WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers over a video urging military and intelligence personnel to defy unlawful orders failed on Tuesday, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
A Failed Indictment
The lawmakers – Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan – appeared in a video posted to social media in November. They advised service members that they are obligated to refuse manifestly illegal orders.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, led by Trump appointee Jeanine Pirro, pursued the indictment. This effort is the latest instance of the Justice Department targeting individuals perceived as political opponents to the president. The attorneys assigned to the case were political appointees, not career prosecutors.
Former President Trump accused the lawmakers of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” on his social media platform, Truth Social. Legal experts generally agree that prosecuting members of Congress for their political speech would raise significant First Amendment concerns.
Constitutional Concerns and Internal Policy
Beyond First Amendment issues, the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution protects lawmakers from prosecution for actions taken within the legislative sphere. It was not immediately clear what specific charges prosecutors were seeking.
The Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, which typically oversees investigations involving members of Congress, has been dismantled by the Trump administration. This dismantling eliminated checks intended to prevent the abuse of the Justice Department’s power.
The administration has previously failed to indict other perceived political opponents, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, after multiple grand juries declined to issue indictments.
What’s Next?
A federal judge is expected to rule soon on the legality of actions taken by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth against Senator Kelly, related to his participation in the video. Hegseth is seeking to reduce Kelly’s retirement rank. It is possible the administration could pursue other avenues to penalize the lawmakers, though further legal challenges are likely. The outcome of the Kelly case could also influence future actions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the Justice Department’s investigation?
The investigation was prompted by a video in which six Democratic lawmakers urged members of the military and intelligence communities not to comply with unlawful orders.
Who led the prosecution?
The prosecution was led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, under Trump appointee Jeanine Pirro.
What constitutional protections were raised in this case?
The First Amendment and the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution were cited as potential protections for the lawmakers.
As the legal landscape shifts, what does it indicate for the balance of power between the executive branch and members of Congress?
