Kelly to Hegseth: Pentagon investigation over ‘illegal orders’ video won’t ‘intimidate me’ is a situation that’s really got people talking, and for good reason. It all started with a video from Senator Mark Kelly, where he essentially reminded service members of their duty to uphold the law and not follow illegal orders. That’s a pretty straightforward message, right? But the reaction from some corners, particularly the Trump administration, has been anything but.
The response from the administration, with calls for Kelly’s arrest and even suggestions of execution, is what’s truly alarming. It’s like they’re trying to punish someone for simply stating the obvious – that soldiers aren’t supposed to obey orders that break the law.… Continue reading
The Pentagon has initiated an investigation into Democratic Senator Mark Kelly for potential violations of military law after he participated in a video urging U.S. troops to reject unlawful orders. The Pentagon cited a federal law allowing for the recall of retired service members, like Kelly, for possible court-martial or other actions, indicating his statements may have interfered with military order and discipline. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated Kelly was the only lawmaker targeted because he is the only one who formally retired from the military, placing him under the Pentagon’s jurisdiction. The video, released last Tuesday, also prompted criticism from President Donald Trump who accused the lawmakers of sedition, although reactions from troops online have been minimal.
Read More
The Democrats’ video serves as an act of patriotism, signaling to government officials that some lawmakers are upholding the law and monitoring potential dangers arising from Trump’s orders. This action is especially relevant regarding the military, where Congress maintains regulatory authority. Democrats are attempting oversight in the absence of Republican cooperation, aiming to spark a necessary public debate on whether Trump’s actions constitute illegal orders. Therefore, any criticism of this intervention is misplaced, as the debate is crucial, and the Democrats intend to pursue it regardless.
Read More
In a recent video, six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds reminded active-duty personnel they can refuse illegal orders, citing concerns about threats to the Constitution. This triggered an extreme response from the right, including former President Trump, who suggested the lawmakers’ actions were punishable by death. The lawmakers were simply reiterating service members’ oath to defend the Constitution and the right to refuse unlawful orders. Trump’s reaction is particularly concerning given his past actions and willingness to politicize the military, making the lawmakers’ warning a necessary one.
Read More
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard units to Oregon. This decision came after the president attempted to circumvent a prior ruling against deploying Oregon’s National Guard by mobilizing troops from California and potentially Texas. The judge, appointed by Trump, questioned the federal government’s actions as a circumvention of her initial order. Both Oregon and California officials have expressed their disapproval of the president’s actions, with the Governor vowing to resist further attempts to deploy troops.
Read More
As the specter of fascism looms, some U.S. military members grapple with whether to defy potentially illegal orders. Calls to the GI Rights Hotline and the Center on Conscience & War have surged, indicating growing concerns about the military being used as a tool for authoritarianism. Service members fear being forced to participate in actions that violate their principles, particularly concerning anti-immigrant policies and the erosion of democratic norms. These concerns extend to military families who worry about the blurring lines between military, law enforcement, and immigration enforcement, and potential damage to community relationships. While service members have the right to refuse illegal orders, the consequences of dissent can be severe, leading to loss of benefits, rank, and even imprisonment.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker