It started as a seemingly routine video message—but its timing and content set off a storm that reverberated far beyond Capitol Hill.
Lawmakers urging military personnel to “refuse illegal orders” might seem harmless to civilians, but within the armed forces, such statements carry weight, and ambiguity can be dangerous. The fallout, critics warned, could test the boundaries of civilian oversight and the chain of command.
On Nov. 25, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth directed the Navy to review comments made by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired Navy captain, in a video released Nov. 18. Secretary of the Navy John Phelan was tasked with reporting findings by Dec. 10. Kelly appears in the video alongside five other lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, urging service members to refuse orders they deem illegal—without citing any specific examples.
Hegseth condemned the video on X (formerly Twitter), calling it a “politically motivated influence operation.”
“The disturbing video telling [Department of War] personnel to ‘refuse illegal orders’ may look harmless to civilians, but inside the military it carries serious weight,” Hegseth wrote. “It never cited a specific illegal order, created ambiguity, used legally-sounding phrasing, and reframed military obedience through partisan distrust rather than established procedures.”
Kelly’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the Pentagon review. Earlier, he addressed the administration’s reaction:
“If this is intended to intimidate me and others in Congress from holding this administration accountable, it won’t work. I’ve given too much of my life to this country to be silenced by those who prioritize power over the Constitution.”
The video also featured Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), and Jason Crow (D-Colo.). Speaking from a prepared statement, they warned that threats to the Constitution exist at home as well as abroad and emphasized the military’s oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
“You can refuse illegal orders… you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to follow commands that violate the law or Constitution,” they said.
The lawmakers stressed the immense pressure on service members and accused the administration of creating conflicts between the armed forces and citizens.
Hegseth countered that such vague rhetoric undermines trust, insisting the military already has procedures for unlawful orders and does not require “political actors injecting confusion into the chain of command.” In addition to the Pentagon review, the FBI has reached out to schedule interviews with the lawmakers, signaling a possible federal probe.
Former President Donald Trump accused the Congress members of sedition, warning that the crime is “punishable by death.” Democrats responded with further videos and media appearances.
Several lawmakers reported being contacted by the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms about the investigations. Houlahan accused Trump of “using the FBI to intimidate Members of Congress.”
Support for Kelly came from colleagues and public figures alike. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) called him a “patriot” on X, and Kelly’s brother, astronaut Scott Kelly, defended his integrity.
Conversely, some former military officers criticized the video. Buzz Patterson, an Air Force veteran, called it politically motivated, claiming the lawmakers “violated the military chain of command; prosecutions are warranted. Their actions put lives at risk.”
Conclusion
The episode highlights the tension between civilian oversight and military discipline. Lawmakers framed their message as defending constitutional principles, but critics argued the ambiguity could endanger personnel and undermine the chain of command.
As Pentagon and FBI investigations continue, the case underscores how public statements by elected officials can ripple through institutions with real-world consequences.