SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
mark kelly
'I Will Continue to Speak Out Strongly Against War,' Says Pope Leo in Face of Trump Abuse
"The message of the Gospel is very clear: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers.'"
Apr 13, 2026
Pope Leo XIV on Monday said he would not back off his criticism of President Donald Trump's war of choice in Iran after the president targeted him with an unhinged late-night social media rant.
In a Sunday Truth Social post, Trump accused Pope Leo of being "WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy," even though dealing with crime and running US foreign policy are not part of the pope's job description.
"Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician," Trump wrote at the conclusion of his long tirade. "It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church!"
A short time later, Trump posted an artificial intelligence-generated image that depicted him as a Christ-like figure.
Pope Leo in recent weeks has been openly critical of the US war in Iran, taking particular issue with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claiming that the conflict was being waged in the name of Jesus Christ.
“This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” the pope said during a Palm Sunday sermon last month. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”
According to a Monday report from the Associated Press, the pope remained defiant in the face of criticism from the president.
"The message of the Gospel is very clear: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,'" he said. "I will not shy away from announcing the message of the Gospel and inviting all people to look for ways of building bridges of peace and reconciliation, and looking for ways to avoid war any time that’s possible."
Leo added that he is "not afraid of the Trump administration or of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel," and insisted that "I will continue to speak out strongly against war, seeking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateralism among states to find solutions to problems."
Trump's attack on the pope drew a rebuke from Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who said it was reflective of a presidency circling the drain.
" Donald Trump is flailing," Kelly wrote in a social media post. "His war in Iran has led to the death and injury of American servicemembers and the death of Iranian children. He will attack anyone or anything to try to protect himself, even the Church that millions of Americans find faith and comfort in every day."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal suggested that Trump's anti-pope rant was more evidence that he is mentally unwell and should be removed from office.
"The deranged and disgusting post from Trump attacking Pope Leo should certainly help him appeal to the more than 50 million Americans who identify as Catholics," she wrote. "Perhaps this will convince JD Vance to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office?"
Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, said he was "disheartened" that Trump "chose to write such disparaging words about the Holy Father."
"Pope Leo is not his rival; nor is the pope a politician," Coakley added. "He is the vicar of Christ who speaks from the truth of the Gospel and for the care of souls."
The Rev. James Martin said he doubted Pope Leo "will lose any sleep over" Trump's rant, but added "the rest of us should" because "it is unhinged, uncharitable, and unchristian."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blasts Hegseth Over Effort to 'Shrink the First Amendment Liberties' of Sen. Mark Kelly
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
Feb 12, 2026
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Stops 'Outrageous' Trump DOJ Effort to Indict Democrats
"They tried to have me charged with a crime—all because of something I said that they didn’t like," said Sen. Mark Kelly. "That’s not the way things work in America."
Feb 11, 2026
A federal grand jury on Tuesday declined to go along with an effort by the Trump Justice Department to indict Democratic lawmakers involved in a November video reminding members of the US military of their duty to refuse illegal orders, a message that came as President Donald Trump deployed troops to major American cities.
The failed attempt to indict the six Democratic lawmakers was led by Trump loyalist Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia. The New York Times reported that federal prosecutors "sought to persuade the grand jurors that the lawmakers had violated a statute that forbids interfering with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the US armed forces."
Trump, who has repeatedly weaponized the Justice Department against his political opponents, erupted in response to the 90-second video, accusing the Democratic lawmakers behind it of "seditious behavior, punishable by death."
The lawmakers who appeared in the video were Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan as well as Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. The Democrats learned they were under investigation last month when they received inquiries from Pirro's office.
Lawmakers and legal observers said it was deeply alarming that the DOJ even tried to secure the indictment.
"What an ugly assault on the First Amendment and on Congress," said legal scholar Ryan Goodman. "Thankfully, thwarted."
Kelly, a retired Navy captain who is facing Pentagon attempts to censure him and cut his military benefits, said the effort to indict him and his fellow Democratic lawmakers was "an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies."
"It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime—all because of something I said that they didn’t like," Kelly wrote on social media. "That’s not the way things work in America."
We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.
The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.
Don’t give up the ship. pic.twitter.com/N8lW0EpQ7r
— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) November 18, 2025
Slotkin, a former CIA officer who organized the November video, said Pirro pursued the indictment "at the direction of President Trump, who said repeatedly that I should be investigated, arrested, and hanged for sedition."
