Listen to the article
Grand Jury Rejects DOJ’s Attempt to Indict Democratic Lawmakers Over Military Video
A Washington, D.C. grand jury on Tuesday declined to indict a group of Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a controversial video advising military personnel and intelligence officials to refuse “illegal orders.” The decision marks a significant development in a case that has sparked intense political debate and raised questions about the boundaries of free speech.
The Department of Justice had opened an investigation into the video featuring six Democratic lawmakers—all with military or intelligence backgrounds—who urged service members to defy what they characterized as unlawful directives from the government.
The lawmakers in question include Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with Representatives Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Jason Crow of Colorado.
In the video, the lawmakers stated: “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats coming to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”
According to sources familiar with the proceedings, grand jurors declined to approve charges against the lawmakers. The Associated Press reports that it remains unclear whether prosecutors had sought indictments against all six lawmakers or what specific charges they attempted to bring. The Justice Department could still make another attempt to secure an indictment.
The case has drawn national attention, particularly after President Donald Trump labeled the lawmakers “traitors” engaged in “sedition at the highest level” who “should be in jail.” Trump initially suggested they should be executed, though he later attempted to walk back that statement.
The controversy has had real-world consequences. Senator Slotkin, who previously worked at the CIA and Department of Defense, was targeted with a bomb threat days after the video’s release and Trump’s subsequent comments.
Following the grand jury’s decision, Slotkin released a statement saying, “Tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law. But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country.”
Senator Kelly, a former Navy pilot, described the attempted prosecution as an “outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackeys” and warned that “Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him.”
The controversy has extended beyond the Justice Department. In November, the Pentagon launched a separate investigation into Kelly under a federal law that permits retired service members to be recalled to active duty for possible court-martial or other punishment. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has censured Kelly and is attempting to retroactively demote him from his retired rank of captain over his participation in the video.
Kelly has responded by filing a lawsuit against Hegseth, characterizing the proceedings as unconstitutional retribution. During a hearing last week, a federal judge appeared skeptical of key arguments presented by government attorneys defending Hegseth’s censure of the Arizona senator.
Legal experts note that the case touches on fundamental questions about free speech protections for elected officials and the limits of military authority over retired service members who enter politics. The controversy occurs against a backdrop of growing tensions between the legislative and executive branches, with concerns about the politicization of both the military and Department of Justice.
The grand jury’s decision represents a temporary victory for the lawmakers but likely won’t end the broader political and legal battle surrounding the video and its implications for civil-military relations in an increasingly polarized political environment.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
15 Comments
The decision not to indict the lawmakers is certainly noteworthy, but it doesn’t necessarily resolve the underlying tensions. I imagine this debate will continue, as policymakers grapple with the boundaries of political speech and military authority.
This is an interesting development in a complex political issue. It highlights the delicate balance between free speech and military discipline. I’m curious to see how this plays out and what the broader implications might be.
It’s good to see the justice system upholding democratic principles, even when the issues are politically charged.
As someone with a background in the military, I understand the need for clear lines of authority and discipline. At the same time, I believe elected representatives have a duty to provide oversight and voice concerns. This is a delicate balance to strike.
I’m glad the justice system took a measured approach in this case. These issues deserve careful consideration, not knee-jerk reactions.
The decision not to indict the lawmakers is a victory for free speech, but it also raises questions about the appropriate channels for elected officials to communicate with the military. This is a nuanced issue that deserves thoughtful consideration.
The decision not to indict the lawmakers is certainly noteworthy, but it doesn’t necessarily resolve the underlying tensions. This case raises important questions about the appropriate channels for elected officials to communicate with the military, and how to balance democratic oversight with military authority.
I hope this case leads to thoughtful discussions and policy refinements that strengthen the relationship between elected officials and the military, while upholding the principles of a democratic society.
This case highlights the delicate balance between political speech and military discipline. While I respect the lawmakers’ intent, I’m not sure their approach was the most constructive. Maintaining trust and cohesion within the armed forces is crucial for national security.
This case highlights the complexities of civil-military relations in a democracy. While I respect the lawmakers’ intent, I’m not sure their approach was the most constructive. Maintaining trust and cohesion within the armed forces is crucial.
It will be interesting to see if this decision leads to any policy changes or clarifications around the role of elected officials in providing guidance to the military.
As someone with an interest in military affairs, I’m intrigued by this case. While I appreciate the lawmakers’ desire to uphold the Constitution, I’m not sure their approach was the best way to address their concerns. Maintaining a clear chain of command is essential for an effective military.
It will be interesting to see if this case leads to any policy changes or discussions around the role of elected officials in providing guidance to the military.
This case raises important questions about the role of elected officials in providing guidance to the military. While I respect the lawmakers’ intent, I wonder if their approach was the best way to address their concerns.
Reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate boundaries here. I hope all sides can engage in constructive dialogue to find a way forward.