Pentagon’s Move Against Senator Kelly Draws Bipartisan Criticism
In a surprising turn of events that has sent ripples through Washington’s political landscape, the Pentagon’s decision to investigate Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. The Department of Defense announced Monday it would look into potential disciplinary actions against Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, after he appeared in a video alongside other Democratic lawmakers urging U.S. service members to refuse unlawful orders. This unusual step by the Pentagon has been labeled “amateur hour” by Republican Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, himself a retired Air Force brigadier general, highlighting the bipartisan concern over what many see as an overreach of military authority into legislative independence.
The controversy began when Senator Kelly and five Democratic colleagues – Senator Elissa Slotkin, Representatives Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan, Maggie Goodlander, and Jason Crow – appeared in a video reminding military personnel about their duty to disobey unlawful orders. The Pentagon’s response was swift and severe, announcing it had “received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly” and launched a review that could potentially lead to his recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings. Kelly, who retired from the Navy and NASA in 2011 and joined the Senate in 2020, is uniquely vulnerable among the lawmakers in the video as he remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice due to his retired military status. This situation has created an unprecedented tension between military discipline and congressional independence.
President Trump escalated the situation by suggesting in a social media post that the video represented seditious behavior “punishable by DEATH” and called for arrests, though he later attempted to walk back these comments in a Fox News Radio interview. The newly rebranded Department of War, under Secretary Pete Hegseth, defended its actions, with Hegseth describing the video as “despicable, reckless, and false” and claiming it undermines “good order and discipline” within the military. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt expressed support for the investigation, suggesting Kelly was attempting to “intimidate” active-duty service members and create “disorder and chaos within the ranks” – characterizations that many legal and constitutional experts find troubling.
Constitutional scholars have raised significant concerns about the Pentagon’s actions. Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University, told the Associated Press that “having a United States senator subject to discipline at the behest of the secretary of defense and the president violates a core principle of legislative independence.” This sentiment has been echoed by others who worry about the precedent this sets for military authority over elected officials who have served in the armed forces. Representative Bacon, despite calling the Democrats’ video “unnecessary and foolish,” characterized the Pentagon’s threats of sedition charges and court-martial as “crazy,” urging “common sense and restraint” from all parties involved in the dispute.
Conservative voices outside government have also questioned the Pentagon’s response. Rod Dreher, a conservative author with connections to prominent MAGA figures including Vice President JD Vance, pointed out on social media that U.S. military personnel are indeed legally bound not to follow unlawful orders – the very principle Kelly and his colleagues were emphasizing. Dreher asked, “Is that not true? I didn’t hear him saying ‘don’t obey President Trump.’ What am I missing?” This questioning from within conservative circles suggests the Pentagon’s aggressive stance may have overstepped boundaries that transcend partisan politics, touching on fundamental principles about military service and constitutional governance that many Americans across the political spectrum hold dear.
As the situation unfolds, the timeline for the Pentagon’s investigation remains unclear, as does whether similar actions will be taken against the other lawmakers who appeared in the video but lack Kelly’s current connection to military jurisdiction. What is clear, however, is that this unprecedented confrontation between the Department of Defense and a sitting U.S. Senator has created a constitutional moment that tests the boundaries between military authority, congressional independence, and political speech. The resolution of this conflict will likely establish important precedents for how retired military personnel who serve in Congress can speak about military matters without facing threats of disciplinary action from the executive branch – a balance that will be crucial for maintaining both military discipline and democratic principles in American governance.
