The DOJ went looking for an indictment. A federal grand jury came back with a no. Now the real question is not what the six Democrats said on camera, but why this case was pushed to the edge of a criminal statute in the first place.
What You Should Know
On February 10th, 2026, CBS News reported a federal grand jury declined to indict six congressional Democrats after the Justice Department sought charges tied to a video about refusing illegal military orders. The DOJ had considered using 18 U.S.C. Section 2387.
The lawmakers, according to CBS News, are Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, Rep. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Rep. Chrissy Houlihan of Pennsylvania. All six are veterans or have national security backgrounds, and all six landed in President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s crosshairs after a 90-second video posted in November 2025.
The Statute Was Not Written for Cable News Fights
Two people briefed on the matter told CBS News prosecutors sought to charge the lawmakers under 18 U.S.C. Section 2387, a law that carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence and targets conduct that tries to cause “insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty” in the armed forces, with the intent to interfere with military loyalty, morale, or discipline.
That is a high bar on paper, and a politically explosive fit in practice. The speech at issue was a public message from sitting members of Congress, not a private briefing to a unit, not a leaflet dropped at a base gate, and not a directive issued inside the chain of command.
The grand jury’s refusal to indict matters for another reason, too. Federal prosecutors almost always get indictments because they control what evidence is presented and how the legal theory is framed. A “no bill” is uncommon, which is why the declined indictment instantly became its own headline.
What the Democrats Said, and Why It Hit a Nerve
The video that triggered the case urged service members to refuse illegal orders. That is a real principle inside U.S. military law and the laws of armed conflict. Service members are expected to follow lawful orders, and they can face punishment for disobeying them. But they also are not supposed to carry out unlawful orders, particularly when the illegality is clear.
Where this story gets sharp is in the political framing around that principle. The lawmakers said the message was prompted by proposals and rhetoric they viewed as suggesting unlawful uses of force, including past comments about killing terrorists’ family members and using troops domestically. Their critics argued the video was not a civics lesson. They said it was a televised attempt to inject doubt into the chain of command during a partisan feud.
Hegseth, according to CBS News, argued the video “sows doubt and confusion” and puts troops at risk. Trump went further, calling the lawmakers “seditious” and demanding they be arrested and tried, CBS News reported.
In other words, the dispute was never just about what is legal. It was about who gets to define “illegal” on the front end, and whether elected officials who oppose a president can be treated like saboteurs for talking about it out loud.
A Grand Jury Said No, and Both Sides Claimed the Win
After the grand jury declined to indict, the lawmakers condemned the attempted prosecution and praised the grand jury.
Slotkin said Trump was trying to “weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies,” according to CBS News. Kelly called it an “outrageous abuse of power.” Crow invoked a naval rallying cry in a statement, writing, “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” CBS News reported.
Goodlander said the grand jury “honored our Constitution,” and Houlihan called the decision “good news for the Constitution,” CBS News reported.
Republicans were not unified. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told reporters the Democrats “probably should be indicted,” according to CBS News.
Democrats, meanwhile, treated the declined indictment as evidence that the prosecution never should have been floated. Sen. Adam Schiff of California wrote on X that the lawmakers were “stating the obvious” in their video, CBS News reported.
“That the DOJ would even contemplate such an action demonstrates what a repressive regime is now running this country,” Schiff said.
The push and pull is the point. A president publicly calls for arrests. A grand jury declines. Congressional allies argue the indictment should have happened anyway. Opponents call the attempt itself proof of creeping authoritarianism. The justice system becomes the stage, and the verdict becomes just one more data point in the power struggle.
The Investigation Trail and the Pressure Campaign Allegations
CBS News reported the lawmakers were notified roughly a week after the video was posted that the FBI had opened an inquiry. It also reported that, in January 2026, most of the Democrats who appeared in the video said they received inquiries from the DOJ, including interview requests in some cases from Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
Kelly’s situation shows how the dispute spilled out of the legal lane and into career consequences. CBS News reported the Pentagon attempted to downgrade the retired Navy captain’s rank and retirement pay, accusing him of undermining the chain of command. Kelly sued Hegseth over the move, calling it political retribution. That case, CBS News reported, was still pending as of February 10th, 2026.
Even without an indictment, those are real levers of power: investigative attention, reputational damage, legal bills, and administrative punishment that can be imposed long before any jury ever hears evidence.
Why This Case Was So Hard to Sell
Start with the law. Section 2387 is aimed at attempts to cause military disloyalty or refusal of duty, with a specific intent element tied to military loyalty, morale, or discipline. That intent requirement can be difficult to prove when the underlying speech is framed as a warning about illegal conduct rather than a call to abandon duty.
Then there is the forum. This was not a court trial. It was the grand jury stage, the prosecutor-friendly moment in the process. If prosecutors could not persuade a grand jury that the law fit the facts, it raises obvious questions about how the case would look under adversarial scrutiny later.
Finally, there is the contradiction baked into the public messaging. The Democrats presented their video as pro-military and pro-lawful command. The administration’s allies described it as a threat to discipline. Both claims cannot be fully true at the same time, which is exactly why criminal prosecution was always going to look like a blunt instrument for what is often argued as a training and leadership issue inside the armed forces.
What Happens Next
The declined indictment does not automatically end the broader conflict. The lawmakers still face political attacks, and Kelly’s lawsuit over his retirement status keeps one part of the fight alive in court.
For the DOJ, the bigger issue is precedent and perception. When prosecutors test rarely used national security-adjacent statutes against political opponents, they may not just be gambling on a legal theory. They are gambling on public trust in the system that decides who gets charged and who does not.
For now, the only clear verdict is the one delivered quietly by the grand jury: not this charge, not this case, not on these facts.
