On Monday, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth announced that he would be issuing a censure against Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat representing Arizona. Senator Kelly, who served as a Navy pilot, recently participated in a video where he encouraged military members to refuse unlawful orders.
Secretary Hegseth explained that although the censure is currently just a letter and has little immediate impact, it marks the beginning of a series of actions taken under the Department of Defence's (DoD) procedures following an investigation into alleged misconduct. These actions could potentially lead to disciplinary measures against Senator Kelly after his retirement as a captain, which might include a reduction in his pension.
This move by the Pentagon is unprecedented. It is rare for the DoD to take punitive action against active members of Congress. Historically, prior to the second term of President Trump, the Department aimed to remain non-partisan and politically neutral. Legal experts have noted that pursuing action against a sitting member of Congress adds considerable complexity to an already unusual case.
Kelly Responds Publicly
Trump and Hegseth are trying to intimidate me into silence. After 25 years in the Navy, I can tell you — that's not going to work. This is about defending everyone's First Amendment rights. pic.twitter.com/9cMwrhJxLc
— Captain Mark Kelly (@CaptMarkKelly) January 6, 2026
In a video posted on his official X account, which included a clip from his interview on The Daily Show, Senator Mark Kelly stated he did not expect criticism from former President Donald Trump or Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Kelly highlighted his 25-year career in the US Navy, which included multiple combat deployments, service as a test pilot, and later work as a NASA astronaut. He expressed his intention to contest the Pentagon's censure through the available legal and administrative channels.
Kelly emphasized that the issue extends beyond his individual case, framing it as a broader concern about free expression. He explained that the controversy raises important questions about how government authorities interpret and respond to speech by elected officials and former military personnel.
He clarified that his comments aimed to encourage service members to uphold the Constitution and to refuse to carry out unlawful orders. Kelly maintained that discussing constitutional obligations should be considered protected speech. He also suggested that the outcome of this case could influence how former service members and public officials engage in public discourse about government actions in the future.
Background to the Dispute
In November, a video featuring Kelly and five other Democratic members of Congress—each a veteran of the US Armed Forces or the Intelligence Community—was released. The video, which directly addressed US service members, urged them to uphold the Constitution and refuse to follow unlawful orders.
Senator Elissa Slotkin was the first to share the video on her X account, highlighting the intense stress and pressure faced by troops at that time. A few days after its release, former President Donald Trump responded on social media, criticising the six lawmakers and accusing them of engaging in treasonous behaviour.
Why Did Kelly Alone Face Censure?
The Pentagon's announcement sparked questions about why only Kelly was being held accountable. This issue gained prominence when Kelly appeared on The Daily Show, where he used a clip from that interview to respond to the ongoing controversy, posting it on his official X account.
During his appearance with host Jon Stewart, Kelly was asked why he was singled out as the target. He responded that it was a matter of a technicality. Kelly explained he served in the Navy for 25 years and retired after completing 20 years of service — a threshold that allows him to retire with full benefits and have his rank reviewed by the DoD under certain circumstances. Kelly noted that the other lawmakers involved did not meet these same criteria, which was the technical reason he alone was subject to the process initiated by Hegseth.
Wider Implications
The ruling has caused concern among military personnel, who fear it could deter former service members from speaking out on legal and governance issues. While some believe this concern warrants attention, others argue the decision underscores the importance of discretion and appropriate conduct among senior leaders, veterans, and active-duty members, especially in the current politically charged climate.
