Report States FBI Scheduling Interviews With Lawmakers After Video

When six elected officials — all with military or intelligence backgrounds — appear in a video telling troops they can "refuse illegal orders," it may sound, at first glance, like a simple civics lesson.

But in the context of a politically volatile climate and ahead of a pivotal election year, the message lands very differently — especially within the disciplined and tightly structured world of the U.S. military. The resulting backlash, investigations, and threats of military justice reveal just how fine the line is between political speech and subversive messaging when it comes from those who wore the uniform.

The video, released by Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly along with four House members — all Democrats and all former military or intelligence — has triggered sharp scrutiny not just from critics but from the highest levels of government. The Department of Justice and FBI have now contacted Capitol Police to arrange interviews with the lawmakers.

The Department of War has launched a formal review, and in Kelly’s case, is considering unprecedented action: recalling the retired Navy captain to active duty for potential court-martial proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

President Donald Trump’s reaction was swift and severe, labeling the video “seditious behavior, punishable by death.” While hyperbolic in tone, the sentiment behind the charge is echoed in more measured — but no less serious — concerns raised by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. His statement made clear that while the message in the video may appear harmless to the civilian population, within military ranks, it introduces a dangerous ambiguity.

Here is how you set up "interviews" with the "Seditious Six."

You invite them to a U.S. Attorney's Office.

You show them a GJ subpoena with their name on it, and you put it back in folder and put it in your desk.

Then you ask if they are willing to answer questions.

Then…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) November 25, 2025

At issue is not whether military members have a duty to disobey unlawful orders — they do, and that principle is embedded in U.S. military doctrine. Rather, the problem lies in the context, timing, and vague language of the video. The lawmakers never cited a specific illegal order, nor did they clarify any chain-of-command procedures. Instead, they delivered a lawyered-up, emotionally charged message directly to service members — bypassing leadership structures and inviting individual judgment over institutional process. That kind of messaging, Hegseth says, can erode discipline, destabilize trust in the chain of command, and ultimately compromise military cohesion.

Military obedience isn’t blind. But it is structured — built on rigorous training, legal frameworks, and internal review systems designed to prevent abuses without encouraging confusion. When political figures, especially those with service backgrounds, use their authority to cast general doubt on the military hierarchy, they risk doing more harm than good.

The Pentagon, rightly, sees this video not as a helpful civic reminder but as a politicized influence campaign cloaked in legality — one that could fracture trust within the ranks at a time when unity is paramount. For veterans like Kelly and Crow, this wasn’t a rookie mistake. They understood the implications. And that, perhaps, is what makes it all the more troubling.

The line between dissent and destabilization is thin — and those who swore to uphold the Constitution should be the first to recognize the danger of blurring it.