Key Takeaways

• A video urged U.S. troops to refuse blatantly illegal orders from the president.
• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to investigate Senator Mark Kelly for his role.
• Experts warn this move could chill free speech and politicize the military.
• Legal analysts say the video likely did not break any laws.

Inside Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon Probe

Late in November, a group of military veterans released a video. They urged service members to refuse blatantly illegal orders from President Trump. The speakers included Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and Representative Jason Crow. In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced an investigation into Senator Kelly. Moreover, Hegseth called the video “seditious.”

However, Kelly did not back down. On Meet the Press, he labeled Hegseth the most unqualified defense secretary ever. Furthermore, Kelly said the Pentagon should stay out of politics. Meanwhile, Hegseth insists he must defend the chain of command.

How Pete Hegseth Is Using Military Power

The Washington Post reports that Hegseth is using the Pentagon like a political tool. In fact, the administration has tried to punish opponents through mortgages, IRS audits and criminal probes. Now, the Pentagon joins that list. Historians and retired officers say this sets a dangerous precedent. They warn that mixing politics and military power threatens democracy.

A retired general, speaking anonymously, said this “retribution campaign” will chill honest speech. He laid out three possible punishments. First, a civil lawsuit. Second, an IRS audit. Third, a recall to active duty with potential military charges. In each case, opponents of the administration could face legal trouble.

Furthermore, Hegseth and the president both called the video “seditious.” Yet several retired military lawyers say that label is wrong. They argue the video’s message was unclear and that it did not meet legal standards for sedition. Nonetheless, the mere threat of punishment could pressure service members to stay silent.

Legal analyst Joyce White Vance explained on MSNBC that Kelly and others face no real legal exposure. She said their call to resist illegal orders falls within free speech and duty. In addition, experts note that no one believes the video broke any law. Therefore, any criminal case would struggle in court.

Why This Matters

When the Pentagon turns into a weapon against critics, everyone loses. The military relies on trust and nonpartisanship. Once service members fear punishment for their views, morale can suffer. Moreover, civilian leaders could exploit the armed forces for political gain.

Also, veterans often speak out on ethical grounds. They know the stakes of illegal orders. By warning troops, they act as a check on power. However, punishing them for that warning undermines civilian control of the military.

The History of Civilian Control

In America, elected leaders run the government. Yet the military remains nonpartisan. This balance ensures that force serves the nation, not a party. Over time, norms built this system of civilian oversight without political bias.

Now, some fear those norms are breaking. Using the Pentagon to target political foes could open the door to more abuse. Once precedent is set, future leaders might do the same. Consequently, experts call for clear rules and accountability.

Reactions from Across the Spectrum

Retired officers, legal scholars and even some veterans support holding illegal orders in check. They say resisting unconstitutional commands is part of a soldier’s duty. Conversely, Hegseth argues his probe defends order and discipline. He claims no one is above the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Meanwhile, critics note that democracy thrives on free debate. They worry that punishing critics chills that debate. As one historian put it, “When the instruments of war become instruments of politics, democracy is at risk.”

What Comes Next

The Pentagon’s investigation into Senator Kelly could drag on for months. Meanwhile, public debate over military speech is heating up. Lawmakers may propose clearer guidelines on how and when service members can speak out. In addition, there could be calls to confirm a more neutral defense secretary.

Service members and veterans will watch closely. They could push for reforms to protect free speech in uniform. At the same time, the White House will likely defend Hegseth’s actions. This clash could shape civil-military relations for years.

Ultimately, the fight over this video and the probe shows how fragile norms can be. It also underscores the need for clear boundaries between political power and military duty.

FAQs

What did the veteran video say?

The video urged troops to refuse blatantly illegal orders from President Trump. Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, plus Representative Jason Crow, delivered the message.

Why is Pete Hegseth investigating Senator Kelly?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth labeled the video “seditious.” He said he must protect the chain of command. Therefore, he announced a Pentagon probe into Kelly’s role.

Could the veterans face charges?

Most legal experts say no. They argue the video did not break any laws. Resisting illegal orders may be a duty, not a crime.

How might this affect the military?

Experts warn it could chill free speech and politicize the armed forces. Service members might fear punishment for speaking out, damaging morale and trust.