The Dangerous Weaponization of Federal Power Against Constitutional Defenders

The Facts: An Alarming Pattern of Political Intimidation

In what can only be described as a deeply troubling development for American democracy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently seeking to interview Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and five other congressional Democrats regarding their appearance in an educational video. This video, created in November 2025, simply reminded members of the U.S. military of their existing legal and ethical obligation to refuse unlawful orders—a fundamental principle that has been part of military ethics and law for generations.

The other lawmakers involved include Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, along with Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, both of Pennsylvania. These elected officials participated in creating content that reinforces what every service member learns during their training: that following illegal orders is not only prohibited but can lead to serious legal consequences.

President Donald Trump’s response to this constitutional reminder was immediate and severe. He publicly accused these lawmakers of “seditious behavior,” called them “traitors,” and made the chilling remark that “in the old days, if you said a thing like that, that was punishable by death.” This rhetoric alone should concern every American who values free speech and political discourse, but the situation has escalated far beyond mere words.

The Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has initiated an investigation into Senator Kelly—a retired Navy captain—for potential violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Department of Defense has suggested that Kelly could be recalled to active duty and face court-martial proceedings. Simultaneously, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division has opened inquiries into all six lawmakers, creating an unprecedented situation where multiple federal agencies are targeting elected officials for expressing constitutional principles.

Context: Military Ethics and Constitutional Responsibilities

The core message these lawmakers conveyed is neither controversial nor novel. The principle that military personnel must refuse illegal orders is embedded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and has been reinforced through numerous historical precedents, most notably the Nuremberg trials where “just following orders” was explicitly rejected as a defense for war crimes. This principle protects both service members and the nation from potential abuses of power.

The video emerged against the backdrop of more than 20 unauthorized airstrikes conducted by the U.S. military in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean against purported drug smugglers. These strikes, executed without congressional authorization, have raised serious legal questions and resulted in numerous casualties. The lawmakers’ video served as an important reminder to military personnel about their existing legal obligations amid these questionable operations.

Furthermore, the lawmakers have shown appropriate congressional oversight by requesting the declassification of a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel’s written opinion from September 2025 regarding the legal basis for these strikes. As they correctly noted in their letter to Defense Secretary Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi, “Few decisions are more consequential for a democracy than the use of lethal force.”

Opinion: An Assault on Constitutional Principles and Democratic Norms

What we are witnessing is nothing short of a coordinated assault on constitutional governance and the separation of powers. The weaponization of federal institutions against political opponents represents exactly the type of authoritarian behavior the Founders designed our system to prevent. When the FBI and Pentagon become tools for intimidating elected officials who dare to exercise oversight and remind citizens of their rights, we have crossed into dangerous territory that threatens the very foundation of our republic.

President Trump’s language—accusing lawmakers of treason and suggesting they should face death—is not merely inflammatory rhetoric; it creates a permission structure for the abuse of power. This language echoes the worst moments in history when leaders used state institutions to crush dissent and eliminate political opposition. The fact that multiple federal agencies are now acting on this rhetoric should alarm every American, regardless of political affiliation.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, deserves recognition for speaking truth to power when she called these investigations “reckless and flat-out wrong.” Her defense of Senator Kelly’s service record and her recognition that these lawmakers were “rightfully pointing out that servicemembers can refuse illegal orders” demonstrates that this is not a partisan issue but a fundamental matter of constitutional principle.

The Chilling Effect on Congressional Oversight

The implications of this dangerous precedent extend far beyond these six lawmakers. If members of Congress can be investigated by the FBI and threatened with military prosecution for performing their constitutional duties—including oversight of executive branch actions and educating constituents about their rights—then the system of checks and balances collapses. This creates a chilling effect that could silence legitimate criticism and oversight for years to come.

The lawmakers’ joint statement correctly identifies the gravity of this situation: “President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress.” This is exactly why they made the video in the first place—to highlight the potential for abuse of power and the importance of maintaining legal and ethical boundaries, even (or especially) within the military.

Defense Secretary Hegseth’s Inappropriate Response

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s public criticism of Senator Kelly’s uniform display represents a particularly petty and unprofessional response to a serious constitutional matter. Rather than addressing the substantive issues raised about unauthorized military strikes and the legal obligations of service members, Hegseth focused on trivial matters of uniform protocol. This distraction tactic fails to address the serious questions about the legality of military operations and instead attempts to divert attention to irrelevant details.

The Fundamental Issue: Weaponization of Institutions

At its core, this situation represents the dangerous transformation of nonpartisan institutions into weapons of political persecution. The FBI and Pentagon should never serve as enforcement mechanisms for a president’s personal grievances or political vendettas. Their credibility and effectiveness depend on their independence and commitment to the rule of law, not to any individual or political party.

When Senator Slotkin stated that “He believes in weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies and does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet,” she identified the essential threat to our democratic system. The principle that no one is above the law—including the president—must be maintained without exception.

Conclusion: A Moment of Constitutional Reckoning

This disturbing episode represents a critical test for American democracy. The investigation of these six lawmakers for reminding military personnel of their existing legal obligations constitutes an abuse of power that should concern every citizen who values constitutional governance. The rhetoric from the White House—including suggestions of death penalties for political speech—and the coordinated response from multiple federal agencies create a pattern of behavior that historically precedes more severe authoritarian measures.

The courage shown by these lawmakers in refusing to be intimidated—“We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship”—should inspire all Americans to defend our constitutional principles. This is not about partisan politics; it is about preserving the fundamental structures that prevent the concentration and abuse of power.

As citizens, we must demand that federal institutions maintain their independence and commitment to the rule of law. We must support elected officials who uphold their constitutional oath regardless of political pressure. And we must recognize that the defense of democracy requires constant vigilance against those who would weaponize government power against political opponents.

The Founders established a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent this type of authoritarian behavior. It is now our responsibility to ensure that system continues to function as intended, protecting both our liberty and our democracy from those who would undermine them for political gain.