The National Institute of Military Justice released a scathing statement, slamming Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for his attack against Senator Mark Kelly.
The NIMJ, which identifies as an “independent, non-partisan body of military justice experts” that has been advocating for justice and fair administration in the armed forces since 1991, said that attacking military retirees, such as Kelly, who was a captain in the U.S. Navy, “creates the potential for targeted, abusive and politically motivated actions.”
“Secretary Hegseth’s zeal to have the military punish Senator Kelly is a worst-case scenario of this problem,” the organization wrote in its release, adding that they condemn “any attempt by military leaders to punish Senator Mark Kelly, a military retiree, for his speech.”
Representatives for Hegseth and Kelly did not immediately respond to the Beast’s request for comment.
The NIMJ’s statement comes in response to Hegseth labeling Kelly as part of the “Seditious Six,” a term the Trump administration coined for the six Democratic lawmakers—Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow—who posted a video on X reminding troops they could refuse illegal orders. In the video, Kelly stated, “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”
Hegseth then ripped the video on X, calling it a “politically motivated influence operation” that “created ambiguity rather than clarity” and “undermines trust, creates hesitation in the chain of command and erodes cohesion.” He also ordered a Pentagon probe into the Arizona Senator following the video.
Hegseth’s response, according to the NIMJ, however, was a danger to the Constitution.
“Any adverse action against Senator Kelly would threaten core constitutional principles,” the organization wrote. “It blurs the separation of powers by allowing the Executive Branch to punish a member of the Legislative Branch for speech made in the performance of his duties as a Senator.”
The NIMJ also concluded that any punishment given to Kelly, “chills First Amendment expression” and would “send a message that honest debate invites retaliation” within the military.
“Service members quickly learn that loyalty to the Constitution may carry risk if their words displease those in power,” the NIMJ explained. “If the military can punish a Senator for speech that a senior military official does not like, no viewpoint of any military member or retiree is safe.”
The organization then pointed out that, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Hegseth lacks legal grounds to punish Kelly’s speech.
“Although the military code criminalizes certain types of speech that may affect the military mission, the Senator’s remarks are far from criminal,” NIMJ wrote. “He simply restated a fundamental principle of military law: service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders.”
The NIMJ also claimed that Hegseth’s handling of the situation “was flawed from the start” as he “publicly announced” his desire for Kelly’s punishment and then sent the case to a subordinate leader, Navy Secretary John Phelan, for review, citing “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly after the video was released.
“That puts the subordinate in an impossible position: either deliver some form of punishment that Secretary Hegseth demands, or potentially be fired,” NIMJ wrote. “That is not how justice in the military works or should work. Nothing erodes confidence in military leadership faster than the appearance that political pressure—not law—drives outcomes.”
