In a move that has sent shockwaves through Washington and the military community, the FBI has launched an investigation into Arizona Senator Mark Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers following the release of a video in which they urged military personnel to refuse illegal orders. The probe, announced on November 25, 2025, marks a dramatic escalation in the ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and congressional Democrats, with President Donald Trump labeling the video as “seditious” and “punishable by DEATH!”
The video, posted on November 18, 2025, features Kelly—a retired Navy captain and former astronaut—alongside Representatives Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Jason Crow of Colorado, and Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst. In their message, the lawmakers remind active duty personnel that obeying unlawful orders is a violation of both military law and their oath to uphold the Constitution. “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly states in the video, echoing a principle deeply rooted in American military doctrine.
According to Al Jazeera, Slotkin posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the video was intended to “speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community.” She emphasized, “The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution. Don’t give up the ship.” The video further warns, “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution. Right now, the threats to our constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but right here at home.”
The response from the Trump administration was swift and severe. On November 24, the Pentagon announced a “thorough review” of what it called “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth branding the group the “seditious six.” Hegseth, in a post on X, described the lawmakers as “despicable, reckless, and false,” adding, “Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline.’ Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion – which only puts our warriors in danger.” Hegseth also clarified that only Kelly, as a formally retired military officer, falls under the Department of Defense’s jurisdiction and could be recalled for court-martial proceedings.
The Pentagon’s statement underscored the gravity of the allegations: “A thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality.” The statement also reminded all service members of their “legal obligation under the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful.”
President Trump, never one to shy away from controversy, doubled down on his criticism. On his Truth Social platform, he called the video “really bad, and Dangerous to our Country,” and in another post, he declared it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH.” However, a day later, Trump told Fox News he wasn’t threatening death but insisted the Democrats were in “serious trouble.”
Kelly, for his part, has remained defiant. In a post on X on November 24, he reaffirmed his commitment to the Constitution: “I’ve sworn an oath to the Constitution in 1986. I’ve upheld it through 25 years of service and every day since I retired. If Trump’s trying to intimidate me, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to our country to be silenced by bullies who care more about power than the Constitution.” In another post, he recounted his service: “I had a missile blow up next to my airplane, been shot at dozens of times by anti-aircraft fire, and launched into orbit – all for my country. I never thought I’d see a President call for my execution. Trump doesn’t understand the Constitution, and we’re all less safe for it.”
The four House members involved—Crow, Deluzio, Houlahan, and Goodlander—released a joint statement condemning the FBI investigation. “President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress. No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution.” The FBI has requested interviews with these representatives, though, as Defense Secretary Hegseth noted, only Kelly as a retired officer is subject to military justice. Slotkin, not a military retiree, is also outside the Pentagon’s direct jurisdiction.
Legal experts have expressed skepticism about the likelihood of a successful prosecution. Geoffrey Corn, director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University School of Law, told USA Today, “Nothing that was said called for violating or disobeying lawful orders,” adding that a prosecution based on the video seemed implausible. Bruce Fein, a constitutional law specialist who served under President Ronald Reagan, told Al Jazeera that Kelly was “simply echoing the law,” noting, “A member of the United States Armed Forces is required to disobey a clearly illegal order of a superior. There is no ‘following orders’ defense.” Fein cited the infamous My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, where Lieutenant William Calley’s “following orders” defense was rejected and he was convicted of war crimes.
Despite the legal consensus, the Pentagon has signaled that possible punishments could include recall to active duty for a court-martial or administrative measures such as retroactive demotion, which would reduce Kelly’s retirement pay. A recent precedent saw the Navy demote Rep. Ronny Jackson, a retired rear admiral, to captain after an inspector general report, only for his rank to be restored by Navy Secretary John Phelan, a Trump appointee.
The video’s timing is particularly sensitive. The U.S. military has recently conducted strikes on vessels in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, alleged to be carrying drugs, resulting in at least 83 deaths. Democrats have questioned the legality of these strikes, with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting Department of Justice opinions on their lawfulness. A DOJ memo, reported by The Hill, stated that “the strikes were ordered consistent with the laws of armed conflict, and as such are lawful orders. Military personnel are legally obligated to follow lawful orders and, as such, are not subject to prosecution for following lawful orders.”
Meanwhile, Democrats say they have received death threats since the video was posted, further heightening the stakes. At a veterans’ town hall in Casa Grande, Senator Ruben Gallego defended the lawmakers, stating, “What they were saying was perfectly sane and in line. You as a member of the military have a right to disagree with illegal orders. … They’re just restating the Constitution of the United States and the oath that we all take. Why does he think that is such a threat?”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back against accusations of intimidation, arguing that Senator Kelly was instead attempting to “intimidate the 1.3 million active duty service members” and expressing offense at the implication that President Trump had issued illegal orders.
As the investigation unfolds, the clash between constitutional duty, military law, and political power has rarely felt more immediate. The outcome could set a precedent for how far the executive branch can go in policing the speech and actions of lawmakers—especially those with a military background—at a time when national security and the rule of law are under intense scrutiny.
For now, the nation watches as one of its most decorated veterans stands at the center of a controversy that tests the very boundaries of American democracy and military tradition.
