U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said Thursday that she has refused a request from the Department of Justice to participate in an interview related to a controversial video urging U.S. service members not to carry out unlawful orders. The senator framed the inquiry as a political pressure tactic rather than a legitimate investigation, underscoring her stance that Sen. Slotkin declines DOJ interview request over troops video, says ‘intimidation is the goal.’
In a video statement shared on X, Slotkin made her position clear. “I’m not going to be sitting down for this inquiry. I’m not going to legitimize their actions,” she said, accusing federal officials of weaponizing the legal process to silence criticism.
Her attorney, Preet Bharara — the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York — reinforced that message in letters sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro. Bharara informed them that Slotkin would not comply with the interview request and urged Bondi to direct Pirro to drop the investigation entirely.
In correspondence to Pirro, Bharara warned her office to preserve all records, citing “anticipated litigation” over what he described as possible violations of Slotkin’s First Amendment rights. He characterized the DOJ’s actions as vindictive and retaliatory, arguing that the investigation itself crossed constitutional lines.
According to Bharara, the November 18 video at the center of the dispute — which featured Slotkin alongside five other Democratic lawmakers — contained a message that was both lawful and widely accepted. “The content is uncontroversial and incontrovertible,” he wrote, adding that it was baffling for the DOJ to initiate an inquiry over such remarks.
Pirro’s office declined to comment on the letters, while the Department of Justice has not publicly responded to requests for clarification.
Slotkin said the Trump administration’s response to the video triggered a wave of threats against her, her family, and her staff. She acknowledged that some attorneys advised her to remain silent and let the situation fade, but she rejected that approach.
“That’s exactly what they want,” Slotkin said. “They are using physical and legal intimidation to get me to shut up — and to scare others from speaking out.”
“The intimidation is the point,” she added. “And I’m not going along with it.”
The disputed video, titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” featured Slotkin, a former CIA officer, delivering a direct message to members of the U.S. military. “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders,” she said on camera. The video also included Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, a former Navy captain and astronaut, along with Reps. Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan.
It was released amid a series of U.S. military airstrikes in the Caribbean targeting vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking. The legality of those strikes has been questioned, with reports indicating at least 126 deaths since early September.
Former President Donald Trump reacted furiously, accusing the lawmakers of sedition and treason and calling for their arrest. In posts on Truth Social, he claimed their statements threatened the country’s survival and demanded that “an example must be set,” later escalating his rhetoric by calling the behavior punishable by death.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed that condemnation, labeling the video “despicable” and referring to the lawmakers as the “Seditious Six.” The Pentagon initially announced it was reviewing alleged misconduct by Kelly and later moved to reduce his military retirement pay in what critics called retaliation.
By late November, the lawmakers said the FBI had sought to interview them. Kelly subsequently filed a federal civil lawsuit against Hegseth and the Pentagon on January 12, challenging the punitive actions taken against him.
That same day, Slotkin confirmed that Pirro’s office had formally requested an interview with either her or her private counsel through the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms. This week, a federal judge signaled skepticism toward the Pentagon’s attempt to discipline Kelly, raising further questions about the government’s handling of the case.
