A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., has declined to indict six Democratic lawmakers who were the subject of a Department of Justice probe — a significant setback for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, led by Trump appointee Jeanine Pirro. The case centered on a video the lawmakers published in November 2025 in which they called on service members to refuse unlawful orders.
The six lawmakers — Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania — had refused to cooperate with the probe. In the video, they stated plainly:
"Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders."
The grand jury's refusal to return an indictment means the case, at least for now, goes nowhere. No specific criminal charge has been publicly identified.
According to the Daily Mail, the November 2025 video was a calculated political play. Six Democrats — several with military backgrounds, including Kelly, a 25-year Navy combat pilot and former astronaut — looked into a camera and told active-duty service members they could refuse orders they deemed illegal. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does, in fact, require service members to obey lawful orders while permitting refusal of illegal ones.
But there's a wide gap between citing military law in a classroom and six sitting members of Congress producing a polished video urging soldiers to second-guess their chain of command during a period of political tension. The lawmakers weren't teaching a legal seminar. They were sending a message — to the military, to the administration, and to their base.
President Trump responded on social media with characteristic force:
"SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"
"HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!"
Capitol Police subsequently placed all six lawmakers under 24/7 security. Slotkin described the escalation in mid-November 2025:
"Capitol Police came to us and said, 'We're gonna put you on 24/7 security.' We've got law enforcement out in front of my house. I mean, it changes things immediately."
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, under Pirro's leadership and Attorney General Pam Bondi's jurisdictional authority, moved to seek an indictment. According to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to NBC News, the federal attorneys assigned to the case were political appointees, not career DOJ prosecutors.
That detail matters. Grand juries are not rubber stamps — they hear evidence and decide whether it's sufficient to proceed. When a grand jury declines to indict, it typically signals that the evidence or legal theory presented was not persuasive. Sending political appointees rather than career prosecutors to present a case involving the Speech or Debate Clause — which provides lawmakers broad protections for remarks relating to the "legislative sphere" under Article I of the Constitution — raises obvious questions about whether this case was ever built to win.
And that's the problem. Not that the administration took the video seriously — it was reasonable to view six lawmakers publicly encouraging military personnel to resist orders as something more than casual political speech. The problem is that if you're going to pursue a case this politically charged, you need to win it. A failed indictment doesn't demonstrate strength. It hands your opponents a victory lap.
And a victory lap is exactly what they got. Senator Kelly issued a statement Tuesday evening:
"It wasn't enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime — all because of something I said that they didn't like. That's not the way things work in America. Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him. The most patriotic thing any of us can do is not back down."
Slotkin posted on X:
"Because 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."
"But today wasn't just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country."
Representative Houlahan called it "a vindication for the Constitution." Crow was more combative:
"If these f***ers think that they're going to intimidate us and threaten and bully me in the silence, and they're going to go after political opponents and get us to back down, they have another thing coming. The tide is turning."
This is the rhetoric of people who just received the best fundraising material they could ask for. Every one of these lawmakers now gets to run as a political martyr — targeted by the DOJ, vindicated by a grand jury, protected by the Constitution. That narrative writes itself, and it didn't have to exist.
Conservatives who were rightly troubled by that video — and there were legitimate reasons to be troubled — are now in a worse position than before the probe began. The six Democrats have been elevated from backbench provocateurs to constitutional heroes in the eyes of the media and their party. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's separate effort to strip Kelly of his military rank and pay remains ongoing, but it now unfolds under the shadow of a failed prosecution.
The Speech or Debate Clause exists for a reason. It is among the oldest protections in the constitutional framework, designed to prevent exactly the kind of executive overreach that Democrats are now claiming occurred. You don't have to agree with what these six lawmakers said to recognize that prosecuting members of Congress for political speech — even speech you find reckless or dangerous — requires an airtight legal theory and overwhelming evidence. Anything less is a gift to the other side.
There is a difference between accountability and overreach, and the difference is execution. A case built on a solid legal foundation, presented by career prosecutors, resulting in an indictment — that's accountability. A case built by political appointees that a grand jury rejected — that's ammunition for every Democrat running in 2026.
The DOJ has not publicly commented on whether it will pursue alternative charges or a second grand jury presentation. The Hegseth action against Kelly continues through military channels. And the six Democrats will spend every available moment reminding voters that the federal government tried to indict them and failed.
Conservatives wanted these lawmakers held accountable for what many viewed as an incitement to insubordination. Instead, the grand jury handed them a shield — and a megaphone.