"Today, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed. Hopefully, this ends this politicized investigation for good," the senator said. "But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the administration. It was another sad day for our country."
"Because whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies," Slotkin added. "No matter what President Trump and Pirro continue to do with this case, tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Warns Powell Probe Part of Trump Plan to 'Intimidate and Destroy' All Critics
"We must not allow our great country, the United States of America, to become an authoritarian society."
Jan 12, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday warned that the Trump administration's targeting of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for criminal investigation was part of a broader pattern of intimidation aimed at quelling dissent.
In a prepared statement, Sanders (I-Vt.) acknowledged that he had his own disagreements with Powell, a conservative Republican who was first appointed by President Donald Trump to be chairman of the Federal Reserve in 2017.
However, Sanders said political disagreements had nothing to do with the Department of Justice launching a criminal probe of Powell.
"In a democracy, debate and disagreement are normal," Sanders said. "But Donald Trump does not 'disagree' with his opponents. In his pursuit of absolute power, he attempts to destroy anyone who stands in his way. He's actively prosecuting Powell not because the Fed chair broke the law, but because he won't bend the knee to Donald Trump."
Sanders noted that Powell was only the latest target of the Trump administration's vindictive retribution.
"When Sen. Mark Kelly (R-Ariz.) spoke out against Donald Trump's authoritarian rhetoric and threats toward political opponents, Trump didn't agree," Sanders explained. "He had his Defense Department investigate Kelly for misconduct and threatened to have him executed."
Sanders also pointed to the prosecutions of New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, as well as his threats against assorted other critics, as evidence that Trump seeks to "intimidate and destroy... as part of his march to authoritarianism."
"We must not allow our great country, the United States of America, to become an authoritarian society," Sanders concluded. "Trump's persecution of his political opponents must end."
The co-chairs of the Not Above the Law coalition–Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen; Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Kelsey Herbert, campaign director at MoveOn; and Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at Stand Up America—also denounced the investigation into Powell as politically motivated on Monday, while arguing it was part of an effort to stifle dissent in the US.
"Whether targeting federal judges, members of Congress, civil society organizations, or now the chair of the Federal Reserve, Trump weaponizes the full force of government against anyone who won't submit to his will," they said. "Undermining the Federal Reserve threatens Americans’ jobs and savings, and our nation’s economy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sen. Kelly Sues Pentagon, Hegseth Over Retaliation for Illegal Orders Video
The Pentagon chief's "unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military," said the former Navy captain.
Jan 12, 2026
US Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, announced Monday that he "filed a lawsuit against the secretary of defense because there are few things as important as standing up for the rights of the very Americans who fought to defend our freedoms."
The Arizona Democrat is suing not only Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth but also the US Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and Navy Secretary John Phelan over the DOD leader's effort to cut Kelly's retirement pay over a November video in which he and other veterans of the military and intelligence community reminded troops that they "must refuse illegal orders."
Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), and Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) released the short video as Hegseth and President Donald Trump were in the midst of their deadly boat-bombing spree and ramping up threats against Venezuela, whose leader they have since abducted to put him on trial in the United States.
Of the six Democrats in the video, Kelly is the only one still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Given that, Hegseth initially launched a probe into the senator and threatened to call him back to active duty to face a court-martial, but ultimately revealed last week that the DOD was working to reduce his retirement pay and had issued a formal letter of censure.
"Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my 25 years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable," Kelly said Monday. "His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: If you speak out and say something that the president or secretary of defense doesn't like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted."
"In 1986, at just 22 years old, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I have fulfilled that oath every day since, but I never expected that I would have to defend it against a secretary of defense or president," said Kelly, also a former US astronaut. "But I've never shied away from a fight for our country, and I won't shy away from this one. Because our freedom of speech, the separation of powers, and due process are not just words on a page, they are bedrock principles of our democracy that has lasted 250 years and will last 250 more as long as patriotic Americans are willing to stand up for our rights."
Kelly's 46-page complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, DC, states that "defendants' actions violate numerous constitutional guarantees and have no basis in statute," citing "the First Amendment, the speech or debate clause, the separation of powers, due process, 10 USC § 1370, and the Administrative Procedure Act."
