House Speaker Mike Johnson declared Tuesday that six Democratic lawmakers "should be indicted" for their joint video urging military and intelligence personnel to disobey illegal orders — hours after a federal grand jury refused to bring charges against any of them.

The grand jury's rejection landed squarely on the Justice Department's doorstep. Prosecutors, operating out of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office in the District of Columbia, failed to convince even a majority of grand jurors that probable cause existed to indict, The Hill reported. For those unfamiliar with the threshold, probable cause is the floor, not the ceiling. It is the lowest evidentiary standard in criminal law. Prosecutors couldn't clear it.

Johnson, speaking to reporters shortly after the news broke, didn't flinch:

"I think that anytime you're obstructing law enforcement and getting in the way of these sensitive operations, it's a very serious thing, and it probably is a crime. And, yeah, they probably should be indicted."

The six lawmakers in question — Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania — all carry military or intelligence backgrounds. Last fall, they released a video calling on service members to defy what they characterized as "illegal orders."

What the Video Actually Did

Strip away the competing outrage and look at what happened. Six sitting members of Congress, all with national security credentials, recorded a video directing active-duty military personnel and intelligence community employees to refuse orders from their commander-in-chief. Not to seek legal counsel. Not to raise concerns through proper channels. To disobey.

That's not whistleblowing. That's not dissent. That's elected officials attempting to use their platforms to insert themselves into the military chain of command — a chain of command that runs through the president, not through Congress.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, fund the military, and conduct oversight. It does not give individual senators and representatives the authority to countermand presidential directives to the armed forces. There's a reason the Founders separated those powers. These six lawmakers blurred that line on camera, packaged it as patriotism, and distributed it to the people most bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Whether that constitutes a prosecutable crime is apparently a question the grand jury answered in the negative. But Johnson's broader point — that telling service members to disobey orders is a serious matter with potential legal consequences — isn't unreasonable on its face.

Democrats Pivot to Outrage

Kelly and Slotkin wasted no time Wednesday morning, each stepping before reporters with remarks designed to underscore the gravity of the moment. Kelly, a retired Navy captain, described the failed indictment effort as a "master alarm flashing for our democracy" and said it was "straight from the authoritarian playbook."

He then directed his fire at Johnson personally, telling the Speaker to "go back to his office and seriously think about what he says publicly."

Kelly didn't stop there:

"He's the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He's one of the most powerful people in this country. And if he's going to side at every moment with this administration when they are clearly not on the side of the Constitution, I think he's got to really evaluate why he is there and who he is really serving."

Slotkin struck a similar note, suggesting Johnson "should take a beat and remember why he's there and that our Founding Fathers designed this as a separate branch of government to provide checks and balances on the president, not salute like a good boy and do what he says every single time."

Notice the pivot. These are lawmakers who recorded a video directing military personnel to circumvent the chain of command — now lecturing the Speaker of the House about respecting constitutional separation of powers. The irony requires no embellishment.

The Pentagon Moves Separately

While the criminal case collapsed, the administrative consequences haven't. The Pentagon is now looking to censure Kelly and lower his retirement rank — a move that could directly affect his military pension. This is a separate track from the grand jury proceedings, and it signals that even without an indictment, the Defense Department views the conduct as warranting formal rebuke.

For Kelly, a retired Navy captain who has leaned heavily on his military service as a political credential, the prospect of a retirement rank reduction is more than symbolic. It strikes at the very identity he's built his political career around.

The Real Question Nobody's Asking

The grand jury's refusal doesn't vindicate the six Democrats. It means prosecutors didn't present a case strong enough to meet the lowest criminal threshold. That's a failure of the prosecution, not an endorsement of the conduct.

But the larger issue remains unresolved and largely unexamined: what is the appropriate consequence when sitting members of Congress publicly urge the military to disobey the president?

Democrats want to frame this as brave resistance. The word "illegal" in "illegal orders" does a lot of heavy lifting in that framing — it presumes the conclusion. These lawmakers appointed themselves judge and jury on the legality of presidential directives, then broadcast that verdict to the people least free to exercise independent political judgment. An Army sergeant who refuses a direct order because a senator told him to doesn't get to cite constitutional theory at his court-martial.

This is the feedback loop the left has perfected: declare an action illegitimate, encourage resistance to it, then claim victimhood when the government investigates the resistance. The cycle generates sympathetic headlines at every turn. The underlying conduct — elected officials freelancing inside the military command structure — never faces scrutiny.

Where This Goes Next

Johnson's remarks guarantee this story stays in the news cycle. Democrats will fundraise off it. Kelly and Slotkin will frame themselves as constitutional defenders under siege. The Pentagon's administrative action against Kelly will move forward on its own timeline, likely generating another round of outrage.

But the precedent question lingers. If six lawmakers with military backgrounds can record a video urging service members to defy the commander-in-chief and face zero consequences — not criminal, not censure from their own chamber, not even sustained political criticism — then the next group to try it will be bolder.

The grand jury said this wasn't a crime. The Constitution still says Congress doesn't command the troops.