The fallout from the now-infamous “illegal orders” video just keeps getting worse for the six Democratic lawmakers who filmed it — and now the FBI wants to talk.

These lawmakers spent the past week insisting their video was nothing more than a harmless “public service announcement” reminding military personnel they don’t have to follow unlawful commands. But anyone who watched the clip knows exactly what the subtext was: they weren’t warning against hypothetical illegal orders — they were warning troops not to obey President Donald Trump.

And the spin is collapsing.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) — a former CIA analyst who absolutely knows better — accidentally admitted the truth on national television, saying the video was motivated by her personal dislike for Trump. That single comment blew up the entire “nonpartisan PSA” defense.

The message was unmistakable: undermine the Commander-in-Chief.

And now the FBI is calling.

What the Video Actually Did

The Democrats’ video, which featured Sen. Mark Kelly, Slotkin, Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), and others, framed itself as a noble reminder about military ethics. But the framing was dishonest: an order doesn’t become “illegal” simply because a Democrat disapproves of the president who gives it.

The implication — that troops should question or potentially reject Trump’s authority — triggered immediate backlash and raised serious concerns about incitement, politicization of the military, and encouraging insubordination.

Here’s the clip again, for context:

“HOLY CRAP: Democrat members of Congress—including Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly—just released a video encouraging members of the military to defy orders from President Trump.”

— CJ Pearson, November 18, 2025

The video spread rapidly and with it, speculation about whether laws were broken.

The FBI Steps In

It didn’t take long for federal investigators to get involved. According to multiple reports, the FBI has already reached out to members of the group to schedule interviews — standard procedure when there are potential violations related to national security, military readiness, or attempts to interfere with the chain of command.

For a normal lawmaker, this is where you simply say “yes” or “no.”

But then came Rep. Chris Deluzio.

Deluzio’s CNN Meltdown

During an interview with John Berman on CNN, Deluzio was asked the simplest possible question:

“Will you sit for an FBI interview?”

Instead of answering, Deluzio tried to reframe the whole situation as an act of political persecution:

“This looks like intimidation… meant to stop Democrats from criticizing the president.”

He then claimed he wasn’t even sure the FBI reached out — saying only that it’s what has been “reported.” That alone raised eyebrows. Members of Congress get contacted directly, not through rumor.

Finally, when pressed again, Deluzio delivered the line that stunned even the CNN panel:

“I’m not planning to sit down for a voluntary interview.”

Think about that. A sitting U.S. representative — who helped produce a video interpreted as encouraging military defiance of the Commander-in-Chief — is now refusing to speak with the FBI.

Even for Washington, that’s bold.

Political Damage Keeps Growing

The refusal raises a series of questions:

• If the video was truly innocent, why not cooperate?
• If Deluzio believes he did nothing wrong, why hide?
• If the group believes the clip was merely a “civics lesson,” why are they suddenly afraid of investigators?

Every attempted explanation from the “Seditious Six” has only made things worse. Slotkin’s admission tied the video directly to anti-Trump sentiment. Deluzio’s answer made the situation look even more suspicious.

At minimum, Democrats now face a public relations disaster. At worst? Potential legal exposure.

The Biden-era fantasy that “resistance” behavior has no consequences is over. There’s a new DOJ, a new FBI director, and a White House that is not going to let attempts to undermine the chain of command slide.

This story is far from over — and the interviews these lawmakers refuse today may look a lot different if subpoenas start flying tomorrow.