The senator is asking the court "to declare the censure letter, reopening determination, retirement grade determination proceedings, and related actions unlawful and unconstitutional; to vacate those actions; to enjoin their enforcement; and to preserve the status of a coequal Congress and an apolitical military."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Despicable Act of Political Retribution': Pentagon to Cut Kelly's Retirement Pay Over Illegal Orders Video
"I will fight this with everything I've got," Sen. Mark Kelly said, slamming Pete Hegseth as "the most unqualified secretary of defense in our country's history."
Jan 05, 2026
On the heels of the Trump administration abducting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday announced a move to reduce Sen. Mark Kelly's retirement pay over a video in which the Arizona Democrat reminded service members of their duty not to obey illegal orders.
The retired Navy captain is the only veteran in the November video still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice—which, as he and the other former military and intelligence community members highlighted, does require active-duty troops to refuse to follow illegal orders.
President Donald Trump swiftly lashed out over the video—released as his administration continued bombing alleged drug smuggling boats and ramped up threats against Venezuela—by accusing the six Democrats of "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" Hegseth launched a probe into Kelly and threatened to call him back to active duty to face a court-martial.
Describing the fact-based recording as "a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline," Hegseth said on social media Monday that Department of Defense is attempting to reduce Kelly's retirement pay and "has also issued a formal letter of censure."
"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," Hegseth added, noting that the senator has 30 days to appeal the decision and the case should be finalized within 45 days.
According to Politico: "Kelly receives about $6,000 a month in military retirement pay, based on his 25 years of military service and his rank as a Navy Captain. A reduction in rank, from O-6 to O-5, could cost him about $1,000 a month in payouts."
Kelly—also a former astronaut—responded with a lengthy statement on social media Monday:
Over 25 years in the US Navy, 39 combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution–including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out. I never expected that the president of the United States and the secretary of defense would attack me for doing exactly that.
My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head—all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder. Generations of service members have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.
Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired service member that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn't like, they will come after them the same way. It's outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.
If Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified secretary of defense in our country's history, thinks he can intimidate me with a censure or threats to demote me or prosecute me, he still doesn't get it. I will fight this with everything I've got—not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don't get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government.
Others also jumped to his defense, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who said: "Mark Kelly is a hero and a patriot committed to serving the American people. Pete Hegseth is a lap dog committed to serving one man—Donald Trump. This is a despicable act of political retribution. I stand with Sen. Kelly, who will always do the right thing no matter the consequences."
Kelly and the other video participants—Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) and Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.)—also face a probe by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Possible Strategy for Stopping War on Venezuela
Critics of state violence become most dangerous when they directly jeopardize the state’s capacity to inflict violence. The most common and tangible way that happens is when soldiers refuse to kill.
Dec 20, 2025
Few believe the justifications for the ongoing US murder campaign, and now military blockade, off the coast of Venezuela. Even US officials seem halfheartedly committed to their claims about stopping drugs. They now concede that the real goal is overthrowing the Venezuelan government and recovering “our oil,” which was mistakenly buried under Venezuelan soil.
If they succeed there, they will surely escalate violence against Cuba and perhaps other noncompliant governments. The larger goal, proclaims the US secretary of defense, is the “restoration of our power and prerogatives in this hemisphere.” That entails reasserting “US military dominance in the Western Hemisphere” and with it the “access to key terrain throughout the region”—that is, markets and resources like our oil. In the meantime, if blowing up boats can also divert attention from domestic scandals, that’s a bonus.
Though US actions are indisputably illegal under both international and domestic law, the administration is confident it will enjoy impunity. More assurance came on December 17 when the House of Representatives rejected a War Powers Resolution brought by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).
To stop US aggression against Venezuela we must look beyond Congress and the courts to other possible sources of constraint. The strength of the Venezuelan military and its loyalty to Nicolás Maduro is one source. Resistance from powerful Latin American governments like Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia, along with China, may be another. But what can those of us in the United States do?
Pressure campaigns directed at members of Congress should not only repeat all the usual demands—war powers resolutions, bills to cut off funding, impeachment—but also focus on getting them to publicly amplify the message of the November 18 video.
In this country, only one thing so far seems to have threatened the administration’s confidence: the threat of disobedience within the military. On November 18 six members of Congress released a video calling on all military servicemembers to “refuse illegal orders.” Doing so is not just a right but a legal duty, they said: Soldiers “must refuse” such orders. As Rep. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) reiterated publicly, “You are not allowed to follow illegal orders.”
