Veteran Writer Says FBI Visit Followed Her Criticism of Student Veterans of America

The FBI Contact

Elizabeth Hartman, a Marine veteran and writer who reports on governance and accountability issues in the veteran non-profit space, says the FBI came to her home after screenshots of her social media posts were submitted to federal authorities and framed as a potential national security concern. Hartman attributes the report to Student Veterans of America’s then–CEO and president, Jared Lyon, following her public criticism of the organization.

Hartman said the encounter was one of the most frightening moments of her life. She was hunting when she noticed a missed call and saw a voicemail transcription begin with, “Hey, Ms. Hartman… I’m with the FBI.” After contacting her attorney, she returned the call and learned the agent was already at her home. According to Hartman, the agent told her he was there to “confirm [she] was not a threat to national security,” explaining that reports had been submitted raising concerns about her posts.

Hartman said the agent was professional and courteous, but the substance of the visit was overwhelming. She described shaking uncontrollably and later realizing she had experienced shock. “Finding out the FBI is at your front door is genuinely one of the most terrifying things I think an individual can experience,” she said.

Hartman declined to answer questions without counsel. After later addressing the allegations with her attorney, the matter was closed, and no further action was taken against her. Her full account of the incident is detailed in a December 2025 essay, “Please Stop Digging: The Day the FBI Showed Up at My Door,” published on her Substack, All Due Respect.

What She Was Criticizing

Hartman says the FBI visit followed weeks of increasingly pointed criticism she directed at SVA’s leadership and governance practices. Her scrutiny began after she learned SVA allows non-veterans to be members, a policy she viewed as misleading given the organization’s name. From there, she began examining SVA’s publicly available financial filings and internal practices.

In a series of Substack posts and LinkedIn updates, Hartman focused on executive compensation, board oversight, and what she described as a pattern of insulating leadership from accountability. In one widely viewed LinkedIn post, she wrote that after publishing about SVA, she was contacted by numerous veterans and former staff who told her that financial issues were “just the tip of the iceberg,” and concerns about leadership behavior had previously been raised with the board.

Central to her criticism were SVA’s IRS Form 990 filings, which the organization posts on its own website. According to SVA’s Form 990 for the FY2023, Jared Lyon received $258,596 in reportable compensation. In the following year, FY2024, Lyon’s reportable compensation rose to $288,939. On the form for FY2025, SVA lists Lyon’s reportable compensation at $412,500, representing an increase of roughly 60% over two years.

Hartman has argued that this compensation growth occurred while SVA reported lower overall revenue than in prior years, a disparity she says raised serious governance concerns. For purposes of this article, the relevance of those filings is that her criticism was grounded in SVA’s own public disclosures, not speculation or private accusations.

How Her Posts Were Framed

Hartman said she was later informed multiple posts had been submitted to the FBI for review, including posts depicting firearms related to her hunting activities. “Some of my hunting-related posts were some of the posts that were brought to their attention,” she said.

She said the focus on firearms became central to how her criticism was portrayed to authorities. Hartman frequently uses marksmanship metaphors such as being “over target” or “sighted in” to describe investigative focus, language she said was stripped of context and treated as literal threats. She said she was asked whether she intended to harm Lyon or commit violence at an SVA event, allegations she has consistently denied.

Hartman’s account raises questions about how lawful speech, particularly when paired with firearms imagery common in veteran culture, can be escalated into a law enforcement matter based on interpretation rather than intent.

The Cease-and-Desist Letter

Shortly after the FBI contact, Hartman received a cease-and-desist letter from an attorney representing Lyon. According to Hartman, the letter threatened potential civil litigation for libel and slander, asserting her public posts constituted death threats and defamatory statements against Lyon, and claiming her conduct had already prompted law enforcement involvement and the confiscation of weapons.

Hartman has publicly denied each of those assertions. “I am not under criminal investigation. I did not make death threats, and no weapons were taken from me by police,” she said. Hartman has also stated that law enforcement confirmed she made no threats and her firearms were never confiscated.

What the Law Actually Says

A cease-and-desist letter is not a court order and carries no independent legal force. They are non-binding demands intended to warn of potential litigation, not to establish liability or impose legal obligations. In this case, the letter threatened potential civil litigation for defamation – specifically libel, which concerns written statements, and slander, which concerns spoken statements – based on the claim that Hartman’s public posts constituted criminal threats and false statements about Lyon.

Defamation law generally requires proof that a false statement of fact was made about a person, the statement was communicated to a third party, the speaker acted with fault amounting to at least negligence, and it caused reputational harm. Both libel and slander fall under this framework. Truth is a complete defense, and statements framed as opinion, rhetorical hyperbole, or commentary on disclosed facts are not usually actionable.

When speech involves matters of public concern – which includes nonprofit governance, executive compensation, and the conduct of leaders of national organizations – the First Amendment provides heightened protection. In addition to the aforementioned requirements, public figures must prove “actual malice,” meaning the speaker knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Hartman’s criticism falls squarely within those protections. She has said her reporting relied on publicly available documents, including SVA’s own IRS filings, and her commentary was framed as analysis and opinion on issues of clear public concern.

Why the Weapons Narrative Matters

For Hartman, a veteran and lifelong hunter, the suggestion that her firearms had been seized was particularly alarming. She said the experience has had lasting effects on her sense of safety. “Every time my dog barks, I jump, thinking the FBI is back at my house,” she said.

The episode is uniquely troubling within the veteran community. Veterans are more likely than the general population to hunt and to be familiar with firearms, making such imagery common and culturally unremarkable. Hartman said seeing that reality used to portray her as dangerous, especially by leaders of a veteran organization, was deeply disturbing.

“If I dare say something about an organization,” she said, “now I have to consider whether that organization will weaponize my use of firearms and attempt to have them taken from my home.”

Unanswered Questions

Hartman has called on Student Veterans of America to explain why law enforcement was contacted, why false claims about weapons seizures appeared in legal correspondence, and what steps the organization intends to take to address governance concerns. Military.com also contacted both Student Veterans of America and Lyon seeking comment on Hartman’s account. As of publication, neither responded.

The episode highlights how criticism grounded in public records can escalate into federal law enforcement contact and how, within the veteran non-profit ecosystem, firearms ownership can become a powerful and potentially chilling narrative tool when accountability disputes turn adversarial.