What evidence or communications prompted the FBI to investigate Kelly and other senators for alleged criminal conduct?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The FBI’s outreach to Sen. Mark Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers followed a widely shared video in which the members told U.S. service members they “can refuse illegal orders”; news outlets report the Justice Department and FBI sought interviews to determine whether the remarks amounted to criminal wrongdoing [1] [2]. The Pentagon separately opened a review of “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth referred Kelly’s comments for further examination [3] [4].
1. What triggered the probes — a viral video about “illegal orders”
Multiple outlets trace the origin of the FBI and Pentagon actions to a single, widely circulated video in which six Democrats — including Sen. Mark Kelly and several House members — addressed service members and reminded them they could legally refuse unlawful orders; Reuters and AP explicitly say the FBI requested interviews with those who appeared in that video [1] [5]. Local and national outlets also report the same sequence: the video drew public attention, President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth condemned it, and government investigators then moved to seek more information [2] [3].
2. The specific communications the government cites
Available reporting identifies the lawmakers’ public video as the central communication prompting investigative steps; outlets describe the message as urging service members to disobey illegal orders and framing that as the basis for inquiries [1] [2]. Reuters frames the FBI’s action as scheduling interviews “with six Democratic members of Congress who warned military about illegal orders,” while the Pentagon’s memo from Hegseth asked the Navy to review Kelly’s comments for possible unlawfulness [1] [4].
3. Legal and statutory angles the administration is invoking
Reporting notes two legal touchpoints raised by commentators and conservative outlets: the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and a federal statute that criminalizes attempts to interfere with the loyalty or discipline of the armed forces (10 U.S.C. § 688 and 18 U.S.C. § 2387 are cited in analysis, according to Fox News reporting cited by multiple outlets). Fox News’s legal analysis flagged those statutes as possible frameworks by which the administration could evaluate the video’s content [6]. However, primary sources in the provided reporting emphasize that the FBI’s role was to request interviews, not to announce charges [1].
4. The Pentagon’s role and its internal referral
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly described Kelly’s remarks as potentially “seditious” and directed the secretary of the Navy to investigate “potentially unlawful comments,” prompting the Pentagon’s announcement of a review into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly [4] [3]. The Washington Post and The Guardian report that Hegseth made a formal referral to Navy leadership and sought a brief on the outcome by a specified date [3] [4].
5. How different outlets frame motive and context
Coverage diverges sharply on motive. Outlets sympathetic to the lawmakers portray the moves as intimidation or political weaponization of federal investigative tools; Cronkite News and The New York Times opinion argue the action is intended to silence critics and that the lawmakers were stating established legal principles about unlawful orders [2] [7]. Conservative outlets and legal commentators emphasize potential legal jeopardy for advising service members to disobey orders and focus on statutes criminalizing interference with military discipline [6]. Reuters and BBC present the facts more narrowly: the FBI requested interviews and the Pentagon launched a review, noting partisan dispute over intent [1] [8].
6. What the reporting does not show (limits of available sources)
Available sources do not mention that the FBI or DOJ has obtained or released additional documentary evidence beyond the video itself to substantiate claims of criminal conduct; none of the cited pieces reports indictments or formal charges at the time of their publishing [1] [3]. Reporting also does not provide a public legal finding that the lawmakers’ statements met the elements of any specific criminal statute — the coverage focuses on investigatory steps and public statements by officials [1] [3].
7. Stakes and immediate political fallout
The reporting shows immediate high political stakes: President Trump’s public denunciations escalated the issue and lawmakers described the outreach as intimidation; Kelly himself called the Pentagon review and FBI contact bullying and vowed not to be silenced [2] [9]. The situation highlights tension between military legal norms about obeying lawful orders and elected officials’ duty to speak about constitutional limits, a debate underscored differently across the outlets [7] [6].
Summary: the publicly documented trigger was a viral video urging troops they may refuse illegal commands; that video prompted Pentagon referral and FBI requests for interviews, with debate in the press over whether the moves are lawful, prudent, or politically motivated. The sources do not report further public evidence of criminal conduct beyond the video itself [1] [3].