The Trump administration tried to criminally indict six Democratic members of Congress for posting a video about the military’s right to disobey illegal orders—and a federal grand jury said no.
The Justice Department, led by Trump appointee and former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, failed Tuesday to secure indictments against the lawmakers who appeared in a November social media video reminding service members that they’re legally obligated to refuse manifestly illegal orders. The government attorneys assigned to the case were political appointees, not career prosecutors.
WHAT’S GOING ON: The video featured Reps. Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan, plus Sens. Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin—all veterans or former intelligence officials. In it, they warned that the Trump administration was pitting military and intelligence communities “against American citizens” and reminded troops of their obligation under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse illegal orders.
🚨 BREAKING: A DC Grand Jury has just REFUSED to indict Sen. Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, and other Democrats who called for members of the military to REFUSE orders from President Trump
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) February 11, 2026
Mark Kelly needs to be COURT MARTIALED instead.
Leftists have poisoned jury pools, telling… pic.twitter.com/3WHQ8sHLtw
Trump’s response at the time? He accused them of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” on Truth Social.
THE DETAILS: Legal experts broadly agree that prosecuting members of Congress for political speech raises massive First Amendment problems. There’s also the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which gives lawmakers immunity from prosecution for acts within the legislative sphere—a foundational check on executive power.
Of course, the Trump DOJ pursued charges anyway.
The administration has gutted the Public Integrity Section, which traditionally signs off on every step of investigations into sitting members of Congress, specifically to prevent politically motivated prosecutions. Those guardrails are gone now.
BUT BUT BUT: This isn’t the first time the weaponized DOJ has embarrassed itself in front of a grand jury. After a judge dismissed an initial indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James, prosecutors failed to convince two separate grand juries in Virginia—in Norfolk on December 4 and Alexandria on December 11—that they’d met the probable cause threshold.
Under Pirro’s leadership, the D.C. office has also struggled in court, including when a jury acquitted a man who threw a Subway sandwich at a federal officer patrolling Washington under Trump’s orders.
It’s extremely rare for federal grand juries to reject prosecutors’ requests for indictments.
WHY IT MATTERS: “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,” Sen. Kelly said in a statement. “That’s not the way things work in America.”
Sen. Slotkin called it “another sad day for our country,” adding: “It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not in the United States we know and love.”
The administration is already retaliating against Kelly through other means—Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a formal letter of censure and is trying to reduce Kelly’s retirement rank as a Navy captain.
BOTTOM LINE: The grand jury rejection is a win for the Constitution. But the fact that this prosecution was even attempted—against elected officials for protected speech, with political appointees driving the case and internal safeguards deliberately dismantled—tells you everything about where this administration is headed. The threat isn’t just that they might succeed. It’s that they keep trying.