3 more Democratic lawmakers say they are under federal investigation over illegal orders social media video
Rep. Jason Crow speaks to the media following a closed door meeting with members of the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill, December 16, 2025 in Washington. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Three House Democrats said they are under federal investigation for their participation in a November social media video telling military and intelligence service members that they can refuse illegal orders — joining two Senate Democrats who are also facing the wrath of the Trump administration for appearing in the clip.
Democratic Reps. Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan shared on Wednesday that they were being investigated by federal prosecutors after the group of Democrats — who had previously served in the military or in the intelligence community — said in a video posted on social media that U.S. service members have a right to refuse unlawful orders.
Crow said because of the video, President Donald Trump is “using his political cronies in the Department of Justice to continue to threaten and intimidate us.”
“But he’s picked the wrong people,” Crow, a former Army Ranger, continued in a video post on X Wednesday. “We took an oath to the Constitution, a lifetime oath when we joined the military and again as members of Congress. We are not going to back away. Our job, our duty is to make sure that the law is followed. We will not be threatened, we will not be intimidated, we will not be silenced.”
Goodlander, who served as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, agreed in a social media post Wednesday that “these threats will not deter, distract, intimidate, or silence me.”
“It is sad and telling that simply stating a bedrock principle of American law caused the President of the United States to threaten violence against me, and it is downright dangerous that the Justice Department is targeting me for doing my job,” Goodlander said in the post.
Houlahan, an Air Force veteran, said in a post on X Wednesday that the group of Democrats are “being targeted not because we said something untrue, but because we said something President Trump and Secretary Hegseth didn’t want anyone to hear.”
The trio of statements come after Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, said earlier this week that she was under federal investigation for her participation in the video.
Slotkin said the investigation inquiry came from U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, a Trump ally.
A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office said Thursday that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation into the other lawmakers.
The basis of the investigation is not clear.
The latest fallout from the video comes after Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who also appeared in the video, was censured by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In a censure letter, Hegseth said that the video “Undermines the Chain of Command; Creates Confusion About Duty; Brings Discredit Upon the Armed Forces; and Is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.”
The censure will result in a reduction in rank and Kelly’s retirement pay, a process Hegseth said would take 45 days.
Kelly responded by filing a lawsuit against Hegseth, arguing that the censure violated his constitutional rights.
Democrats involved in the video have defended its message as being in line with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the Democrats featured in the video, saying in social media posts in November that they are “traitors” whose actions are “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Asked in November if Trump wants to execute members of Congress, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president did not — adding that the Democrats in the video are “encouraging [service members] to defy the president’s lawful orders.”
In an interview with ABC News after the censure, Kelly said he still would “absolutely not” change his message to U.S. troops about not following illegal orders.
In his video, Crow similarly said he would not back down from his message.
“I am more emboldened than ever to make sure that I am upholding my duty, and I will not back down,” Crow said.
ICE agents leave a residence after knocking on the door on January 28, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues its immigration enforcement operations after two high-profile killings by federal agents in recent weeks. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In the weeks after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota during a surge to apprehend undocumented immigrants for deportation, Americans oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics by wide margins and President Donald Trump’s approval on immigration has dipped to the lowest of his second term, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s immigration rating hits new low for second term
Trump, who has focused much of his second term on the immigration crackdown, is now 18 percentage points underwater in how Americans rate his handling of immigration — with 58% disapproving and 40% approving — the worst ratings he has had on immigration in his second term, ticking down from his October ratings and almost exactly where he was in July 2019 when 40% approved and 57% disapproved of how he was handling the issue.
Despite his increasingly negative ratings on handling immigration since taking office, Americans don’t trust Democrats to handle the issue more. When asked who they trust to do a better job handling immigration, 38% say they trust Trump more, 34% trust congressional Democrats more and 24% trust neither.
And even though he’s underwater on handling immigration overall, Trump’s ratings on handling the immigration situation at the U.S.-Mexico border are a bit better, albeit still slightly negative, with 47% of Americans approving of how he is handling the situation at the border and 50% disapproving.
Americans on deportations and ICE
Americans are roughly split over whether the federal government should deport all undocumented immigrants living in the United States, but a growing share oppose expanded ICE operations — and by a 2-to-1 margin, they oppose ICE’s tactics.
The results come following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, by federal agents in Minneapolis on Jan. 24 — just weeks after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a mother of three, by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.
