The decision to punish Senator Mark Kelly for reminding soldiers that they must refuse illegal orders marks a dangerous turning point. By redefining a legal obligation as sedition and using military authority to sanction civilian political speech, the US government crosses a line long respected in democratic systems. This is not routine politics. It is a stress test for the rule of law itself.
When refusing illegal orders becomes sedition
What happened to Mark Kelly should unsettle anyone who still believes that the rule of law, rather than personal loyalty, is the foundation of democratic government.
Kelly, a sitting United States senator and a retired Navy captain, appeared in a video with several other members of Congress. The message they conveyed was simple, direct, and legally uncontroversial. Members of the armed forces are not merely allowed to refuse illegal orders, they are required to do so. This obligation is embedded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, reinforced throughout officer training, and grounded in international law shaped by the catastrophic failures of the twentieth century.
For stating this, the Pentagon, now explicitly referred to by its leadership as the “Department of War”, has moved to review Kelly’s retirement rank and pension. The action was announced publicly by Pete Hegseth, who left little ambiguity about his intent. In a public statement on X, Hegseth wrote:
“Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly and five other members of Congress released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline. As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he is still accountable to military justice. And the Department of War and the American people expect justice.
Therefore, in response to Senator Mark Kelly’s seditious statements and his pattern of reckless misconduct, the Department of War is taking administrative action against Captain Mark E. Kelly, USN (Ret). The department has initiated retirement grade determination proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f), with reduction in his retired grade resulting in a corresponding reduction in retired pay.
To ensure this action, the Secretary of War has also issued a formal Letter of Censure, which outlines the totality of Captain Kelly’s reckless misconduct. This Censure is a necessary process step, and will be placed in Captain Kelly’s official and permanent military personnel file.
Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response. The retirement grade determination process will be completed within forty five days.
Captain Kelly’s status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.
These actions are based on Captain Kelly’s public statements from June through December 2025 in which he characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders. This conduct was seditious in nature and violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which Captain Kelly remains subject as a retired officer receiving pay.
Source: Pete Hegseth, statement on X, January 2026, https://x.com/SecWar/status/2008189258528665898
This statement is remarkable, not only for what it claims, but for what it reveals about the current understanding of power and law.
At the heart of Hegseth’s argument is a profound inversion. Kelly is accused of sedition for telling soldiers to refuse illegal orders, while the legal obligation to assess the legality of orders is treated as subversive. The claim that this advice undermines discipline rests on the assumption that discipline requires obedience even when commands cross legal boundaries. That assumption is explicitly rejected by military law itself.
This is not a marginal interpretive dispute. The duty to refuse illegal orders exists precisely to prevent atrocities, unlawful wars, and the moral collapse of armed forces under political pressure. It is a safeguard against the abuse of power, not a threat to order.
The deeper issue is not whether the Department of Defense can, in theory, review the retirement status of an officer. The issue is why this authority is being exercised here, now, and against whom. Kelly made these statements as an elected civilian official, in a political context, addressing constitutional limits on military power. Using military administrative mechanisms to punish that speech is a direct collision between civilian politics and military discipline.
Kelly was not chosen randomly. He is the only participant in the video who still receives military retirement pay. That makes him uniquely vulnerable. It also makes him useful as an example. The message being sent is not subtle. If you once wore a uniform, and if you publicly challenge the legality of government actions, the state may still reach back and sanction you.
This is how chilling effects are created in systems that wish to avoid overt repression. You do not need mass arrests or new laws. You need selective enforcement, visible punishment, and language that reframes dissent as misconduct.
That choice of words is doing real work. Calling the Pentagon the “Department of War” is not a stylistic flourish or an innocent throwback. It reflects a way of thinking in which political disagreement is recast as a form of internal hostility and in which loyalty is elevated above legality. Once that frame is accepted, constitutional rights no longer function as firm limits. They apply only so long as they do not obstruct power.
Some will argue that safeguards still exist. Courts may intervene. Procedures are being followed. This, they will say, is merely an administrative matter. Perhaps. But democratic backsliding almost never arrives with a single dramatic rupture. It moves through precedent and exception, through small steps that slowly become normal, through actions that would once have been unthinkable but are gradually absorbed as routine.
Sanctioning a senator for reminding soldiers of their legal duty is not ordinary political conflict. It is a test. A test of whether law still restrains authority, or whether authority now reserves the right to define what counts as lawful.
If this action is allowed to stand, the lesson will be learned quickly. Obedience outweighs legality. Loyalty outweighs principle. Silence is rewarded more than clarity.
That is not drift or misunderstanding. It is deliberate movement, in a direction far more familiar to systems that demand submission to power than to democracies grounded in obedience to the law.