In response, President Donald Trump called publicly for the execution of those who made the video. That reaction was not just an outburst from a fascist blowhard. It reflected the realistic concern that faltering military loyalty could undermine the administration’s agenda in Venezuela and beyond, including here in the United States.
Critics of state violence become most dangerous when they directly jeopardize the state’s capacity to inflict violence. The most common and tangible way that happens is when soldiers refuse to kill.
Some of the 20th century’s leading voices for peace and justice have been tolerated by the state until they began encouraging disobedience to illegal and immoral orders. The government’s harshest reaction to longtime socialist and labor organizer Eugene Debs came in 1918 when he condemned World War I as an imperialist war for the rich, which the government plausibly interpreted as a call for soldiers to disobey orders (Debs said forthrightly that he was “obstructing the war”). Debs had been organizing workers and preaching socialism for the past quarter century, but his 10-year prison sentence in 1918 was by far the harshest punishment he received.
Martin Luther King Jr. also became his most dangerous when he threatened the Johnson administration’s ability to wage war against Vietnam. In 1967 he began calling the US “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” His analysis of the “triple evils” of capitalism, racism, and empire gained a mass audience at the very moment that the Vietnamese resistance—alongside growing disobedience by US soldiers—was imperiling the slaughter in Vietnam. King had been a public figure since the mid-1950s, but only in 1968 was he killed.
The martyred archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, was likewise killed at the very moment that he urged soldiers of the country’s US-backed military regime to disobey orders. Romero had been criticizing state violence since 1977, but only on March 23, 1980 did he make “a special appeal to the men of the army” to stop killing their own people. The following evening he was killed by a sniper while saying mass.
In all three cases—Debs, King, Romero—the critics were most intolerable to the state when they incited disobedience in the armed forces. Given the extent of mass mobilization and politicization at each of those moments, their incitements were particularly likely to impede military discipline.
We lack that level of mobilization in the US today, but Trump’s actions against Venezuela are drawing growing public attention and condemnation. US residents are also witnessing the administration’s escalating militarization inside their own country. In this context, high-profile calls to “refuse illegal orders” become very dangerous, particularly in relation to military personnel. Unlike US police, the armed forces have a substantial history of internal dissent and disobedience.
Soldier resistance may or may not be morally driven. The statement that soldiers and officers must refuse illegal orders also raises the prospect of prosecution. That is rare and especially hard to imagine at this moment, but not entirely implausible at a later date. And future defendants can’t necessarily assume a future president will pardon them.
The lawmakers who released the November 18 video may have stumbled onto a viable strategy for undermining Trump’s war plans. This is a real break from the Democrats’ normal fecklessness. It’s easy to see why Democratic leaders would be queasy about continuing this approach, since so many of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s foreign policies were also illegal. They don’t want to destroy the US government’s capacity to engage in illegal warfare.
But the November 18 video, and the willingness of Mark Kelly and others to stand behind it amid persecution, suggest an opening. Pressure campaigns directed at members of Congress should not only repeat all the usual demands—war powers resolutions, bills to cut off funding, impeachment—but also focus on getting them to publicly amplify the message of the November 18 video.
Organizing soldiers and countering military recruitment must be priorities for those interested in stopping future US violence. Those are long-term projects though. Right now, we should demand of our politicians (and celebrities, online influencers, whoever) that they amplify the message: Military personnel can and must refuse illegal and immoral orders.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mark Kelly Is Right: Military Members Have the Power to Resist What They Know Is Wrong
When military members have claimed such power and refused blind military obedience, it has had a significant impact on this country’s politics and policies, as well as on individual lives.
Dec 17, 2025
Any story about resistance within the military must begin by recognizing that it’s not an easy thing to do. Apparently, that’s true even for a much-decorated retired Navy commander, former astronaut, and sitting United States senator. I’m talking about Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. He was one of six Democratic legislators, all military veterans or former intelligence officers, who, on November 18, released a 90-second video reminding members of the military that the oath they took on enlisting requires them to refuse illegal orders. The implicit context was the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to American cities, but their message took on added urgency after the Washington Post published an exposé about an order coming from high up to kill survivors of an airstrike in the Caribbean Sea.
Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who served in the CIA, on the National Security Council, and at the Defense Department, and had three tours of duty as a CIA analyst in Iraq, spearheaded the action. She was joined by Kelly; Pennsylvania Reps. Chrissy Houlahan (former Air Force captain) and Chris Deluzio (former Navy lieutenant with one tour in Iraq); New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander (Navy Reserve lieutenant, intelligence); and Colorado Rep. Jason Crow (Army Ranger, three tours in Iraq).
Speaking directly to the camera, their voices imbued with sincerity, the six stated their affiliations, noted the precariousness of what the military is being asked to do in the second presidency of Donald Trump, and repeated their duty-to-refuse refrain, ending with a rousing, “Don’t give up the ship!” It was pretty straightforward stuff and, except for a few digs at the administration, an accurate statement of legal fact.
On enlistment, everyone in the military takes an oath of loyalty not to a person, a party, or any form of politics, but to the Constitution. Enlistees in all branches also pledge to obey orders from their officers and the president. As stipulated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), it’s clear that this means only lawful orders. Officers take a slightly different oath: They, too, swear to support and defend the Constitution, but their oath doesn’t include anything about obeying orders from their superiors or the president, presumably because they’re responsible for giving orders and ensuring that those orders are lawful. Officers reaffirm their oath whenever they’re promoted. Across the board, the UCMJ, the Nuremberg Principles, and the US Constitution establish the right and responsibility of servicemembers to refuse illegal orders or to refuse to participate in illegal wars, war crimes, or unconstitutional deployments.
The Straight-Speaking Six
Never one to bother with legal niceties, Donald Trump (commander-in-chief, no military service) quickly denounced the video on Truth Social as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” adding, “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” He also posted: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He then backtracked on the death threat on Fox’s “Brian Kilmeade Show.”
Members of his administration followed Trump’s lead with ever more strident outrage. Within days, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (former Army National Guard major, one tour each in Afghanistan and Iraq) called the lawmakers the “Seditious Six.” He then began to investigate Kelly, threatening to recall him to active duty so that he could be court-martialed for misconduct.
He went after Kelly because, as a retired military officer, he’s the only 1 of the 6 who could still fall under the military’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it’s unusual, to say the least, for a secretary of defense (oops, war!) to think about punishing an officer so long after he has retired. Meanwhile, the FBI began investigating all six of those legislators. (Consider it unlikely indeed, however, that the FBI will also investigate the death threats the six have received.)
If the courts and Congress can’t figure all this out, imagine the risk for servicemembers, especially in the lower ranks, trying to do so on their own.
Less half-baked responses came from places like Military.com, which criticized the legislators for attempting to politicize the military by bypassing the chain of command and speaking directly to the troops, while not citing specific examples of illegal orders and so potentially confusing them. If true, this wouldn’t be the first time this country’s troops were confused by orders. As a Marine sergeant testified at the 2008 Winter Soldier hearings, “During the siege of Fallujah [in Iraq], we changed rules of engagement more often then we changed our underwear.” As for politicizing the military, you need look no further than the Trump version of political theater—National Guard deployments to Democratic-run cities on his shitlist.
The straight-speaking six and their supporters were anything but cowed by the accusations. In a joint response to the president, they proclaimed their love for this country and fealty to the Constitution before concluding, “Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty… This is a time for moral clarity.”
In a town hall in Tucson, Kelly said of Trump and Hegseth, “They’re not serious people and I’m not backing down.” At the University of Pittsburgh (repeatedly designated a Military Friendly School), someone projected pictures of the six legislators onto its landmark 42-story Cathedral of Learning under the message, “This is what courage looks like.”
It might normally seem unlikely that Kelly could be punished for such constitutionally protected speech, a protection particularly robust for members of Congress. Unfortunately, “unlikely” could be considered the Trump administration’s middle name and, by now we should have learned that, in this political moment, anything is possible.
Playing armchair psychologist, I have no idea if Trump really believes that video to be seditious or if he even knows what actually constitutes sedition. I doubt it matters to him. For whatever reason—distraction? attention-grabbing? meat for his base? unbridled id?—he used that video to effectively change the subject, while a pliant media and public largely went along with him. In the process, he managed to refocus attention (yet again) on himself and his minions at the—yes, War, not Defense—Department, and the Department of (In)Justice, and on protected versus seditious speech, as well as courageous versus outrageous politicians. Take your pick, just don’t talk about what members of the military are being asked to do these days and how they might themselves think about such orders.
