Alert: Massive Development Reported in DOJ's Sedition Case Against Mark Kelly, Others - Bad News for Trump Admin

The office of Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has reportedly declined to move forward with a criminal prosecution against a group of Democratic lawmakers dubbed the “Seditious Six,” according to a Monday report from NBC News.

The decision follows a significant setback for prosecutors after a grand jury in the nation’s capital declined to return indictments in the case roughly 10 days ago. To proceed, Pirro’s office would have needed to seek a second grand jury indictment. NBC, citing unnamed sources, reported that prosecutors have opted not to pursue that route.

While federal authorities could theoretically bring charges in another jurisdiction, NBC noted that “there have been no public indications that will happen.”

At the center of the controversy are Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with Reps. Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan.

The six lawmakers appeared in a November video titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” which urged military service members to disobey orders they believe to be unlawful. The video amassed more than 18.4 million views and ignited a firestorm among critics who argued it crossed a dangerous constitutional line.

Kelly, widely viewed as a potential 2028 presidential contender, later addressed the controversy in an interview with NBC News. His comments did little to quiet concerns among critics who argue the message risked undermining civilian control of the military.

“It’s a tremendous amount of burden on officers in the military. But that is their responsibility. And they can figure it out. You know, a reasonable person can tell something that is legal and something that is illegal,” Kelly said.

Pressed about potential military operations against narco-terrorist vessels, he added:

“I think this administration has tied themselves in knots, the explanations that we have received on how this is all legal. And I was saying weeks ago, my concern is with the service members, that they’re going to — we’re going to put these individuals in a really, really tough decision — tough place,” he continued.

“And, you know, they may find out, you know, down the road, that they did something that is illegal. It is not fair to them. That’s why we need presidents and secretaries of defense who understand the Constitution, who understand the rule of law, and have more respect for the Constitution, and the country and service members, than the whims of a president.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously threatened to recall Navy veteran Kelly to active duty to face potential court-martial proceedings for sedition. However, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon blocked that move in a Feb. 12 ruling.

“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Leon wrote in the decision, as reported by Politico. Leon was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

The grand jury’s refusal to indict, combined with Leon’s ruling, placed significant pressure on Pirro’s office. Slotkin’s attorney, former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, urged the Justice Department to drop the case.

“Members of the military have a duty not to follow unlawful orders, and reminding them of that duty is no crime. The only responsible course is to respect the grand jury’s decision and immediately close the investigation of Senator Slotkin,” Bharara wrote in a letter to the Department of Justice, according to Just the News.

If NBC’s reporting proves accurate, the decision represents a setback for the Trump administration’s effort to draw accountability lines around what President Donald J. Trump has called “SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.”

The episode underscores a deeper constitutional clash: where the line falls between protected political speech and rhetoric that critics argue could erode discipline within the armed forces. For supporters of the president, the concern is clear — encouraging service members to second-guess lawful orders risks injecting partisan politics directly into the chain of command.

With no further indictments currently expected, the legal battle may be over — but the political implications heading into the 2028 cycle are only just beginning.