Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has announced that she will defy a Department of Justice inquiry into a controversial illegal orders video she filmed with fellow Democratic lawmakers last fall, escalating an already fraught clash between a sitting senator and federal law enforcement.
According to The Post Millennial, Slotkin revealed on Thursday that she has formally notified top Justice Department officials that she will not cooperate with their probe. Earlier today, I sent a letter to Attorney General Bondi and to the lead Department of Justice lawyer in DC, Janine Pirro, telling them, one, I will not be complying with their inquiries and sitting down for an interview based on a 90 second video I filmed, and number two, urging them to retain their records on this case in case I decide to sue for infringement of my constitutional rights, Slotkin said in a video posted to social media.
Slotkin insisted that the video at the center of the dispute, recorded in November with several other Democrats, was nothing more than a reiteration of existing legal obligations for members of the armed forces. She said the video was merely a restating [of] current law that uniformed military have a responsibility to refuse illegal orders.
The controversy dates back to that November message, in which Slotkin and other Democrats appeared to suggest that members of the military and intelligence community might soon face unlawful directives. At the time, President Donald Trump responded sharply, suggesting that Slotkin, along with Senator Mark Kelly and Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow, were all in violation of the law and should be arrested for sedition.
Slotkin has now moved to put the Justice Department on notice that she is preparing for a potential legal fight. The letter that she sent to Pirro said that the DOJ needed to preserve documents related to the case for anticipated litigation, per the AP.
Her legal team has also made clear that she will not sit for questioning by federal investigators. In a separate letter to Bondi, her lawyer said that Slotkin would decline an FBI interview regarding the video, and claimed that the DOJ inquiry should be terminated.
Slotkin framed the DOJs actions as an effort to silence dissent and intimidate political opponents of the current administration. 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. The intimidation is the point, and I'm not going to go along with that. That's why I've asked Pirro and Bondi to retain all records on this case in line with the law, because the Supreme Court may have given the president near immunity on most matters, but they've given no such immunity to those doing his bidding, Slotkin added in the video posted on Thursday.
She warned that if such tactics could be deployed against a member of the United States Senate, ordinary Americans would stand little chance. If they can do this to a sitting senator, imagine what they can do to a community leader, a business leader, or a mom who goes viral on the internet, she later added.
The original November video, a montage featuring multiple Democratic lawmakers, directly challenged the administrations relationship with the military and intelligence services. In that message, the lawmakers declared, "This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution arent just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders."
Yet when pressed afterward, Slotkin was unable to identify any specific illegal orders that President Donald Trump had actually issued. That omission has fueled criticism that the video was not a sober legal reminder but a politically charged broadside that could sow confusion within the ranks.
Critics, particularly from the right, argue that such vague warnings risk encouraging service members to second-guess lawful commands based on partisan rhetoric rather than clear legal standards. Some have raised concerns that because the illegal orders video did not give any examples and was vague in its nature, it may lead some in the military to question whether legal orders are illegal.
Such doubt, conservatives warn, could erode discipline and cohesion in the armed forces, where the chain of command is essential to readiness and national security. This may possibly undermine military authority and effectiveness, which may be considered a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for those in the military.
Login