FBI seeks interviews with six Democratic lawmakers over a video urging U.S. troops to refuse unlawful orders, escalating tensions between the Trump administration and Congress. The clash highlights growing concerns over military politicisation, legal authority, and civilian control of armed forces.
A deepening confrontation between the Trump administration and Democratic lawmakers has intensified after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sought interviews with six members of Congress who appeared in a video urging U.S. military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. The development marks a significant escalation in the growing struggle over civilian oversight of the armed forces and the boundaries of political influence within the military.
According to media reports published Tuesday, the FBI formally requested to interview six Democratic lawmakers—Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, and Representatives Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan. The lawmakers appeared in a video last week calling on U.S. service members to uphold their oath to the Constitution and reject any illegal orders, a message that quickly triggered fierce backlash from the Trump administration.
The video was released amid mounting concerns among Democrats that the administration is pressuring the military to carry out directives that may violate federal law, particularly relating to newly authorised operations in international waters. These directives reportedly include targeting vessels suspected of aiding drug trafficking, with the Pentagon defending the actions as justified because the individuals involved are classified as terrorists.
On Tuesday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth intensified his criticism of the lawmakers, describing the video as a “politically motivated influence operation” designed to sow distrust and disrupt military cohesion. In a sharply worded post on X, Hegseth warned that the message “may seem harmless to civilians — but it carries a different weight inside the military,” arguing that framing military obedience around partisan suspicion risks damaging established chains of command.
Hegseth further accused the lawmakers of creating unnecessary confusion by not citing specific examples of illegal orders. He said the language used in the video was “carefully scripted” to sound legally authoritative, thereby presenting itself as guidance that could mislead military personnel about their obligations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
The Pentagon has also signaled potential disciplinary action, particularly against Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain. Officials have suggested that Kelly could be recalled to active duty and prosecuted under the UCMJ, a rare and aggressive step that underscores the severity of the administration’s stance. However, Slotkin and the four other lawmakers — all of whom previously served in the military — are not retired and therefore fall outside UCMJ jurisdiction.
Kelly dismissed the Pentagon’s warning as an intimidation tactic aimed at silencing critics of the administration.
“If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work,” he said in a statement posted on X on Monday. “I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.”
President Donald Trump escalated the rhetoric further by calling for the lawmakers to be arrested and prosecuted for “seditious behaviour,” adding that such crimes are “punishable by DEATH!” The statement drew immediate alarm from legal experts and political analysts, who warned that invoking the death penalty in response to political criticism represents an unprecedented attempt to criminalise opposition.
The administration is also facing criticism for deploying National Guard troops to several Democratic-led cities, a move that Democratic leaders say is indicative of a broader effort to politicise the military. They argue that Trump is using federal forces as tools to pressure opponents and reinforce political narratives, rather than as neutral instruments of national security.
Meanwhile, supporters of the administration contend that Democrats are undermining military discipline by suggesting that service members should independently judge the legality of orders. They argue that such advice risks reshaping the armed forces into a politically fragmented institution, rather than one unified by a clear chain of command and legal oversight mechanisms already in place.
| Also Read: Meloni, Modi Announce New Anti-Terror Framework At G20 |
The confrontation shows no sign of slowing as congressional committees consider hearings on the administration’s military directives, while the FBI’s request for interviews signals the beginning of a potentially explosive legal and political battle. With both sides invoking constitutional principles and national security, the dispute is poised to become one of the most consequential civil-military controversies of the Trump era.
