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
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
Most Popular