House condemns sitting senators and reps as seditious for urging military accountability.
H.Res. 932 — Denouncing dangerous and seditious rhetoric by Members of Congress and expressing condemnation of Senator Mark Kelly, Senator Elissa Slotkin, Representative Jason Crow, Representative Christopher Deluzio, Representative Maggie Goodlander, and Representative Chrissy Houlahan for attempting to sow disallegiance amongst members of the United States military and intelligence community and encouraging them to act against the Commander in Chief and President of the United States and violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. · Filed by Ryan Zinke (R-MT) · 29 cosponsors · Introduced Dec 4, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This resolution condemns six Democratic members of Congress (Senators Kelly and Slotkin, Representatives Crow, Deluzio, Goodlander, and Houlahan) for a November 2025 video in which they urged military and intelligence personnel to refuse orders they believe are unlawful. The resolution argues these members encouraged insubordination and disloyalty without providing evidence that any actual illegal orders were issued, and claims their rhetoric undermines the chain of command and national security.
Why we flagged it
This is a non-binding House resolution that condemns specific sitting members of Congress by name for their public statements. It has no legislative force—it does not change law, appropriate funds, or establish policy. Its sole function is to express the House majority's political disapproval of the named members' rhetoric.
What the text implies
- The resolution frames a constitutional debate (when military personnel may refuse orders) as sedition, potentially chilling legitimate discussion of military accountability and rule of law.
- By naming sitting members of Congress as seditious without legal charges or conviction, the resolution may normalize using legislative condemnation as a tool to attack political opponents rather than address policy.
The full analysis lists 3 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The resolution raises a genuine constitutional tension: citizens have an interest in military personnel refusing genuinely unlawful orders (a core rule-of-law principle), but also in a functioning chain of command. However, the resolution itself does not change law or policy—it is a non-binding condemnation.