Pentagon Targets “Seditious Six”: Trump Demands Military Crackdown on Kelly

Paul Riverbank, 12/16/2025The Pentagon’s probe of Sen. Mark Kelly for urging service members to refuse illegal orders spotlights a high-stakes battle over military law, free speech, and political pressure—testing foundational principles in American democracy amid a polarized climate.

By midday, the Department of War’s Office of the General Counsel had confirmed that Kelly’s situation was no longer mere rumor. “Retired Captain Kelly is currently under investigation for serious allegations of misconduct,” an official relayed, voices low outside the building’s press offices. The specter of a recall to active duty — and with it, the threat of a court-martial — now lurked in the air.

The legal debate over Kelly’s vulnerability hinges on an arcane but consequential detail: military law’s reach doesn’t end with retirement. Most of his video co-stars, honorable though their service may have been, are now fully civilians, beyond the grasp of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Kelly’s situation is less certain; as a retired naval officer, he remains susceptible to the military’s disciplinary machinery. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth didn’t mince words when addressing reporters. “Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately,” he declared, skipping any hint of ambiguity.

This all played out against a backdrop of mounting rhetoric. President Trump responded with the kind of blunt language that tends to ricochet throughout political media. “Hang them George Washington would,” he posted on Truth Social, calling the group “The Seditious Six” and warning their actions amounted to sedition. He followed up later on Fox News Radio, offering a slightly more measured tone but doubling down on consequences: “In the old days, it was death.” The line hung in the air, unmistakably pointed but cloaked, as ever, with the caveat: “I’m not threatening them.”

Senator Kelly refused to wilt under pressure. His statement — hurriedly emailed from his Arizona office, judging from the timestamp — bristled with defiance. “It should send a shiver down the spine of every patriotic American that the president and secretary of defense would abuse their power to come after me or anyone this way,” he wrote, bracing for what comes next. To Kelly’s mind, his words were hardly incendiary; they echoed the first weeks of military training. “All because I repeated something every service member is taught.” He signed off with a not-so-veiled warning of his own, promising he’d continue fighting for Arizona.

Legal skirmishing followed quickly. Paul J. Fishman, Kelly’s attorney, dashed off a letter to Secretary of the Navy John Phelan. He called the probe “an extraordinary abuse of power,” warning the administration to brace for a sweeping legal counterattack should formal proceedings begin.

If the legal and political back-and-forth felt combative, outside reaction was even more charged. Kelly’s supporters quickly translated his predicament into a battle for free speech, packing social media feeds with calls against what they saw as blatant retribution. White House officials stuck to their narrative: this was about protecting order and discipline in the armed forces, not political payback. The language from both camps has not only become sharper but more personal as the days unfold.

For now, the official line from the Pentagon is that public comments will remain sparse, a tactic often reserved for especially fraught situations. “To preserve the integrity of the proceedings,” an aide said curtly, declining further questions. Meanwhile, each side — the White House, the DoD, and Senator Kelly himself — seems locked in a waiting game.

With the legal questions unresolved and partisan lines hardening, this case is morphing into something larger than a single command investigation. It’s shaping up as a serious test of the blurry boundaries dividing military law, personal speech, and political loyalty, all unfolding at a moment when the nation’s divisions feel especially raw.

The Pentagon’s corridors hummed with a new kind of tension Monday morning. What began as a brief video by Senator Mark Kelly — the Arizona Democrat and ex-Navy pilot, a man usually defined by quiet precision — had suddenly escalated into an extraordinary military investigation with deep political undertones. In that video, Kelly sits flanked by five Democratic colleagues, all former service members, addressing viewers in near-unison: service members must “refuse illegal orders,” a demand aimed, unmistakably, at the Trump White House.By midday, the Department of War’s Office of the General Counsel had confirmed that Kelly’s situation was no longer mere rumor. “Retired Captain Kelly is currently under investigation for serious allegations of misconduct,” an official relayed, voices low outside the building’s press offices. The specter of a recall to active duty — and with it, the threat of a court-martial — now lurked in the air.The legal debate over Kelly’s vulnerability hinges on an arcane but consequential detail: military law’s reach doesn’t end with retirement. Most of his video co-stars, honorable though their service may have been, are now fully civilians, beyond the grasp of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Kelly’s situation is less certain; as a retired naval officer, he remains susceptible to the military’s disciplinary machinery. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth didn’t mince words when addressing reporters. “Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately,” he declared, skipping any hint of ambiguity.This all played out against a backdrop of mounting rhetoric. President Trump responded with the kind of blunt language that tends to ricochet throughout political media. “Hang them George Washington would,” he posted on Truth Social, calling the group “The Seditious Six” and warning their actions amounted to sedition. He followed up later on Fox News Radio, offering a slightly more measured tone but doubling down on consequences: “In the old days, it was death.” The line hung in the air, unmistakably pointed but cloaked, as ever, with the caveat: “I’m not threatening them.”Senator Kelly refused to wilt under pressure. His statement — hurriedly emailed from his Arizona office, judging from the timestamp — bristled with defiance. “It should send a shiver down the spine of every patriotic American that the president and secretary of defense would abuse their power to come after me or anyone this way,” he wrote, bracing for what comes next. To Kelly’s mind, his words were hardly incendiary; they echoed the first weeks of military training. “All because I repeated something every service member is taught.” He signed off with a not-so-veiled warning of his own, promising he’d continue fighting for Arizona.Legal skirmishing followed quickly. Paul J. Fishman, Kelly’s attorney, dashed off a letter to Secretary of the Navy John Phelan. He called the probe “an extraordinary abuse of power,” warning the administration to brace for a sweeping legal counterattack should formal proceedings begin.If the legal and political back-and-forth felt combative, outside reaction was even more charged. Kelly’s supporters quickly translated his predicament into a battle for free speech, packing social media feeds with calls against what they saw as blatant retribution. White House officials stuck to their narrative: this was about protecting order and discipline in the armed forces, not political payback. The language from both camps has not only become sharper but more personal as the days unfold.For now, the official line from the Pentagon is that public comments will remain sparse, a tactic often reserved for especially fraught situations. “To preserve the integrity of the proceedings,” an aide said curtly, declining further questions. Meanwhile, each side — the White House, the DoD, and Senator Kelly himself — seems locked in a waiting game.With the legal questions unresolved and partisan lines hardening, this case is morphing into something larger than a single command investigation. It’s shaping up as a serious test of the blurry boundaries dividing military law, personal speech, and political loyalty, all unfolding at a moment when the nation’s divisions feel especially raw.