The FBI is seeking to interview six Democratic members of Congress regarding a video in which they advised troops not to obey illegal orders. The interviews would be conducted on behalf of the Justice Department, sources say, though timing is uncertain due to the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday.

 

This move stems from a video made by the lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who claims the FBI's Counterterrorism Division has launched an inquiry against her. Slotkin took to social media, stating, "The President directing the FBI to target us is precisely why we made this video." She accused the President of using the federal government for intimidation.

 

The House Democrats involved also released a statement criticising the FBI’s actions as harassment directed by the President. They reaffirmed their commitment to defending the Constitution, stating their pledge to uphold their oath "lasts a lifetime."

 

FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed that career analysts and agents would determine whether an investigation is warranted. He mentioned having limited comments on the ongoing matter. The FBI received questions from the Capitol Police and declined to comment further.

 

Fox News initially reported this development. President Donald Trump has accused these Congress members of "seditious behaviour," suggesting they face significant consequences. The President previously remarked, "In the old days, it was death."

 

Following these events, the Pentagon has launched an investigation focusing on Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy Commander, who remains subject to military law. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth referred to Kelly and colleagues as the "Seditious Six" but noted that Kelly is the only one remaining under military jurisdiction.

 

Senator Kelly's spokesperson declared that Kelly "won't be silenced" by these alleged intimidation tactics. Kelly's office emphasised his dedication to his duties as a U.S. senator, despite pressure from the president and defence secretary, according to ABC News.

 

Key Takeaways:

 

• The FBI seeks interviews with six Congress members over a controversial video.
• The inquiry focuses on potential illegal instructions to troops from lawmakers.
• The Pentagon’s review centres on Sen. Mark Kelly due to his military background.

 

Related story

Trump Says Dem Lawmakers Urged ‘Sedition Punishable by Death'

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from ABC News 2025-11-26

 

 

 

It's a well proven legal concept that a soldier carrying out illegal orders is equally liable under the law.

I guess DT better ensure his orders are Legal..................😉

5 minutes ago, CANSIAM said:

I guess DT better ensure his orders are Legal..................😉

Trump already issued his first illegal order when he change the Pentagon name to Department of War by executive order. Only a congressional act is legal.  

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Following these events, the Pentagon has launched an investigation focusing on Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy Commander, who remains subject to military law. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth referred to Kelly and colleagues as the "Seditious Six" but noted that Kelly is the only one remaining under military jurisdiction.

 

Senator Kelly's spokesperson declared that Kelly "won't be silenced" by these alleged intimidation tactics. Kelly's office emphasised his dedication to his duties as a U.S. senator, despite pressure from the president and defence secretary, according to ABC News.

Does this mean top republicans want to propel Kelly to a presidential run?

7 hours ago, webfact said:

 The President previously remarked, "In the old days, it was death."

 

 

Trump Says Dem Lawmakers Urged ‘Sedition Punishable by Death'

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from ABC News 2025-11-26

 

 

 

 

 

And no-one is commenting about the POTUS making a virtual death threat on social media?

2 minutes ago, Callmeishmael said:

 

 

And no-one is commenting about the POTUS making a virtual death threat on social media?

There were threads on that already.

This is positive, direct action against Trump's free bareback ride. Encourage soldiers to refuse and desert.

47 minutes ago, Callmeishmael said:

 

 

And no-one is commenting about the POTUS making a virtual death threat on social media?

POTUS don’t you mean KOTUS ?

Let me see if I understand this.  Hegseth threatens to recall Kelly to active service so that he can be charged for an alleged offence under the UCMJ; said 'offence' being committed while Kelly was NOT on active service.  They want to charge him for quoting the UCMJ!

I think some people are basing their actions on 'Jack Reacher II'.

Killing 81 fishermen, is a crime.

The USA behaves like a rogue state.

Non mentioning the support to the genocide in Gaza.