Worth the Risk?
Joy Metzler, a 24-year-old graduate of the Air Force Academy, left the military as a conscientious objector this past April. She credits two required courses on law and ethics at the academy for leading her to first question and then conclude that she couldn’t support her country’s role in the then-ongoing genocide in Gaza. “The thought of being given an order that was illegal or unconstitutional was almost unthinkable to me at the time, I just didn’t think it happened,” she emailed me recently. “Line officers, low ranks, sure—from people who didn’t understand the law—but I never imagined one would come from the president or the secretary of defense.”
How much time and attention are given to the legal and moral intricacies of war making no doubt varies from branch to branch, unit to unit, commander to commander of the military. Whatever enlistees or officers are taught about resisting illegal orders is, of course, wildly outweighed by what they’re taught about the need to obey orders, which is inculcated into them until it becomes a reflexive response. Military units aren’t debating societies for good reason, and military training strongly discourages disobedience of any sort, but even more to the point, what is or isn’t legal isn’t necessarily clear-cut.
Military law can hold servicemembers accountable for participating in illegal actions, even if they were following orders. Nonetheless, a recent survey found that, while 4 out of 5 active-duty troops understand their obligation to disobey illegal orders, they are far less clear on what orders they would disobey. “Starving [a] civilian population” or “shooting unarmed civilians” were cited most often as orders “so obviously unlawful” that they would be disobeyed, but by only 43% and 45% of those responding to each possibility. Yet, when asked if they would follow an order “to shoot into a crowd of unarmed civilians protesting US government policy and refusing to disperse,” 59% said they would.
Civil courts have waffled and disagreed about whether recent orders to the military are legal, and the Trump administration has been known to ignore rulings that go against it. For instance, assessments of the legality of sending National Guard troops from different states into Chicago, Los Angeles, Memphis, Portland (Oregon), and Washington, DC have changed almost weekly. And while legal experts generally agree that the airstrikes on what may or may not be drug-running boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean are illegal under international law, Congress is just beginning to dip its toe into the issue. If the courts and Congress can’t figure all this out, imagine the risk for servicemembers, especially in the lower ranks, trying to do so on their own.
Ready Response Team Veterans
While in uniform, service members have limited speech rights and the military generally suppresses dissent, so veterans are in a far better position to question military policy. Veterans For Peace (VFP) used the uproar over the lawmakers’ video to reinforce its opposition to the murderous airstrikes in the Caribbean, genocide in Gaza, and the deployment of troops to American cities. They and other veteran-related organizations have long been pushing back at iffy, illegal, or immoral orders, often by committing disobedience of the civil kind. Here is a distinctly incomplete rundown of some of their actions.
On Easter Sunday 2024, VFP member Larry Hebert, an Air Force senior airman then on active duty in Spain, began a hunger strike in front of the White House to protest US support for Israel’s war in Gaza. He was inspired by the resolve of Aaron Bushnell, also an active-duty airman, who had set himself on fire at the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC the month before to protest that nightmare. When Hebert was ordered back to his base, two VFP members took his place. As the barbarity in Gaza progressed, anti-war veterans continued their opposition in the People’s Arms Embargo, a series of protests blocking entrances to Travis Air Force Base in California, where planes were taking off to deliver weapons to Israel. Twelve people were arrested at a protest there on April 9 of this year.
Next came a 40-day Fast for Gaza, which ended this past Memorial Day. That protest grew out of a conversation between two veteran activists, Mike Ferner, a Navy corpsman during the Vietnam era, and Phil Tottenham, who had served in the Marines more recently. VFP took up the idea, and 38 other organizations joined in to demand full humanitarian aid for Gaza and an end to US weapons deliveries to Israel. About 800 people took part in the fast around the country, while a handful of regulars staged a hunger strike outside the US Mission to the United Nations. That fast culminated in a “die-in” at the Israeli mission in New York City, where 28 people were arrested, after which Ferner threw barely defrosted, bright red cow’s blood on a window at the American UN mission. He, too, got arrested.
Simply recognizing that you have the legal capacity to do what’s right is no small thing.
