Hegseth Moves to Review Retirement Rank, Pay of Sen. Kelly Over Seditious Video
“To ensure this action, the Secretary of War has also issued a formal Letter of Censure, which outlines the totality of Captain (for now) Kelly’s reckless misconduct.”
Department of War Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that he has taken steps against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) for participating in a video encouraging military members to defy President Donald Trump.
Hegseth wrote on X:
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 (for now) 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,” Hegseth added. “The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.”
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…
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) January 5, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Ensign Kelly sounds about right
Nope. That was Heinlein’s rank. Kelly needs to be stripped of all rank.
Your Yeoman Purser Kelly has a nice ring to it too.
Hegseth would know plenty about recklessness. Boring theater
You misspelled Putz.
Shouldn’t you be shilling for Maduro instead of on behalf of a low rent useful idiot?
Well someone has his marching orders from Soros and sons,
He will most likely reduced to Lt with a corresponding reduction in retirement pay. The letter of admonishment and the reduction in rank will be in his permanent record. Might just get a change in his discharge to “good of the service”.
A reduction of 3 steps (O-6 to O-3) seem like a lot. Where is James Nault when we need him? He knows this Navy stuff.
Even though I believe Kelly an idiot, he earned his pension honorably and that should be sacrosanct. It is wrong that while retired he is subject to disciplinary action for non military related offenses
Did his oath expire?
Seems like telling troops to disobey orders is clearly “military related”.
Please show where the idiot Kelly told troops to disobey lawfully given orders.
Retired officers are still considered part of the military and remain subject to the UCMJ. In part, retired pay is considered to be “retainer” since retirees can be recalled to active duty.
Administrative punishment short of courts martial may be used and includes reduced pay and reduction in rank. These punishments can be applied to both active duty and retired members.
Administrative punishment may be appealed to the next higher level of command. Since the punishment was issued by the Secretary of War, presumably the next level of authority would be POTUS.
The written statement refers to “reckless misconduct” which will be hard to disprove. Regardless of Kelly’s intention, many people including me viewed his statements as undermining the chain of command. Since Kelly violated the terms of his “retainer”, I have no problem with his losing rank and pay.
Not to be trite but like it or lump it SCOTUS ruled on this point a couple years ago and held that certain categories of retired service members remain subject to UCMJ and if necessary recall to AD to face trial. I find it hard to believe Senator Kelly was unaware of the potential for consequences b/c that was pretty well publicized, especially among Veterans and considering that as a sitting US Senator he was in a position to offer legislation to end the DoD authority over retired Veterans.
It’s not “wrong,” it’s the law, law Kelly should know well enough. Retired officers are subject to certain rules and laws that (merely) former officers and NCOs aren’t subject too. As I would have said decades ago during my service, Kelly stepped on his dick in a very public way. He put himself in the crosshairs, challenging the Secretary to pull the trigger. Unwisely, it turns out.
He would be reduced to the last rank he honorably held. That is the punishment. He can’t be busted down to the lowest rank in the Navy even if it were appropriate.
I love some of the commentators elsewhere not realizing that a retired officer is still subject to UCMJ and can be recalled to active duty and prosecuted in a military court. Mr Gabby Gifford knows this but let his TDS override is good sense and now might just pay for it.
His retirement rank ought to be ‘Prisoner #123″ at Leavenworth.
Reduction in rank is often to the grade at which the officer last honorably served–in Kelly case, commander.
With apologies to Tom Wolfe and his work The Right Stuff:
“There’s a demon out there at Mach FAFO.”
Pour encourager les autres
legal or not
it is a bad approach that the dems are using to endanger not only their fellow military members but the citizens of the usa with this blmplo screed
Now would be a super time for the White House to “leak” how much USAID money ended up at Giffords.org during the Biden years, and claw it back.
Personally I think Kelly should dance Danny Deever for trying to incite a mutiny, but can Hegseth do this absent a court martial?
No, he can’t, and a court martial would acquit.
No. No one can do that without a courts martial. That is not on the table anyways. Reduction in rank and pay would be about it. Probably, unless Hegseth ordered Kelly back to active duty and went after him for sedition which is unlikely.
