4 More Lawmakers in Video Say Federal Prosecutors Are Investigating Them

Lead

Four Democratic members of Congress said on Wednesday that federal prosecutors have contacted them about a November video that urged service members not to follow unlawful orders. The disclosures—by Representatives Jason Crow (CO), Maggie Goodlander (NH), Chris Deluzio (PA) and Chrissy Houlahan (PA)—follow an earlier public notice from Senator Elissa Slotkin (MI). Each lawmaker reported requests for interviews from Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia; the precise criminal theory, if any, has not been made public.

Key Takeaways

• Four House Democrats—Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan—said they were contacted by the U.S. attorney for D.C., Jeanine Pirro, requesting interviews about a November video.
• Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who organized the video and disclosed an inquiry earlier this week, served three tours in Iraq with the C.I.A., and appeared with five other veterans in the recording.
• All six lawmakers who appeared in the video reported prior contact from the F.B.I.’s counterterrorism division late last year, according to the lawmakers’ disclosures.
• President Trump and some administration officials have publicly labeled the video “seditious,” though officials have not specified criminal charges tied to the lawmakers’ statements.
• Jeanine Pirro’s office declined to confirm or deny any ongoing probe when asked, and a spokesman provided no additional detail on scope or targets.
• The developments are described by critics as part of a broader pattern of investigations into high-profile figures who have conflicted with the president; the list of targets reportedly investigated by Pirro’s office has included Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell.

Background

The video at issue was released in November and featured six members of Congress who served in the U.S. military. It restated a long-standing principle of military law: service members must refuse manifestly unlawful orders. Senator Elissa Slotkin organized the video and publicly disclosed contact from federal investigators earlier this week.

The inquiries come amid heightened tensions between President Trump and officials or institutions he views as adversaries. Administration allies have framed legal and investigative actions against critics as justified responses; opponents characterize the moves as political retaliation. Jeanine Pirro was appointed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and is widely described as a Trump ally, a contextual fact cited by the lawmakers who reported the interview requests.

Main Event

On Wednesday, Representatives Crow, Goodlander, Deluzio and Houlahan said they had received requests for interviews from Ms. Pirro or her office, either directed to them or to their private counsel. The lawmakers said the contact related to their participation in the November video asking service members to decline illegal orders.

All six participants in the video—Slotkin plus five other former service members—also reported prior contact from the F.B.I.’s counterterrorism division in late 2025. That earlier outreach, according to the lawmakers, preceded the recent inquiries from the U.S. attorney’s office.

Ms. Pirro’s office declined to confirm or deny any investigation when contacted, providing no public explanation for the basis of the interview requests. Officials in the White House and other administration channels described the video in public statements as “seditious,” though those descriptions have not been accompanied by a released charging document or a public legal rationale connecting the lawmakers’ speech to a specific federal crime.

The four House members emphasized their military service while responding. Representative Crow—an Army Ranger who led troops in combat—posted a video criticizing what he called political pressure within the Department of Justice. The disclosures add to an expanding list of high-profile individuals who, according to reporting, have seen scrutiny from Ms. Pirro’s office.

Analysis & Implications

At a procedural level, requests for voluntary interviews by a U.S. attorney’s office are not the same as the opening of a criminal case; they can precede formal charges, or they can be part of preliminary fact-gathering. The lack of a public charging theory in this instance makes it difficult to assess whether prosecutors are considering speech-related statutes, military statutes, or other offenses.

Politically, the episode is likely to deepen polarization. Democrats frame the outreach as intimidation of elected officials and veterans; Republicans and Trump allies frame it as enforcement against rhetoric they view as threatening. That dynamic increases the likelihood the matter will play out both in court and in the court of public opinion, including on social media and in congressional hearings.

Legally, the central question will be whether any statements in the video meet statutory elements of an offense—such as incitement, conspiracy, or seditious conduct—or whether the statements are protected political speech. Courts have historically set a high bar for criminalizing political expression, particularly where national-security terminology is used but concrete steps toward violence are not apparent.

Operationally, the involvement of both the F.B.I.’s counterterrorism division and a U.S. attorney’s office means multiple investigative tools could be available to authorities. That raises stakes for privileged communications and for how lawmakers’ outside counsel handle interview requests, since differing investigative threads can lead to subpoenas, grand jury proceedings, or decisions to close inquiries without charges.

Comparison & Data

The table summarizes publicly disclosed contacts through Jan. 15, 2026. It shows a pattern of outreach that spans elected officials and other national figures, although public disclosure does not equal formal charges. Understanding whether inquiries are civil, administrative, or criminal is key to interpreting next steps.

Reactions & Quotes

“He’s using his political cronies in the Department of Justice to continue to threaten and intimidate us,”

Representative Jason Crow

“Seditious”

President Donald J. Trump (as described by administration officials)

“The U.S. attorney’s office declined to confirm or deny any investigation,”

Spokesman for Jeanine Pirro, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia

Unconfirmed

• Whether the D.C. U.S. attorney’s requests will lead to grand-jury subpoenas or criminal charges remains unconfirmed.
• No public charging document has been released explaining which federal statutes, if any, prosecutors are considering in relation to the video.
• The full scope and timeline of the F.B.I.’s counterterrorism contacts with the lawmakers late last year have not been independently verified.

Bottom Line

As of Jan. 15, 2026, four additional House Democrats have disclosed outreach from the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia concerning a November video urging service members to refuse unlawful orders. The contacts add to earlier disclosures by Senator Elissa Slotkin and reports that the F.B.I. engaged the participants late last year.

Key questions remain about prosecutorial intent and legal theory. The absence of a public charging narrative suggests investigators are still gathering facts; however, the political context and the prominence of the participants mean the matter will likely attract sustained legal, congressional and public scrutiny in the coming weeks.

Sources

• The New York Times (news reporting)