Grand Jury Declines Seditious-Conspiracy Indictments Against Senators Kelly and Slotkin — Democrats Call It An Abuse Of Power

A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., declined to return indictments against Senators Mark Kelly (D‑Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D‑Mich.) on rare seditious conspiracy charges after prosecutors sought to tie the lawmakers' public statements urging service members to refuse unlawful orders to criminal conduct.

The decision — reported by MS NOW and covered in national outlets — is the latest high‑profile "no bill" outcome encountered by the Justice Department in recent months. Prosecutors had presented the allegations to a grand jury following a November campaign of public criticism from conservative figures and allies of former President Donald Trump. Critics say the matter reflects broader concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department.

What Happened

According to reports, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, which has been overseen by Jeanine Pirro — a prominent Trump ally — authorized prosecutors to present the case to a grand jury. The panel of ordinary citizens ultimately rejected the effort to criminalize the lawmakers' statements.

'It was remarkable that the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington — led by Jeanine Pirro, a longtime ally of Mr. Trump’s — authorized prosecutors to go into a grand jury and ask for an indictment. … But it was even more remarkable that a group of ordinary citizens sitting on the grand jury in Federal District Court in Washington forcefully rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to label their expression of dissent as a criminal act warranting prosecution.'

Legal Context

Seditious conspiracy is a grave federal felony that is rarely pursued. Legal experts and many observers described the attempt to apply that charge to members of Congress who publicly urged adherence to the law and encouraged service members to refuse unlawful orders as extreme and unprecedented.

Sens. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., greet Marine Corps Gen. Michael E. Langley, commander of the U.S. Africa Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 3, 2025, in the Dirksen Building.(CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag)

Political Reactions

Democratic leaders and lawmakers reacted angrily. Senator Mark Kelly called the prosecutors' move "an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackeys." Representative Jason Crow, an Army veteran, warned that attempts to intimidate lawmakers would not succeed and said "the tide is turning."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries issued a statement praising the grand jury's decision as a defense of constitutional rights and condemning what he described as efforts to weaponize the criminal justice system. In his remarks he named former President Trump and Jeanine Pirro as central figures in what he called a politically motivated campaign.

Why It Matters

The grand jury's decision has intensified partisan debate over the boundaries of protected political speech, the proper role of prosecutors in politically charged disputes, and whether the Justice Department is being used as a political tool. Supporters of the lawmakers said the outcome vindicated constitutional protections; critics said it highlighted troubling investigations initiated by a politicized DOJ.

This article synthesizes reporting from MS NOW, The New York Times and other outlets and corrects earlier imprecise characterizations in local commentary. The grand jury's refusal to indict now serves as a flashpoint in ongoing discussions about presidential influence, prosecutorial discretion, and the legal risks of charged political rhetoric.