Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Trump administration unsuccessfully sought indictments Tuesday against six Democratic lawmakers over a video urging members of the military and intelligence communities not to comply with unlawful orders, according to three people familiar with the matter.
The failed bid, pursued by the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, marks the latest instance in which the Justice Department has attempted — and fallen short — to bring criminal charges against figures perceived by President Donald Trump as political opponents.
The office is led by Jeanine Pirro, a Trump appointee and former Fox News host. Prosecutors assigned to the matter were political appointees rather than career Justice Department lawyers, according to a source familiar with the investigation.
A Justice Department spokesman and a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday night.
Video at the center of the probe
The FBI sought interviews with the six lawmakers who appeared in the video, which was posted on social media in November. They are Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.
All six previously served in the military or in intelligence roles.
In the video, the lawmakers warn that the Trump administration was pitting members of the military and intelligence communities “against American citizens.” They emphasize that service members are obligated to follow only lawful orders.
“Now, more than ever, the American people need you,” the lawmakers say. “Don’t give up the ship.”
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, service members must refuse orders that are manifestly illegal.
Some of the lawmakers said they would not cooperate with the Justice Department’s probe.
Trump accusations and legal hurdles
After the video was released, Trump accused the lawmakers on Truth Social of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Legal experts broadly agree that prosecuting members of Congress over political speech would raise profound First Amendment concerns. In addition, the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause provides lawmakers immunity from prosecution for acts within the legislative sphere, serving as a core protection of the separation of powers.
It was not immediately clear what criminal charges prosecutors sought to bring before the grand jury.
Fallout and responses
A federal judge is expected to rule in the coming days in a separate case involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s actions against Kelly over his participation in the video. Hegseth issued a formal letter of censure last month and is seeking to reduce Kelly’s retirement rank as a Navy captain.
“It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me,” Kelly said in a statement Tuesday night. “Now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime — all because of something I said that they didn’t like.”
“That’s not the way things work in America,” Kelly added. “Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him.”
Slotkin said she hopes the grand jury’s action brings the investigation to an end.
“But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the administration,” she wrote on X. “It was another sad day for our country.”
Other lawmakers struck similarly defiant tones. Deluzio said he “will not be intimidated for a single second,” while Goodlander said she would continue “upholding my oath to our Constitution.”
Houlahan called the outcome “good news for the Constitution and the free speech protections it guarantees,” while Crow said Americans “should be furious that Trump and his goons tried to weaponize our justice system again.”
Justice Department norms dismantled
Under long-standing Justice Department policy, investigations involving sitting members of Congress typically require oversight and approval from the department’s Public Integrity Section, particularly when free speech or speech-and-debate issues are implicated.
But the Trump administration dismantled the Public Integrity Section earlier this term, removing a key internal safeguard designed to prevent politically motivated prosecutions.
The administration has repeatedly failed to secure indictments against other perceived political adversaries. After a federal judge dismissed an initial indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James, prosecutors were unable to persuade two separate grand juries — in Norfolk and Alexandria, Virginia — that probable cause existed.
Under Pirro’s leadership, the U.S. attorney’s office has also struggled in other high-profile cases, including one in which a jury acquitted a man accused of throwing a Subway sandwich at a federal officer patrolling Washington at Trump’s direction.
It is rare for federal grand juries to reject prosecutors’ requests for indictments, underscoring the extraordinary nature of Tuesday’s outcome.
