Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a review that could strip Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of his military rank and retirement benefits over a video Hegseth labeled “seditious.”
According to reporting first detailed by the Daily Mail, the move stems from a video Kelly shared criticizing the Trump administration’s foreign policy direction, particularly the recent U.S. action in Venezuela. Hegseth has argued the remarks cross a line for a retired military officer, prompting the Pentagon to examine whether Kelly’s conduct violates standards tied to rank, oath, and continued eligibility for benefits.
The Secretary of War, wrote in a statement, “Therefore, in response to Senator Mark Kelly’s seditious statements — and his pattern of reckless misconduct — the Department of War is taking administrative action against Captain Mark E. Kelly, USN (Ret). The department has initiated retirement grade determination proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f), with reduction in his retired grade resulting in a corresponding reduction in retired pay.”
Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline. As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he…
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) January 5, 2026
Kelly, a former Navy combat pilot and astronaut who flew four space shuttle missions, retired from the military as a captain before entering politics. His defenders say that status matters because Kelly is now an elected official exercising free speech, not an active-duty officer bound by the same restrictions.
The video at the center of the dispute shows Kelly warning about what he described as reckless decision-making and the long-term consequences of U.S. military force abroad. Hegseth, a longtime Trump ally and former Fox News host, reportedly took personal offense to the message, framing it as undermining U.S. authority and morale during a volatile moment.
The review does not automatically mean Kelly will lose anything, but the threat alone has escalated the situation. Stripping a retired officer of rank and pension is rare and typically associated with criminal convictions or extreme misconduct, not political speech. That reality has only amplified the reaction.
Kelly responded by standing his ground, telling reporters he would not be intimidated and that criticizing the government is not sedition. Allies in Congress echoed that view, warning that targeting a senator’s military record over a political disagreement risks turning the Pentagon into a weapon in partisan fights.
The controversy arises as the administration is already under pressure for its handling of Venezuela, including questions about advance briefings to oil companies, late-night social media blasts from the president, and visible fractures within the Republican Party. Against that backdrop, the Kelly review has been read by many as another example of escalation rather than restraint.
Veterans’ groups have also weighed in, with some expressing alarm that retired service members could be punished retroactively for political speech. Others, aligned with Hegseth, argue that rank and benefits come with lifelong expectations of loyalty and discipline, even after retirement.
For now, the Pentagon review remains ongoing, and it is unclear how far Hegseth is willing or able to push it. What is clear is that the clash has turned Mark Kelly’s military service, once a bipartisan point of admiration, into the latest front in a rapidly widening political war. On X, Hegseth claims Kelly violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The irony of it all is that in 2016, Hegseth stated on multiple occasions that U.S. service members have a duty to refuse unlawful orders.