Military courts and doctrine hold that orders are presumed lawful.  This preserves discipline and chain of command. If every soldier had to independently judge legality, military effectiveness would collapse. It is expected that a former Navy Captain like Mark Kelly would fully understand that, so that makes his motive suspect. The burden is on the soldier to refuse only when the illegality is clear and unmistakable. They didn't say that in the video. 

33 minutes ago, Garouda said:

Killing 81 fishermen, is a crime.

The USA behaves like a rogue state.

Non mentioning the support to the genocide in Gaza.

I’d beg to differ on the 81 fishermen im thinking the majority were drug traffickers….4 expensive outboard motors for fishing…..naa 2 of the vessels I saw clips for were single engine with a davit and ice box  they most likely were small time fishermen.regardless to blow a boat out of the water like that is more akin to piracy in my view than the actions of a law abiding nation.

5 minutes ago, novacova said:

Military courts and doctrine hold that orders are presumed lawful.  This preserves discipline and chain of command. If every soldier had to independently judge legality, military effectiveness would collapse. It is expected that a former Navy Captain like Mark Kelly would fully understand that, so that makes his motive suspect. The burden is on the soldier to refuse only when the illegality is clear and unmistakable. They didn't say that in the video. 

There is NOTHING suspect in senator Kelley….on the otherhand trump is riddled with it.

Getting scarier every day.

2 minutes ago, Tug said:

There is NOTHING suspect in senator Kelley….on the otherhand trump is riddled with it.

Your statement is a good example of the left’s perpetual blinding Trump tirade is all, really nothing more to it than that.

A long, long time ago I was a commissioned officer in the Army Reserve. There two instances when a military member can question and ultimately disobey an order:  1) A clearly obvious order that violates the law. The presiding law for military members fall under the UCMJ-Uniform Code of Military Justice. 2) An order to that is clearly unsafe and/or dangerous for the member to carry out.  A suicide mission is oluntariy.  I think this will be a "nothing burger".  

12 minutes ago, novacova said:

Military courts and doctrine hold that orders are presumed lawful.  This preserves discipline and chain of command. If every soldier had to independently judge legality, military effectiveness would collapse. It is expected that a former Navy Captain like Mark Kelly would fully understand that, so that makes his motive suspect. The burden is on the soldier to refuse only when the illegality is clear and unmistakable. They didn't say that in the video. 

Your argument makes sense, but it is dependent on the military hierarchy and promotions on merit, rather than political loyalty, to ensure that the entire chain of command is aware of what is illegal in terms of orders given to be carried out.  In short, the subordinate should be able to trust the judgement of his senior officers.  When others are parachuted in to the top of the military hierarchy with little or no understanding of the responsibility for issuing lawful orders and think that 'all orders must be obeyed' you have a problem.

20 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Trump already issued his first illegal order when he change the Pentagon name to Department of War by executive order. Only a congressional act is legal.  

 

 

The order is not illegal – presidents can add secondary titles/nicknames by executive order.

The official legal name remains “Department of Defense” (only Congress can change that permanently).

Trump’s EO simply lets the Pentagon also call itself “Department of War” on signs, websites, and rhetoric.

So: symbolic, expensive, and provocative – but perfectly legal.

really have to wonder how many commenting on this actually served, I know when I served(in the 70's) not following/obeying an order was a chargeable offence, I was even caught in one action when I was ordered to do somethiong I did not agree with but still did it to avoid being charged for disobeying the order. I was later cleared after pointing out I was following a lawful order, what these six have done is to tell service members to disobey an order they disagree with which in itself is an offence as it relies on members to use their own opinion of what is illegal and what isnt, will be interesting to see where this goes.

10 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

 

The order is not illegal – presidents can add secondary titles/nicknames by executive order.

The official legal name remains “Department of Defense” (only Congress can change that permanently).

Trump’s EO simply lets the Pentagon also call itself “Department of War” on signs, websites, and rhetoric.

So: symbolic, expensive, and provocative – but perfectly legal.

Point taken. Trump is trying to seek congressional approval. Still the unofficial re-brand will cost unnecessary tax payers money to change hundreds of agencies, email addresses, uniforms and emblems. Some estimate up to a billion dollar. 

