Department of Justice prosecutors were unable on Tuesday to secure indictments against multiple Democratic lawmakers following scrutiny over a controversial video urging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders, according to a new report.
The New York Times reported Tuesday — citing four individuals familiar with the matter — that prosecutors led by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro failed to persuade a grand jury to support indictments. NBC News also confirmed the development.
The lawmakers involved in the video include Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and Chris Deluzio (D-PA). All have military or intelligence backgrounds.
In the video, the lawmakers urged service members not to comply with what they described as illegal directives and warned of internal threats to the Constitution.
“You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” the lawmakers said.
The remarks drew sharp backlash from President Trump and others, who argued the video crossed a dangerous line by encouraging disobedience within the armed forces — something many conservatives view as undermining military discipline and chain of command.
“IT WASN’T, AND IT NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in November.
In another post, Trump warned that sedition is “punishable by DEATH.”
Kelly Escalates Fight With Pentagon Over Rank and Benefits
Sen. Mark Kelly has since launched a separate legal battle tied to the fallout. Last month, he announced he filed a civil lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth after the Defense Department reportedly took steps to reduce Kelly’s rank and pension based on the video.
Kelly framed the move as retaliation for political speech, though Republicans have argued that elected officials — particularly those with prior military service — should be especially cautious about messaging that could be interpreted as encouraging insubordination in the ranks.
“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly said in a statement.
“His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”
The case adds to a broader debate over whether political figures should be using their platform to issue guidance to troops — especially at a time when conservatives have warned about growing politicization within federal institutions, including the military itself.
Slotkin Claims Victory After Grand Jury Declines to Indict
Following the grand jury’s decision not to proceed, Sen. Slotkin celebrated the outcome and criticized the administration.
“Today, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed. Hopefully, this ends this politicized investigation for good,” Slotkin wrote Tuesday night on X.
“But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country,” she added.
Slotkin argued that even pursuing the case reflected misuse of federal power.
“Whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies. It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not in the United States we know and love,” Slotkin said.
Still, many Republicans counter that the central issue is not politics but accountability — particularly when lawmakers make statements that could be interpreted as urging troops to question lawful authority.
“No matter what President Trump and Pirro continue to do with this case, tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” Slotkin added.
Ongoing Debate Over Civil-Military Boundaries
While prosecutors were unable to secure indictments this week, the controversy underscores a growing national debate: how far elected officials can go in addressing service members directly without undermining military order or injecting partisan rhetoric into the armed forces.
