Tillis Criticizes Political Prosecution After Democrats Cleared in Orders Case

North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis has publicly supported a Washington, D.C. grand jury’s decision to reject indictments against six Democratic lawmakers who had urged military service members to refuse what they characterized as “illegal orders” under the Trump administration.

“Political lawfare waged by either side undermines America’s criminal justice system, which is the gold standard of the world,” Tillis wrote on social media platform X. “Thankfully in this instance, a jury saw the attempted indictments for what they really were. Political lawfare is not normal, not acceptable, and needs to stop.”

The case centered on U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s efforts to bring criminal charges against Democratic Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with Representatives Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania. All six lawmakers had previously served in the military or as intelligence officers.

The controversy began when the group of Democrats released a video statement last year advising service members that they could and “must refuse illegal orders,” arguing that troops are not required to carry out commands they believe violate the Constitution. This message drew sharp criticism from former President Donald Trump, who accused the lawmakers of seditious behavior that he claimed was “PUNISHABLE BY DEATH” in a post on his Truth Social platform.

Tillis’s support for the grand jury’s decision represents another instance where he has broken ranks with the Trump administration. The North Carolina senator has previously placed holds on Department of Homeland Security nominees, pledged to block Trump’s pick to replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and criticized several presidential advisers, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

Military legal experts note that service members are indeed obligated to follow lawful orders from superiors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military justice system established in 1951. However, the code also recognizes that personnel may refuse orders deemed illegal.

Following the grand jury’s decision not to indict them, the Democratic lawmakers expressed relief and framed the outcome as a victory for constitutional principles.

“Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him,” Senator Kelly said in a statement. “The most patriotic thing any of us can do is not back down.”

Senator Slotkin added that regardless of any further legal action from the administration, “tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law.”

The case highlights growing tensions between political rhetoric and legal boundaries in an increasingly polarized American political landscape. Legal experts suggest the grand jury’s decision could serve as an important precedent regarding the limits of prosecuting elected officials for political speech, particularly when that speech concerns military obligations and constitutional interpretations.

This development comes amid broader concerns about the politicization of the Department of Justice and attempts to use criminal prosecutions against political opponents. Senator Tillis’s stance is particularly noteworthy as it represents a rare instance of bipartisan agreement on the importance of protecting speech even when it criticizes an administration from one’s own party.

U.S. Attorney Pirro’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the grand jury’s decision or whether her office plans to pursue alternative legal avenues in the matter.