1 hour ago, seajae said:

what these six have done is to tell service members to disobey an order they disagree with

Which is not what they did.

 

 

They know who they are and they've seen the video.....what's are interviews really going to achieve?

 

Just political fluff......put up or shut up.

3 hours ago, seajae said:

really have to wonder how many commenting on this actually served, I know when I served(in the 70's) not following/obeying an order was a chargeable offence, I was even caught in one action when I was ordered to do somethiong I did not agree with but still did it to avoid being charged for disobeying the order. I was later cleared after pointing out I was following a lawful order, what these six have done is to tell service members to disobey an order they disagree with which in itself is an offence as it relies on members to use their own opinion of what is illegal and what isnt, will be interesting to see where this goes.

The six Congressmen have told anyone to disobey any order they ‘disagree with’.

 

Really - there is no difference between ordering a drone operator to fire a Hellcat missile at a boat in the Caribbean, and pulling up along side the same boat, ordering everyone on deck, and then ordering your troops to spay them with bullets.  Both ways of killing are illegal, although Trump and Hegseth will tell you that both are legal orders. Murder is murder.  

Although I'm a US veteran, in today's world I'd never recommend that a Gen-Zer volunteer for military service. You're more likely to end up SWATing illegal immigrants or invading some podunk country for it's natural resources, i.e., go overseas and die to make billionaire richer.  

1 hour ago, connda said:

Really - there is no difference between ordering a drone operator to fire a Hellcat missile at a boat in the Caribbean, and pulling up along side the same boat, ordering everyone on deck, and then ordering your troops to spay them with bullets.  Both ways of killing are illegal, although Trump and Hegseth will tell you that both are legal orders. Murder is murder.  

Although I'm a US veteran, in today's world I'd never recommend that a Gen-Zer volunteer for military service. You're more likely to end up SWATing illegal immigrants or invading some podunk country for it's natural resources, i.e., go overseas and die to make billionaire richer.  

You are 100% wrong on this matter as it relates to a terrorist organization and you have now put yourself in a bleeding heart sympathizer box for all those terrorist that killed thousands of Americans, the terrorist that were executed, shot up and hellfired upon. I’ve served in the military and can say for certain that 99%+ would disagree with you given that many go in the military as liberals and come out conservative probably 99% of the military population is conservative, but not all including you.

“If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.' ~ John Adams

 

I recon most liberals are too cowardly to join the military and the ones that do actually do have some courage and come out with their heads straight but some do not and carry a confused understanding of the world like this goofball Mark Kelly who should and probably will be court-martialed 

Why concentrate on only those six ?

John Brennan is behind the “seditious six”

Why is he still walking around ?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The six Congressmen have told anyone to disobey any order they ‘disagree with’.

 

 UCMJ  primary crime for military members 18USC2387 makes what they are saying breaks the law but then again all the pathetic dems that know bugger all about the military in here dont give a rats arse as long as they can blame trump, try looking it up, once again you are all shoving your feet in your mouths

From 2387 as above:

§ 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the
United States:
________________________________

From NY Times via https://dmna.ny.gov/ngwatch p. 11

 

In an interview with The New York Times, Ms. Slotkin said that she had heard from
active-duty troops who were concerned about the legality of strikes that have
targeted people accused by the Trump administration of trafficking narcotics by sea.

Some wondered whether they could be held personally liable for the deaths, she
said.

“There’s a real issue there of morale and a feeling like they don’t have a lot of senior leaders who are protecting them,” Ms. Slotkin said. “There’s a lot of folks in the rank and file who feel very alone.”

Mr. Kelly raised similar concerns in an interview with NBC about the fate of sailors,
airmen and Marines involved in the 20 strikes on boats in the Caribbean. “What does this mean for their future if they find out later that they did this without legal
justification?” he asked. “It puts them in legal jeopardy at some point.”
The video drew a sharp response from Trump administration officials, 

No problem.They can just tell them to get lost and not agree to an interview.