A federal grand jury just delivered a stunning rebuke to the Trump administration’s attempt to prosecute six Democrat lawmakers for reminding military personnel of their constitutional duty to disobey illegal orders—exposing yet another troubling example of potential government overreach against political opponents.
Story Snapshot
- Grand jury refuses to indict six Democrat lawmakers over November 2025 video urging military to reject illegal orders
- Trump administration sought sedition charges after the President labeled the video “punishable by death”
- All six lawmakers are military veterans or former intelligence officials who cited constitutional oaths
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth separately moved to demote retired Navy Captain Mark Kelly, triggering lawsuit
- A pattern emerges of D.C. grand juries repeatedly rejecting Justice Department cases under the current administration
Grand Jury Rejects Sedition Prosecution
A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., declined to indict Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire on February 10, 2026.
The Justice Department sought charges over a November 2025 video in which the lawmakers, all military veterans or former intelligence officials, reminded service members of their legal obligation under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse manifestly unlawful orders. Multiple sources confirmed the grand jury’s refusal represents an extraordinarily unusual rejection of federal prosecutors in the D.C. jurisdiction.
Video Sparked Presidential Accusations and Federal Investigation
The controversial video emerged amid renewed concerns over potential illegal military deployments, referencing Trump’s 2016 comments about killing terrorists’ families and threats to deploy troops domestically to Chicago. President Trump responded by labeling the lawmakers’ statements “seditious” and initially called for their arrest and execution, though he later walked back the execution comment.
The Justice Department under U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro opened an investigation following Trump’s public demands for prosecution. Senator Slotkin subsequently received a bomb threat at her home, highlighting the dangerous climate surrounding the case.
Constitutional Duty Versus Chain of Command
The six lawmakers defended their video by citing the foundational principle of U.S. military law requiring service members to disobey illegal orders, a standard established after World War II through Nuremberg precedents. Their statement emphasized that military personnel swear oaths to the Constitution, not to individual leaders, making their duty clear when faced with unlawful directives.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth countered that the video “sows doubt” and “puts warriors in danger” by undermining the chain of command. This fundamental tension between constitutional obligations and military hierarchy lies at the heart of the controversy, raising serious questions about when government officials can be prosecuted for reminding personnel of established military law.
Federal prosecutors fail to secure grand jury indictment for ‘seditious six’ Democrats https://t.co/SuLFRQ8Ibe pic.twitter.com/mqhdJQqkfb
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) February 11, 2026
Parallel Pentagon Actions Target Retired Officers
Beyond the criminal investigation, Defense Secretary Hegseth took separate administrative action against Senator Kelly, a retired Navy captain, by issuing a formal censure and initiating proceedings to demote him under federal recall laws applicable to retired officers. These actions threatened Kelly’s military pension and benefits, prompting him to file a lawsuit challenging what he termed “outrageous abuse of power.”
A federal judge hearing Kelly’s case expressed skepticism toward Hegseth’s justifications during early February 2026 proceedings. Kelly publicly stated he would “not back down” from his position, framing the issue as protection of constitutional principles against political retribution for exercising free speech rights.
Pattern of Grand Jury Rejections Signals Weak Cases
Legal observers noted the grand jury’s refusal fits a broader pattern of D.C. grand juries repeatedly declining to indict cases brought by the current Justice Department, suggesting prosecutors are presenting insufficient evidence to meet basic charging standards.
Senator Slotkin celebrated the outcome as “score one for the Constitution, freedom of speech,” while simultaneously calling it a “sad day for our country” that such prosecutions were even attempted.
Representative Crow invoked the naval motto “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” and Representative Deluzio affirmed that lawmakers “will not be intimidated.” The Justice Department declined to comment on whether prosecutors would attempt to reconvene another grand jury to seek indictments.
Sources:
Grand jury declines to indict lawmakers over military orders video – Politico
Trump Democrats illegal orders video investigation – Axios
