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.

Truth Social ^ | Jan 05, 2026, 8:53 AM | Secretary of War Pete Hegseth✓ @SecWar

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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. The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.

Captain Kelly’s status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.

These actions are based on Captain Kelly's public statements from June through December 2025 in which he characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders. This conduct was seditious in nature and violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which Captain Kelly remains subject as a retired officer receiving pay.

[13foxtrot]

Preparations for the Maduro raid were going on during this time. I assume Kelly and the rest of the Traitorous Six had caught wind of it.

[GOPJ]

All military people in the United States are told NOT to follow unlawful commands. A small village called My Lai in Vietnam re-sent that message decades ago.

Now think about the video - the drama involved - people appearing to ‘risk it all’ to warn our troops. I can assure you they knew the impact of what they were saying. And the proof of that is even their butt boys in the pressed asked about what ‘unlawful commands’ were being given. And we saw it. So who’s left? The so called gullible people who infact work for DNC war rooms?

[GOPJ]

All military people in the United States are told NOT to follow unlawful commands. A small village called My Lai in Vietnam re-sent that message decades ago.

Now think about the video - the drama involved - people appearing to ‘risk it all’ to warn our troops. I can assure you they knew the impact of what they were saying. And the proof of that is even their butt boys in the press asked about what ‘unlawful commands’ were being given. And we saw it. So who’s left? The so called gullible people who in fact work for DNC war rooms?

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

It was a very carefully crafted, but suggestive posting, including threatening the service members if they follow an unlawful order. It was encouraging members to make a stink about their orders so democrats could make political hay out of it. In effect, undermining the authority of their superiors.

You can certainly make an argument that was their intent. But that doesn't change the actual words that they used, which as you said were "very carefully crafted".

We can argue about this all day as to whether or not it was actual sedition. All I can say is that if the Trump Administration/Hegseth actually believed it met the legal definition of sedition, they would be prosecuting all of them for that crime. The fact that they have not yet done so suggests they recognize the same weakness in that case that I do.

I strongly suspect that they've rejected that option, though. Because if they were planning on prosecution, they'd have waited to do that rather than to take this action. An administrative action to reduce his pay would have been much easier/cleaner if accompanied by a conviction for sedition.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks is still open for business.

[GOPJ]

You can certainly make an argument that was their intent. But that doesn't change the actual words that they used, which as you said were "very carefully crafted"

And whu was the wording so 'carefully crafted' - most likely by democrat lawyers working out of DNC war rooms? Could this whole think have been one more ugly stunt on the part of democrats? Looks like the goons knew how their words would be taken... Lowlife trash...

[FreedomPoster]

Leavenworth isn’t the goal here.

But I can see why you’d want to push for that.

[GOPJ]

You can certainly make an argument that was their intent. But that doesn't change the actual words that they used, which as you said were "very carefully crafted"

And why was the wording so 'carefully crafted' - most likely by democrat lawyers working out of DNC war rooms? Could this whole think have been one more ugly stunt on the part of democrats? Looks like the goons knew how their words would be taken... Lowlife trash...

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Now think about the video - the drama involved - people appearing to ‘risk it all’ to warn our troops. I can assure you they knew the impact of what they were saying.

I agree.

And the proof of that is even their butt boys in the pressed asked about what ‘unlawful commands’ were being given.

And what was their response? Wasn't it basically to say "none of have been given yet that we can identify?"

Because I think there are two plausible ways to read their video statement.

1) "This President has been giving you illegal orders, and you should disobey them."

2) "We think this President may give you illegal orders in the future, and if he does, you should disobey them."

The first at least borders on sedition (unless they were actually correct about illegal orders being given, which I don't believe they were), but the second isn't. My guess is that they probably meant the second, but they may have meant the first, or both.

Anyway, because the second is one of the reasonable interpretation of what they were saying -- especially since they followed up with not identifying any current illegal orders -- I don't think they can be busted for it.

