The Pentagon has launched an investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy officer, over his role in a video released by six Democratic lawmakers reminding U.S. service members and intelligence personnel that they are obligated to disobey illegal orders. The video, issued amid broader concerns about President Donald Trump’s use of military and intelligence authorities, has drawn fierce criticism from Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who have labeled the lawmakers’ actions as seditious. Kelly and his allies say the probe is politically motivated and intended to intimidate critics of the administration.
On November 18, 2025, six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds — Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D‑MI), Sen. Mark Kelly (D‑AZ), Rep. Chris Deluzio (D‑PA), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D‑NH), Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D‑PA) and Rep. Jason Crow (D‑CO) — appeared in a video message directed to U.S. military and intelligence personnel. In the video, highlighted by outlets including the Daily Wire and other national media, the lawmakers warn that threats to the Constitution can come from "right here at home" and stress that service members must follow only lawful commands.
According to the Daily Wire’s account of the recording, the lawmakers state: "Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution." That message is paired with an appeal to their shared oath of office and service: they tell viewers that "Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk" and insist that those serving in the armed forces and intelligence community must remain vigilant.
The video does not specify particular directives it deems unlawful. However, it was released against the backdrop of controversial decisions by the Trump administration involving the use of military and intelligence power, including domestic deployments and operations overseas, which have raised constitutional and legal concerns among critics. News reports from organizations such as the Associated Press and The Guardian note that the lawmakers’ statement reflects broader unease over the president’s approach to civilian control of the military and the potential for unlawful orders.
President Donald Trump responded aggressively on his Truth Social platform. In posts reported by multiple outlets, including regional and national news organizations, Trump accused the six Democrats of "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR" and referred to them as "traitors." In one message cited by the Philadelphia Inquirer and other publications, Trump wrote that their conduct was "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH," language that echoed his long‑standing use of capital letters and rhetorical escalation online. The White House later said the president wanted the lawmakers to face serious legal consequences but denied that he was literally calling for their execution, according to coverage from several outlets.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also sharply criticized the video. In public comments on X described by AOL, Yahoo News and conservative outlets, Hegseth branded the group the "Seditious Six" and called the video "despicable" and a "politically‑motivated influence operation." He argued that the message "encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders undermines every aspect of good order and discipline" and said the lawmakers’ language created "ambiguity rather than clarity" because it did not identify specific unlawful directives.
The Pentagon has confirmed that it is investigating Kelly’s role in the video. According to reporting by the Associated Press, Time magazine and other outlets, defense officials say Kelly, a retired Navy officer, remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and can be recalled to active duty under federal law for possible court‑martial or other disciplinary action. A statement reported by conservative publication The Daily Signal said the department had received "serious allegations of misconduct" and opened a review under authorities that include 10 U.S.C. § 688. Officials have emphasized that any process would be conducted in accordance with military law and that further public comment will be limited while the review is ongoing.
Although six Democrats appeared in the video, current and former defense officials note — as reported by Breitbart and other outlets — that Kelly is the only participant who is a retired military officer and therefore clearly remains under UCMJ jurisdiction. Slotkin is a former CIA officer, and the remaining four lawmakers previously served in the armed forces but are no longer in a retired status, limiting the Pentagon’s direct disciplinary authority over them.
In addition to the Pentagon review, the Department of Justice and the FBI are seeking to interview the six lawmakers about the video. The Daily Wire reports that both agencies confirmed they are scheduling interviews with Slotkin, Kelly, Deluzio, Goodlander, Houlahan and Crow in connection with an investigation into whether their remarks could amount to criminal conduct. Other outlets, including the Washington Post and Anadolu Agency, have similarly reported that the FBI is pursuing interviews, describing the effort as part of a broader response to the administration’s accusations of sedition.
Kelly has publicly rejected the premise of the investigation and defended the video as a straightforward reminder of long‑standing legal obligations. In interviews summarized by NPR and Time, he has said that the probe "doesn't make any sense" and argued that Trump and Hegseth are misusing their positions and misunderstanding the Constitution. Kelly has also contended that the president is effectively treating "loyalty to the Constitution" as a punishable offense, though he has framed those remarks as his interpretation of Trump’s rhetoric rather than a literal legal claim.
In a written statement posted to social media and quoted by several outlets, including Time, Kelly said, "If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution." He has portrayed the inquiry as part of a broader pattern in which the administration targets its political opponents.
The lawmakers who appeared in the video have issued additional public comments defending their message and condemning Trump’s response. Anadolu Agency reports that in a joint statement on X, they accused the president of weaponizing federal law enforcement and called his rhetoric an attempt to "intimidate and harass" members of Congress for urging adherence to lawful orders. Several of the lawmakers, including Houlahan in comments to the Philadelphia Inquirer, have said the video was intended as an "innocuous" reminder that U.S. troops and intelligence officers must follow only lawful commands, a principle they say is ingrained in military training and U.S. law.
The controversy has drawn in other Democrats on Capitol Hill. Senate colleagues such as Ruben Gallego (D‑AZ) have publicly defended Kelly and criticized the administration’s approach, accusing Trump of authoritarian behavior and warning that political retaliation against lawmakers for their speech erodes democratic norms. Some conservative outlets have reported that Gallego, in televised interviews, has warned that there "will be consequences" for officials who participate in what he views as an improper effort to punish Kelly, while emphasizing that military personnel must ultimately follow the law and the Constitution.
At the same time, even some supporters of the video have acknowledged that the lawmakers did not cite a particular order from Trump that they consider unlawful. According to interviews summarized by ABC News and other networks, Slotkin has said she cannot point to a single specific command but believes the broader pattern of decisions by the administration — and questions coming from service members — justified a clear public reminder about the duty to reject illegal orders.
The investigation into Kelly’s conduct is still in its early stages, and it remains unclear whether the Pentagon will ultimately seek to recall him to active duty or pursue any formal charges. Legal experts quoted across multiple outlets note that service members already have a well‑established obligation to disobey unlawful orders, but say the case raises novel questions about how far the military can go in disciplining an elected official for speech that touches on core constitutional issues.
