A Dangerous Precedent: Weaponizing Justice to Silence Dissent
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts of the Case
The core of this alarming situation involves Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, and five of her congressional colleagues: Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, both of Pennsylvania. In November, these lawmakers participated in a video message addressed to members of the U.S. military. The video, titled “Don’t give up the ship,” featured a straightforward appeal: it reminded service members that they have a legal and ethical duty to refuse illegal orders. This principle is a cornerstone of military law and ethics, designed to prevent atrocities and uphold the rule of law.
Senator Slotkin, a former CIA officer, delivered a key line in the video: “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.” This statement is not controversial; it is a foundational element of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The video was published during a period when the U.S. military was conducting airstrikes in the Caribbean targeting vessels allegedly involved in drug smuggling. These operations, as reported by The New York Times, have resulted in a significant number of deaths, and their legality has been publicly questioned.
The Escalating Political Reaction
The administration’s response was swift and severe. President Donald Trump denounced the video on his Truth Social platform, accusing the participants of “sedition and treason” and explicitly calling for their arrest. In posts dated November 20th, he wrote, “Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!!” and followed with, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” This rhetoric from a sitting president is unprecedented and deeply troubling. Shortly thereafter, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth amplified these attacks, labeling the lawmakers the “Seditious Six” and describing their message as “despicable, reckless, and false.”
The retaliation extended beyond verbal attacks. The Pentagon initiated a review of “serious allegations of misconduct” specifically against Senator Kelly, a former U.S. Navy captain and NASA astronaut. This review escalated into a move to cut his military retirement pay, a clear punitive measure directly linked to his participation in the video. By late November, the FBI had sought to interview the lawmakers involved. The situation reached a new level when the Department of Justice, through the office of U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro, began an inquiry and requested an interview with Senator Slotkin.
Senator Slotkin’s Defiant stance
On a Thursday, Senator Slotkin publicly refused to comply with the DOJ’s request for an interview. In a videotaped statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), she declared, “I’m not going to be sitting down for this inquiry. I’m not going to legitimize their actions.” She revealed that she had been advised by many lawyers to remain quiet and hope the situation would dissipate, but she chose defiance. “They are purposely using physical and legal intimidation to get me to shut up. But more importantly, they’re using that intimidation to deter others from speaking out against their administration,” Slotkin stated. “The intimidation is the point, and I’m not gonna go along with that.”
Her legal counsel, Preet Bharara (a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York), formalized this position in letters sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro. Bharara informed them of Slotkin’s noncompliance and requested that Pirro’s office drop the probe. He argued that the video’s message is “uncontroversial and incontrovertible” and questioned the basis for the DOJ’s inquiry, noting “anticipated litigation concerning potential violations of the Senator’s First Amendment rights.” He also urged Pirro to preserve all records related to the case.
Senator Kelly has also taken legal action, filing a federal civil lawsuit against Secretary Hegseth and the Pentagon on January 12th, challenging the retaliation against him. In a positive development, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon has expressed skepticism regarding the Pentagon’s attempts to punish Kelly for his involvement in the video, indicating that the legal system may provide a check on this overreach.
An Opinion on the Assault on Democratic Norms
What we are witnessing is not a routine legal proceeding; it is a blatant and dangerous politicization of the nation’s justice and defense apparatus. The actions taken by the Trump administration and its allies constitute a multi-pronged assault on fundamental democratic principles: free speech, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.
First, the attack on free speech is overt and terrifying. The video produced by the six lawmakers contained a message that is both legally accurate and morally necessary. Reminding service members of their duty to refuse illegal orders is an act of civic responsibility, not sedition. It is a protection against the kind of unchecked authority that leads to democratic collapse. For a sitting president to label this speech as treasonous and punishable by death is not just inflammatory; it is an explicit threat designed to chill all political dissent. This is the language of autocrats, not leaders of a constitutional republic.
Second, the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the Pentagon represents a catastrophic breach of institutional integrity. The DOJ is meant to be an independent arbiter of justice, not a political tool to harass the administration’s opponents. The inquiry into Senator Slotkin, following the president’s public demands for arrest, reeks of vindictiveness and has no legitimate basis. Similarly, the Pentagon’s targeting of Senator Kelly’s retirement pay is a crude form of punishment that undermines the apolitical nature of the military and retaliates against a veteran for exercising his right to free speech. When the institutions designed to protect the nation are turned against its citizens for political reasons, the social contract is broken.
Senator Slotkin’s refusal to participate in what she rightly calls a “vindictive and retaliatory investigation” is an act of profound courage. By not legitimizing the process, she is defending not only her own rights but also the principle that the government cannot use its power to silence critics. Her statement that “the intimidation is the point” is precisely correct. The goal is not to uncover truth or enforce law; it is to create an atmosphere of fear where elected officials and private citizens alike think twice before speaking out against power.
This case is a microcosm of a larger struggle for the soul of American democracy. The attempts to punish lawmakers for affirming the rule of law, the use of presidential rhetoric to incite anger, and the coercive power of the state to intimidate dissenters are all hallmarks of authoritarianism. The fact that a federal judge has expressed skepticism offers a glimmer of hope, a reminder that the judiciary can still serve as a bulwark against overreach. However, the mere existence of this situation is a five-alarm fire for anyone who cares about liberty.
We must stand unequivocally with Senator Slotkin, Senator Kelly, and their colleagues. Their defense of the First Amendment is a defense of the bedrock principle that in a free society, citizens—and especially their elected representatives—must be able to question authority without fear of imprisonment or ruin. The Framers of the Constitution established a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent this kind of consolidation of power. It is now incumbent upon Congress, the courts, and the American people to check this dangerous behavior before the foundations of our republic are irreparably damaged. The silence of good people in the face of such intimidation is what allows tyranny to flourish. This is not a partisan issue; it is a constitutional crisis.