D.C. grand jury declines to indict six Democratic lawmakers over video urging troops to refuse illegal orders
Grand jury decision ends one attempt to bring criminal charges, but leaves prosecutors with options
A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., has declined to indict six Democratic members of Congress who were investigated after appearing in a video message advising U.S. service members that they may refuse unlawful commands. The panel’s decision means no criminal case will move forward at this stage, though prosecutors can seek another vote from a different grand jury.
The lawmakers involved are Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. All have military service or national security backgrounds.
What the video said and why it prompted an investigation
The video was released in November 2025 and circulated widely online. In it, the lawmakers addressed military and intelligence personnel and emphasized a basic principle of military law: orders are presumed lawful, but service members are not required to carry out orders that are clearly illegal.
Following the video’s release, federal investigators contacted some of the lawmakers about interviews as part of a Justice Department review of whether the message crossed into criminal conduct. Public statements from President Donald Trump described the video as “seditious,” and he called for prosecution.
The law at the center of the dispute
In evaluating whether speech about refusing unlawful orders is protected or prosecutable, a key issue is how federal statutes governing conduct that affects the armed forces apply to political speech. Prosecutors were reported to have examined felony provisions that criminalize efforts to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the U.S. military, including laws addressing attempts to cause insubordination or refusal of duty. Those statutes carry significant potential penalties.
Related Pentagon action involving Sen. Mark Kelly
The grand jury decision comes amid separate Defense Department proceedings involving Kelly, a retired Navy captain. The Pentagon has pursued administrative action that could affect his status and retirement benefits, arguing his public remarks and participation in the video undermined military discipline.
Kelly has challenged the Pentagon’s actions in court. A federal judge has raised questions about whether disciplinary tools designed for active-duty personnel can be applied in the same way to retirees who are also elected officials, and whether such actions implicate First Amendment protections.
What happens next
No indictments were issued by this grand jury, so the lawmakers face no charges at this time.
Prosecutors retain the legal ability to present the matter again to a grand jury, though there is no public indication of a timetable.
Separately, litigation and administrative proceedings tied to the Pentagon’s actions involving Kelly continue in federal court.
The core factual dispute remains whether a political message reminding service members of their duty to reject unlawful orders constitutes protected speech, or an unlawful attempt to influence military discipline.