ANALYSIS.
‘Seditious Six’ claim FBI is being ‘weaponized’ against them, while Trump administration denies them the victim card
Five Democratic lawmakers are claiming that the FBI is trying to subpoena them to talk about the video in which they called on the military to disobey orders from the administration. Sen. Mark Kelly, meanwhile, is facing a Pentagon investigation because of his status as a retired captain.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.)
Five of the Democratic lawmakers dubbed by Pete Hegseth as the “Seditious Six” called the investigation by the FBI into their conduct “weaponization of justice.” The investigation stems from a video they released calling on troops to disobey the Trump administration's orders. The sixth lawmaker involved in the recorded message, Sen. Mark Kelly, faces a Pentagon investigation due to his status as a retired captain.
As they noted themselves, Sen. Elissa Slotkin and Reps. Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan and Jason Crow have noted attempts by the FBI to subpoena them.
"Using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress"
After the information was made public, Deluzio, Goodlander, Houlahan and Crow released a joint statement in which they accused Donald Trump of "using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress."
In the note, shared by them on their social media accounts, the congressmen stress that "no amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution. We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship."
"This is not the America I know"
Slotkin, who acknowledged during a interview that there was no illegal order, made a similar post on X: "The President directing the FBI to target us is exactly why we made this video in the first place. He believes in weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies and does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet. He uses legal harassment as an intimidation tactic to scare people out of speaking up."
Furthermore, the senator pointed out that "this is not the America I know and ’m not going to let this next step from the FBI stop me from speaking up for my country and our Constitution.
Administration insists on clarifying whether the content of the video is "treasonous"
The Trump administration, however, was not impressed by the Democrats’ attempt to play the victim card. Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was extremely forceful on Fox's Jesse Waters show, speaking on the severity of the aforementioned video message.
According to Miller, the "Seditious Six" should be investigated for "creating a color revolution."
"That kind of language will get people killed. It endangers our national security. It's dangerously radicalizing. And it has all the evidence of willfulness and intent. ... It's to create a color revolution. It is the CIA playbook for trying to foment insurrection from within the military and within the CIA," he said.
"This is a politically motivated influence operation"
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who was the most affected by the content of the video, insisted again on the need not to let what happened go unpunished nor allow the Democrats to present themselves as innocent victims. On Tuesday, he had several exchanges with Senator Kelly on X and tried to explain what is at stake:
"The despicable video urging [War Department] troops to 'refuse illegal orders' may seem harmless to civilians — but it carries a different weight inside the military. This was a politically-motivated influence operation:
☑️ It never named a specific 'illegal order.'
☑️ It created ambiguity rather than clarity.
☑️ It used carefully scripted, legal-sounding language.
☑️ It subtly reframed military obedience around partisan distrust instead of established legal processes.
In the military, vague rhetoric and ambiguity undermines trust, creates hesitation in the chain of command, and erodes cohesion.
The military already has clear procedures for handling unlawful orders. It does not need political actors injecting doubt into an already clear chain of command.