In an unprecedented turn of events, grand juries in Washington, D.C., have emerged as an unexpected check on federal prosecutorial power, repeatedly refusing to indict defendants on felony charges brought by the Justice Department. This rare resistance comes amid a sweeping crime crackdown ordered by President Donald Trump and enforced by his handpicked U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro. The situation has sparked a heated debate over the use—and possible abuse—of federal prosecutorial discretion, the independence of grand juries, and the broader health of the American justice system.
Since early August 2025, grand juries in the nation’s capital have declined to indict at least seven individuals on felony charges, a phenomenon legal experts say is almost unheard of. According to NPR, prosecutors typically exercise near-total control over grand jury proceedings, presenting only the evidence they choose and needing to meet just the low bar of probable cause—not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As retired federal judge Robert Cindrich put it, “Keep in mind that only the prosecutor is in the room. The only evidence the jury hears is that which the prosecution gives them.”
This sudden streak of grand jury refusals coincides with President Trump’s deployment of federal agents and National Guard troops to D.C. as part of a highly publicized anti-crime initiative that began on August 7, 2025. The White House reported on September 4 that more than 1,800 people have been arrested since the crackdown began, with over 40 cases filed in district court involving serious federal offenses such as assault, gun, and drug charges.
Yet, despite the administration’s aggressive posture, grand juries have repeatedly rebuffed prosecutors’ attempts to secure felony indictments. One of the most notable cases involved Edward Alexander Dana, who was arrested on August 17 after allegedly damaging a light fixture at a local bar and making intoxicated, rambling statements—including threats against President Trump and others. Dana was initially charged with attempting "to make threats to do bodily harm to the President of the United States," but the grand jury refused to indict. Instead, he was held in custody for nearly a week before the federal felony charges were dropped, replaced by misdemeanor charges in Superior Court.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui did not mince words during Dana’s September 4 hearing. According to USA TODAY, the judge lambasted Pirro’s office and the Justice Department for filing federal felony charges they couldn’t convince a grand jury to approve. “It's not fair to say they're losing credibility. We're past that now,” Faruqui said. “There's no credibility left.” He went on to question why the federal case against Dana wasn’t dismissed sooner and ordered Pirro’s office to explain what it was doing “to remedy what happened to Mr. Dana.” Faruqui even raised the possibility of expunging Dana’s arrest record, emphasizing that “the U.S. Attorney should only commence prosecution if she believes ‘that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.’”
This wasn’t an isolated incident. Legal experts told USA TODAY that Dana’s case was at least the fifth recent instance where D.C. grand juries refused to indict on felony charges brought by Pirro’s office. In another high-profile case, Nathalie Rose Jones of Indiana was arrested on August 16 for allegedly threatening to kill President Trump on social media and in an interview with Secret Service agents. Despite the Justice Department’s insistence that “threatening the life of the President is one of the most serious crimes and one that will be met with swift and unwavering prosecution,” the grand jury again refused to hand up a felony indictment.
Perhaps the most symbolic case involved Sean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department worker accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal immigration officer. Prosecutors charged Dunn with felony assault of a law enforcement officer—a crime carrying up to eight years in prison—but the grand jury wasn’t buying it. As Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, told NPR, “That crime requires that the prosecutor prove an intent to kill or seriously harm from a sandwich being thrown at you. Come on.” Dunn ultimately faced only a misdemeanor charge, which carries up to a year in jail. In the days that followed, posters of Dunn tossing a sub sandwich appeared across D.C., turning him into an unlikely symbol of resistance for some residents.
The wave of grand jury refusals has prompted a variety of reactions. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has been vocal in her criticism, telling NPR, “the system here is broken on many levels.” She accused grand juries of being politicized and refusing to abide by their oath to follow the law, particularly in cases involving threats against President Trump. Pirro’s office has maintained its commitment to charging federal felonies as aggressively as possible as part of the administration’s anti-crime agenda.
Yet, others see the grand jury pushback as a sign that the system is, in fact, working as intended. Retired Judge Cindrich argued, “The citizen, in the end, in the American system of justice, is the final arbiter.” Kevin Flynn, a former D.C. prosecutor with decades of experience, called the recent trend a failure of prosecutorial discretion. Flynn noted that, despite a combined 60 years in the office between himself and a colleague, neither had ever seen a grand jury refuse to indict—until now. He criticized the reported directive from Pirro’s office to “paper every single case that the police bring in,” calling it “prima facie asinine.”
Legal scholars like Professor Butler have suggested that grand juries may be resisting indictments either because prosecutors failed to meet even the low standard of probable cause or because jurors are more troubled by the government’s actions during the crackdown than by the alleged crimes themselves. “Either the jurors thought that the prosecutors hadn't proven even the low standard of probable cause, or it could be that they're more bothered by what the government did than what the defendant is accused of doing,” Butler explained to NPR.
For longtime D.C. residents, the crackdown and its fallout have sparked a range of emotions. Some, like Ashley, see the acts of defiance—however small—as reminders that “small acts of rebellion can help.” Others, like Jackie, who has lived in the city for 60 years, oppose the heavy presence of federal agents and National Guard troops but caution against mistreating police officers. “I don't think policemen deserve that, you know? Say what you want to say about them, but I don't think we should mistreat them,” she told NPR.
Statistically, the current wave of grand jury refusals is extraordinary. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics data from 2010, federal grand juries issued a “no true bill” in only 11 out of approximately 162,000 cases—just 0.0068% of the time. That means grand juries sided with prosecutors more than 99.99% of the time. The recent spate of refusals in D.C. stands in stark contrast to this historical norm, raising questions about the balance between crime control and civil liberties, prosecutorial judgment, and the enduring role of citizens in the American justice system.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: D.C.’s grand juries have sent a message that even in times of heightened federal enforcement, the people retain the power to check government overreach—one case at a time.
