A Washington, D.C. federal grand jury has refused to indict six Democratic lawmakers whom prosecutors sought to charge for urging U.S. military personnel to disobey unlawful orders, handing a significant legal setback to the Justice Department’s politically charged investigation into elected officials’ public statements.
The grand jury decision came Tuesday after prosecutors, under the oversight of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia, presented evidence related to a November video in which the lawmakers—many of them military veterans or former intelligence officers—urged service members to adhere to lawful protocols and reject illegal orders. The campaign aimed to inform troops of their legal rights and obligations, not to undermine military discipline, according to the lawmakers’ public statements.
Federal prosecutors had attempted to pursue charges under a statute that bars actions that could “interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline” of U.S. armed forces. The effort followed public pressure from former President Donald Trump, who had called for indictments and even suggested severe penalties for the lawmakers’ conduct. But the grand jury—comprising ordinary citizens—declined to sign off on any indictment, a rare rebuke of prosecutors given the relatively low legal threshold required to indict.
Among those featured in the video were Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired Navy captain, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA analyst, along with four House Democrats. All have criticized the Justice Department’s attempt as a politically motivated attack on free speech and congressional oversight. They argue their remarks merely echoed long-standing military legal principles that service members must not follow clearly unlawful commands.
Critics of the prosecution effort say the grand jury’s refusal to indict underscores concerns about the politicization of the criminal justice system and the improper targeting of elected officials for exercising constitutionally protected speech. Some lawmakers have indicated they may pursue civil suits alleging malicious prosecution and First Amendment violations if the government continues its investigation.
While the grand jury decision halts immediate criminal charges, the Justice Department could theoretically present evidence again to another jury. For now, however, the parliamentary delegation walks away without an indictment, marking a rare moment of judicial restraint in politically sensitive legal terrain.