“Prosecuting lawmakers for their speech is a clear assault on the most basic of American freedoms.” —Pete Buttigieg
WASHINGTON — Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg condemned an effort by federal prosecutors to charge six Democratic lawmakers over a video message aimed at service members, arguing that criminally pursuing elected officials for political speech crosses a constitutional line.
“Prosecuting lawmakers for their speech is a clear assault on the most basic of American freedoms,” Buttigieg wrote in a post on X late Tuesday. He said a federal grand jury “stopped this in its tracks,” but added that the case “should never have gotten this far.”
Buttigieg’s comments came after a grand jury in Washington declined to indict Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. The Justice Department had investigated whether the lawmakers’ recorded message — which urged military personnel to refuse unlawful orders — violated federal law by undermining morale or discipline.
The attempted prosecution drew rapid backlash from Democrats and civil liberties advocates, who framed it as an extraordinary escalation that could chill speech by elected officials, veterans and national security professionals. Supporters of the investigation argued that public officials should not be treated as immune from scrutiny when speech touches military discipline — a sensitive area with long-standing legal limits.
According to Reuters, the effort was led by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro in Washington. The report described the Justice Department’s attempt as unsuccessful after the grand jury refused to bring charges.
The underlying dispute traces back to a video posted by the lawmakers, many of whom have military or intelligence backgrounds. In the message, they urged service members to follow the Constitution and reject unlawful directives — language the lawmakers said reflected standard training and established obligations, not a call to disobey lawful authority.
Kelly and Slotkin have said the investigation was politically motivated, pointing to public pressure from President Donald Trump and allies who argued the lawmakers should be prosecuted. The Washington Post reported that prosecutors pursued charges tied to influencing military loyalty or discipline and explored more serious theories, but grand jurors declined to approve the case.
In public statements reported by AP and Reuters, Democrats portrayed the episode as part of a broader concern about the use of federal power against political opponents. Republicans have been more divided, with some defending the scrutiny and others warning that criminalizing political speech sets a dangerous precedent.
The Justice Department has not released a detailed explanation of the investigation or its next steps. Under federal practice, prosecutors can sometimes continue investigating even after a grand jury declines to indict, though such outcomes are relatively uncommon given the low legal threshold required to bring charges.
Buttigieg’s post did not mention the lawmakers by name, but it echoed the central Democratic argument: that elections, not prosecutors, should resolve political disagreements — and that a grand jury’s refusal to indict does not erase the chilling effect of an investigation in the first place.
