Grand Jury CRUSHES DOJ — Sedition Case REJECTED

Twenty-three ordinary citizens in Washington, D.C. just delivered a unanimous verdict that stopped the Justice Department cold in its tracks, refusing to indict six Democratic lawmakers accused of sedition for reminding military personnel to uphold their constitutional oath.

Story Snapshot

A federal grand jury unanimously rejected DOJ sedition charges against six Democratic lawmakers with military backgrounds who urged troops to reject illegal orders
President Trump called the lawmakers’ video seditious and suggested execution before walking back the comment
The rejection continues a pattern of D.C. grand juries refusing Trump DOJ prosecutions in politically charged cases
Senator Mark Kelly still faces Pentagon efforts to recall and demote him for his role in the video
Former prosecutors called the DOJ’s pursuit an ethics violation worse than prior rejected cases against James Comey

When Reminding Troops of Their Oath Became a Crime

The legal drama began in November 2025 when Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, along with four House members, released a video with a straightforward message. These lawmakers, all veterans with CIA, Defense Department, and Navy backgrounds, reminded military and intelligence personnel that their oath binds them to the Constitution, not to any individual. They urged service members to refuse orders that violate that founding document. Trump’s response was swift and severe, labeling the message seditious and demanding arrests.

The Prosecutors Brought Their Best Shot and Lost Spectacularly

The Justice Department pursued charges under 18 U.S.C. Section 2387, a statute dealing with seditious activities. They presented their evidence to a federal grand jury on February 10, 2026. Grand juries typically operate as rubber stamps for prosecutors. Indictment rates hover near 99 percent in federal cases. Yet every single juror in that room looked at the government’s case and said no. The unanimous rejection represents an extraordinary rebuke that former prosecutors described as worse than similar failed attempts to indict James Comey and Letitia James.

Senator Slotkin called it a score for the Constitution while simultaneously labeling it a sad day for the country. Her colleague Mark Kelly framed the prosecution as an outrageous abuse of power and vowed not to back down. Representative Jason Crow invoked the naval battle cry “Don’t Give Up the Ship.” Representative Maggie Goodlander praised the grand jury for honoring the Constitution. House Speaker Mike Johnson disagreed entirely, stating the Democrats probably should be indicted.

The Pentagon Launched Its Own Retribution Campaign

While the Justice Department pursued criminal charges, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth opened a separate front against Senator Kelly under obscure federal recall laws. Hegseth censured Kelly on January 5, 2026, and pushed for a retroactive demotion stripping the Navy captain of his rank. Kelly filed a lawsuit to block the proceedings, and a federal judge expressed skepticism during hearings. The Pentagon’s efforts continue despite the grand jury’s verdict, demonstrating that legal vindication doesn’t necessarily end political warfare.

Constitutional Oaths Versus Political Loyalty Tests

The military oath of office creates a unique obligation. Service members swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They pledge to bear true faith and allegiance to that document. The Uniform Code of Military Justice explicitly allows and sometimes requires refusal of illegal orders. The Nuremberg trials established that following orders provides no defense for war crimes. These principles aren’t partisan talking points. They represent bedrock military law developed through bitter historical lessons about what happens when soldiers blindly obey authority.

The lawmakers’ video invoked these established principles. Their military credentials gave weight to the message. Slotkin served in the CIA and Defense Department. Kelly flew combat missions as a Navy pilot and commanded a space shuttle. Representatives Crow, Deluzio, Goodlander, and Houlahan all wore the uniform. Their combined service record made the prosecution’s sedition theory a tough sell. Jurors apparently recognized the difference between encouraging constitutional fidelity and inciting military rebellion.

A Pattern Emerges in the Nation’s Capital

This grand jury rejection fits a broader pattern playing out in Washington courtrooms. D.C. juries have repeatedly declined to indict Trump DOJ targets in politically charged cases. The Justice Department sought charges against former FBI Director Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James with similar results. Prosecutors present evidence they believe justifies criminal charges. Grand jurors examine that evidence behind closed doors. Then they vote no, sending prosecutors back empty-handed. The pattern suggests either remarkably weak cases or citizen skepticism about politically motivated prosecutions.

The Chilling Effect That Failed to Materialize

Trump’s initial reaction to the video included suggesting execution for the lawmakers before walking that statement back. Senator Slotkin received a bomb threat. The FBI contacted all six lawmakers seeking interviews. The message seemed clear: speaking out carries consequences. Yet the grand jury verdict may produce the opposite effect. When citizens reject prosecutorial overreach, it emboldens rather than silences dissent. The lawmakers held press conferences celebrating the decision. Former prosecutor Kyle Boynton publicly accused DOJ attorneys of violating professional conduct rules.

The Justice Department issued no comment after the rejection. Prosecutors theoretically could retry the case with a different grand jury, though sources provided no confirmation of such plans. The silence speaks volumes. When the evidence convinces zero jurors out of twenty-three, reassembling for another attempt invites additional embarrassment. The uniform rejection leaves prosecutors with limited options and lawmakers with vindication, at least on the criminal front.