Hegseth Moves to Cut a Combat Veteran Senator’s Military Retirement Pay Over a Video

Pete Hegseth just announced he’s cutting a sitting U.S. Senator’s military retirement pay. The Senator in question is Mark Kelly, who flew 39 combat missions over Iraq and Kuwait, commanded Space Shuttle missions, and spent 25 years serving in the Navy. His crime? Making a video that reminded service members they have a duty to refuse illegal orders.

The Pentagon is taking administrative action to reduce Kelly’s retirement pay and has issued a formal letter of censure, placing a written reprimand in his permanent military file. The process could result in a downgrade of Kelly’s retired rank, which would in turn cut his pension. Let’s be clear about what Kelly actually said. Six Democratic lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds made a video directed at service members stating: “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.” That’s it. That’s the statement Hegseth is calling seditious.

Here’s what makes this truly insane: refusing illegal orders isn’t some radical interpretation of military law. It’s literally what military law requires.

The duty to obey in the armed forces is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Articles 90, 91, and 92 only require service members to obey lawful orders - and the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual says they must refuse clearly illegal orders to break the laws of war. The Nuremberg trials after World War II established that following orders is not a defense for committing war crimes. This isn’t obscure legal theory. The Manual for Courts-Martial states that the requirement to obey orders does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. Every service member learns this. It’s fundamental to military ethics precisely because we watched what happened when soldiers followed orders without moral consideration in Nazi Germany.

A service member must refuse orders only in cases of patently unlawful actions, in keeping with the Nuremberg principle, according to retired Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force. So Kelly stated established military law. And for that, the man who commanded America’s space shuttle while his wife recovered from an assassination attempt is being punished by Pete Hegseth, who’s barely ever commanded anything more consequential than a morning news segment.

Hegseth claims Kelly’s conduct violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and was seditious in nature. But the irony is stunning. Article 133 addresses conduct unbecoming an officer. Article 134 covers conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. You know what’s actually prejudicial to good order and discipline? Telling troops they can’t cite military law without losing their pensions.

The context matters here. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns repeatedly about the legality of US military strikes against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and the US military’s deployment to cities over the protest of governors. The video came out after the U.S. military had carried out about 20 strikes on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean against purported drug smugglers, killing more than 80 people. Kelly wasn’t telling troops to mutiny. He was stating, correctly, that if someone orders you to commit a war crime, you don’t have to do it. And that basic statement of military ethics is now being treated as sedition.

“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,” Kelly responded. But here’s what should alarm everyone, including the 1.3 million active duty service members and 800,000 reservists currently serving: “Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way,” Kelly said. “It’s outrageous and it is wrong.” He’s right. This isn’t really about Kelly.

Think about what this means for the 2 million military retirees drawing pensions. Under current law, if a retired officer is found to have used contemptuous words against the president or certain other officials, they could receive up to a year of confinement and the forfeiture of all pay and allowances. That threat has always existed in theory. Now the Pentagon is demonstrating it will actually use this power against political opponents.

Restricting freedom of speech of military retirees is unconstitutional and helps stifle the civic interaction of veterans in our political system. But more than that, it creates a chilling effect on the exact kind of moral courage military training is supposed to instill.

We spent decades teaching service members that “I was just following orders” isn’t a defense. That they have a duty - not just a right, but a duty - to refuse orders that violate the Constitution or laws of war. And now the Pentagon is punishing a Senator for saying that out loud.

The whole thing reeks of political retaliation dressed up as military discipline. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the action “a despicable act of political retribution” and called Hegseth “a lap dog committed to serving one man - Donald Trump.” The unintended message to every current service member is clear: Don’t question. Don’t speak up. Don’t cite military law if it contradicts what the commander-in-chief wants. Your pension depends on your silence.

That’s the opposite of what we need from our military. We need people who understand the difference between lawful and unlawful orders. We need officers who will push back when asked to do something unconstitutional. We need the moral courage that the Nuremberg principles were designed to protect.

Instead, we’re getting a Department of War - Trump signed an executive order in September letting the Department of Defense call itself that - that punishes decorated veterans for stating basic military ethics.

Mark Kelly flew combat missions during the Gulf War, made two deployments on the aircraft carrier USS Midway, received two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and flew four space shuttle missions, commanding two of them. He didn’t question orders while serving. He followed them, got shot at, and came home. And now his pension is threatened over a video about military law and what he’s said publicly about the military’s operations.

If common sense ever returns to the Pentagon, it’ll find the door locked.

Correction, September 28th, 2026: This essay first said Chuck Schumer accused Trump of using the Pentagon as his “personal attack dog” - Schumer called Hegseth “a lap dog committed to serving one man - Donald Trump.” It said Mark Kelly commanded four space shuttle missions - he flew four and commanded two. It called Rachel VanLandingham a former judge advocate general - she was an Air Force judge advocate. And it said Articles 90, 91 and 92 create a duty to disobey illegal orders - they cover lawful orders, and the duty to refuse comes from the Pentagon’s Law of War Manual.

Update, September 28th, 2026: The headline and a few lines now say Hegseth moved to cut Kelly’s pay - nothing had been cut yet - and that he based it on months of Kelly’s public statements, not just the video; Kelly sued on January 12th, 2026, and on February 12th, 2026, a federal judge blocked the Pentagon’s action. Apostrophes and quote marks lost in an old publishing glitch are back, each quote checked against its source.