The FBI has begun interviewing six Democratic U.S. lawmakers following their public claims that military personnel possess the legal right to refuse unlawful orders. This action follows the Pentagon's indication that it might recall Senator Mark Kelly, a Navy veteran among the lawmakers, to active duty to potentially face military charges for actions deemed 'seditious' by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Former President Donald Trump has accused these lawmakers of sedition, a serious charge that could entail severe penalties. An anonymous Justice Department official stated that the FBI's interviews aim to investigate any potential wrongdoing. The lawmakers, including Senator Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and Iraq war veteran, and Representatives Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan, all military veterans, have described the administration's threats as intimidation tactics. They assert that their statements are consistent with U.S. law, emphasizing that military personnel are sworn to uphold the Constitution rather than follow directives from the president.

Concerns have been raised regarding the legality of military actions ordered by the Trump administration, particularly strikes on vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking in Latin American waters, which the Pentagon has justified by labeling drug smugglers as terrorists. Additionally, there are apprehensions about the use of military forces in domestic contexts.

The Trump administration has faced criticism for undermining democratic norms, particularly through the use of law enforcement against perceived political adversaries. Recent months have seen criminal charges brought against several prominent critics of the president, although a judge recently dismissed two of these cases. While sedition is not a charge applicable to civilians under U.S. law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does include provisions for sedition, with severe penalties possible. Notably, several individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack were convicted of seditious conspiracy before receiving pardons from Trump.

In response to the administration's threats, Deluzio publicly accused Trump of attempting to silence dissent through intimidation, stating that he had received death threats as a result of his comments. Senator Kelly, addressing the threats of a court-martial, highlighted his extensive service record, asserting that he would not be silenced by those prioritizing personal power over constitutional principles.

In a separate development, a U.S. District Judge ruled that Lindsey Halligan, appointed by Trump, lacked the legal authority to file charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The judge dismissed these cases, which were viewed as politically motivated retribution by Trump against his critics. Halligan, a former Miss Colorado with no criminal law experience, was appointed to replace Erik Siebert, who resigned after refusing to pursue charges based on disputed allegations.

The court maintained Siebert in his position, noting that Halligan's appointment occurred after the 120-day period allowed for temporary appointments had expired. The judge emphasized that allowing private citizens to secure indictments without proper legal standing would contravene established law. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal commented on the situation, indicating that failure to adhere to legal procedures often results in unsuccessful cases. While the Trump administration could potentially refile the charges, the statute of limitations may have expired in Comey's case.

Additionally, the Center for Presidential Transition released a report on November 19, 2025, evaluating the presidential transition following the 2024 election. The report indicates that the transition under the Trump administration did not meet established standards, primarily due to delays and refusals to accept standard assistance from federal agencies. These actions raised concerns regarding the continuity of government operations and the ethical implications of the transition process.

The report notes that the Trump transition team was late in formalizing agreements for communication with federal employees, which limited the time available for agencies to prepare for new political leadership. This delay hindered the Office of Government Ethics in reviewing potential conflicts of interest among political appointees and affected the FBI's ability to conduct background checks on new officials. Consequently, the Senate confirmations of some Cabinet members were also delayed.

Furthermore, the Trump team did not utilize services offered by the General Services Administration (GSA), which included office space and secure information technology. This refusal allowed the transition team to avoid disclosing information about donors and team members, raising transparency issues. The report highlights that the lack of a .gov email address for transition team members increased the risk of unauthorized access to sensitive information. The Center for Presidential Transition recommends that Congress implement measures to enhance transparency and security during future transitions, including public disclosure of transition team members and funding sources. The report emphasizes the need for updated practices to ensure that transitions are conducted in a manner that upholds ethical standards and national security.