Sen. Mark Kelly and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel shrugged off a Department of War probe into a video where six Democrats urged service members to “refuse illegal orders,” arguing the inquiry is more political theater than a real accountability measure. The exchange on Kimmel’s show highlighted sharp disagreement about the proper limits of civilian criticism and the military’s chain of command, while raising questions about how retired officers and lawmakers should engage with active-duty troops.
The core controversy began when Kelly joined five other Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds in a video urging service members to “refuse illegal orders” in certain circumstances. That appearance is represented by the embedded element below and prompted a formal response from the Department of War.
On Kimmel’s show the host pushed hard with skepticism. “You have Pete Hegseth, who runs the Department of War, is going to open an investigation into you, I assume into your colleagues. You will have to be interviewed by the FBI. And they’re trying to find what exactly? I mean, what even is sedition?” Kimmel asked.
Kelly answered by tying the pushback to political pressure and to his own knowledge of the confirmation process. “Well, this is the investigation because of what Donald Trump said, from what I can tell. And I don’t know Pete Hegseth well,” Kelly said. “I sit on the committee that ultimately had to confirm him. So I know a little bit about his background. He’s totally unqualified … And from what I can tell, and talking to some of my Republican colleagues, I mean, he just wants to please the president. And this is what he can do this week.”
The Department of War took a different tone and reminded the public that veterans and retirees can still be subject to military law. “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,” the Pentagon stated. “Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.”
That formal notice matters because Kelly is a retired Navy captain and remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and potentially eligible for recall. The department made clear that retired status carries legal responsibilities that active critics can overlook when they reduce a public warning to partisan back-and-forth.
Hegseth labeled the group of lawmakers the “seditious six” in an X post and emphasized that actions undermining military order would be handled. Hegseth to the Democratic lawmakers as the “seditious six” in an X post on Monday and clarified that Kelly is still beholden to the Uniform code for Military Justice (UCMJ). He stated that Kelly’s conduct will be “addressed appropriately.”
https://x.com/SenatorSlotkin/status/1990774492356902948
Critics from the right argue this was never just about free speech; it was about the rare, clear line between political commentary and direct appeals to active-duty personnel to disobey orders. From a Republican perspective, urging service members to pick and choose obedience risks the cohesion and discipline the military depends on, and that deserves scrutiny rather than dismissal.
Democratic defenders cast the video as a conscience-driven appeal against unlawful directives, but their testimony on other outlets complicated that narrative. Some participants struggled to point to a specific illegal order as an example, which leaves their call sounding abstract and risky to those who prioritize chain-of-command stability.
WATCH:
!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=”https://rumble.com/embedJS/u3rtroj”+(arguments[1].video?’.’+arguments[1].video:”)+”/?url=”+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+”&args=”+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, “script”, “Rumble”);
Rumble(“play”, {“video”:”v702ycm”,”div”:”rumble_v702ycm”});
There is also the political context to consider: the president reacted strongly online, suggesting the six Democrats committed crimes “punishable by death” in a Nov. 20 post, which only escalated attention and made legal review inevitable. That kind of rhetoric adds fuel to the fire and helps explain why the Department of War felt it needed to make a public statement about rules and consequences.
The episode makes clear that when former military officers step into partisan disputes, their words are judged against both civilian norms and military law. Republicans will argue the department was right to push back and remind everyone that protecting order inside the ranks is not a partisan favor but a national security necessity.
1 Comment
When, in history, has such a declaration been made by a political opposition person or party? This is new, untested ground and must be decided right now whether such anti-government individuals can encourage sedition, and get away with it, or not. If I tell a person that he is free to kill someone and they do it, am I guiltless? I doubt it. Today’s left wing actors are losing badly in the political arena and are doing all they can to disrupt the current administration – with no plan to replace it. They must be stopped.