Half (50%) of Americans support the federal government deporting the about 14 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. and sending them back to their home countries while 48% oppose this.
Support was even higher for deporting all undocumented immigrants ahead of the 2024 presidential election, when 56% of Americans supported sending all undocumented immigrants to their home countries. By last February that dipped to 51%.
Most Hispanic (64%), Black (58%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (56%) oppose deporting all undocumented immigrants while 58% of white people support widespread deportation.
Even if many Americans want mass deportations, 58% say Trump is going “too far” in deporting undocumented immigrants, up from 50% who said the same in October. Just 12% say he is “not going far enough” and 28% say he is “handling it about right.”
Seven in 10 Americans do not think most immigrants deported since January 2025 were violent criminals, including 33% who say “hardly any” of those deported were. Only 7% of Americans say “nearly all” of the immigrants who were deported since the beginning of the Trump administration were violent criminals.
A slim majority of Americans oppose ICE’s expanded operations to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 53% now, up from 46% in October.
Opinion breaks down on partisan lines, with 88% of Democrats opposed to ICE’s expanded operations and 81% of Republicans in support. A 56% majority of independents oppose ICE’s expanded operations.
By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration laws, 62% to 31%. Half of Americans strongly oppose ICE’s tactics, including 89% of Democrats and 53% of independents. Only 4 in 10 Republicans strongly support the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration law, rising to over half among MAGA Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who call themselves MAGA.
By a 13-point margin, Americans oppose abolishing ICE, 50% to 37%. Opinions are polarized: 7 in 10 Democrats support abolishing ICE, while 8 in 10 Republicans oppose it. More independents oppose abolishing ICE (45%) than support abolishing ICE (35%), with 2 in 10 independents saying they have no opinion on the issue.
ICE was established in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Justice Department administered immigration laws. The Abolish ICE political movement gained national attention in 2018 during the previous Trump administration’s family-separation policy.
An ICE memo issued in May gave federal agents the authority to enter the homes of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally without warrants signed by judges. A wide majority of Americans — including majorities across party lines — say that when federal law enforcement wants to forcibly enter someone’s home, they need to get approval from a judge; just 20% say getting approval from a federal agency is enough.
How Americans feel about Minnesota and personal impacts
Most Americans (54%) say they are either upset (17%) or angry (37%) over how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, with 72% of Democrats saying they are angry. More than 4 in 10 Americans say they are “not concerned” or “concerned but not upset” over the situation in Minnesota.
Nearly half of Republicans, 47%, say they are not concerned over immigration enforcement in Minnesota, along with 32% who say they are concerned but not upset.
And while majorities of Asian and Pacific Islander (66%), Hispanic (59%) and Black Americans (61%) say they are upset or angry about how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, that dips to 49% among white people.
There is a personal connection for many Americans — 42% say they are at least somewhat concerned that federal immigration enforcement agents could arrest or detain someone they know, including 33% who say they are at least somewhat concerned this could happen to a close family member or friend.
Hispanic (60%), Black (55%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (53%) are all more concerned that federal immigration agents could arrest and detain a close friend, family member or someone else they know than white people (32%).
Replacing Kristi Noem, sanctuary cities and the border
By almost a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support replacing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem amid the administration’s controversial immigration enforcement tactics, 44% to 23%, with 33% voicing no opinion on the matter.
Democrats are more aligned on replacing Noem than Republicans are. Three-quarters of Democrats support removing Noem, 7% oppose it and 18% have no opinion. Among Republicans, 45% oppose replacing Noem, 15% support it and a large 40% say they have no opinion on the matter. Among independents, 45% support Noem’s removal, 17% oppose it and 38% have no opinion.
By an 8-point margin, Americans oppose denying federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with ICE, 46% to 38%. Eight in 10 Democrats oppose this, over 7 in 10 Republicans support it.
Methodology — This ABC News-Washington Post-Ipsos poll was conducted via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel, Feb. 12-17, 2026, among 2,589 U.S. adults and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The error margins are larger among partisan group subsamples.
The construction for the ballroom on the White House’s East Wing as seen from the top of the Washington Monument, Nov. 17, 2025. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Even before a federal judge has decided whether he’ll halt construction of the White House ballroom, the Trump administration has preemptively asked the judge to stay any injunction he might issue, warning that the project is “imperative for reasons of national security.”
