• A federal grand jury in Washington rejected the DOJ’s attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers — all military or intelligence veterans — over a 90-second video reminding troops they can refuse illegal orders
• The failed indictment marks another rebuke of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office, which has also failed twice to re-indict New York AG Letitia James after a judge tossed her original charges
• Republicans split sharply: Sen. Thom Tillis called it “political lawfare” that “needs to stop,” while Speaker Mike Johnson said the lawmakers “probably should be indicted”

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — A federal grand jury in Washington refused Tuesday to indict six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a video last November urging members of the military and intelligence community to refuse illegal orders, rejecting the Justice Department’s effort to criminally charge sitting members of Congress for what they described as simply restating existing law. The grand jury’s decision — known as a “no true bill” — is extraordinarily rare in federal cases, but has become increasingly common under the Trump administration as politically appointed prosecutors pursue cases that ordinary citizens have repeatedly found unconvincing.

The indictment was pursued by the office of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host and longtime Trump ally, and reportedly sought charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — a statute that criminalizes interfering with the loyalty, morale or discipline of the armed forces, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The government attorneys assigned to the case were political appointees, not career prosecutors.

Grand Jury Indictment: What the Lawmakers Actually Said

The case centered on a 90-second video posted in November featuring six Democrats — all of whom served in the military or intelligence community — responding to the Trump administration’s deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean against suspected drug smugglers:

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Senators:

• Mark Kelly (D-AZ) — retired Navy captain, former NASA astronaut
• Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) — former CIA analyst, former Defense Department official

Representatives:

• Jason Crow (D-CO) — former Army Ranger
• Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) — former Navy reservist
• Chris Deluzio (D-PA) — Navy veteran
• Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) — former Air Force officer

In the video, the lawmakers warned that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home,” and told service members: “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, service members are required to follow only lawful orders and have a legal duty to disobey commands that are patently unlawful — a principle that has been settled military law since the Nuremberg trials.

Grand Jury Indictment: Pattern of Failed Prosecutions

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The failed indictment is not an isolated incident. Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department has struggled repeatedly to convince grand juries and judges that its cases against perceived political opponents meet basic legal thresholds.

“It had been exceedingly rare for grand jurors to rebuff requests by prosecutors seeking indictments, although it has happened with increased frequency to the Justice Department under Trump, as his appointees push ahead with questionable cases.”

— The New York Times reporting

The track record includes:

Former FBI Director James Comey: A federal judge dismissed the original indictment in Virginia.

New York Attorney General Letitia James: After a judge tossed out federal charges, two separate grand juries — in Norfolk on Dec. 4 and Alexandria on Dec. 11 — refused to re-indict on bank fraud charges.

DC grand juries have also repeatedly refused to indict people in cases brought during Trump’s immigration crackdown, and a jury declined to convict a former DOJ employee charged with felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a border patrol officer — a case prosecutors had originally sought as a felony before a grand jury rejected that charge too.

A former federal prosecutor who advised DOJ lawyers on professional conduct rules was blunt in his assessment:

“The attempt to indict these members of Congress is shocking, more so than the indictments of James Comey and Letitia James. No lawyer, competent or otherwise, could have looked at the statute and concluded this plainly protected speech constituted a felony.”

— Kyle Boynton, former federal prosecutor and former member of DOJ’s Professional Responsibility Advisory Board

Under longstanding Justice Department policy, the Public Integrity Section would normally sign off on every step of an investigation into sitting members of Congress — particularly cases with free speech and Speech and Debate Clause implications. The Trump administration has dismantled that unit, eliminating what had been a critical check against politically motivated prosecutions.

Grand Jury Indictment: Republicans Split Over DOJ’s Actions

The grand jury’s decision exposed a sharp divide among Republicans over whether the prosecution was appropriate.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) doubled down, telling reporters the lawmakers “probably should be indicted.”

“I mean, look, I think that anytime you’re obstructing law enforcement and getting in the way of these sensitive operations, it’s a very serious thing, and it probably is a crime. And, yeah, they probably should be indicted.”

— Mike Johnson, House Speaker (R-LA)

Johnson argued the Democrats went “further” than simply articulating the law, saying they “were suggesting that they disobey orders, and I think that crosses the line.”

But Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) broke sharply from the administration, praising the grand jury and condemning the prosecution attempt:

“Political lawfare waged by either side undermines America’s criminal justice system, which is the gold standard of the world. Thankfully in this instance, a jury saw the attempted indictments for what they really were. Political lawfare is not normal, not acceptable, and needs to stop.”

— Thom Tillis, Senator (R-NC)

Tillis, who has placed holds on Homeland Security nominees and opposed Trump’s Federal Reserve pick, has increasingly positioned himself as an intraparty critic of administration overreach.

Grand Jury Indictment: Lawmakers Respond and Kelly Faces Separate Battle

The six Democrats responded defiantly — while noting the prosecution attempt itself was the point, regardless of outcome.

“Today, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro attempted to persuade a Grand Jury to indict me. This was in response to me organizing a 90-second video that simply quoted the law. Pirro did this at the direction of President Trump, who said repeatedly that I should be investigated, arrested, and hanged for sedition.”

— Elissa Slotkin, Senator (D-MI)

Slotkin — who received a bomb threat days after Trump suggested the lawmakers be executed — added: “Whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies. It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not in the United States we know and love.”

Kelly called the indictment attempt “an outrageous abuse of power” and responded directly to Johnson’s comments Wednesday: “He’s the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He’s one of the most powerful people in this country. And if he’s going to side at every moment with this administration when they are clearly not on the side of the Constitution, I think he’s got to really evaluate why he is there and who he is really serving.”

Slotkin fired back at Johnson separately, saying the Speaker “should take a beat and remember why he’s there and that our Founding Fathers designed this as a separate branch of government to provide checks and balances on the president, not salute like a good boy and do what he says every single time.”

Goodlander praised the grand jurors directly:

“Today an American grand jury honored our Constitution by standing up to an outrageous abuse of presidential power and taxpayer dollars. No matter the threats, I will keep doing my job and upholding my oath to our Constitution.”

— Maggie Goodlander, Representative (D-NH)

Deluzio invoked the video’s closing line: “American citizens on a grand jury refused to go along with this attempt to charge me with a crime for stating the law in a way Trump and his enablers didn’t like. DON’T GIVE UP THE SHIP!”

Grand Jury Indictment: What Happens Next

Prosecutors technically retain the option to present the case to another grand jury, though legal analysts have noted that even securing an indictment would face steep obstacles in court — including potential Speech and Debate Clause protections for lawmakers acting in their official capacity.

Meanwhile, Kelly faces a separate battle with the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a formal letter of censure and is pursuing a reduction in Kelly’s retirement rank from Navy captain — a move that would cut his military pension. Kelly sued Hegseth to block the proceedings, calling them an unconstitutional act of retribution. A federal judge appeared skeptical of key government arguments in a hearing last week, and a ruling is expected in coming days.

The broader pattern raises a fundamental question about the Justice Department’s trajectory. As the Times observed, even though many of these cases have been weak, the department “has apparently determined that it might be better to fail in court rather than push back against Trump’s well-known desire for revenge.”

President Donald Trump had initially posted on Truth Social that the lawmakers’ video constituted “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and shared a post stating “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” He also wrote that the lawmakers “should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” He later walked back the execution comments.

When grand juries repeatedly reject a Justice Department’s cases against the president’s political opponents, does that vindicate the system’s safeguards — or does the mere act of pursuing prosecution achieve the intended chilling effect regardless of outcome?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from CBS News’ reporting on the grand jury decision and the specific statute involved, CNN’s coverage of the grand jury declination and Johnson’s response, NBC News’ reporting on the failed indictment and dismantled Public Integrity Section, Fox News’ reporting on the grand jury rejection, Fox News’ coverage of Tillis’ “political lawfare” criticism, The Hill’s reporting on the failed indictment and Johnson’s comments, TIME’s coverage of the lawmakers’ reactions, The Washington Times’ reporting on the failed indictment, Roll Call’s coverage of the case, Axios’ reporting on the lawmakers’ statements, Democracy Docket’s analysis of the pattern of failed prosecutions, the Associated Press via Military.com, and The New York Times via WRAL.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10