The FBI sought interviews with six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a video urging U.S. service members to reject “illegal orders,” a development that suggests a rapidly escalating review of the lawmakers’ conduct that some military and legal experts say could prove difficult to prosecute under existing statutes.

One of those legislators is Colorado’s Jason Crow, who represents the 6th Congressional District, which encompasses Aurora and parts of Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties.

The FBI and Justice Department contacted the Senate Sergeants-at-Arms on Monday to begin scheduling conversations with the lawmakers following the release of the video last week, according to a statement released by the six Democrats involved in making the now-infamous video. Trump administration officials, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, have dubbed the group the “Seditious Six.”

The viral and widely condemned message to the military came from Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and Crow. All six have military or intelligence backgrounds and told troops and intelligence officers, “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”

In a joint statement on Tuesday from the lawmakers, the group of six Democrats accused President Donald Trump of “using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress.”

“Yesterday, the FBI contacted the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms requesting interviews. No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution,” the group said. “We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship.”

An FBI spokesman declined to comment.

On Monday, Crow accused President Donald Trump of trying to incite violence and intimidate critics after the Pentagon announced an investigation into Kelly’s participation in the video.

“You can’t bully a patriot,” Crow said in a post on X, adding that he stood by his fellow veteran.

“This is a decisive moment,” continued the Aurora Democrat, a former Army Ranger. “Trump is trying to incite violence, intimidate, and punish those who speak up to hold him accountable. But the only thing we fear is not rising to this moment and defending the country we love.”

None of the Democrats, all veterans who served in the U.S. military, had specified what “unlawful” or “unconstitutional” meant.

Last week, Crow’s office did not respond to Colorado Politics’ specific questions about what the Democrats meant in telling members of the U.S. military to defy orders. Crow’s office also did not respond to questions regarding criticism of the video posted by Democrats. The criticism said they are using military personnel as political pawns.

Crow’s office also did not respond directly to the question on whether this could create issues among military ranks that might lead to soldiers being dishonorably discharged or facing charges for insubordination. The Democrat’s office said he would not be available for an interview.

Trump has reacted in recent days by calling for the lawmakers to be arrested and prosecuted for “seditious behavior,” saying the conduct is “punishable by death.” Last week, the president walked back his remarks in a statement to Fox News.

“I’m not threatening death, but I think they’re in serious trouble,” he said.

The video has triggered internal scrutiny at the Pentagon. On Monday, the Department of War announced a formal review of Kelly’s role in the video, saying he could be recalled to active duty for possible court-martial or administrative proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Four of the other lawmakers previously served in the military but are no longer subject to the UCMJ. Slotkin is a former CIA officer.

Hegseth called the video a “politically-motivated influence operation,” arguing that the lawmakers used “carefully scripted, legal-sounding language” that created ambiguity inside the ranks and risked eroding trust in the chain of command. “The Seditious Six knew exactly what they were doing,” he wrote on X.

The question now is whether federal prosecutors would go a step further and pursue charges against any of the lawmakers who participated in the video.

Geoffrey Corn, director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University’s law school, told the Washington Examiner that the Justice Department could theoretically look to 18 U.S.C. § 2387, which makes it a federal crime to willfully interfere with the armed forces by distributing materials that encourage insubordination or refusal of duty.

The statute has already been cited by the Department of War in the past day, after a post on X was made from the department’s official account, reminding “all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses,” including “actions intended to interfere with loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.”

Corn cautioned that while he does not believe the lawmakers’ comments actually violate the statute, the current DOJ has shown a willingness to stretch its authority.

“The Attorney General and Department of Justice have not appeared hesitant to push the envelope to pursue cases against people they think are engaged in conduct that is undermining the authority of the President,” Corn said, adding he believes it is not impossible to get an indictment against one of the six Democrats but that “I don’t think anything they said falls within the scope of this criminal statute.”

Ed Whelan, a National Review commentary writer and Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow, posted to X that the lawmakers “explicitly and repeatedly limited their advice to ‘illegal orders’ (three times) and ‘orders that violate the law and our Constitution,’” arguing that any claim that they committed sedition is “absurd.”

More Trump-aligned legal experts, such as Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article III Project, offered a contrasting viewpoint. On Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, Chamberlain sided with the administration’s characterization of the members’ comments, suggesting they are “implying extremely strongly that there are some unspecified unlawful orders being issued.”

“I can think of few things more disruptive to order and discipline than to put rank and file service members in the position of wondering exactly which orders they’re being given are unlawful without basis or without real provocation,” Chamberlain said.

Kaelan Deese and Mike Brest of the The Washington Examiner and Thelma Grimes of Colorado Politics contributed to this article.