Senator, Mark Kelly, Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) and U.S. Secretary of War / Flickr (PD)

Not satisfied with the weaponization of the DOJ, the Trump regime turns to military “justice” to combat resistance to illegal militarization.

Listen To This Story
Voiced by Amazon Polly

When a sitting United States senator — a decorated veteran, test pilot, astronaut, and former naval officer — is publicly threatened with recall to active duty and court-martial for exercising his constitutional rights, we are witnessing more than a legal attack. We are witnessing a gross abuse of power.

On November 24, 2025, the United States Department of Defense announced it was initiating a “thorough review” of Sen. Mark Kelly’s (D-AZ) conduct, citing “serious allegations of misconduct” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 688) and federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2387) regarding interference with the loyalty, morale or good order of the armed forces.

Here is the Department of “War” :

Kelly’s “offense”? Appearing in a video with five other former military or intelligence officers, telling troops that they “can refuse illegal orders.”

Notably, Kelly is the only member of that group subject to Pentagon military jurisdiction as a retired captain — making him uniquely vulnerable to this leverage. That’s why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is only going after Kelly.

So here we have Hegseth — in his capacity as secretary of defense — publicly framing the matter, calling the video “despicable, reckless and false” and stating that “Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.”

Yet all Kelly or any of them did was to repeat what they are taught on Day 1 of their military careers — you are not obligated to execute illegal orders, and in fact you are required to not follow illegal orders or you’ll expose yourself to subsequent accountability. “Just following orders” is not a defense to following illegal orders. Nuremberg, anyone?

Kelly’s response:

Meanwhile to be absolutely clear about the dimension of what’s taking place:

  • The Constitution guarantees “freedom of speech” and the right of members of Congress to engage in political expression — especially when backed by direct experience in the armed forces.
  • That right should not be vulnerable to weaponization of military legal tools — especially when wielded selectively.
  • Threatening a recall of a sitting senator to active duty and court-martial is an extraordinary escalation — one that raises serious separation-of-powers concerns, legislative independence questions, and potential chilling effects on free speech.
  • The legal rationale offered — that a retired officer speaking to troops using his prior rank and affiliation can be subject to discipline for undermining “good order and discipline” — is deeply troubling when applied here, because it conflates legitimate political speech with insubordination.
  • This is not about “illegal orders” in the abstract. It is about a lawmaker exercising his duty to the Constitution, and a Pentagon high command rushing to re-subordinate him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is the opposite of defending the constitutional order; it is subverting it by undermining the independence of one branch of government.

In short: this is not “oversight.” This is intimidation.

And make no mistake: The effect is not limited to Mark Kelly. The message is to every politician, veteran, and citizen who might dare lift their voice against the machinery of power.

The question now is: Will we allow the rules of engagement in our democracy to be rewritten so that political opposition is treated as military insubordination, or, as Hegseth deemed it in a post on X, sedition?

Because if we do, the casualty won’t just be one senator. It will be the integrity of our constitutional system. What’s left of it.

I try to stay balanced and disciplined when I report on the Trump administration, but there are also times when it’s necessary to forcefully take issue with what’s happening. This is such a time.

It’s our collective duty to bear witness in whatever way we can. When you swear an oath to the Constitution, as I did, it doesn’t expire when you retire. This is truly an outrage and I’m not mincing words about it.

As a service to our readers, we curate noteworthy stories through partnerships with outside writers and thinkers. Michael D. Sellers is a former CIA officer currently working as a criminal defense and civil rights investigator. His substack is Deeper Look with Michael Sellers. This column has been adapted with the author’s permission.