The case against six Democratic lawmakers who recorded a video encouraging U.S. military members to disobey orders is effectively dead in Washington, D.C. A federal grand jury unanimously rejected U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's attempt to secure indictments, and her office has now stopped pursuing the matter entirely, according to an NBC News report citing three people familiar with the situation.
The six lawmakers, Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Jason Crow (D-CO), appeared in a video urging service members to refuse orders they deemed illegal. The grand jury determined the government hadn't cleared even the low threshold of probable cause required to bring an indictment.
The video at the center of this saga featured Democratic members of Congress, several with military backgrounds, speaking directly to uniformed service members. Sen. Mark Kelly put it plainly:
"Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders."
Sen. Slotkin echoed the message:
"You can refuse illegal orders."
On its face, the statement is legally accurate. Military members do have a duty to refuse unlawful orders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But the context matters enormously. These weren't JAG officers delivering a classroom lecture on military law. These were partisan elected officials, in the middle of a political fight, recording a video designed to encourage active-duty troops to second-guess and resist the directives of their commander-in-chief.
There is a canyon-wide difference between a legal principle taught in basic training and a coordinated political campaign urging service members to become instruments of the opposition party. The former is military doctrine. The latter is something far more corrosive.
President Donald Trump didn't mince words when the video surfaced. In November, he posted on Truth Social:
"THE TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW, NOT ROAMING THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THEY SAID WAS OK. IT WASN'T, AND NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!"
The frustration is understandable. Imagine the media firestorm if six Republican lawmakers had recorded a video urging troops to defy President Obama's orders during a policy dispute. The word "insurrection" would have trended for a month. Congressional hearings would have been convened before the weekend.
A grand jury's unanimous rejection is significant. It means that even under the permissive standards of probable cause, where prosecutors famously say they could "indict a ham sandwich", the evidence didn't hold. That's a loss for Pirro's office, full stop.
NBC News noted that while the case is considered dead in Washington, the decision wouldn't necessarily bar a federal prosecutor from attempting to bring charges in a different federal court district. There have been no public indications that will happen.
But the legal outcome doesn't resolve the underlying political problem. The Democrats in that video knew exactly what they were doing. They wrapped a partisan provocation in the language of legal obligation. They didn't just remind troops of an existing legal duty, they actively encouraged a posture of resistance toward the sitting president's authority, timed for maximum political impact.
This is the playbook: say something inflammatory, dress it in just enough legal cover to avoid prosecution, then claim vindication when no charges stick. It's not illegal. It's just deeply irresponsible.
The left spent years insisting that words have consequences, that rhetoric creates real-world danger, that language directed at institutions undermines democracy itself. They built an entire post-January 6th framework around the idea that speech encouraging defiance of lawful authority is tantamount to violence.
Six Democratic lawmakers recorded a video urging the military to resist the commander-in-chief. By the left's own standards, this should have been a five-alarm crisis for democratic norms. Instead, it was treated as brave dissent.
The principle, apparently, is situational. Encouraging defiance is seditious or heroic depending entirely on who sits in the Oval Office.
The legal avenue appears closed, at least in Washington. The grand jury spoke. But the episode leaves a mark, not on the Democrats, who will wear it as a badge of honor, but on the principle of civilian control of the military. Every time elected officials encourage troops to view presidential orders through a partisan lens, the chain of command frays a little more.
No indictment was needed to see that clearly. The video spoke for itself.
