By Suzanne Downing 
The Department of War on Monday confirmed it has launched a formal review into serious allegations of misconduct involving Sen.Mark Kelly, also known as Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.), after his appearance in a controversial video urging active-duty troops to question or defy military orders.
The department says the review is being conducted “in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations,” and could result in administrative action or, in more serious circumstances, recall to active duty for potential court-martial.
“This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality,” the Department said in its written statement, adding that further official comments will be limited in order to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. The Department also reminded the public that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses and that federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations, the statement said, will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.
“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 Department noted. “A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
Pete Hegseth, speaking on behalf of the Department, issued a scathing response to the video, describing it as “despicable, reckless, and false.” He said the video, which he referred to as being made by the “Seditious Six,” encourages warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders and undermines “every aspect of good order and discipline.” Their message, Hegseth said, “sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in danger.”
Hegseth emphasized that five of the six individuals appearing in the video are not under Department of War jurisdiction. One, he said, is with the CIA, and four are former military who separated without retiring and are therefore no longer subject to the UCMJ. Kelly, however, is a retired Navy officer and remains legally accountable under military law. “Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ—and he knows that,” Hegseth said.
According to the Department, the review will look closely at Kelly’s decision to address troops directly while explicitly using his rank and service affiliation, which officials say lent the appearance of official authority to his words. The Department’s statement said Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and “will be addressed appropriately.”
Under U.S. military law, retirees may be recalled to active duty to face charges when their alleged misconduct is serious enough or bears directly on the military’s reputation, readiness, or discipline. Such recalls are rare but not unprecedented. In Kelly’s case, legal experts say potential issues could include conduct unbecoming an officer and actions that undermine lawful authority or impair good order and discipline.
The Department has not provided a timeline for the review and has urged restraint as the process unfolds. For now, officials are stressing two parallel points: that Kelly, as a retiree, remains under military jurisdiction, and that active-duty servicemembers have a continuing obligation to obey lawful orders regardless of political pressure, outside commentary, or personal philosophy.
Hegseth’s response further weakens our military and the rule of law. What Mark Kelly said in the video, along with five others, is true; it’s an accurate and brief summary of the laws that servicemen and servicewomen must confront. And it is relevant because Trump is offering scenarios in which they must choose between legal and illegal. Pete Hegseth is a careless, uneducated, firebrand with no relavnt experiance, but he thinks he has a big dick. He wants you to think that.
The video was no crime, but Trump’s suggestion of death to the six is an absolute low that (to paraphrase Trump) we have never seen before. It is likely an impeachable offense. That MAGA cultists can honor Trump’s execution suggestion is a testament they have soiled themselves. How horrible. MAGA cultists would emotionally bleed out if Biden had tweeted something like that.
It is all conjecture and insinuation. In other words ‘gaslighting’. What laws has Trump, the commander in chief, broken? Be specific.
Can you name the orders that were given that caused the service personnel to choose between legal and illegal?
What part is true, what illegal orders are they talking about in the video? If you can’t or won’t answer that question, like the six elected officials in the video, then you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you are simply parroting talking points…but we already knew that.
The Department of War has brought receipts and is citing pertinent sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, yet Evan S Singh is talking about the size of male genitalia…who should we trust on this issue?
Evan, on a side note if you want people to take you seriously then you need to carry yourself and behave in a serious manner. Or just always be the guy who constantly talks about male genitalia, your choice.
If you had watched the video, you’d understand that SPECIFIC illegal orders were not the point, but the GENERAL concept of illegal orders was. However, here’s two examples of illegal orders by Donald Trump. A federal judge has found that Trump violated the Posse Comitatus Act when he ordered National Guard troops to Los Angeles. Same with Washington DC. His unprovoked attacks of Venezualen boats is likely illegal.
You insult me by suggesting that I respect you enough to make your advice worthwhile.
You clearly miss the point of why these elected officials did not name any illegal orders.
Yes, low level Federal courts have continued to issue rulings that higher courts have had to stay or dismiss that is nothing new and isn’t just an issue regarding legale deployment of the National Guard, in fact SCOTUS has recently issued guidance to lower courts about their abuse of power.
It wasn’t advice, it was pointing out the absurdity you chose to display.
Quit waffling Evan and tell us all what specific “illegal order” the troops should in your opinion ignore.
You get all worked up over “scenarios” or stating the fact that treason is punishable by death (via adjudication by the courts), yet you think this veiled suggestion of insubordination from Mark Kelly and his cohorts is totally okay.
