Slotkin Silent on Past ‘Shoot at Their Legs’ Claim After DC National Guard Shooting; FBI Investigation Slotkin Intensifies Scrutiny
Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin declined to comment on warnings that former President Trump asked whether troops could “shoot at their legs,” following a D.C. National Guard shooting and FBI inquiry into a video urging troops to refuse unlawful orders.
- Slotkin declined to respond when asked about prior claims that Mr. Trump asked whether troops could “shoot at their legs.” Fox News
- The video prompted an FBI inquiry after Slotkin and six other lawmakers urged service members to refuse unlawful orders; the message drew White House condemnation and an investigation. Michigan Public
- Nov. 26, 2025 shooting in Washington left one National Guard member dead and another critically wounded; the FBI describes the attack as targeted and is treating it as terrorism. Fox News
Background: Slotkin’s warning about Trump and the military
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a former intelligence official, has repeatedly warned that civilian leaders might seek to use military force to suppress domestic protests. She cited conversations recounted in former Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s book A Sacred Oath, in which Esper wrote that then‑President Trump asked whether troops could “just ‘shoot at their legs?'” during discussions about responses to protests in 2020.
Slotkin raised Esper’s account during a January committee hearing to argue that service members should understand they have a duty to refuse unlawful orders, emphasizing legal and constitutional obligations over political direction. She framed the warnings as a matter of military ethics and legal duty. Fox News
The lawmakers’ video and the public backlash
In late November 2025, Slotkin joined six other lawmakers — several veterans among them — in publishing a short video directed at active‑duty service members and intelligence personnel, urging them to refuse illegal orders that would violate the Constitution or the law. Slotkin said the video was prompted by conversations with current service members who feared potential domestic deployments and being asked to carry out unlawful directives. Michigan Public
“We made the video because troops had questions,” Slotkin said, arguing scrutiny from law enforcement illustrates concerns about government overreach.
President Trump labeled the video “seditious behavior” on social media and wrote it was “punishable by DEATH” — language the White House later said was not intended literally. White House officials and some supporters argued the video encouraged troops to disobey presidential orders and amounted to political interference in military command. Michigan Public
DC National Guard shooting and Slotkin’s silence
On Nov. 26, 2025, a gunman in Washington fatally shot one National Guard member and critically wounded another. The FBI identified the shooter as 29‑year‑old Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal and described the attack as targeted and under a terrorism investigation. The killings revived debate about protecting service members on U.S. soil and how political rhetoric may affect their safety. Fox News
Reporters asked Slotkin whether she still stood by her past warning about Mr. Trump’s alleged question about shooting at protesters. According to reporting, Slotkin went silent when pressed and her office did not respond to multiple requests for comment — a silence that drew renewed attention because it followed the D.C. shooting of National Guard personnel. The timing intensified scrutiny. Fox News
FBI investigation, Slotkin and legal questions
Following President Trump’s criticism, the FBI opened a counterterrorism inquiry into Slotkin and several other Democratic lawmakers involved with the video. Authorities have examined whether the message could be construed as encouraging illegal conduct by service members or as unlawful interference with military command. Slotkin defended the video, saying the investigation is “exactly why we made the video” and that law enforcement attention underscores concerns about government overreach. Michigan Public
Legal experts note service members are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and have an obligation to refuse unlawful orders; the lawmakers centered their message on that principle. The probe raises complex questions about free speech, congressional conduct, and the limits of political messaging aimed at uniformed personnel. Those tensions underline competing priorities: rule of law vs. civilian‑military command structure.
Impact on Slotkin: threats and security
Slotkin reported a wave of threats after the video campaign, including an increase in death threats, harassment of family members, and a bomb threat against her family farm. Those security concerns have changed her daily life and increased protection, but she has vowed not to back down. She said, “I don’t think this represents who we are. And I refuse to believe that this is the new normal. I’m not going to accept that.” Michigan Public
Reporting and source notes
This article draws on reporting from Fox News and Michigan Public, which provided accounts of Slotkin’s remarks, the video campaign, the D.C. shooting, and subsequent federal actions. Reporting is credited to Times Media Service review of those accounts.
- Fox News: Slotkin goes silent when pressed on 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 Redding, California
Economic impact: The Washington controversy is unlikely to directly alter local Redding markets, but national political volatility and federal investigations can ripple into investor confidence, federal contracting, and demand for security or legal services.
Political consequences: Redding’s conservative-leaning electorate places high value on law and order. The Slotkin debate and FBI inquiry could energize local GOP voters and officials who view the video as partisan interference and press for clearer rules about National Guard roles.
Social effects: Veterans and active‑duty families in Redding may feel heightened anxiety. Discussions about whether members of Congress should urge troops to refuse orders could strain community conversations about patriotism, service, and legal duty.
Cultural relevance: Redding emphasizes personal responsibility and respect for service. Politicians urging troops to disobey orders may clash with local views on chain‑of‑command discipline and civic duty, prompting commentary from pastors, veterans groups, and civic leaders.
Practical applications: Families of service members should seek reliable information about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. County veterans’ services, legal aid groups, and representatives may be called on to provide guidance and support.
What to watch locally
Redding officials and community groups may schedule town halls or panels on military‑civil relations. Local media and elected leaders will likely monitor any expansion of federal investigations involving lawmakers and press for transparency about Guard protections here and nationwide.
Reporting: WASHINGTON (Times Media Service). Sources include Fox News and Michigan Public.
