On Wednesday, Reps. Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan revealed they are under federal investigation for a video claiming U.S. service members can refuse unlawful orders.
Their announcements follow Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s disclosure earlier this week of facing a similar probe tied to the same clip. The video features Democrats with military or intelligence experience and has sparked backlash from President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
Sen. Mark Kelly, also in the video, was censured by Hegseth for actions deemed to weaken military command, facing a rank reduction and cut in retirement pay. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. noted on Thursday they could neither confirm nor deny investigations into the other lawmakers. The exact reasons for these probes remain undisclosed.
President Trump didn’t mince words, branding the lawmakers as "traitors" on social media in November, ABC News reports. Such harsh language stings, especially when tied to claims of sedition. It feels like an effort to quash disagreement, though the White House argues it’s about preserving order.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified in November that Trump isn’t pushing for extreme measures, despite his rhetoric. She suggested the Democrats are urging service members to defy lawful commands.
That interpretation seems forced—highlighting legal rights hardly equates to promoting defiance.
Rep. Jason Crow, undeterred, stated on X, "We are not going to back away." He accused the Department of Justice of acting under Trump’s influence to intimidate them. That’s a weighty allegation, pointing to potential misuse of federal resources.
Crow further emphasized he’s "more emboldened than ever" to fulfill his duty. That resolve strikes a chord with those concerned about executive overreach.
Rep. Maggie Goodlander mirrored Crow’s stance on social media, vowing the threats won’t silence her. She criticized the Justice Department for targeting her over a fundamental legal principle. It’s difficult to dispute her logic—voicing a fact shouldn’t trigger retaliation.
Sen. Mark Kelly’s censure by Hegseth adds complexity, with claims the video disrupts military hierarchy. Hegseth’s penalties, set over a 45-day process, seem overly punitive for a message tied to constitutional values.
Kelly remains steadfast, telling ABC News he’d "absolutely not" alter his advice to troops. He’s also sued Hegseth, alleging the censure infringes on his rights. The legal outcome remains uncertain.
The united front of Crow, Goodlander, Houlahan, Slotkin, and Kelly suggests they view this as a critical stand. They maintain the video upholds constitutional principles, not undermines them.
Yet, to many, their actions skirt dangerously close to encouraging insubordination. This isn’t just about a video—it’s about defining the boundary between duty and rights.
The administration’s response, with investigations and censures, signals zero tolerance for perceived challenges. But does this approach stifle necessary dialogue?
This conflict underscores a broader divide over authority and values in America. While the Democrats may aim to protect service members, the fallout could deepen distrust in our systems. Both sides must proceed cautiously to prevent lasting harm.