When Trump made good on his threats to send National Guard troops into American cities, these actions expanded to include resistance there. In September, aiming to speak directly to active-duty, reserve, and National Guard personnel, the progressive foreign policy coalition Win Without War launched a new project, Not What You Signed Up For. That project began with a mobile billboard and posters in Washington, DC, asking, “Is this what you signed up for?” and directing anyone with questions or misgivings to a website listing three counseling and support organizations: About Face: Veterans Against the War, the GI Rights Hotline, and the National Lawyers Guild’s Military Law Task Force. Billboards subsequently went up near Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and near US Southern Command headquarters in Florida, among other places. In the project’s first month, the accompanying resource webpage got about 8,000 unique visitors. By November, it was nearly 20,000. About Face Organizing Director Brittany DeBarros says that she alone spoke with more than 100 active servicemembers looking for support this year.
In June, on the eve of the nationwide No Kings protests and the costly Trump birthday celebration (also known as the Army’s 250th anniversary parade), members of VFP and About Face, ranging in age from their 20s to 87, held a sit-in on the steps of the US Capitol to protest Trump’s National Guard deployments. About 60 of them were charged with crossing a police line and arrested, including that 87 year old.
Which takes us to this Veterans Day, when military-affiliated and labor union anti-war groups organized their own celebrations under the banner “Vets Say No,” as protests against the administration’s use (and misuse) of the military only continued to grow. Crowds gathered in cities around the country, including in Washington, DC and a frigid Boston.
While this isn’t yet enough to constitute a trend, let alone a movement of resistance within the military, it gives that controversy over the video of those Democratic legislators a necessary (and underreported) context. It also suggests at least one reason why President Trump was so eager to deflect attention from the import of their message.
Of course, what he said in response to them wasn’t just meant to change the subject. It was typical of his usual intolerance of any challenge to his version of authority. And I don’t mean to minimize the importance of what those Democrat politicians did either. Though they’re only a handful of the 98 veterans in Congress and in the minority party, they have the standing to be heard, including among their colleagues. It’s possible, for instance, that their outspokenness lent both cover and courage to other legislators on both sides of the aisle to question, as they recently did, the legality of the military’s murky and wildly destructive acts off the Venezuelan coast.
What I want to do here is refocus attention on the underlying message in that video from congressional representatives and its significance for enlistees, reservists, and part-time military members: that they have the power—as individuals and supportive groups —to resist what they know to be wrong. Admittedly, doing so will be anything but easy. It may be scary, confusing, and lonely. But simply recognizing that you have the legal capacity to do what’s right is no small thing. It may even help protect servicemembers against the soul-crushing transgression of one’s innate moral code that has come to be known as “moral injury.”
When military members have claimed such power and refused blind military obedience—during the Vietnam War and the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—it has had a significant impact on this country’s politics and policies, as well as on individual lives. But of course, the responsibility doesn’t fall only to the people in our military. Maybe we could all join in on a chorus or two of doin’-the-right-thing rag.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Extraordinary Abuse of Power’: Mark Kelly Rebukes Hegseth Probe Over Illegal Orders Video
"It should send a shiver down the spine of every patriotic American that this president and secretary of defense would so corruptly abuse their power to come after me or anyone this way," said the senator.
Dec 16, 2025
US Sen. Mark Kelly on Monday emphasized that comments he made in a video last month referred to principles that "every service member is taught" in the US military, when he responded to the news that the Pentagon was ramping up its investigation into the video and could take legal action against him.
The video in question was recorded with Kelly (D-Ariz.) and five other Democratic lawmakers who formerly served in the military and in national security, and the message was straightforward: As stated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, active-duty service members must refuse to follow illegal orders.
But after eliciting threats of violence directly from President Donald Trump, that statement on Monday led the Pentagon to announce that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was "escalating" a review he previously opened into Kelly's conduct.
The probe was previously classified as a "review," but on Monday Hegseth launched an "official Command Investigation" involving the Pentagon general counsel's office.
The Washington Post called the investigation an "unprecedented use of the military justice system to investigate a political adversary."
In a video posted on social media, Kelly condemned the latest threat from the Department of Defense (DOD) as a "sham investigation."
"Now they are threatening everything I fought for and served for over 25 years in the US Navy, all because I repeated something every service member is taught," said Kelly. "It should send a shiver down the spine of every patriotic American that this president and secretary of defense would so corruptly abuse their power to come after me or anyone this way."
