Grand Jury Declines to Indict Democratic Lawmakers Urging Military to Defy Illegal Orders
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A grand jury in the nation’s capital has rejected the Department of Justice’s attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers who publicly urged members of the U.S. military and intelligence community to refuse “illegal orders.” The decision marks a significant blow to the DOJ’s ongoing investigation into a controversial video that featured the lawmakers calling on uniformed personnel to uphold their oath to the Constitution over unlawful directives.
The video, which was posted online earlier this year, showed Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with Representatives Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Jason Crow of Colorado. All six lawmakers have military or intelligence backgrounds, which lent weight to their message. In the video, they warned that the current administration was creating divisions between the armed forces and American citizens, urging service members to prioritize constitutional protections.
“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the lawmakers declared. “Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution.” Their call to resist illegal commands sparked a federal probe by the DOJ, which sought to bring charges against the lawmakers for allegedly encouraging insubordination.
However, after reviewing the evidence, the grand jury declined to issue indictments, effectively closing the door on criminal prosecution in this case. The refusal underscores the protections afforded to elected officials under the First Amendment, particularly when addressing matters of public concern related to constitutional duties and national security.
Senator Slotkin, a former intelligence officer, hailed the grand jury’s decision as a victory for free speech and constitutional governance. “Tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech and the rule of law,” she said in a statement.
The DOJ’s investigation had drawn sharp criticism from civil liberties advocates and some legal experts who argued that prosecuting lawmakers for urging the military to uphold legal and constitutional standards could set a dangerous precedent. The case also raised questions about the balance between civilian oversight of the military and the limits of lawful orders, issues that have long been debated within military and legal circles.
This episode highlights the complex relationship between the executive branch, the military, and Congress, especially in times of political polarization. The U.S. military’s obligation to follow lawful orders is well-established, but the definition of what constitutes an illegal order can sometimes be contested, requiring careful legal and ethical judgment.
The grand jury’s decision aligns with guidance from the Department of Justice itself, which has historically recognized the constitutional protections for political speech, especially when it involves elected representatives discussing matters of public importance. Meanwhile, the U.S. Army and other branches maintain strict protocols to ensure that service members understand their responsibilities to refuse unlawful commands, a principle rooted in both military law and international standards.
As the political fallout continues, the lawmakers involved have remained vocal about their commitment to constitutional principles and the importance of safeguarding the military from being used as a tool against the American people. The episode is likely to remain a flashpoint in debates over military loyalty, civilian control, and the limits of political expression.
Further developments may arise as the DOJ assesses its broader approach to cases involving political speech and national security, but for now, the grand jury’s refusal to indict signals a reaffirmation of constitutional protections amid contentious political times.
For more on the legal framework governing military orders and constitutional protections, see resources from the Lawfare Project and official military legal guidelines available through the Judge Advocate General’s Corps.
Leave a Reply