The FBI has asked to interview six House and Senate Democrats after a video urged military members to refuse orders they believe are unlawful, a move that has split Washington and raised sharp questions about discipline, free speech, and the proper use of federal law enforcement.
Officials in Congress say the FBI reached out to sergeants at arms to arrange interviews, and Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin has confirmed she received notice. “Last night, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division appeared to open an inquiry into me in response to a video President Trump did not like. The President directing the FBI to target us is exactly why we made this video in the first place,” Slotkin on social media. The development puts lawmakers on the spot and puts the spotlight back on political rhetoric aimed at the armed forces.
The controversy began with a recorded statement from several Democrats urging service members to decline orders they judged unlawful, a suggestion many veterans and conservatives called reckless. ‘To suggest and encourage that active-duty service members defy the chain of command is a very dangerous thing for sitting members of Congress to do.’ That line has been echoed by critics who warn that eroding the chain of command is a threat to military readiness and civilian control of the armed forces.
President Trump blasted the lawmakers, labeling them “traitors” and accusing them of “seditious behavior,” and at one point suggested they should be jailed and perhaps even hanged; the White House later softened that language while continuing to urge accountability. The back-and-forth highlights how fraught speech about the military has become, and why conservatives say the stakes are high when elected officials seem to encourage insubordination.
Democrats pushed back in a joint statement saying federal agents contacted congressional security officials to schedule interviews. “President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress,” they wrote, and that claim has fueled a different kind of alarm on the right about politicizing law enforcement for partisan ends. Both lines of attack show how quickly institutional authority can be dragged into party warfare.
Last night, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division appeared to open an inquiry into me in response to a video President Trump did not like.
The President directing the FBI to target us is exactly why we made this video in the first place. He believes in weaponizing the federal…
— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) November 25, 2025
Slotkin accused the president of weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents, arguing such actions chill speech. “He believes in weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies and does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet. He uses legal harassment as an intimidation tactic to scare people out of speaking up,” Slotkin continued. Her language taps into conservative concerns about selective enforcement, even as many Republicans insist that calls for military defiance are themselves punishable.
There are real procedural consequences as well: investigators are reportedly reviewing conduct by at least one senator after the video, and officials warned that consequences could follow. The Department of War released a statement indicating that investigators were reviewing misconduct allegations against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and that he might face “court-martial proceedings or administrative measures” as a result. That sentence underlines how matters that begin as political theater can cross into military legal territory.
Kelly pushed back on social media with a direct rebuttal to the idea investigators were trying to chill congressional oversight. “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 replied. His response framed the inquiry as a fight over the separation of powers and what limits the executive branch may place on lawmakers.
The FBI declined to comment publicly on the matter, and the debate is now a test of whether institutions can withstand partisan pressure on both sides. Conservatives will insist on protecting the military’s chain of command and on consequences for those who urge troops to disobey orders, while also watching closely for any overreach by federal investigators used as political tools.
