Earlier this year, six Democratic members of Congress — Sens. Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly and Reps. Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan — released a short video directed at U.S. military and intelligence personnel. In the video, all of whom are veterans or former national security professionals, they reminded service members of their legal and ethical duty to uphold the Constitution and refuse unlawful orders, stating that “no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” The lawmakers framed this as a reinforcement of established military law and oath principles, not an attack on any specific directive.

President Donald Trump responded with exceptionally strong rhetoric, accusing the lawmakers of “seditious behavior” that he claimed was “punishable by death.” He reposted social media comments advocating harsh punishments and called for the lawmakers to be arrested and tried. Trump’s comments included statements such as: “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be arrested and put on trial. … Seditious behavior, punishable by death!” These remarks were widely reported and have drawn sharp criticism from opponents who labeled the language dangerous and inflammatory.

The White House later clarified in a briefing that Trump was not literally seeking execution, though press officials continued to condemn the lawmakers’ message as undermining military discipline.

Following Trump’s statements, the Pentagon has publicly confirmed it is reviewing the video’s content and related conduct. Officials stated the Defense Department was conducting a review of “serious allegations of misconduct” against Senator Mark Kelly in particular because, as a retired Navy officer, he may still fall under certain portions of military law. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has escalated this review into a formal command investigation — an unprecedented move concerning a sitting member of Congress.

Legal experts and lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns about the legality and constitutionality of military justice being applied to statements made by an elected legislator, noting that political speech — especially regarding legal obligations under the Constitution — is protected.

Legal analysts widely agree that reminding service members they can refuse illegal orders is consistent with existing law — military law and U.S. military ethics have long held that unlawful orders do not have to be obeyed. Several reports highlight that the lawmakers’ video did not identify any specific illegal order, but rather reiterated general legal principles. Legal experts have stated that simply restating that duty does not meet the standard for sedition or criminal conduct.

Critics of the Pentagon investigation argue that current members of Congress should not be subject to military justice for public political speech, and that any threat of court‑martial or prosecution would face significant constitutional challenges.

The dispute has reverberated beyond the Pentagon. Democratic leaders and the affected lawmakers have publicly rejected Trump’s rhetoric, emphasizing their service and constitutional commitment and condemning calls for violence or punishment against them. House Democratic leadership has called for Trump to remove inflammatory posts and for Republicans to denounce threats of harm.

Meanwhile, some Republicans have backed the administration’s concerns about maintaining a clear military chain of command, arguing the message could sow confusion among service members. This political polarization deepens existing civil–military debates over obedience, constitutional duty, and political speech.

This conflict highlights a deeper tension between free speech protections for elected officials and the role of civilian authority over the military. The question of whether military or federal law enforcement should pursue action against lawmakers for political speech is unprecedented in modern American history. The involvement of the FBI — reportedly attempting to interview the six lawmakers over the video — further complicates the situation and blurs lines between political expression and potential criminal inquiry.

For the public and legal community alike, the outcome of these investigations and any official actions will carry significant implications for how constitutional rights, military obedience norms, and executive authority are balanced in periods of intense political conflict.