[odawg]

“...for making an accurate recitation of U.S. military law....”

That is not what they did. They were encouraging the violation of military orders that had not been legally challenged.

[GOPJ]

The nice thing is ‘the people’ will see it for what it was - and liberal ‘lawyers’ will know they can nit pick a win. Too bad even working democrats will see it for what it was... just like the MSM saw it - as if there were illegal orders being given.

You know that..

It’s not the end of the world - we never planned on getting the liberal lawyer vote anyhow. But this should be a warning to the nutjobs in the democrat party that you can’t fool all the people all the time. And that those ‘fooled’ will not be as blindly supportive next time. (show video here of Meet the Press asking about the unlawful commands...)

[FreedomPoster]

You should argue your point on X with Kurt Schlichter. That would be amusing to watch.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

But I can see why you’d want to push for that.

My personal concern isn't hidden -- I'll state it openly.

There is an argument floating around here that retired officers are subject to the exact same standard and limitations regarding speech as are active duty officers. Which, incidentally, is not the same thing as saying that retirees are still subject to the UCMJ.

In any case, I think people should think very carefully before believing that is a good idea. Because as I've pointed out, active duty officers during the Biden Administration weren't permitted to criticize things like the massive DEI push, the lowering of standards, Biden's own demonstrated mental incompetency, women in combat units, etc..

So if -- as some here are doing -- you are going to argue that retirees are no different than active duty when it comes to restrictions on what they say about the President, civilian and military leadership, military operations, etc., then you are essentially silencing those citizens who know the most about these issues. Any retired general who wants to come out and criticize DEI crap would be "undermining good order and discipline". A retired colonel that comes out and says he has no confidence in the President because he apparently is senile, and that we need to elect someone else, could be changed with the same.

Does anyone here seriously believe that is a good idea? Silence all tough criticism of Presidential and military leadership by the exact people who know the most about those things?

I think Kelly is an a-hole, and I can't stand him. But if you shut him up on the grounds that his comments "undermine" the President, you're going to be shutting up all the future critics on our side whenever the next leftist idiot is in the White House and trying to implement policies we believe hurt the military.

That's where I'm coming from. Kelly's comments were chosen carefully enough that they don't constitute sedition, and the more generic argument that he is either undermining or disrespecting the President is one that shouldn't apply to anyone who is retired.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

They were encouraging the violation of military orders that had not been legally challenged.

Which orders that they say should not be followed?

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Article 88 of the UCMJ says:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

If Kelly said the following about Trump's statement on Venezuela:

Trump’s rambling and unfocused statement was weak and pathetic. This is a time for leadership. And he’s incapable of providing it. Not just because he is senile, but because he doesn’t have the moral authority to.

Do you think he could/should be prosecuted under that Article 88 of the UCMJ, just as an active duty officer would be?

[Hildy]

If Mark Kelly had any principles he would simply say, I WILL TANK THAT PUNISHMENT AND WEAR IT AS A BADGE OF HONOR. And be done with it. But he won’t. Because 4 government pensions are better than 4. Think about it. He has military, NASA, Government and I’m sure his wife gets a big check as well.

[odawg]

A soldier in the military does not have the option of declaring, individually, an order unconstitutional; he has to go through protocol. Can you imagine on the battlefield where lives are in jeopardy and some idiot concludes he can’t carry out his assignment, jeopardizing countless lives, because he thinks an order violates the Constitution?

That promotional video the traitors made did not mention vital scenarios.

[maddog55]

Kelly never resigned his commission so he can still be held accountable under the UCMJ.

That’s a fact you can search and should before you post.

[bert]

It is my understanding that the general has in fact been recalled and the court marshal is in preparatory stages

[maddog55]

Military law requires service members to obey lawful orders and prohibits them from following unlawful orders, which are those that violate the Constitution, federal law...Trump never issued an unlawful order.