The government’s overnight filing, entered just before the end of the day Monday, also says halting the construction would “leave an unsightly excavation site in President’s Park indefinitely.”
The administration’s stay motion comes a week-and-a-half after Judge Richard Leon publicly aired his deep skepticism of the government’s arguments that the president has the power to build a ballroom with private donations and without express authorization from Congress, comparing the plan to a “Rube Goldberg contraption.” Leon also said he expected the losing side of the case to appeal.
The Justice Department’s filing restates many of the arguments its lawyer made before Leon last month, including the administration’s view that it would be “unworkable” to allow security-related portions of the project to continue while work on the ballroom has been stopped.
“[A]s the Secret Service attested, halting construction would imperil the President and others who live and work in the White House,” the administration argues, citing a senior agency official who said in court papers last month that the current open construction site is, “in and of itself, a hazard and complicates Secret Service operations.”
The government now says it will submit a second classified declaration from the Secret Service that further explains why halting construction “will endanger national security and therefore impair the public interest.”
It’s widely believed the plan is to replace the bunker FDR had built underneath the East Wing — destroyed in the demolition.
The filing also casts the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s challenge to the project as one that presents questions judges have never grappled with before, including whether a 1912 statute prohibiting the construction of federal buildings absent congressional authorization applies to the president.
Acknowledging Leon’s own expectation of an appeal by the losing side, the Justice Department is preemptively asking him to press pause on a potential ruling against the government.
“The D.C. Circuit should have the opportunity to weigh in on these significant and novel issues of first impression before the President is ordered to stop work in the middle of a high-priority construction project that implicates national security,” the filing concludes.
Signage about slavery is displayed on an outdoor exhibit at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 24, 2025. (Photo by Michael Yanow/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The National Park Service (NPS) on Thursday began restoring the panels that were removed from the slavery exhibit at the President’s House in Philadelphia.
The restoration comes after U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe ordered the Trump administration to do so by 5 p.m. on Friday. The outdoor exhibit is a memorial to the nine enslaved Africans who were held at the site by President George Washington.
NPS workers began restoring the panels ahead of the deadline, according to ABC station in Philadelphia, WPVI.
The deadline was set in an order filed on Wednesday by Rufe, who is overseeing Philadelphia’s federal lawsuit against the Trump administration over the removal of the slavery exhibit. The exhibit was taken down by the NPS on Jan. 23.
Rufe granted a preliminary injunction requested by the city of Philadelphia in a Monday ruling, ordering the Department of Interior, which oversees NPS, to restore the exhibit as the lawsuit moves forward.
In setting the deadline, Rufe cited the federal government’s “failure to comply” with her order to restore the exhibit.
The Interior Department appealed Rufe’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Wednesday.
On Wednesday evening, the department also filed an emergency motion for an immediate stay that would block the preliminary injunction granted to Philadelphia pending the federal government’s appeal.
“The Court should stay its preliminary injunction pending appeal because the Government is likely to prevail on the merits, will face irreparable injury absent a stay, and the remaining factors also support a stay,” the motion states.
Rufe ordered the city of Philadelphia to respond to the Trump administration’s motion for an emergency stay by 4 p.m. local time on Thursday.
ABC News reached out to representatives of the city of Philadelphia, NPS and to the U.S. Interior Dept. for further comment.
In granting the preliminary injunction and ordering the government to restore the exhibit, Rufe cited George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984, comparing their actions to those of Big Brother in the book.
“As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not,” she wrote.
“An agency, whether the Department of the Interior, NPS, or any other agency, cannot arbitrarily decide what is true, based on its own whims or the whims of the new leadership, regardless of the evidence before it,” she added in the ruling.
She also concluded that NPS should have consulted with the city before amending the exhibit.
Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker called the judge’s decision a “huge win for the people of this city and our country.”
“We will not allow anyone to erase our history today,” Parker said on Tuesday.
The boards and panels that were removed told the stories of Austin, Christopher Sheels, Giles, Hercules, Joe Richardson, Moll, Oney Judge, Paris and Richmond — the nine enslaved Africans held by Washington as his home in Philadelphia.
They were removed to comply with President Donald Trump’s March 27, 2025, executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which directed the Interior Department to remove what they called “divisive, race-centered ideology” and narratives from federal cultural institutions, a department spokesperson told ABC News in a statement last month.
ABC News’ Peter Charalambous and Sabina Ghebremedhin contributed to this report.
