A Washington, D.C. grand jury has delivered a stunning rebuke to the Justice Department by refusing to indict six Democratic lawmakers who reminded military personnel of their legal duty to refuse illegal orders—a decision that exposes deep concerns about politically motivated prosecutions and reveals an emerging pattern of grand jury resistance to administration overreach.
Story Snapshot
- Federal grand jury declined to indict six Democratic lawmakers on February 10, 2026, rejecting Justice Department charges that could have carried 10-year prison sentences
- The lawmakers, all military veterans or former intelligence officials, released a video reminding troops they must refuse manifestly unlawful orders—a standard military protocol
- President Trump had called for the lawmakers to be arrested and executed for “sedition,” while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attempted to retroactively demote Senator Mark Kelly
- The refusal marks part of a historic pattern of D.C. grand juries rejecting Trump administration prosecutions against political opponents at unprecedented rates
Grand Jury Rejects Prosecution of Veteran Lawmakers
On February 10, 2026, a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. declined to indict six congressional Democrats who created a 90-second video encouraging U.S. military members to refuse illegal orders. The Justice Department had sought criminal charges under a federal statute threatening up to 10 years in prison for causing insubordination or refusal of duty by military members.
The six lawmakers—Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with Representatives Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan, Maggie Goodlander, and Jason Crow—are all military veterans or former members of the intelligence community, lending substantial credibility to their understanding of military law and constitutional principles.
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
Constitutional Duty Versus Political Persecution
The lawmakers released their video in November 2025 amid growing concerns about the proposed Trump administration’s use of military force, which they viewed as illegal. Legal experts consistently confirm that military personnel are required to follow legal orders but must refuse illegal ones, and in cases where orders are manifestly unlawful, they are required to disobey them.
This principle represents standard military protocol, not seditious encouragement. The video addressed legitimate concerns about proposals to use the military in potentially unlawful ways, including suggestions to kill the families of terrorists and deploy troops domestically under questionable legal authority.
The lawmakers were simply stating what every service member learns: following an illegal order does not absolve you of responsibility.
Pattern of Failed Politically Motivated Prosecutions
This grand jury rejection represents part of a troubling yet revealing pattern. The Democratic lawmakers join former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James as targets of the Trump administration whom grand juries or judges have refused to prosecute.
Federal judges tossed charges against Comey, while two separate grand juries refused to re-indict James on bank fraud charges. Grand juries composed of ordinary D.C. residents have been turning down indictments proposed by Trump administration prosecutors at what sources describe as a historic rate.
While grand juries typically approve prosecutorial recommendations at high rates nationwide, the repeated rejections in politically charged cases suggest either that the prosecutions lack legal merit or that citizens recognize political persecution when they see it.
Threats, Retaliation, and Ongoing Legal Battles
The administration’s response to the video went beyond prosecution attempts. President Trump called the lawmakers’ comments “seditious” and demanded they be “arrested and put on trial,” later suggesting they should be executed for treason. Senator Slotkin received a bomb threat following the video’s release in November 2025.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth censured Senator Kelly and attempted to retroactively demote him from his retired Navy captain rank, arguing the video “sows doubt and confusion—which only puts our warriors in danger.”
Kelly has filed a lawsuit challenging Hegseth’s constitutional authority to impose such retroactive punishment, and a federal judge has appeared skeptical of the government’s arguments. These retaliatory actions raise serious questions about using government power to punish constitutionally protected speech.
Victory for Constitution Over Intimidation
Senator Slotkin celebrated the grand jury decision as a victory for “the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” while noting it was “another sad day for our country” that such a prosecution was even attempted. Senator Kelly called the prosecution attempt “an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackeys,” stating that “Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him.”
Representative Goodlander said the grand jury “honored our Constitution,” while Representative Houlahan called it “good news for the Constitution.” However, prosecutors could still attempt to secure an indictment against the Democrats, meaning the threat may not be permanently resolved.
The case serves as a stark reminder that citizens must remain vigilant when government officials attempt to criminalize truthful statements about constitutional duties simply because those statements are politically inconvenient.
Sources:
Grand jury declines criminal charges against 6 Democrats – CBS News
Grand jury declines to indict lawmakers over military orders video – Politico
Democrats celebrate grand jury decision on illegal orders video – Axios
