When a grand jury says no, it really means something. These aren’t exactly groups known for standing up to prosecutors. The old legal saying goes that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, which makes Tuesday’s rejection of charges against six Democratic lawmakers all the more striking.
The Justice Department tried to bring indictments against Sens. Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, along with Reps. Chrissy Houlahan, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Jason Crow. Their crime? Making a video last November reminding active duty military members that they have the right to refuse illegal orders.
That’s it. That’s what federal prosecutors wanted to prosecute.
When Reminding Soldiers of Their Rights Becomes “Sedition”
Trump didn’t take kindly to the video. He went full caps lock on Truth Social, calling their actions “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Because apparently reminding service members about their constitutional obligations now qualifies as treason in Trump’s America.
The whole thing would be absurd if it wasn’t so dangerous. These aren’t random politicians we’re talking about. Several of them are military veterans themselves. Kelly is a former Navy combat pilot and astronaut. Slotkin served multiple tours with the CIA in Iraq. They know a thing or two about military service and the chain of command.
But that didn’t stop Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from opening an investigation into Kelly and threatening to strip him of his military rank. Think about that for a second. A sitting senator and decorated veteran facing demotion because he reminded troops they don’t have to follow illegal orders.
The Pattern Is Clear
This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration trying to use the justice system as a weapon against anyone who criticizes or opposes the president. Back in December, another grand jury refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James after a judge had already thrown out a previous case against her.
Grand juries are rejecting these cases because they’re garbage. Federal prosecutors argued that the Democrats violated a statute against interfering with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the armed forces. But reminding soldiers they can refuse illegal orders isn’t interference. It’s civic education.
Kelly hit back hard on Tuesday, calling the prosecution attempt “an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies.” He’s right. This is textbook political retaliation dressed up in legal language.
The video these lawmakers made wasn’t radical or inflammatory. It was a straightforward reminder of something every service member should know: illegal orders don’t have to be followed. That’s not just some liberal talking point. It’s established military law going back decades.
What Comes Next
The grand jury’s refusal to indict sends a clear message. Even in an environment where the administration is clearly trying to intimidate its critics, there are still limits. There are still people willing to say no when prosecutors bring weak, politically motivated cases.
But don’t expect the Trump administration to stop trying. They’ve made it clear that perceived disloyalty will be punished, whether through the courts, through administrative action, or through public attacks. Hegseth’s investigation into Kelly continues. The threats keep coming.
What we’re seeing is a stress test of American institutions. Can grand juries resist pressure from prosecutors? Can judges stand up to politically motivated cases? Can the military maintain its independence from political interference?
So far, the answer has been yes, at least in these cases. But how long that holds is anyone’s guess when the people in power view basic constitutional principles as obstacles to be overcome rather than rules to be followed.
