FBI probes Democratic lawmakers for First Amendment-protected video on military constitutional duties

The FBI's counterterrorism division contacted six Democratic members of Congress on November 25, 2025 to request interviews following President Trump's public accusations that they had committed "seditious" acts punishable by death. The six lawmakers—Sens. Mark Kelly (Arizona) and Elissa Slotkin (Michigan) and Reps. Jason Crow (Colorado), Maggie Goodlander (New Hampshire), Chris Deluzio (Pennsylvania), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pennsylvania)—are all military veterans. Their alleged "sedition" consisted of releasing a video reminding U.S. military personnel of their constitutional obligation to refuse unlawful orders, in response to the Trump administration's military strikes on Latin American targets without congressional authorization.

The timing and framing reveal the investigative purpose: one day before the FBI contacted the lawmakers, the Pentagon had threatened to recall Sen. Kelly to active duty for potential military charges related to his public statements. The FBI's counterterrorism division—typically deployed against foreign and domestic terrorism threats—was redirected to investigate protected First Amendment speech by sitting members of Congress. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, had publicly attacked the lawmakers' video as seditious before the FBI inquiry began, signaling executive direction of the investigation.

The targeting represents a direct inversion of the rule of law. The Trump administration dismantled the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, the institutional check designed to prevent politically motivated prosecutions of sitting lawmakers. With that safeguard removed, law enforcement apparatus was weaponized against critics who exercised protected speech about constitutional military doctrine. The six lawmakers committed no crime; they invoked established law (the Uniform Code of Military Justice requirement that service members refuse unlawful orders) to educate military personnel. The investigation targets the speech itself, not any unlawful conduct.