Anybody believing that he will lose rank is getting way out infront of their skis. A letter of censure is an administrative action. While he will go before a grade determination board, the standards for taking away his are quite high and will be judged against all of the other cases where a person lost rank.
For example, a Colonel at Ft. Lewis Washington held his family hostage, and had been abusive to his family and subordinates over years. He was permitted to retire as at rank, despite being criminally charged and later convicted.
The public reading rook for all SECNAV Letters of Censure can be found here: https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/casefiles/forms/allitems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Ffoia%2Freadingroom%2FCaseFiles%2FSecretarial%20Letter%20of%20Censure
As another point of reference: almost none of the censured retired officers from the Fat Leonard scandal had their ranks reduced, despite their malfeasance occuring on active duty.
The process is the punishment.
The cases you cite didn’t involve an attempt to disrupt order and discipline (potentially reducing combat effectiveness) at an agency (Dept of War) level. Such an attempt threatens national security and risks the lives of service members and possibly civilians as well. This is a big-league transgression.
The rub here is that the Navy is choosing to take an administrative action on;y and not judicial action. There is not a single example in the last 30 years (that is as far back as I can check) of the Navy reducing the rank of a time in grade qualified officer who has only received a Letter of Censure. Where as, there are plenty of example where rank has not been taken even from those who received a Letter of Censure and some type of judicial action. The Boards have to be consistent in their application of the law and regualtions. And…this is before we come to the unique aspects that this is perhaps the first time on modern record that a person will receive a letter of censure for acts committed after they retired from active duty.
If the allegations are that Kelly engaged in seditious behavior than let him be charged for such and be prosecuted under UCMJ (should that court still apply to him.) If he is not subject to court-martial he can still be charged for sedition and face civilian prosecution.
There is no civilian prosecution for sedition, because the Sedition Acts of the 1790s were unconstitutional, and so has been every similar act since. None of them are enforceable.
The first amendment protects all advocacy, including advocating the violent overthrow of the US government, unless it crosses the line into actual incitement or true threats.
In this case there wasn’t even any advocacy of anything illegal. So in a civilian court any charges would be laughed out of court.
What is legal for a civilian can be improper for a commissioned officer (in the military or in LE). Impropriety can be punished even when criminality is absent.
Try being a commissioned LEO and acting the fool and see what can happen to you, even though “acting the fool” isn’t illegal.
FYI, even though I wasn’t a commissioned officer, the police agency I worked for attempted to discipline me for off-duty activity that didn’t involve my work. (Fortunately if became obvious that my accuser had been put up to make a false complaint.) So, yeah, illegality isn’t a prerequisite for disciplinary action. When you volunteer to serve/work for the military of the police, you also voluntarily subject yourself to codes of conduct that allow adverse findings against you for non-criminal acts.
The topic was specifically about civilian prosecution. “If he is not subject to court-martial he can still be charged for sedition and face civilian prosecution.” My reply is that there is no such thing.
The UCMJ allows a commander (in this case, the Sec of War) the discretion to pursue a court martial (a trial before a board of officers) or an administrative process. The latter can impose lesser penalties (reduction in rank/pay, fines) than the former (which can impose prison sentences). Hegseth is taking the path of least resistance in a situation in which a court martial is the far more difficult row to hoe.
An administrative action is by its very nature non punitive. However, it can be considered for future personnel action. Ironically, one of the SECWARs directives from 30 September limits the lasting impact of such administrative actions. The service gets one bite at the apple to consider it for promotion (i.e. a soldier get a Replimand as an O2, that letter is considered for their O3 promotion board, but will not be considered for their later promotion boards).
“…the path of least resistance in a situation in which a court martial is the far more difficult row to hoe.”
Why is that? The video speaks for itself. It was sedition pure and simple. Here’s the definition:
“…the path of least resistance in a situation in which a court martial is the far more difficult row to hoe.”
Why would that be? His video speaks for itself. Here’s the definition of sedition:
sedition /sĭ-dĭsh′ən/
noun
1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
Insurrection; rebellion.
2. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.
The video is itself a confession of sedition. Not much to prove there. Is sedition not addressed in theUCMJ?
The UCMJ is plenty powerful enough without having to bring this into a civilian court.
Kelly is still subject to UCMJ so a civilian court is not needed.