Additional Coverage:
Pentagon Escalates Probe into Senator Mark Kelly Over “Illegal Orders” Video
Washington D.C. – The Pentagon has officially escalated its investigation into U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) concerning a video in which he and five other Democratic lawmakers reminded military members of their duty to refuse illegal orders. The move signals a more formal phase in the probe, with a decision expected within approximately 30 days.
A Pentagon official confirmed that the preliminary review of the Arizona Democrat has been elevated “to an official Command Investigation” regarding “serious allegations of misconduct.”
Senator Kelly, a retired Navy captain, along with five congressional colleagues, drew fierce criticism from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and former President Donald Trump after appearing in the video. Trump labeled the remarks “seditious” and “treason,” while Hegseth referred to it as Kelly’s “sedition video” in a social media post last month. Hegseth further asserted that Kelly “is still subject to the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]” due to his status as a retired Naval officer.
“The video made by the ‘Seditious Six’ was despicable, reckless, and false,” Hegseth stated. “Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline.’ Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion – which only puts our warriors in danger.”
According to Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force judge advocate and current law professor at Southwestern Law School, a command investigation is a formal inquiry typically lasting around 30 days. The investigation must be led by an officer senior in rank to the individual under investigation, meaning at least a one-star Naval officer in Kelly’s case.
The controversy reportedly spilled into a classified briefing this week, where sources indicate Hegseth directly confronted Senator Kelly. During a discussion about U.S. military strikes, Kelly posed a question, prompting Hegseth to pivot and accuse the senator of undermining unit cohesion and the chain of command. Despite Kelly’s attempts to redirect the conversation, Hegseth reportedly continued to dwell on the video, requiring other senators to intervene to get the briefing back on track.
Senator Kelly confirmed the exchange to reporters, describing it as “odd” and “performative” on Hegseth’s part. “Eventually I replied to him, and I said, hey, these are the same views you had in 2016,” Kelly recounted, suggesting Hegseth’s current stance echoed past sentiments regarding a different president. The Pentagon declined to comment on the exchange.
Given the high-profile nature of the situation and the public stances of senior officials, VanLandingham suggests it is “highly unlikely” the investigation will conclude with a finding of no misconduct. She noted that an investigating officer might jeopardize their career by contradicting the clear positions of Hegseth and Trump.
However, the potential punishment remains unclear. VanLandingham deems a court-martial “beyond the pale” and “an abuse of power,” though she outlined potential avenues under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, such as Article 133 (conduct unbecoming of an officer) or Article 134 (conduct that brings discredit upon the armed forces). She described these as “ambiguous military crimes that can be twisted and exploited to unfairly penalize speech.”
Another less severe option could be a secretarial letter of censure from the Secretary of the Navy, a written reprimand without practical consequences for Kelly. Speculation about a reduction in rank, which would affect Kelly’s retired pay and benefits, is unlikely to be legally viable, according to VanLandingham. She emphasized the legal challenges of reducing a retired officer’s rank outside of a court-martial, and the constitutional incompatibility of a sitting senator simultaneously serving as an active-duty military officer.
On Monday, Senator Kelly’s attorneys sent a letter to Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, asserting “no legitimate basis for any type of proceeding” against him, calling any such effort “unconstitutional and an extraordinary abuse of power.” The letter warned of “all appropriate legal action” if the Executive Branch proceeds with any disciplinary action.
Ultimately, VanLandingham contends that the advice offered by Kelly and the other lawmakers is “not different whatsoever” from what military lawyers routinely advise service members during training. She concluded that their statements were both “well within the framework of an appropriate articulation of the law” and their duties as sitting senators and representatives.