Five Democratic members of the United States Congress have revealed that they are under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) after posting a video in November urging military and intelligence personnel to refuse illegal orders. The legislators—Senator Elissa Slotkin and Representatives Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Chris Deluzio—are all veterans who previously served in the US military, CIA, or naval intelligence.

Video Sparks Controversy

The video, released amid US military airstrikes in the Caribbean and Pacific, featured the lawmakers warning service members against carrying out orders that violate the law or the Constitution. “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” they said. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or Constitution.”

Shortly after the video’s release, former President Donald Trump labeled the lawmakers’ actions as “seditious behaviour, punishable by death” on his social media platform Truth Social, escalating tensions between the executive branch and Congress.

Justice Department Inquiry

CBS News reported that the FBI opened an inquiry in November targeting the five legislators, with Senator Mark Kelly also featured in the video under scrutiny. While Kelly has faced additional military-related investigations, including a potential court-martial and reductions in retirement rank and pay, it remains unclear whether he is part of the DOJ probe.

Crow, Slotkin, Goodlander, Houlahan, and Deluzio confirmed on X (formerly Twitter) that they were contacted by federal prosecutors. Crow stated, “Trump’s political cronies at the Justice Department are trying to threaten and intimidate us. Well, he’s picked a fight with the wrong people. I will always uphold my oath to the Constitution.”

Houlahan emphasized that the lawmakers were targeted not for spreading false information but for exercising their First Amendment rights. “The six of us are being targeted because we said something President Trump and Secretary Hegseth didn’t want anyone to hear,” she wrote on X.

Context: Trump’s Use of Military Authority

The video and subsequent investigations come amid a series of controversial orders issued by Trump since returning to the White House. These include:

• Airstrikes on vessels in international waters in the Caribbean and Pacific.
• Deployment of the National Guard to cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., to counter undocumented immigration and crime.

Legal experts and US states have criticized these actions as potentially unconstitutional, noting that domestic military deployment is generally restricted to circumstances of invasion or civil unrest. In December 2025, the US Supreme Court upheld a decision blocking Trump’s National Guard deployment in Illinois due to insufficient evidence of a “rebellion,” setting a legal precedent for other states.

Mark Kelly’s Legal Challenge

Senator Mark Kelly has filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense, arguing that punitive actions against him for appearing in the video violate his free speech rights. The lawsuit cites the reduction in Kelly’s rank and retirement pay as part of a broader campaign of “punitive retribution.”

First Amendment and Military Ethics Implications

The investigation highlights the tension between elected officials’ free speech rights and the military chain of command. The lawmakers’ video invoked principles codified in US military law, which prohibit service members from following orders that are clearly illegal. Legal analysts note that the case raises complex questions about constitutional protections, civilian oversight of the military, and the limits of presidential authority.

Conclusion

The DOJ investigation into five US legislators underscores the growing clash between Congress and the executive branch over military authority, constitutional rights, and free speech. As Trump and his administration continue to test the boundaries of presidential power, legal experts anticipate ongoing debates over the role of lawmakers in guiding and advising service members on the legality of orders.

The controversy also serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between national security, military obedience, and the constitutional freedoms of both civilians and veterans serving in government positions.