The duration of the video was just ninety seconds. Looking directly into the camera, six Democrats—the majority of whom were former military or intelligence officers—reminded service members of something that all recruits learn during their first few weeks of training: they must refuse orders that are illegal. It ought to have been unremarkable. Rather, it has developed into one of the most bizarre political disputes of Trump’s second term, one that now extends far into the Pentagon itself.
Who is spearheading the attack against them is what makes it more bizarre. For the past few months, Defense Secretary and former Fox News host Pete Hegseth has turned that short clip into a personal campaign. By late November of last year, Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona, retired Navy captain, combat pilot, astronaut, and husband of Gabby Giffords, was the subject of an open Department investigation. The Pentagon makes a focused but limited case. As a retired officer, Kelly is technically still subject to military jurisdiction, in contrast to the others in the video. The entire battlefield now consists of that technicality.
It’s difficult to ignore how rapidly the language escalated when you’re sitting outside of this story. Trump shared posts advocating for the lawmakers to be hanged and referred to the video as “seditious behavior, punishable by death.” Within hours, the White House press secretary attempted to walk it back, a move that has become somewhat of a routine. However, the legal apparatus continued to operate despite the persistent threats.
Beneath the cacophony is a genuine question that needs to be addressed directly. What specifically were Kelly and the others reacting to? The context wasn’t subtle, but they never stated it explicitly. American cities had seen the deployment of National Guard troops. In the Caribbean, Navy strikes on suspected drug boats had killed people without a trial, with little justification, and without the kind of legal framework that the military usually needs before firing a weapon. When viewed in that context, the video appears to show anxious officers reciting their oath aloud rather than sedition.
Hegseth has a different perspective. According to his account, Kelly undermined “the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces,” a phrase taken directly from the Uniform Code, by using the appearance of military rank. It’s a thin legal hook. It would be unprecedented to recall a sitting US senator to active duty for a court martial. The majority of attorneys watching this, including some fairly conservative ones, appear to think the case would fall apart as soon as it entered a real courtroom. However, the investigation is still ongoing, suggesting that the verdict may not be the point at all.
That’s where it’s worth stopping. It has already been decided by a federal court that it would be illegal to punish officers for citing their constitutional right to refuse unlawful orders. Despite this, Hegseth is said to have persisted. In an article published in April, The Atlantic argued that the firings, loyalty tests, and reorganization of senior commanders all point to an attempt to ensure that the remaining brass are unconcerned about what might be asked next. Maybe that reading is too gloomy. It might also be precisely correct. Which will be revealed in due course.
For his part, Kelly has not shown any signs of softening. He said, “I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution,” and most listeners knew he meant it. It may not seem like much, but two Republican senators have already defied their party to oppose his censure.
Beneath all the louder worries, there’s a quieter one as you watch this play out. The message to the younger officers has already been sent, regardless of what happens to Kelly. The machinery will come for you if you speak up. It hardly matters if that machinery prevails in court. The point is the chill.