What exactly is the “impeachable offense”???
Not sure what anyone’s genitalia has to do with anything, but it seems to dominate your decidedly juvenile statement. You call MAGA cultists, but I would like for you to review your language and statements and assess your own status here.
“You call MAGA cultists, but I would like for you to review your language and statements and assess your own status here.” OK. I reviewed and assessed and I remain the most moral, the most intelligent and the best communicator here.
Evan, thank you for confirming that you have an inflated opinion of yourself, with no room for reflection or allowance that the world does not revolve around Evan.
So since you are so articulate, please answer the question. Which specific order by the president was illegal and no “…. a fact defined by some military code somewhere. ” isn’t cutting it. It only shows that you know nothing.
“Charge the hill!”
“Excuse me officer, first we must assure the legality of such action. We’ll get back to you after the environmental impact study and statement and the OHAS reports are completed and we’ve carefully reviewed them.”
Evan, in the final analysis you simply agree with these 6 lawmakers that our military service members are clearly too stupid to understand or trustworthy enough in their abilities to actually serve with integrity.
That is an arrogant attitude that comports with your inflated claims of sole keeper of morality, lone stalwart of intelligence and singularly acceptable orator…..
It is truly sad that these brave individuals stand up to defend your rights despite your conceit for them and your lack of appreciation for their service.
Treasonous. America used to hang them traitors
Kelly is the man that Hegseth secretly yearns to be.
And let me add…”but has no chance of ever becoming”. Astronaut envy is a thing.
Hegserhwas an actual combat arms soldier, not a swabbie zoomie
Chuck.
Mark Kelly is the embodiment of courage, discipline, and public service—an American hero in every sense of the word.
When–
He flew 39 combat missions during the Gulf War as a Navy aviator before being selected as a NASA Space Shuttle pilot in 1996. Across his distinguished military and aerospace career, Kelly logged over 5,000 tabs in more than 50 different aircraft and completed over 375 carrier landings—the sea
And when he left Earth’s atmosphere, he continued serving this nation with distinction, flying four space missions:
STS-108 (2001)– Pilot
STS-121 (2008) – Pilot
STS-124 (2008) – Commander
STS-134 (2011)– the final mission of Space Shuttle Endeavour.
His list of decorations is long and extraordinary—two Defense Superior Service Medals, a Legion of Merit, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, Air Med (two with Combat “V”), Navy Commendation and Achievement Medals, campaign medals, expeditionary medals, NASA distinctions, and more. His be, Navy Captain, and his breadth of awards far surpass Pete Hegseth’s record. And of course, unlike Donald Trump, Mark Kelly actually served.
Hegseth is none of these thngs.
He has dishonored every single one of those participation awards by violating the Constitution In proposing legislation that violates the Second Amendment and violating his oath of office as A Senator you don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you ” preseve, Protect, and Defend.
It’s interesting that to so many on the left when speaking of others manhood is done so in an insulting manner, especially considering that so many on the left cannot even bring themselves to differentiate between what a man is and what a woman is.
Kellyis a duplicitous twerp. ” oh I’m buying that AR ( that I want to prohibit to the public) for my wife ( after she was shot in the head by a,deranged leftist, and we blamed Palin for it)
UCMJ is very specific about what can and what cannot be said. Encouraging servicemembers to ignore orders is sedition, by definition. Unless there is a specific, unlawful order given that must be countermanded, there is no basis for what Mark Kelly said. He is still under the UCMJ, and he knows it, and he knows that he is liable under those laws. Hence his mealy-mouthed responses over the past two days. He knows he is wrong. Why do so many people with so little understanding of the Military Code of Justice pontificate about freedom of speech? This is not a First Amendment issue. Mark Kelly gave that up when he enlisted.
“ there is no basis for what Mark Kelly said.” Kelly and others reiterated a relevant part of the code. Nothing more or less. You sorta said so yourself!
So wrong! This is Subterfuge and Sedition. It’s like someone suggesting that if Don, Larry or Evan were to try to rob a bank, people shouldn’t go along!
Name one single ‘illegal’ order that President Trump has issued…You can’t Mr. Evan! Know why? Because there hasn’t been one!
Now Evan, you may go look up the definition of both sedition and subterfuge. I’m confident you will need to do so!
18 U.S. Code §2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
Already forgotten by the press is the Seditious Six included the intelligence agencies in their call to revolt. The video was profoundly irresponsible. They crossed the line, they knew this. And now they’re playing the victims.
If it weren’t so deadly serious it would be laughable.