Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced on Monday a formal review of Senator Mark Kelly's retirement rank and pension due to what he termed "seditious statements" in a recent video. This video, featuring Senator Kelly alongside five other lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds, called on service members to resist "illegal orders" and has sparked controversy over its potential impact on military order and discipline.
Secretary Hegseth has directed Secretary of the Navy John Phelan to deliver recommendations on potential reductions in rank and pension within 45 days. Additionally, the Department of War issued a censure letter to be placed in the senator’s permanent personnel file, which could lead to more severe disciplinary actions if misconduct persists.
In a public statement, Secretary Hegseth condemned the video, released six weeks prior, for its seemingly deliberate attempt to disrupt military cohesion. He stressed that retired officers like Senator Kelly, who continue to receive military pay, are still bound by military law and must be held accountable for their actions.
The Department of War's actions are based on alleged violations of Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which maintains that retired officers are subject to military regulations even after their active service has ended. Hegseth also emphasized that holding a position in Congress does not exempt one from military accountability, warning of further consequences if additional violations occur.
Senator Kelly responded by defending his actions as being protected by the First Amendment. He cited his extensive military service and dedication to the Constitution, arguing that the Secretary's actions could deter retired service members from speaking out against the administration. Legal analysts have noted that this review process, which could lead to changes in rank and pension, highlights the enduring applicability of military rules to retired officers, even those who have assumed public office roles.
The case raises significant questions about the balance between military oversight and the right to political expression, particularly for retired officers who have transitioned into elected positions. Conservative voices argue that unchecked political rhetoric may undermine military integrity, while Kelly's supporters advocate for the protection of veterans' free speech rights.
As the 30-day window for Senator Kelly to respond to the censure findings nears closure, the Department of War will proceed with necessary administrative actions to enforce discipline. This situation is expected to provoke further discussion on civil liberties versus military accountability and may establish a precedent for the future treatment of service members who move into public office.
