Name: Hegseth unlawfully retaliating against Sen. Kelly over 'illegal orders' video: Judge
Uploaded: 2026-02-13T17:03:23.000Z
Duration: 10 min 3 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Sentences with advanced comparative

Are you concerned that the administration could try to indict you and the five other Democratic lawmakers as soon as tomorrow?

Of course, you know this president has a habit of doubling down on shitty ideas.

That was Senator Mark Kelly earlier today reacting to questions about a possible indictment from the Trump administration.

It comes as a federal judge shut down Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's attempt to punish Kelly over that social media video where he and five other Democratic lawmakers urged service members to refuse illegal orders.

The judge ruling that Hegseth's attempt to pursue administrative action against the retired Navy captain was unlawfully retaliatory.

Secretary Hegseth tweeted in response to the ruling, quote, this will be immediately appealed.

Sedition is sedition, Captain, with the word captain in quotes.

Can you walk us through the judge's decision here?

Yeah, Casey, the main finding of the judge, this is Judge Richard leon in the D.C.

federal court at the trial level, he's saying that the Pentagon here, they are trying to trample Senator Mark Kelly's first First Amendment protections and his rights to free speech.

Now, the reason that the judge is looking at this is because at the beginning of January, after that video had been put out by Kelly and five other members of Congress, all former military or intelligence community members, in that video, they had said, and

Kelly specifically said, you can refuse illegal orders.

He's speaking to members of the military and the intelligence community, essentially said, saying that he would have their back if they wanted to refuse an order of the president if they believed it to be unlawful, something like those double tack strikes, those sorts of issues.

In this situation, though, the Pentagon wanted to censure Mark Kelly and they wanted to do it because he's a retired naval captain and also because they are very unhappy that he is trying to encourage people, they say, to disobey the chain of command in the military, that he's encouraging disobedience across the military.

The judge is stepping in there and saying the Pentagon can't do this to a retired member of the military.

You can't censure someone like this and also try and demote them.

Potentially looking back at a years old file from when Kelly left the Navy.

But also the judge is saying, you can't ask us to allow this when you're talking about a member of Congress who's just out there saying what they believe Reminding something that is true for members of the military, that they do have the ability to refuse orders if they believe them to be illegal.

And you can't do it, especially because Kelly is an oversight, a person in a position of oversight over Congress.

So this is a very strong ruling in favor of Mark Kelly.

It stops the Pentagon from censuring him and from putting things in his file related to this particular video, the don't give up the ship video that Kelly taped in November.

And the judge is giving Kelly quite something to stand on as they still look and see whether there could be additional action on the criminal prosecution side.

We know the Justice Department wanted to charge Kelly with a crime as well as the others in that video, and

Earlier this week, the judge saying that in this situation, the Pentagon should not be treating him like this.

And as a retired veteran, retired veterans themselves deserve more respect from the government.

I do believe in the First Amendment, and I do believe in Mark Kelly's rights to do this.

But the only thing that I think that is shitty is not what Pete Hegseth and the administration is trying to do, is rather Mark Kelly and his five colleagues trying to politicize and stir up the US Military and military members in an incredibly political way.

And so I think the First Amendment protects their stupidity, but they should be really ashamed.

And Mark Kelly shouldn't be out there thumping his chest.

If you're in the military, everybody knows you don't have to follow illegal orders.

Every private, every E1, every newly enlisted soldier knows that all the way up to general officers.

So what they were trying to do is politicize the military in an overt fashion, and

He should not be thumping his chest for political gain.

And is the Trump administration, David, not essentially doing the same thing, politicizing the military by using the apparatus of the federal government to go after these guys?

You know, Casey, I think they have every right to be upset here.

I do think the First Amendment protects them, however stupid it is.

There are certain things that when you're a retired person and retired member of the military like Mark Kelly, he may be able to be reduced in rank or have his pay docked at some point because he's still receiving his military pension.

So I'm not quite, you know, I'm not An expert at the nuances of the pay structure.

I think Mark Kelly should be embarrassed and ashamed and look, it's his First Amendment right to do so.

Well, I just, I think it's pretty clearly Trump and the Trump administration who thinks this was a political fight they wanted to have.

I mean, these members of Congress were simply stating, as you said, David, they were simply stating a fact that is known to every member of the military.

They are not required to follow illegal orders.

If Trump didn't want to make this a big political fight, he should have simply ignored it or said, yeah, couldn't agree more and moved on.

I mean, they're clearly wanted to have the fight.

I think they were trying to impute that something in the Trump administration, that the Trump administration were war criminals and they were doing things that were illegal.

That is way outside of anything that's even close.

You know, you don't mess around in these waters.

I think they were expressing concern about the fact that Congress had not been briefed and relevant committees of jurisdiction had not been briefed on potential military action.

And so, and so you do that in oversight, you do it in an oversight hearing.

If Trump wanted to, if Trump didn't want to make this a big political fight, then he wouldn't have taken the bait jump in here.

I mean, if this was a political fight that Trump and Hegseth wanted, they lost big time.

There's a thing in elections that you can't buy it's name id.

And Trump and Hegseth just gave Mark Kelly, a man who by his own admission is looking to run for president in 2028.

They just gave him such a gift, this one, two punch.

I'm just talking the raw politics of it, the one, two punch this week, of the failure to get a grand jury to indict.

Right, A grand jury that should be able to indict a ham sandwich.

Regular people did not agree that these people should be indicted.

And this judge saying, yeah, of course Mark Kelly has First Amendment rights.

Whatever you think of the merits of what these lawmakers said, again, they just stated a fact.

Of course it's protected by the First Amendment.

And I think Trump thought he'd win this fight.

Pete Hegseth thought they'd win this fight and look tough against Mark Kelly.

But let me tell you, Mark Kelly, his face and name are splashed all over the cable news networks this week, and

they have been in the weeks since the Trump administration tried to do this.

He just vaulted to the top, I think, of a lot of people's Democratic nominee lists.

And let me tell you, I know a lot of Arizona politicos and operatives.