Mark Kelly’s Anti-Trump Video Backfires as Pentagon Moves to Slash Gun Banner’s Military Retirement

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Monday, January 5, 2026, that the Pentagon has started an administrative process that could lower Sen. Mark Kelly’s retired Navy grade—and with it, reduce his military retirement pay—after a video in which Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers told service members they “can refuse illegal orders.” (Reuters)

In a statement posted on X, Hegseth said the lawmakers released “a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline.” (X (formerly Twitter)) He framed the issue as accountability for a retired officer still drawing pay:

“As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he is still accountable to military justice. And the Department of War — and the American people — expect justice.”

What the Pentagon says it’s doing

Hegseth said the department has initiated “retirement grade determination” proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f)—a review that can reduce a retiree’s grade and therefore the pay tied to that grade.  Reuters also reported the Pentagon is moving to attach a letter of censure to Kelly’s military record while the process plays out.

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

Hegseth also said he issued a formal “Letter of Censure” that will be placed “in Captain Kelly’s official and permanent military personnel file.”

On timing, Hegseth said Kelly has 30 days to respond, and the retirement grade process will be completed “within forty five days.” Reuters described the administrative timeline slightly differently—reporting the process would conclude soon after the response window—so the key practical point is the same: this is an accelerated review, not an open-ended one.

What the Pentagon says Kelly did wrong

Hegseth’s X statement argues the action is based on Kelly’s public statements “from June through December 2025,” claiming Kelly “characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders.” Hegseth said this was “seditious in nature” and violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which he says still apply to a retired officer receiving pay.

Reuters reported the dispute centers on a November 18 video, released amid controversy over U.S. strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels, where the lawmakers urged troops to refuse illegal orders.

Kelly’s response: “I will fight this with everything I’ve got”

Kelly has publicly rejected the move and signaled he will challenge it. Reuters quoted Kelly saying he would “fight this with everything I’ve got,” and also quoted his statement warning the action would chill speech by retirees:

“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. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.”

Other outlets reported Kelly also attacked Hegseth personally on X, calling him “the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in our country’s history,” and saying: “I will fight this with everything I’ve got.” (The Guardian)

The legal and constitutional fight that’s coming next

This case is unusual because it mixes three things that rarely collide in public: civilian political speech, military discipline rules, and retired-officer accountability.

The administration’s position—laid out in Hegseth’s statement and echoed in coverage—is that Kelly’s retiree status and pension keep him tied to military standards, and that using a platform to influence service members crosses a line.

But major coverage also notes legal skepticism about whether the Pentagon can punish a sitting member of Congress for political speech, even if that member is a retiree. AP reported that experts raised constitutional concerns and that grade-determination reviews typically relate to conduct during active service rather than post-retirement speech. (AP News)

In plain terms: the Pentagon is trying to treat this like a discipline-and-good-order problem. Kelly is treating it like a free-speech and political-retaliation problem.

Why this matters to gun owners—and where “sedition” gets debated

For a pro-gun audience, the word “seditious” hits a nerve because it’s about loyalty to constitutional order—and the Constitution isn’t a menu. If you’re the kind of politician who talks reverently about “democracy” while spending your career trying to shrink an enumerated right, a lot of gun owners see that as a form of rebellion against the country’s basic rules.

That’s the connection many in the 2A world are making here: if you treat the Second Amendment as optional, you’re not just “disagreeing,” you’re trying to rewrite the deal Americans already made. And when that attitude shows up alongside messaging that encourages troops to question the chain of command, people read it as the same pattern—pressure campaigns aimed at weakening constitutional limits.

To be precise (and fair): opposing the Second Amendment politically is not “sedition” in the legal sense by itself. But in the civic sense—meaning hostility to a core constitutional right—many gun owners will still call it anti-constitutional and subversive behavior. This week’s fight with Kelly matters because it’s the administration saying: words aimed at the military, from someone still drawing military pay, can trigger consequences.

What happens next

Kelly has 30 days to submit his response, and the Pentagon says the retirement-grade review will move quickly after that. If the department follows through with a reduction in retired grade, Kelly’s retirement pay would be reduced accordingly.

Either way, this is headed toward a bigger test: how far an administration can go using military administrative tools against a political figure who is also a retired officer—and how courts will weigh discipline arguments against free-speech protections.

Leaked Script Shows Anti-Gun Lawmakers Coordinated With Soros/Antifa Linked Groups in ‘Refuse Orders’ Op”

Pentagon Launches Misconduct Probe Into Anti-Gun Sen. Mark Kelly After “Refuse Illegal Orders” Video