On November 24, 2025, the Pentagon made waves in Washington and beyond by announcing an official investigation into Senator Mark Kelly, the former astronaut and retired Navy captain now serving Arizona in the U.S. Senate. The probe centers on Kelly’s participation in a video—released just days prior—that urged members of the military to refuse "illegal orders." The move has set off a firestorm of controversy, plunging the Pentagon into the political spotlight and raising questions about the boundaries between military law, political speech, and legislative independence.
The video in question, released on November 18, 2025, featured Kelly alongside five other Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds: Senator Elissa Slotkin and Representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan. In it, the group addressed U.S. service members directly, emphasizing the primacy of the Constitution and the obligation to reject unlawful commands. Kelly’s words were unequivocal: "You can refuse illegal orders," he said, echoing a principle enshrined in U.S. military law since World War II.
Yet, as reported by the Associated Press, the Pentagon’s response was swift and severe. Citing a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty for court-martial or other disciplinary measures, the Pentagon stated that Kelly’s actions might have interfered with "the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces." Their statement underscored the unusual nature of the move, noting that such investigations into retired officers—let alone sitting senators—are exceedingly rare.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking on his personal X account, explained the rationale: Kelly is the only lawmaker in the video still under Pentagon jurisdiction due to his retired status. "Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately," Hegseth wrote, adding that the senator’s message lent "the appearance of authority" because he explicitly referenced his rank and service.
The video’s timing is no accident. Its release came as the Trump administration ordered the military to take aggressive action against suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific, and continued controversial deployments of the National Guard into U.S. cities. The lawmakers, without naming specific incidents, made clear their intent: to remind troops of their legal and ethical responsibilities should they face questionable orders.
President Donald Trump, however, seized on the video as evidence of sedition. In a series of explosive social media posts, he accused the lawmakers of being "traitors" and declared their actions as "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" Trump doubled down days later, insisting the legislators "SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW." The rhetoric drew immediate condemnation from Democratic leaders, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accusing Trump of using the Pentagon "as his personal attack dog" and warning, "this is what dictators do." Arizona’s other Democratic senator, Ruben Gallego, added, "Mark told the truth—in America, we swear an oath to the Constitution, not wannabe kings."
Kelly himself was quick to respond to the Pentagon’s announcement. In a defiant statement, he said, "If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work." He continued, "I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution." Kelly’s comments struck a chord with many who see the investigation as a test of the balance between civilian oversight and military discipline.
Legal experts are divided on the question of whether the Pentagon can—or should—pursue court-martial proceedings against a sitting U.S. senator. Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor, told the Associated Press there has been "a quiet but significant uptick in courts-martial of retired servicemembers, even for post-retirement offenses" in recent years. While the constitutionality of such cases is debated, the practice remains legal under current precedent.
But Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University, argued that Kelly’s status as a senator complicates matters. "Having a United States senator subject to discipline at the behest of the secretary of defense and the president—that violates a core principle of legislative independence," he said. Kreis pointed out that the U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent exactly this kind of executive overreach, recalling the British monarchy’s history of punishing members of Parliament for political reasons. "Any way you cut it, the Constitution is fundamentally structurally designed to prevent this kind of abuse from happening," Kreis concluded.
The Pentagon, for its part, maintains that service members—including retirees who continue to receive benefits—are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ holds that military personnel must obey lawful orders, and that orders are "presumed to be lawful." The Pentagon’s statement emphasized, "A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order." However, it also acknowledged the longstanding legal precedent that troops are obligated to reject unlawful orders—a lesson seared into history by the postwar Nuremberg Trials, where "just following orders" was rejected as a defense for atrocities.
Despite the high-profile nature of the dispute, the video’s actual reach within the military community appears limited. According to a former service member who helps run an online military forum, the message is unlikely to resonate with rank-and-file troops because the video was posted almost exclusively on X and was too long for platforms like TikTok, where younger service members typically consume information.
The Pentagon’s move comes amid a broader climate of political tension and violence, as noted by Al Jazeera. In recent months, the U.S. has been rattled by the assassination of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk and the killing of Democratic Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman. Against this backdrop, the investigation into Kelly is seen by many as part of a wider pattern of federal agencies—led by Trump appointees—responding to political grievances. The Department of Justice, for example, recently pursued now-dismissed criminal charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, cases that critics argue were politically motivated.
For now, the Pentagon’s review of Kelly’s actions remains ongoing, with possible outcomes ranging from administrative measures to an unprecedented recall to active duty for court-martial. The case has already sparked debate over the limits of free speech, the independence of Congress, and the proper role of retired military officers in public life. As the investigation unfolds, one thing is certain: the boundaries between politics and the military, already blurred, are being tested as never before.
The story of Senator Mark Kelly’s video, and the Pentagon’s extraordinary response, underscores just how fraught the intersection of law, loyalty, and politics has become in today’s America.
