faces Terrorism Charges After Allegedly Revealing Agent’s Identity Online