This weekly briefing rounds up five of the most talked-about stories: an FBI probe into a controversial video from six Democrats, the predictable uproar over proposed White House renovations, harrowing footage of a National Guardsman stopping an attacker, a lawmaker’s refusal to cooperate with investigators, and the fallout for a senator who urged troops to defy orders. Each item highlights political theater, questions about accountability, and one clear act of courage that interrupts the noise. Read on for the essentials and the exact quoted lines that mattered this week.

RedState Weekly Briefing: Illegal Orders, Outrage Olympics, and One Hero Guardsman

Welcome to the RedState Weekly Briefing, where we recap the week’s most viewed stories in a quick, no-nonsense format. This edition touches on accountability, media outrage, and a moment of bravery on the streets of Washington. Pour a cup of coffee and scan the highlights.

#1 – Bad News for Those Six Democrats Who Made ‘Illegal Orders’ Video

The interviews will put them on the record with the FBI. They will likely ask things like how they came to do this video, who was involved, and what their aim was. And if they don’t tell the truth, that could be a problem. Let’s see if they do the interviews or try to duck them. If they duck them, that will tell you something, too. 

The Democrats have taken their Trump Derangement Syndrome to new heights, and now it’s backfiring on them. We’ve seen it from the Epstein files to this video. Not only could this potentially create confusion in the military, but what must our enemies think when senators and representatives take such actions? They think they’re going to smear President Donald Trump, but what they’re really doing is raising more questions about their own actions.

This segment centers on the potential legal consequences for those involved and the optics of elected officials producing content that could interfere with military order. The piece argues the interviews are designed to put participants on the record and test whether they stand by their actions. Watch for how each member responds when asked to account for their role.

#2 – The White House Ballroom Outrage Machine Is About to Lose It Over Trump’s Latest Renovation Announcement

The last significant renovations were performed under Barack Obama. Nobody complained. Nobody thought twice about it. They’ll protest this somehow because it’s Trump.

Now, the president might very well just be hinting at a routine draining and cleaning of the reflecting pool in time for America’s upcoming 250th anniversary festivities. But for liberals still reeling from the recent demolition of the White House’s East Wing to make way for a new ballroom, this post is almost assuredly going to trigger some outrage.

Does Trump’s “fix” mean something more? Does his suggestion that “you won’t be seeing” it anymore mean the President is going to tear it down and replace it with a massive (the biggest you’ve ever seen) personal hot tub with gold-encrusted fixtures?

The story mocks the certainty of left-leaning outrage and points out that renovations happen routinely regardless of which party is in the White House. The writer suggests skeptics will spin any minor update into a scandal simply because the president is the one proposing it. Expect predictable headlines and a lively reaction cycle.

#3 – Shocking New Footage Shows Fearless Guardsman Turn Tables on Afghan Terrorist As He Reloads, Returns Fire

Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan refugee initially escorted into the United States on a temporary visa issued to him in 2021 by the Biden administration, is seen in video and live images obtained by the Wall Street Journal brandishing a revolver.

A witness revealed that Lakanwal had opened fire on Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe on the streets of Washington, D.C., which sent another guardsman racing around the corner while desperately reloading his weapon. 

The Journal reports that “five seconds later,” the guardsman returned fire in the direction of the suspect. Investigators had separately reported that a review of video footage at the scene showed a guard member exchanged fire with the terrorist prior to, as the New York Post reports, additional troops were “able to run over and pin the gunman down as he was taken into custody.”

This account highlights a split-second response that likely saved lives and underscores how dangerous public spaces can become in an instant. It also raises questions about vetting and the policy choices that allowed the suspect into the country under a temporary visa. The footage speaks for itself and became central to the week’s coverage.

#4 – Hoo Boy: House Dem’s Unwise Response on Whether He’ll Do FBI Interview Over ‘Illegal Orders’ Video

“Do you plan on cooperating?” Berman asked. 

“I’m not planning on sitting down for a voluntary interview, no,” Deluzio replied. 

Berman was surprised and asked the logical question, “Oh? Why not?”

Deluzio seemed shocked he was asked that, and didn’t respond for a second or two. He said, “Well, everyone in this country has a right to refuse to do that. And I think that this is a clear attempt to intimidate us.” He said he was a member of Congress, as though that meant he was above all this.

The exchange captures an awkward moment when a lawmaker declines voluntary cooperation and frames the inquiry as intimidation. Critics argue that choosing not to talk raises as many questions as conceding. The response became fodder for those who see it as emblematic of a broader refusal to accept scrutiny.

#5 – Uh-Oh: Mark Kelly Entering the ‘Find Out’ Phase After Urging Military to Defy Orders, and It’s Not Good

The DOW does not explicitly mention the video, but cites the UCMJ to explain the ramifications Kelly might face.

“In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures,” they write. “This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality.” 

Further comments make it clear that this investigation concerns the video, reminding military retirees that they are subject to the same laws that “prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces.”

Senator Kelly’s remarks urging military personnel to resist orders drew swift attention from military authorities and legal analysts. The cited UCMJ provision signals that retired service members who step into political advocacy risk formal review. That legal framing turned a political jab into a potentially serious procedural matter this week.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.