All six Democrats who took part in the video last month—who also included Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) and Reps. Chris Deluzio (Penn.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), Chrissy Houlahan (Md.), and Jason Crow (Colo.)—have been threatened by the White House since it was released. The president accused them of "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" and the FBI contacted the lawmakers for interviews.
But as the only retired military officer among them, Kelly is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can be recalled to active duty, making him a particular target of Hegseth and Trump.
The lawmakers said they were driven to record the video after service members asked them about the legality of some of Trump's recent actions.
It was released several weeks into a military operation that legal experts have called a campaign of "extrajudicial killings," with Hegseth directing strikes on at least 25 boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific and killing at least 95 people as of Tuesday. The White House has not publicly released evidence of its central claim that the boats are involved in drug trafficking.
Days after the video was posted online, NBC News reported that in August, a senior judge advocate general had raised concerns about the impending boat bombings, warning they could open service members up to legal liability.
Legal experts have warned that bombing boats suspected of ferrying drugs—rather than intercepting them and taking the passengers to court over this alleged crime—is illegal even if the vessels are involved in drug trafficking. Shortly after the video was released, alarm was further raised over the operation when it was reported that the military had killed survivors of an initial blast in the first boat strike on September 2.
Concerns over service members carrying out illegal orders were also raised at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week, when Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) asked, "If Trump is using [terrorist designations] to use military force on any individuals he chooses—without verified evidence or legal authorization—what’s stopping him from designating anyone within our own borders in a similar fashion and conducting lethal, militarized attacks against them?”
General Gregory M. Guillot, commander of the US Northern Command, also told Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) at the hearing that he would execute an order to carry out an attack on a group the president has declared a domestic terror organization is the order was deemed "lawful."
Asked if he'd carry out an attack on a presidentially declared domestic terror org on US soil (e.g. Antifa), NORTHCOM Commander Gen. Guillot says he would - as long as it was lawful.
SENATOR REED: if the president declared an organization, a terrorist organization, or a DTO,… pic.twitter.com/vpxwq0SolK
— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) December 13, 2025
Legal experts have denied that Kelly and the other lawmakers who warned service members against carrying out illegal orders.
On Monday, Kelly's attorney, Paul Fishman, told the Pentagon in a letter that any legal action against the senator taken by the DOD would be "unconstitutional and an extraordinary abuse of power.”
“If the executive branch were to move forward in any forum—criminal, disciplinary, or administrative—we will take all appropriate legal action on Sen. Kelly’s behalf," said Fishman, "to halt the administration’s unprecedented and dangerous overreach."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defiant Democrats Slam Trump 'Intimidation' After FBI Seeks Interviews Over 'Illegal Orders' Video
"We will not be bullied."
Nov 25, 2025
Democratic lawmakers who participated in a video warning US military personnel against following unlawful orders issued by President Donald Trump remained defiant after being contacted by the FBI.
As reported by Reuters on Tuesday, the FBI has requested interviews with Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), as well as Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Md.), and Jason Crow (D-Colo.), just days after Trump demanded their imprisonment or even death for supposed "sedition."
One US Department of Justice official told Reuters that the FBI interviews are to determine if the Democratic lawmakers engaged in "any wrongdoing" when they spoke out against the president potentially giving unlawful orders that pit the US military against American civilians.
The Democrats, however, vowed that they would not be intimidated by any FBI investigation.
In a social media post, Slotkin said that Trump's push to jail the Democrats for exercising their First Amendment rights demonstrated the reason why they decided to participate in the video in the first place. Slotkin accused Trump of "weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies," while adding that he "does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet."
"This is not the America I know," added Slotkin, a former CIA analyst. "I'm not going to let this next step from the FBI stop me from speaking up for my country and our Constitution."
Houlahan, Crow, Goodlander, and Deluzio issued a joint statement accusing Trump of "using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress," and vowed that "no amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution."
"We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," they emphasized. "That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship."
The FBI interview requests came just a day after the US Department of Defense (DOD) said it had "received serious allegations of misconduct" against Kelly, who is a retired US Navy captain, and was launching an investigation that could result in him being recalled to active duty to face court-martial hearings for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
In a separate social media post, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked all the Democrats who participated in the video as the "seditious six" and said that Kelly had been singled out for DOD investigation because he was the only member who was still subject to UCMJ given his status as a retired naval officer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
About
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy