Pentagon Investigating Sen. Kelly Over ‘Serious Allegations of Misconduct’
The Pentagon didn’t elaborate of the allegations.
The Pentagon announced it began an investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) over unnamed allegations.
The department wrote on X:
OFFICIAL STATEMENT:
The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.
The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and 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 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. A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT:
The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations…
— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) November 24, 2025
I’m seeing people connecting the investigation to the video of Kelly and other Congressional Democrats urging the troops to defy President Donald Trump’s orders.
I saw a post responding to that stupid video that explained the steps you take if you think an order is unlawful. I wish I could find it.
But it said something like, “Take it to the chain of command, and if nothing happens, then become a whistleblower to Congress.”
However, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on his personal X account:
The video made by the “Seditious Six” was despicable, reckless, and false. Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of “good order and discipline.” Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in danger.
Five of the six individuals in that video do not fall under @DeptofWar jurisdiction (one is CIA and four are former military but not “retired”, so they are no longer subject to UCMJ). However, Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ—and he knows that.
As was announced, the Department is reviewing his statements and actions, which were addressed directly to all troops while explicitly using his rank and service affiliation—lending the appearance of authority to his words. Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.
The video made by the “Seditious Six” was despicable, reckless, and false. Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of “good order and discipline.” Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in… https://t.co/UvLXChZnmF
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) November 24, 2025
The Democrats said that a person “can refuse orders” and “must refuse illegal orders.”
ACKSHUALLY, that is false, as the Pentagon’s X post says. Military Defense sums it up:
Important Note: All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences—even if ultimately justified.
Because of this legal complexity, service members should consult with legal counsel as soon as they suspect an order may be unlawful. Do not disobey an order without first seeking guidance from a qualified military attorney, unless the order is clearly illegal on its face (e.g., ordering you to shoot unarmed civilians).
Kelly responded with a picture of his medals because, of course. Let’s hide behind your military service:
When I was 22 years old, I commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Navy and swore an oath to the Constitution. I upheld that oath through flight school, multiple deployments on the USS Midway, 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm, test pilot school, four space shuttle flights at NASA, and every day since I retired – which I did after my wife Gabby was shot in the head while serving her constituents.
In combat, I had a missile blow up next to my jet and flew through anti-aircraft fire to drop bombs on enemy targets. At NASA, I launched on a rocket, commanded the space shuttle, and was part of the recovery mission that brought home the bodies of my astronaut classmates who died on Columbia. I did all of this in service to this country that I love and has given me so much.
Secretary Hegseth’s tweet is the first I heard of this. I also saw the President’s posts saying I should be arrested, hanged, and put to death.
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. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.
When I was 22 years old, I commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Navy and swore an oath to the Constitution. I upheld that oath through flight school, multiple deployments on the USS Midway, 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm, test pilot school, four space… pic.twitter.com/jMAlYEozQ6
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) November 24, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Kelly’s response is actually worse than the original video in my opinion. What a buffoon. His military record or the fact his wife was shot means absolutely nothing in this context. It doesn’t give him a “get out of a jail” or “1 free sedition” card. He got played by Slotkin.
I don’t believe Slotkin was the driving force behind this. I think someone with a lot of money “suggested” it.
I bet that someone’s last name starts with an “S” as well.
Kelly is a person who was a single bullet away from anonymity. He built his entire career on his wife’s tragedy.
Just like Sarah Brady using her brain damaged husband as a prop. A shameless hag.
I became tired long ago of people who think serving in the military gave them some type of moral high ground and gravitas to opine than others.
Benedict Arnold had distinguished service as well. Then things went south.
If I were Mark Kelly I would dare this brill creamed b i t c h Pete Hegseth to recall him and prosecute him. No military professional with a shred of integrity would go along with such a kangaroo-court-martial. But speaking of recalling former service members, I’d like to see Hegseth himself recalled and court-martialed for text messaging battle plans to phone numbers he’s not familiar with.
How would a Lefty like you know what a “military professional with a shred of integrity” would go along with?
By the way, it’s “Brylcreem,” Nimrod.
I think it might be Dippity Do he uses. But you seem to be the expert on girlish hair product, so I’ll defer to you on this.
Wipe the smegma off your lips before you respond to me.
Rip all those medals off his chest and throw his sorry derrière in the brig!!!
As a vet (Marines and Air Force), I’m still trying to figure out how a guy promoted to Navy Captain and who was an astronaut–both of which require a significant level of smarts–could be so end-stage stupid vis a vis the UCMJ. I’m inclined to think Kelly returned to earth, but left his brain in orbit.
Democrats, aka communists, believe they’re above the law and it appears they are not wrong.
Possibly one could lose more brain cells than others due to the wear and tear of space travel.
The answer is that he isn’t stupid, and is at no risk at all. Hegseth is completely wrong about this, and Trump is off the wall. Encouraging servicemen to do their duty by refusing illegal orders, in the event that they should ever receive any, is not and cannot be against UCMJ or any other law.
You never served and know nothing of the subject.
You have some good takes once in a while, and some bad takes, but this is so far away from the truth it is astounding. Kelly is purposefully attacking morale and the functioning of the chain of command. He is afoul of both federal law and the UCMJ. He was not ” Encouraging servicemen to do their duty by refusing illegal orders, in the event that they should ever receive any…”. If you believe that you aren’t just the buffoon many make fun of on here, you are a damned idiot.
What do you mean? That is literally exactly what he did, and all he did. How can that be against any law?
What part of what he said was untrue?
Also bear in mind that even actual sedition isn’t and can’t be a crime, unless it meets the Brandenberg criteria. How much more so this video, which wasn’t/I> sedition.
Frontotemporal dementia can make a patient unable to detect sarcasm, innuendo, and double entendre. Have you ever been checked for it?
Kelly is trying to sow confusion. Every military member already knows that he cannot obey unlawful orders. However, as described above, orders are presumed to be lawful unless proven otherwise.
This reminds me of the memo signed by 51 former intelligence officials that the Hunter Biden laptop exhibited the “hallmark of a Russian intelligence operation.”
Although their statement may have been technically true, it was crafted to give the exact opposite impression. As we saw, it worked beautifully because the press ran with it.
And so it is here. This statement clearly had to have been crafted to be deliberately misleading. But first amendment free speech rights have limits in the military. Public speech that criticizes or otherwise undermines the chain of command is generally not permitted.
There is supposedly another video in existence. Maybe it will be enough to nail his ass to the wall.
Not among military members he isn’t. They all know exactly what he told them.
And that is exactly what he told them, so how can it sow confusion? And how can it be a crime?
That is only a presumption. It’s a defense if charged with a crime to say you were following orders. But that defense doesn’t work if you knew the order was illegal. Nor does it work if the order was obviously illegal, even if you didn’t know it. In either of these two cases you will go to prison for obeying the order, and no “presumption of validity” will help you. So how can it be a crime to say so?
The six Democrats’ purpose is obvious, and it has nothing to do with the actual military. It was political and cynical. Exactly like the 51 ex-intel people. That isn’t and can’t be a crime.
“Not among military members he isn’t. They all know exactly what he told them.”
They ALL know, do they?
Retired AF Colonel here, and you, sir, have a really bad case of anosognosia. That malady makes you militantly ignorant of your own ignorance, but pretentious enough to display that proudly. Sad, because it undermines your credibility in other matters where you are much more sensible.
The upshot of all this nonsense the Dims are spewing is that there’s something illegal going on. They know EXACTLY what they are doing with this garbage intended to undermine the legitimacy and authority of the CINC.
I won’t downtick you on this one, but you were absolutely and completely flat wrong.
Senator Kelly:
“I can do no wrong. Am I not Mr. Wonderful?”
He’s a perfect example of politics attracting the type of person least suited for its purpose.
Every single frigging constituent communication he ever sends begins with a paragraph containing “as a former astronaut…” He is full of himself and wants to make sure you know it.
“When I was 22 years old, I commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Navy and swore an oath to the Constitution.”
Hey, Mark — did you know the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution?
Does Hegseth know that the first is also part of it? Does he understand that even actual sedition is protected speech and not a crime, unless it satisfies the Brandenberg criteria for incitement?
Do you understand that the UCMJ overrides the 1st amendment for active and retired service members?
Brandenberg surely does not apply to the military. Military members can and have been punished for speech that undermines the chain of command. The UCMJ still applies to retired officers.
For example, Vindman could have been and should have been court-martialed for his criticism during Trump’s first term. Not sure why they didn’t move forward. The Pentagon settled for red-lining his promotion.
Kelly will probably get a pass because he is a sitting U.S. senator.
It doesn’t and can’t undermine the chain of command to remind servicemen of exactly what they are already trained on, that they must disobey illegal orders.
The issue is that the video implies that illegal orders have already been given. Military members may therefore be questioning whether following these orders has already made them legally vulnerable for carrying out “illegal” orders.
The video does sow confusion because many in Congress states that EVERYTHING Trump does is illegal.
For example, members of Congress have claimed vociferously that National Guard deployments to U.S. cities without the governor’s consent are illegal. So it can cause Guardsmen to question whether their deployment orders are illegal and whether they should refuse to go.
The Ds would love for Guardsmen to publicly decline to deploy to U.S. cities because they believe the orders are illegal. Or they would like them to decline to fire on Venezuelan vessels because there are questions about the legality of these operations.
Both of these examples would undermine the chain of command. There are very likely some very young soldiers, airmen or sailors who disagree with the Trump Administration and may be confused into believing they can refuse orders for these matters.
They will be the ones to pay the price because of the contemptuous statements of these Senators and Congressmen.
You should reply and include a paragraph containing “I was never a former astronaut, but…”
Now if the dear heart had only spoken in session from the Senate floor, he’d be golden (speech and debate clause), am I right?
You are wrong. It makes no difference at all where the speech is made. There is no distinction between the senate floor and anywhere else. Any speech made in someone’s capacity as a congressman, for a legislative or oversight purpose, is protected. And the same applies to congressional staffers.
This is not the UK, where speech is protected only on the floor and not off it.
This is all about blowing the cocaine/fentanyl boats. Why would an American politician be upset at any administration protecting American citizens from such poison. Makes me wonder if they are in the pay of the cartels.
TDS. If Trump is for something, the TDS kicks in and they’re automatically against it.
Doesn’t matter if it’s good for the country or not.
No, it isn’t about that. It’s about hypothetical orders the military may one day get to start rounding people up and putting them in cattle cars. There is absolutely no chance of such orders ever being given, but the Democrats want to create the impression that this is a real likelihood, so long as Literally Hitler™ is in office.
I disagree it’s about ‘hypothetical orders’ just because Slotkin et al refuse to actually identify their specific concerns. In other circumstances the Democrats, likely including some of the six in this commercial, have repeatedly stated that Trump’s orders regarding Venezuelan drug boats and the use of activity duty Regular or NG troops to assist ICE are illegal, among other things they dislike about his actions.
You seem to be resting an awful lot on the claim the ‘actual audience’ for this piece of propaganda is civilians. I don’t think any of the six have made that claim, and a number of folks have noticed this was also an implied threat that if/when the Gen Milley Vanilley clones and pro-tranny Admirals are put back in positions of authority, various orders from Trump will be found to be ‘manifestly illegal’ retroactively, and the officers and men who obeyed them will be punished.
Does your mommy know you have access to her computer ?
No. It isn’t.
They EXPLICITLY stated that the administration was using the military against civilians.
From the transcript–
This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
That is not a ‘hypothetical’.
That is a statement.
And it is a lie.
A seditious lie.
No matter what leftist semantical dance you do, Milhouse, nothing will change that.
Beat me to it. Spot on!
Which is funny, since the PREVIOUS administration did exactly that.
It’s about undermining the chain of command and the authority of the President. So, no, not “free speech.”
DING! No paying down debts via narcotics, CIA. This started happening in the late 1970s with cocaine, and the current narcoministry is deeply entrenched with untraceable operatives, from the top down to the armies of street vagrants willfully competing for the next fix.
The martyr complex is getting old, as is the deception practiced by hoax-mongers that clearly do everything for one reason and one reason only.
As they say, one “oh sh*t” can wipe away a thousand attaboys.
Kelly’s prior actions do not shield him from this monumental error in judgement.
