Slotkin silent after DC shooting as FBI probe of Democrats follows her warning that troops should “refuse illegal orders”
Sen. Elissa Slotkin has declined to comment after a fatal National Guard shooting in Washington, D.C., even as an FBI counterterrorism inquiry examines a video in which she urged troops to refuse unlawful orders amid claims about President Trump.
- Key takeaways:
- Sen. Elissa Slotkin declined to comment when pressed about her earlier warning that a president could order troops to shoot protesters; her office did not respond to requests for comment. Fox News
- The D.C. shooting left one National Guard member dead and another critically wounded; the accused suspect, 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is under investigation as a potential act of terrorism. Fox News
- An FBI counterterrorism inquiry has been opened into Slotkin and other Democrats who appeared in a video urging service members to refuse unlawful orders; Slotkin says the probe underscores why they spoke out and reports a surge in threats. Michigan Public
The shooting and Slotkin’s public silence
Sen. Slotkin declined to answer questions on Friday regarding her prior warnings that a president might order military personnel to fire on U.S. civilians. Reporters said her office did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the fatal shooting of a National Guard member in Washington and on her earlier statements urging troops to “refuse illegal orders.” Fox News
What Slotkin and others said in the video
Slotkin joined six Democrats — including Sen. Mark Kelly and Reps. Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan and Maggie Goodlander — in a video aimed at active-duty military and intelligence personnel. The lawmakers cited the Uniform Code of Military Justice and told service members, “You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.” Fox News
When asked what unlawful acts they were referencing, they pointed to assertions in former Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s memoir that President Trump asked whether troops could “shoot at their legs” while considering deployment of the 82nd Airborne during 2020 protests. If true, the lawmakers argued, such an order would be unlawful under military law. President Trump has denied making that remark. Fox News
FBI investigation and political fallout
The video prompted sharp backlash from former President Trump and his allies. Trump labeled the lawmakers’ actions “seditious” and reportedly said such conduct could be “punishable by DEATH,” a claim the White House later walked back while continuing to criticize the lawmakers for encouraging troops to disobey orders. Michigan Public
Slotkin said the FBI’s counterterrorism division opened an inquiry into her and five other Democrats who appeared in the video. She framed the probe as evidence of the politicization of federal security agencies and argued it demonstrated why lawmakers felt compelled to warn military personnel. Slotkin also reported a sharp rise in threats: her family farm received a bomb threat, family members were harassed, and the danger to her family forced immediate changes to their daily lives. Michigan Public
The D.C. shooting and the accused attacker
A Wednesday shooting in Washington, D.C., left one National Guard member dead and another critically injured. The accused shooter has been identified by the FBI as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national and former member of an Afghan counterterrorism unit. He has been charged with first-degree murder, and the FBI said the attack appears targeted and is under investigation as an act of terrorism; authorities have not disclosed a motive. Fox News
Why the lawmakers made the video
Slotkin and colleagues said they acted after receiving concerns from active-duty military and intelligence personnel who feared they might be ordered to carry out unlawful acts if federal forces were deployed against U.S. protesters. Some concerns involved classified legal rationales that created confusion for operators assigned to implement orders.
Slotkin defended the video as a duty-driven effort to protect servicemembers from unlawful commands.
“He [Trump] believes in using the federal government against his perceived adversaries, and he’s not afraid to use the arms of the government against people he disagrees with,” she told reporters when announcing the FBI inquiry, saying the investigation showed why they needed to speak up. Michigan Public
Reactions and the debate over proper orders
Critics argue the video crossed a line by publicly urging troops to consider disobeying presidential orders, potentially undermining discipline. Supporters counter that military law already requires service members to refuse unlawful orders and that the lawmakers were merely reminding troops of a legal obligation to uphold the Constitution.
The episode has amplified partisan debate about accountability, the proper role of federal agencies, and whether elected officials should publicize advice that touches on military obedience and constitutional protections.
Source notes
- Fox News: “Slotkin goes silent when pressed past Trump guard shooting claims after DC attack”
- Michigan Public: “Slotkin says she faces FBI inquiry, more death threats after video; Trump called seditious”
Implications for Walla Walla, Washington
Economic impact: Local businesses in Walla Walla are unlikely to face direct financial effects from federal politics in Washington, D.C., but political turmoil and headlines about security can ripple into tourism and events. If National Guard deployments or heightened federal security affect travel or grant priorities, small businesses that rely on government contracts or out-of-state visitors could feel indirect consequences.
Political consequences: Conservative voters in Walla Walla may view Slotkin’s silence and the FBI inquiry as evidence of double standards, and local officials could use the story to emphasize accountability and the role of federal agencies in campaign messaging.
Social effects: The episode highlights distrust between some communities and federal institutions. Families of veterans and active-duty members may be especially attentive to debates about obeying orders and the rights of service members; local veterans’ organizations might hold forums to explain the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Cultural relevance: In a region that values military service and law-and-order principles, urging troops to “refuse illegal orders” can be both reassuring to those who stress legal limits and alarming to residents worried about politicization of the military.
Practical applications: Walla Walla voters should monitor how their representatives address checks and balances, national security, and veterans’ concerns. Local officials could request briefings, hold town halls on military legal standards, and provide resources for families of service members worried about political rhetoric.
Note on coverage and next steps
Local newsrooms and community leaders in Walla Walla should monitor developments in the FBI inquiry and any official statements from Slotkin’s office. Residents interested in legal and security updates should consult official releases from the Department of Defense and the FBI and follow verified reporting from national and regional outlets for confirmed facts. Fox News | Michigan Public
