Pentagon to investigate Sen. Mark Kelly for anti-Trump video


The Pentagon on Monday announced it is investigating Sen. Mark Kelly, a critic of President Donald Trump and Navy veteran, after he and fellow Democrats advised troops not to follow illegal orders.

The Pentagon, in a post on X, said it had launched “a thorough review” into Kelly for “serious allegations of misconduct," which could result in recalling the Arizona senator to active duty to court-martial him.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a statement, confirmed that the move was made in relation to a video circulated on social media last week, where Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers reminded American servicemembers of their oath to the Constitution and not to an individual ruler.

“Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately,” Hegseth said.

Kelly, in a statement, dismissed the investigation. “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 said. “I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.”

In the video, Kelly, a retired Navy captain, was shown telling troops: "Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders."

The video also featured Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, as well as Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), all of whom have served in the military.

While the lawmakers did not specify what orders they considered illegal, many Democrats have argued Trump is putting the military in a legal gray area with deadly strikes against suspect drug smuggling boats in Latin America and by deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities.

The Pentagon’s statement cited federal statutes that make it a crime to attempt to “cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty” by military personnel.

“All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful,” the Pentagon said, referring to the military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice. “A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”

The post warned punishment “may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.”

The lawmakers’ comments drew condemnation from Trump supporters, who called it a treasonous act. Trump last week labeled the remarks “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL” and shared a post calling for traitors to be hanged.

He later said in an interview on Fox News radio that he was “not threatening death, but I think they're in serious trouble."

Kelly spent 25 years in the Navy, including flying combat missions during Operation Desert Storm in 1990 and as a NASA astronaut.

The former Navy official, on CBS’s "Face the Nation" on Sunday, said he and his fellow lawmakers have faced increased threats because of the president’s responses to the video. Trump’s “words carry tremendous weight, more so than anybody else in the country, and he should be aware of that,” he said.

Administration officials have previously floated the idea of recalling retired military personnel to active duty to face court martial for alleged crimes.

Former Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley, who sparred frequently with Trump during his first term in office, said he worried he would be charged with treason or sedition by Trump as revenge for their past disagreements.

Kelly is the second opponent of the Trump administration to incur the recent ire of the Defense Department. The Pentagon requested the House investigate whether Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Va.), a retired Army officer whose twin brother was a star witness in Trump’s first impeachment, improperly consulted on behalf of Ukraine after leaving uniform, according to The Washington Post. The freshman lawmaker denies the allegation.



Comments