Trump’s ‘Seditious Six’ accusation is not supported by lawmakers’ video

Donald Trump has asked whether the ‘Seditious Six’ will ever be prosecuted, saying what they did was a ‘great violation’ of the US Constitution. He named no act, and the video associated with the label does not support his accusation: it urged military and intelligence personnel to refuse unlawful orders.

Trump did not identify the six in his 12 November Truth Social post. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth previously used the label for Democratic senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, and representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan.

On 18 November 2025, the six released a video accusing the administration of pitting military and intelligence personnel against American citizens. They urged those personnel to refuse illegal orders, but did not identify a particular order to disobey. Kelly’s later lawsuit cited the Pentagon’s law-of-war manual, which says service members must refuse clearly illegal orders to commit violations of the laws of war.

Four days after the video, Trump said the lawmakers had told the military to disobey ‘my orders’. That description omitted the video’s qualification that it referred to unlawful orders.

Hegseth argued that Kelly’s remarks, in the context of his criticism of military operations, undermined the chain of command and encouraged disobedience to lawful orders. At an April 2026 congressional hearing, however, he agreed with Goodlander that the military would not follow unlawful orders, while accusing her of making a partisan insinuation.

Federal prosecutors sought to indict the six over the video in February, but a Washington grand jury refused, CBS News reported, citing three people familiar with the matter. CBS said prosecutors had sought charges under a law covering the urging of insubordination with intent to interfere with or influence military loyalty, morale or discipline. It carries a maximum sentence of ten years.

NBC News later reported that the federal prosecutor’s office in Washington had decided to stop pursuing the case there. The grand jury’s decision was not an acquittal, and NBC said the office’s decision would not necessarily prevent a prosecutor in another district from trying again. Kelly called the attempted indictment an ‘outrageous abuse of power’ at the time.

Trump’s post came two days after the House voted 211–204 to refer an impeachment proposal against Hegseth to a committee, stalling the effort. Republican representative Thomas Massie alleged, among other things, that Hegseth had retaliated against Kelly for his speech. Trump praised Hegseth in the dispute; his post did not mention the impeachment attempt.

That allegation concerns Hegseth’s formal censure of Kelly in January and a process that could have reduced the retired Navy captain’s rank and pay. In February, US District Judge Richard Leon blocked the retirement-grade process, finding Kelly’s comments were protected speech and his retaliation claim strongly likely to succeed. The administration appealed the preliminary civil ruling, which concerned Kelly alone.