DOJ fail to win indictment of six Democrats over video urging troops to refuse unlawful orders

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., failed to secure an indictment against six Democratic members of Congress who appeared in a video last fall telling service members they could refuse illegal orders, according to multiple people familiar with the matter and reporting by national news organizations.

A grand jury in Washington declined to bring charges after prosecutors pursued allegations that the lawmakers’ video — which reminded military personnel of their legal duty to disobey unlawful commands — undermined military discipline and could amount to criminal conduct. The decision marks a rare rebuke to prosecutors in a politically charged investigation that has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and praise from some in the conservative movement who supported the probe.

The six lawmakers who took part in the video are Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan. Supporters of the lawmakers stressed that the video reiterated existing law and military legal doctrine — that service members may be required to refuse manifestly unlawful orders — and argued the clip was a constitutional exercise of political speech.

Prosecutors in Washington, reportedly acting under direction from the U.S. attorney’s office led by Jeanine Pirro, sought to present the case to a grand jury but were unable to obtain an indictment, according to Reuters and other outlets. Officials close to the matter said the grand jury did not find the evidence sufficient to support criminal charges. The Justice Department declined to comment beyond standard statements that it does not discuss grand jury proceedings.

The episode has become another flashpoint in the partisan clash over the role of the military and the limits of political speech. President Donald Trump and several administration officials had condemned the video when it was released, with the president describing the lawmakers’ actions in the strongest terms and calling for criminal accountability. Democrats countered that the response represented an effort to intimidate critics and to weaponize the justice system against political opponents.

Legal experts say grand juries often act as a check on prosecutorial zeal, especially in politically sensitive matters. Some defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates argued that seeking criminal charges against elected officials for public statements about the law raises serious First Amendment concerns and could chill political speech. Others noted that the question of whether the video could cross into criminal conduct — for example, by inciting insubordination in a way that posed a concrete threat to military operations — would hinge on specific facts and intent, which grand jurors apparently did not find persuasive in this case.

The rejection of an indictment does not necessarily end related inquiries. Reports in recent days have also indicated federal and Pentagon reviews into the episode, and at least one lawmaker involved has pursued separate legal action over what they say were retaliatory measures taken by an official. The political fallout, however, is immediate: Democrats say the outcome vindicates their right to speak about the legality of orders, while critics argue the episode exposed what they see as improper political advocacy by members of Congress on sensitive military issues.

As the story develops, news outlets are continuing to seek comment from the Justice Department, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington and other officials involved in the matter. Journalists and readers should expect additional filings or statements if prosecutors opt to release more detail about why the grand jury declined to indict.