A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. has declined to indict six members of Congress whom the Trump administration sought to charge with seditious conspiracy, according to a person familiar with the proceedings. The decision marks another significant setback for the Justice Department’s efforts to pursue criminal cases against individuals personally targeted by former President Donald Trump.

The lawmakers include Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and four additional members of Congress. Prosecutors attempted to bring charges related to the lawmakers’ participation in a video addressed to U.S. service members, in which they emphasized a core principle of military law: that service members have a duty to refuse illegal or unconstitutional orders.

According to sources, the Justice Department presented the case to a federal grand jury in Washington but failed to secure indictments against any of the six lawmakers—going “zero for six.” Grand jurors reportedly concluded that prosecutors did not meet even the low legal threshold of probable cause required to bring criminal charges.

The episode represents a major development in a broader pattern. In recent months, multiple prosecutorial efforts directed at figures criticized or attacked by Trump have stalled or collapsed at the grand jury stage. Legal analysts note that the growing list of failed cases raises questions about the politicization of prosecutorial decision-making during the administration.

The video at the center of the case was not instructional or operational in nature, but rather a restatement of existing military law and constitutional obligations. Legal experts emphasize that the content reflected long-established doctrine: U.S. service members are legally permitted—and in some cases required—to refuse unlawful or unethical orders.

Trump, however, reacted furiously to the video at the time, publicly accusing the lawmakers of engaging in seditious conspiracy. He suggested they should face severe punishment, even raising the prospect of capital consequences. Those statements appear to have been a driving force behind the Justice Department’s attempt to pursue criminal charges.

The grand jury’s refusal to indict underscores how extraordinary the attempted prosecution was. Legal scholars point out that bringing serious criminal charges against sitting members of Congress—particularly multiple lawmakers at once—is virtually unheard of in modern U.S. history. Such cases typically require years of investigation, extensive legal review, and overwhelming evidence due to constitutional protections, including the Speech or Debate Clause.

The closest historical parallel dates back to investigations surrounding former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, involving allegations of improper campaign contributions. Those cases, overseen in part by Jack Smith during his tenure in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, were ultimately abandoned after lengthy investigation due to constitutional and evidentiary concerns.

By contrast, the effort to indict the six lawmakers unfolded rapidly. Within a matter of weeks, prosecutors opened an investigation, sought indictments, and were rebuffed by a grand jury. Observers describe the speed and outcome of the process as unprecedented—and damaging to the credibility of the Justice Department.

The case also adds to scrutiny surrounding the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., which is currently led by an acting U.S. attorney. Critics argue that repeated failed prosecutions suggest internal pressure to pursue cases aligned with presidential grievances rather than prosecutorial merit.

Ultimately, the grand jury’s decision sends a clear signal: disagreement with the president, or participation in constitutionally protected speech, does not constitute a crime. The refusal to indict reinforces long-standing legal boundaries between political conduct and criminal liability—and represents yet another judicial rejection of attempts to weaponize the justice system against perceived political enemies.