A federal grand jury on Tuesday rejected the Justice Department's attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers over a video urging military members to refuse illegal orders, marking a rare rebuke of prosecutors and handing the Democrats a significant political win. The lawmakers — Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire — have since turned the controversy into a fundraising bonanza, with Kelly dominating online donations despite not being up for reelection this year.
What the Left Is Saying
Democrats are framing the failed indictment as vindication and proof of Trump administration overreach. Sen. Slotkin said the grand jury's decision was "a score for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law," while calling it "another sad day for our country" because "President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies." Sen. Kelly called the indictment attempt an "outrageous abuse of power" and said "the most patriotic thing any of us can do is not back down." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed that Democrats "will not let this witch hunt go unanswered."
Progressive voices are highlighting that the video simply reminded service members of existing military protocol — the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires members to obey only lawful orders and refuse those that are manifestly illegal. Legal experts have noted that prosecuting members of Congress for political speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause gives lawmakers immunity from prosecution for acts within the legislative sphere.
Democrats are also pointing to the Justice Department's pattern of failed prosecutions under U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host and Trump ally. Grand juries have previously refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James twice, and a jury acquitted a man who threw a Subway sandwich at a federal officer. The Trump administration has dismantled the Public Integrity Section, which normally provides oversight on investigations of sitting members of Congress.
What the Right Is Saying
Republicans have largely defended the Trump administration's efforts to prosecute the lawmakers. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Tuesday night that "anytime you're obstructing law enforcement and getting in the way of these sensitive operations, it's a very serious thing and it's probably a crime, and yeah they probably should be indicted."
Conservative voices argue the video was an improper attempt to undermine the chain of command and encourage insubordination. President Trump initially accused the lawmakers of "seditious behavior, punishable by death" on Truth Social, though he later walked back the execution comment. Republicans maintain the video crossed a line by encouraging military members to second-guess orders from the commander-in-chief.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has taken administrative action against Kelly, issuing a formal censure and seeking to reduce his retirement rank from Navy captain. Hegseth wrote that "as a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he is still accountable to military justice." A federal judge hearing Kelly's lawsuit to block the proceedings appeared skeptical of the government's arguments last week, but conservatives argue retired service members remain subject to military discipline.
What the Numbers Show
Federal grand juries rarely decline to indict — it typically happens only a handful of times each year across the entire federal judicial system. In this case, prosecutors failed to convince a single juror out of 16-23 grand jury members that they had met the probable cause threshold, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Twelve votes are needed to advance an indictment.
A POLITICO analysis found that Kelly has emerged as one of the Democratic Party's top fundraisers in recent weeks, dominating online donations through ActBlue despite not facing reelection until 2028. Slotkin sent a fundraising appeal the morning after the indictment news broke, held a press conference, appeared on television, and posted extensively on social media to capitalize on the attention.
The government attorneys assigned to the case were political appointees rather than career Justice Department prosecutors. It was not immediately clear what specific charges prosecutors sought or whether they targeted all six lawmakers. Prosecutors could still attempt to secure an indictment in the future.
The Bottom Line
The grand jury's refusal to indict represents both a legal victory for the lawmakers and a political windfall that Democrats are aggressively exploiting for fundraising and messaging. The case highlights the tension between the Trump administration's efforts to hold political opponents accountable and constitutional protections for free speech and legislative activity. Whether prosecutors make another attempt at indictment — and whether Kelly's lawsuit against Hegseth succeeds — will determine if this controversy continues to fuel Democratic fundraising or fades as the administration moves on to other targets.