FBI Contacts Democratic Lawmakers Over Military Orders Video, Signaling Potential Inquiry

Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a social media video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” say the FBI has contacted them to schedule interviews, marking a significant escalation in the controversy surrounding their statements.

The potential FBI inquiry comes just a day after the Pentagon announced it was reviewing Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona for possible violations of military law related to the same video. These developments follow President Donald Trump’s social media post accusing the lawmakers of sedition, claiming it is “punishable by DEATH.”

“President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress,” said a group of four Democratic House members in a statement Tuesday. “Yesterday, the FBI contacted the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms requesting interviews.”

Democrats Call Inquiry a ‘Scare Tactic’

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, one of the six Democratic lawmakers in the video, told reporters Tuesday that “last night the counterterrorism division at the FBI sent a note to the members of Congress, saying they are opening what appears to be an inquiry against the six of us.”

Slotkin characterized the action as a “scare tactic” by Trump, questioning whether this represents an appropriate response from a president. “Whether you agree with the video or don’t agree with the video, the question to me is: is this the appropriate response for a president of the United States to go after and seek to weaponize the federal government against those he disagrees with?” she said.

The group of Democratic House members added in their statement that “no amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution.”

All six lawmakers in the controversial video have backgrounds in the military or intelligence community, lending particular weight to their message about following orders.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska broke ranks with many in her party by criticizing both investigations. “Accusing the lawmakers of treason and sedition for rightfully pointing out that servicemembers can refuse illegal orders is reckless and flat-out wrong,” Murkowski wrote on social media. “The Department of Defense and FBI surely have more important priorities than this frivolous investigation.”

FBI Provides No Insight Into Interview Requests

The FBI approached the top security officials for both the House and Senate to request interviews with each of the six lawmakers. However, the lawmakers have indicated they received no further details about the basis for these interview requests.

While the FBI declined to comment on Tuesday, Director Kash Patel described it as an “ongoing matter” in an interview with journalist Catherine Herridge, explaining his inability to discuss specifics.

When asked about his reaction to the video, Patel said, “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? And that decision will be made by the career agents and analysts here at the FBI.”

The Video at the Heart of the Inquiries

In the controversial video, the lawmakers urged troops to “stand up for our laws… our Constitution.” Kelly, a former fighter pilot and astronaut who retired at the rank of captain, explicitly told service members that “you can refuse illegal orders.”

Following the Pentagon’s announcement of its investigation into Kelly on Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth referred the matter to the Navy on Tuesday and requested a briefing by December 10.

Although the lawmakers didn’t reference specific scenarios in their video, Slotkin later pointed to controversial Trump administration actions, including orders to blow up small boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean suspected of drug trafficking, and attempts to deploy National Guard troops in U.S. cities despite legal challenges.

“It wasn’t that there was any one incident, it was the sheer number of people coming to us and saying, ‘I’m worried. I am being sent to Washington or I’m being sent to LA or Chicago, North Carolina now, and I’m concerned I’m going to be asked to do something that I don’t know if I should do,'” Slotkin explained. “So that’s where it came from.”

Military personnel, especially uniformed commanders, do have specific obligations to reject orders they determine to be unlawful. Broad legal precedent also holds that simply following orders—commonly known as the “Nuremberg defense” after its unsuccessful use by Nazi officials—does not absolve troops of responsibility for illegal actions.

The twin investigations represent an unusual intervention by federal law enforcement and military institutions into what many observers view as political speech by elected officials, raising questions about the boundaries between national security concerns and protected political expression.