A Washington grand jury has declined to indict six Democratic lawmakers over a video in which they urged military members to reject “illegal orders,” delivering a significant setback to Justice Department prosecutors.

The decision marks the latest in a series of unusual grand jury rejections in Washington, where citizen panels have increasingly refused to approve charges after reviewing prosecutors’ evidence. The Justice Department had launched an investigation into the video featuring Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and four Democratic House members: Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania.

All six lawmakers featured in the controversial video have backgrounds in military service or intelligence agencies. The investigation began in November when FBI agents started contacting the lawmakers to schedule interviews.

The exact charges prosecutors sought to bring remain unclear, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the case publicly. The Justice Department and the U.S. attorney’s office have not yet responded to requests for comment on the grand jury’s decision.

The investigation unfolded against a backdrop of heightened political tensions, with President Donald Trump and his administration labeling the lawmakers’ video as “seditious.” Trump went further on social media, suggesting the offense was “punishable by death” – rhetoric that raised serious concerns about potential political motivation behind the investigation.

Following the grand jury’s decision, Senator Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, released a statement expressing relief: “Tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” she said. “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, was more pointed in his response, calling the attempted prosecution an “outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies.” He added, “Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him. The most patriotic thing any of us can do is not back down.”

For Kelly, the legal challenges extend beyond the Justice Department’s investigation. In November, the Pentagon launched a separate inquiry into his conduct, citing federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty for potential court-martial or other disciplinary measures. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already censured Kelly for his participation in the video and is attempting to retroactively demote him from his retired rank of captain.

Kelly has responded by filing a lawsuit against Hegseth, arguing these actions represent unconstitutional retribution. During a recent hearing, the judge appeared skeptical of key arguments presented by government attorneys defending Hegseth’s January 5 censure of Kelly.

Legal experts note that grand jury rejections are extraordinarily rare, making this decision particularly significant. Prosecutors could technically try again to secure an indictment, but such a move would likely face intensified scrutiny given the already controversial nature of the case and its political implications.

The case has spotlighted tensions between political speech and military discipline, particularly for retired service members who enter politics. The lawmakers have maintained they were simply reminding service members of their existing duty to refuse illegal orders – a principle embedded in military training and international law since the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Critics of the investigation have characterized it as an attempt to silence political opposition through intimidation and legal threats, while defenders have argued the video potentially undermined military chain of command during a politically sensitive transition period.

As this chapter appears to close, the Pentagon’s separate proceedings against Kelly remain active, ensuring that questions about the boundaries between military obligations, free speech, and political expression will continue to be litigated in both legal forums and the court of public opinion.