Seems the FBI can watch the video and determine from that. The senators don't have to meet with them.
Executive summary
The FBI has contacted or sought to schedule interviews with several Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a social-media video telling service members they may refuse unlawful orders; news outlets report the outreach is to determine whether there is a lawful predicate for an inquiry, not that charges have been filed [1] [2]. Multiple outlets note lawmakers say they were contacted through official channels and that a Pentagon review of Sen. Mark Kelly is a separate but related action [1] [3] [2].
1. What reporting actually says about the FBI’s access to the video
Reuters, The Washington Post and other coverage describe the FBI as requesting interviews with lawmakers who appeared in the video; they do not claim the FBI needed the lawmakers to hand over the video to view it. Reporting frames the interviews as a step “to determine ‘if there’s any wrongdoing, and then go from there’,” per a Justice Department source [1] [2].
2. Can the FBI “watch the video and determine from that”? — What sources report
Available reporting does not lay out forensic steps the FBI would take, but it emphasizes the bureau’s role in determining whether there is a “lawful predicate” to open an inquiry; that suggests agents are reviewing evidence (including public video) to decide next steps, rather than asserting a definitive prosecutorial conclusion from a single clip [1] [4]. The FBI director is quoted as saying career agents will decide whether to open an investigation based on lawful predicate — an assertion about process, not guilt or prosecution [4].
3. Do senators or representatives have to meet with FBI agents?
News reports note lawmakers said they were contacted and scheduled for interviews via official channels (e.g., House Sergeant at Arms), but they also show these contacts are part of investigatory procedure — not the same as a compelled interview under subpoena or indictment. Coverage does not document a legal compulsion forcing members of Congress to sit for voluntary FBI interviews; available sources describe scheduling and contact rather than a court-ordered requirement [5] [6]. Available sources do not mention a formal legal mechanism compelling members to meet beyond standard cooperation or potential grand jury subpoenas (not found in current reporting).
4. Related investigations and separation of authorities
Reporting places the FBI outreach alongside a Pentagon review of Sen. Mark Kelly for potential military-law violations, indicating separate civil‑military and federal criminal or investigatory tracks. Reuters and CNBC explain the Pentagon’s review is distinct from the FBI’s interviews — one is a military-law examination, the other is a Justice Department/FBI matter about potential wrongdoing [1] [3].
5. Political context and competing narratives in coverage
News outlets quote the Justice Department and FBI characterizing the process as career agents deciding whether a lawful predicate exists; meanwhile, lawmakers have defended their statements as reflecting U.S. law about illegal orders. Political figures, including President Trump, have characterized the video in dramatically different terms (e.g., accusations of sedition), which media coverage notes but does not treat as dispositive of legal questions [2] [3]. This shows a clash between legal-process framing in reporting and partisan rhetoric around the same events [1] [2].
6. Historical and civil‑liberties context reported in other FBI-related stories
Other recent reporting cited in the search set highlights past FBI activity — for example, surveillance of activist Signal chats — which some outlets describe as raising civil‑liberties concerns about how and when the bureau accesses communications and media [7]. That reporting is used by critics to frame skepticism about state monitoring; however, the sources covering the lawmakers’ video focus narrowly on standard investigative steps [7] [1].
7. What is not in the reporting and why that matters
Available sources do not report that the FBI has already concluded the video itself proves criminal conduct, nor do they show the bureau using covert access or a warrant to seize private footage from lawmakers; rather, articles describe contact for interviews and process language about lawful predicates [1] [2]. The sources also do not describe any subpoenas or compelled testimony of the members at the time of reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. What to watch next (and how to judge next developments)
Future reporting to watch: whether the FBI opens a formal investigation, whether grand jury subpoenas or warrants are issued, and whether the Pentagon’s review results in administrative or disciplinary action. When those steps appear in the record, news outlets will shift from process statements about interviews to reporting on concrete legal actions; current coverage shows outreach and review but not final legal outcomes [1] [3].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the items in the supplied search set and therefore cannot account for developments or sources outside that collection (limitation noted per instruction).