Glenn Beck talked about the 10 steps to civil war. One of the final steps is to fracture the military. The SS (sed six) goal was to do that. Sen. Kelly is expendable to the Dem cause. Illegal voting in Arizona will not save him.
I hope so. Who is the candidate to co test his seat?
I haven’t heard any names here in AZ. Please no Martha McSally again!
Well, you’re not going to hear of any for a while — his seat isn’t up for re-election until 2028.
Kelly, teal, always state that they swore an oath to defend the Constitution, but lapse into amnesia regarding the remainder of the oath that they took and that is ” I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May”. so yes he swore to obey they president, whomever that may be
“(A)according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice” is a qualifying phrase. The UCMJ itself requires service personnel to refuse unlawful orders (and threatens to punish them when they “guess” wrong about an order’s lawfulness – see my post below). So, yes, officers must follow orders, but only when those orders are lawful.
Only the lawful orders.
Kelly has a first amendment right to say stupid shit. The investigation will go nowhere.
Trump and the GOP are going to get creamed in the mid terms because they are not focusing on the 3 Most important things to voters–the economy, the economy and the economy.
Once again, censored.
Tissue, snowflake?
“ACKSHUALLY, that is false…”
Ackshually, that’s proven false in the statement you cited:
“Do not disobey an order without first seeking guidance from a qualified military attorney, unless the order is clearly illegal on its face (e.g., ordering you to shoot unarmed civilians).”
Consulting an attorney is suggested, not mandatory. It helps reduce the exposure of the individual soldier or officer, esp. in situations in which the order isn’t blatantly illegal (and also presumes the situation allows an opportunity for consultation).
The USMJ, in fact, states that service personnel must reject unlawful orders (or face discipline, i.e. “I was only following orders” isn’t a valid defense to a criminal act) and states that service personnel subject themselves to potential disciplinary procedures if they mistakenly refuse a lawful order, thinking it is unlawful.
I consider this schizophrenic. Our entire system of government is built around “checks and balances.” Those “checks” consist of the ability to negate positive action – the Senate can defeat a bill from the House, the POTUS can veto a bill passed by Congress, the courts can strike down laws under limited circumstance (e.g., unconstitutionality), a jury can refuse to convict (jury nullification), etc.. The ability to refuse an unlawful order follows this tradition (and doesn’t suggest the authority to take positive action, merely the authority to refuse to act).
This is theory. In fact, an order refused by some soldiers will be followed by others, unless it is so egregious as to cause a general reaction against its issue. Refusal will almost never actually prevent the execution of any given order. This is not necessarily the point of the authority to refuse an order. Refusal also permits the individual service person to refuse to participate in what he believes is a crime and allows that person to follow the dictates of his conscience (he becomes a temporary conscientious objector – this is required by his oath which considers the oath-taker an independent moral agent, responsible for his own actions – as stated in the soldier’s Code of Conduct – and who is not sworn to “follow orders”).
It’s not schizophrenic, because if someone is charged with obeying an unlawful order, it is a valid defense to claim that they didn’t know it was unlawful, so long as it’s not so obviously unlawful that they should have known.
Rule 916. Defenses
(d) Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.
That is not true. They did not say you “can refuse orders”, they said you “can refuse illegal orders”, and that you must refuse them.
No, it is true and uncontroversial. Servicemen can and must refuse illegal orders. No one disputes this. And while there is a presumption that orders are legal, that doesn’t apply if you know for a fact that an order is illegal, or if it’s “clearly illegal on its face”. In such a case you must disobey, and you can go to prison for obeying.
And that is the only case in which these six Democrats said servicemen should disobey. They simply stated what everyone knows, nothing more.
That doesn’t help you if you’ve been given an order now, and you know it to be illegal. Sending it up the chain doesn’t relieve you of the need to make your own decision in the moment. If you’re given a clearly illegal order you must disobey it.
Again, they only encouraged them to ignore illegal orders, which they already know they must do. They’ve been trained on this. They did not in any way say or imply that legal orders, or even ambiguously legal orders, should be disobeyed. And when specifically asked whether they were aware of any current orders were so blatantly illegal that they should be disobeyed, they said they were not, and that their warning was aimed at hypothetical orders on the level of those tried at Nuremberg.
The actual purpose of their video is perfectly obvious. It was not to warn servicemen of something they already know. It was to create the impression among the general public that Trump is Literally Hitler™, and is thus likely at any moment to give Nuremberg-style orders.
The last paragraph is exactly the issue and don’t forget that Service Members are also seeing it and potentially influenced by it as well as the general public. Young Soldiers do all sorts of stupid crap every day that violates the training they have been given so hanging your hat on ‘but their training’ is a real stretch.
It would be easy to charge, try and maybe convict on ‘conduct unbecoming’ which is the catch all charge for any unlawful conduct not specified by another offense. Under UCMJ the conduct must be something in conflict with ‘good order and military discipline’…which this definitely was. It ain’t ‘sedition’, that’s nutty but ‘conduct unbecoming’ would be very reasonable.
Lawful, unlawful, blah blah, blah. All this amateur lawyering is irrelevant to the issue.
The video “reminding” servicemen of their duty to disobey unlawful orders was an obvious sham orchestrated with the sole purpose of undermining the authority of the commander in chief and disrupting the morale of the military.
Substance over form- Sedition.
F.U.D. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt…. what was the plan… to sow discord. To fracture the military…just in case the Dems want to initiate another and more major nationwide upheaval. This wasn’t a public service announcement. Anyone here wanting to solely discuss this on the merits of “the law” will be slapped up side of the head by reality. Kelly didn’t draw the short straw… he was offered it and ran with it. Now he is all alone having the other 5 of the Sed-Six gone on their merry way. This is now HIS hill and whether he wants to fight it there or back down taking maybe a major reprimand on this record is up to him. He probably knows that somewhere up the line, a Dem president will save him….ah..maybe.
A well-deserved recall followed by a televised court martial and a hanging would send a strong “fuck around and find out” message to seditious behavior…invited tours of the US Capitol excluded.
Sen Kelly may face an issue here. It isn’t settled precedent that a member of the Senate or HoR is able to assert a Congressional privilege of ‘speech/debate’ as a defense to UCMJ. Frankly I don’t see how they could/should be able to do so b/c it would give them carte blanche to undermine ‘good order and military discipline’ by granting immunity for several specific offenses of the UCMJ and elements of others.
DoD can recall retired Service Members. DoD can also recall then investigate and charge them. That was decided by SCOTUS a few years ago, I think in 2020. The legal question is if Kelly committed an offense. IMO the answer is ‘maybe but probably not’ call it 70/30 against. The policy question is should the DoD recall Kelly to conduct an investigation and IMO the answer is yes if only to use a high profile opportunity to throw a ‘brush back’ pitch against these sorts of shenanigans by retired SR officers/political figures who seem to believe they can operate with impunity. The political question is whether recalling him will harm GoP election prospects in the mid terms or ’28 and beyond, here I don’t think so b/c those that would be upset about it already believe (or at least claim) Trump and the GoP are totalitarians, fascists and so on.
“It isn’t settled precedent that a member of the Senate or HoR is able to assert a Congressional privilege of ‘speech/debate’ as a defense to UCMJ.”
Why, that sounds like a complicated issue for which a case might drag on for years and years. And years. So time-consuming. So distracting. So life-disrupting.
I’d sure hate to be the defendant testing it. It might even make me want to go out to buy an assault weapon, except that I can’t find anyone who will sell one to me.
Meh, he stay on Active Service while the case is pending. As he would be supernumerary they can assign him to pull Field Grade Officer of the Day duties every other day (its a 24 Hour duty) during non trial day periods.
Shoot his bald butt back into space and leave him there, “Man Without a Country” style.
He is not a hero. He’s a disgrace.
And, Kelly should offer to make a certain “No!” poster his co-pilot.
He should make it a family trip.
“The Pentagon didn’t elaborate of the allegations.”
Neither did Kelly specify which illegal orders he was taking about while sowing distrust in the chain of command.
Too bad I don’t qualify to be on his Court Martial.
This might be playing into Kelly’s hands, as it could elevate him in a Democrat presidential primary race.
This is a stupid exercise …