A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday declined to indict six Democrat lawmakers who released a video last fall urging military service members and intelligence personnel to defy "illegal orders."
According to The Hill, prosecutors failed to meet the low bar of "probable cause" to convince a majority of the grand jury to secure an indictment. Hours later, House Speaker Mike Johnson said they should be charged anyway.
Johnson told reporters shortly after the grand jury news broke:
"I think that anytime you're obstructing law enforcement and getting in the way of these sensitive operations, it's a very serious thing, and it probably is a crime. And, yeah, they probably should be indicted."
The six Democrats, Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania all come from military or intelligence backgrounds. In November, they issued a joint video statement urging service members to decline what they described as unlawful orders. The message came after the Trump administration carried out deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean.
The response was swift. President Trump called for the six to be "hanged" before eventually walking it back. He also called their comments "seditious" and demanded that they be "arrested and put on trial." The Justice Department opened an investigation in January, with the FBI conducting interviews with the lawmakers. The case landed on the desk of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro.
And then a grand jury said no.
Here's the core question that the emotional responses from both sides tend to obscure: Should sitting members of Congress — regardless of their military credentials — be producing videos encouraging active-duty service members to defy orders from the commander-in-chief?
The grand jury's refusal to indict doesn't make the conduct admirable. It means prosecutors couldn't meet a probable cause threshold — a standard so low that the old legal adage says a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. That they failed to clear even that bar raises serious questions about the strength of the case brought forward, not about whether the underlying behavior was reckless.
Six members of Congress, leveraging their military backgrounds as a shield of credibility, told the armed forces to decide for themselves which orders to follow. That's not whistleblowing. That's not dissent. That's an invitation to insubordination dressed up in patriotic language.
There's a reason the Uniform Code of Military Justice exists. There's a reason the chain of command isn't optional. The entire architecture of civilian control over the military depends on service members following lawful orders from their elected commander-in-chief — not from a handful of legislators who disagree with a policy and decided to cut a video about it. If a Republican had pulled the same stunt under Obama, the same Democrats now crying "authoritarian playbook" would have called it an insurrection dry run.
Kelly, a retired Navy captain, and Slotkin wasted no time on Wednesday. Kelly suggested Johnson should "go back to his office and seriously think about what he says publicly."
He went further, questioning Johnson's loyalties entirely:
"He's the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He's one of the most powerful people in this country. And if he's going to side at every moment with this administration when they are clearly not on the side of the Constitution, I think he's got to really evaluate why he is there and who he is really serving."
Kelly also described the DOJ's attempt to indict the six lawmakers as a "master alarm flashing for our democracy" and called the effort "straight from the authoritarian playbook."
Slotkin took her own shot at Johnson, saying he:
"Should take a beat and remember why he's there and that our Founding Fathers designed this as a separate branch of government to provide checks and balances on the president, not salute like a good boy and do what he says every single time."
Notice the framing. Not a single word from Kelly or Slotkin about whether encouraging military defiance was appropriate. Not a moment of reflection on whether their November video was wise, measured, or responsible. Not even a passing acknowledgment that telling troops to pick and choose which orders they follow might carry consequences. The entire Democrat response pivoted to attacking Johnson and painting themselves as constitutional martyrs.
Slotkin's line about the Founding Fathers designing "checks and balances" is especially rich. Checks and balances mean Congress exercises oversight through legislation, hearings, subpoenas, and the power of the purse. It does not mean individual members produce slick videos telling the military to freelance. The Founders she invoked would have found that distinction obvious.
Democrats want this story to be about prosecutorial overreach. And there is a legitimate conversation to be had about whether this case should have been brought before a grand jury at all — a conversation that some Republicans have quietly acknowledged. The case was lambasted by Democrats and some Republicans alike as politically motivated.
But the left's preferred narrative requires you to forget what actually happened: six lawmakers with security clearances and military pedigrees recorded a video telling service members to substitute their own judgment for the chain of command. They did this during an active policy dispute. They did this knowing their military credentials would give the message weight it wouldn't otherwise carry.
The grand jury didn't validate their conduct. It rejected the prosecution's case. Those are very different things, and the distinction matters enormously. An acquittal isn't an endorsement. A grand jury declining to indict doesn't transform reckless behavior into heroism. It means the legal system worked exactly as designed — the state brought its case, citizens weighed it, and the evidence fell short. That's the process. It doesn't retroactively make the underlying conduct wise, patriotic, or worthy of celebration.
Yet that's precisely how the six and their allies are treating it — as vindication rather than a narrow procedural outcome.
The legal chapter may be closing, but the consequences aren't over. The Pentagon is looking to censure Kelly and lower his retirement rank, a move that could affect his military pension. That's a tangible price, and it suggests the defense establishment isn't treating the video as harmless political speech either.
The institutional question looms larger than any single case. If members of Congress can produce polished recruitment-style videos urging the military to defy a sitting president and face no consequences, then the norm against weaponizing military loyalty for partisan ends is effectively dead. Every future administration will face the same tactic from the opposing party. Every policy disagreement becomes an opportunity for someone with stars on their old uniform to tell troops which orders count and which don't.
That's not a precedent any serious person should want, regardless of party. The military's effectiveness depends on its insulation from partisan gamesmanship. Once that wall cracks, it doesn't crack for just one side.