A federal grand jury declined the Justice Department’s effort to indict six Democratic members of Congress who appeared in a video informing service members that they have the right to refuse orders they believe are not in accordance with the law.
According to Reuters, prosecutors approved charges under a federal law that prohibits interfering with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the U.S. armed forces. The case was reportedly pursued by the office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro.
According to sources, six lawmakers appeared in a 90-second video titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” featuring Sens. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania.
BREAKING: Grand Jury Declines to Indict ‘Seditious Six’ Democrat Lawmakers Who Urged Members of the Military to Defy Trump’s Orders https://t.co/5t0d9RNsLC
— Steve Ferguson (@lsferguson) February 11, 2026
All six have previously served as military veterans or in intelligence roles. In the video, the group warned that what they described as “threats to our Constitution” were coming “from right here at home.”
They said the Trump administration was putting members of the military and intelligence agencies “against American citizens.” The video ended with the message: “Now, more than ever, the American people need you. Don’t give up the ship.”
Donald Trump called out the video and accused the six lawmakers of “seditious behavior” on Truth Social, later clarifying in a radio interview that he was not calling for their execution.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, service members must obey lawful orders. However, they are also required to refuse orders that are clearly illegal. Lawmakers defended the video and clarified their stance, but chaos had already unfolded in the media.
Furthermore, it is unclear how many of the six lawmakers prosecutors attempted to charge. Three sources familiar with the matter told NBC News that the grand jury declined to move forward with the indictment. That means no charges will be filed at this time.
Oralè Winners
Grand Jury failed to believe
DOJ and declined to indict the six Democrats for their video
Reminding Servicemen they
Must Refuse illegal Orders! pic.twitter.com/TPUvEUXMOD
— Ruben Garcia (@goRubenRuben) February 11, 2026
Legal experts have also shown concerns regarding the case. Many claim that prosecuting members of Congress for political speech would likely raise serious First Amendment issues.
The Constitution also includes the “Speech or Debate” Clause, which protects lawmakers from prosecution for actions related to their duties. Others also claimed that the decision was politically motivated. Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Kelly called the indictment attempt “an outrageous abuse of power.”
Consequently, Elissa Slotkin, a Democratic U.S. politician from Michigan, said the indictment attempt was because she organized a short clip that simply explained the law. The video reflected Democratic concerns over President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to U.S. cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.
Even Donald Trump’s attack on Venezuela under “Operation Absolute Resolve” was scrutinized after it captured President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores from their Caracas home and flown to New York.
Several world leaders questioned the legality of the operation, with accusations of violating international law. International law says countries cannot interfere in another country’s government or take control without permission.
View this post on Instagram
As per the International Bar Association, the United Nations rules (Article 2.4) restrict the use of force against another country except in self-defense or with UN approval. The U.S. did neither. Hence, the grand jury’s decision not to charge the lawmakers shows that speaking about the law is protected.
At the same time, the U.S. action in Venezuela raised serious questions about breaking international rules. Both examples are essential to understand how ruling leaders take decision and allegedly fail to act within legal and diplomatic limits for conflict avoidance and peaceful co-existence.
