Subtitle: The Arizona senator calls Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth not serious people after they accused Democratic lawmakers of seditious behavior
Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly unleashed sharp criticism against President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a Sunday interview, escalating tensions over a controversial video that urged military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. The Democrat labeled both men as not serious people following their accusations that he and fellow lawmakers engaged in seditious behavior.
The confrontation stems from a video Kelly and several Democratic colleagues released encouraging service members to reject orders violating the Constitution or federal law. Trump responded by suggesting the lawmakers' actions could be punishable by death, though he later walked back that specific threat while maintaining investigations would proceed.
During his appearance on NBC News' Meet the Press, Kelly made clear he won't be silenced by presidential pressure. The senator emphasized his commitment to holding leaders accountable for unlawful actions regardless of attempts at intimidation.
Kelly stated that Trump thinks he can bully and intimidate people but won't stop him from speaking out about wrongful and unlawful behavior. The comment reflects broader Democratic concerns about potential illegal orders emanating from the administration's highest levels.
The Arizona lawmaker's defiance comes as the Defense Department launches an investigation into the video following Trump's seditious behavior accusations. The probe represents an escalation in the dispute between Democratic military veterans serving in Congress and the current administration.
A group of Democratic lawmakers, all military veterans or former intelligence officials, released the video at the center of the controversy. The message reminded current military and intelligence personnel of their right and obligation to refuse orders violating law or the Constitution.
The lawmakers stated that no one must carry out orders that violate legal or constitutional boundaries. They intended the video to ensure service members understand their rights and responsibilities when facing potentially unlawful directives from superiors.
The group did not specify which illegal orders they referenced, with Kelly clarifying the message was forward-looking rather than addressing any specific commands already issued. This distinction hasn't satisfied the administration, which views the video as encouraging insubordination.
Beyond the Defense Department probe, the FBI has sought interviews with six Democratic lawmakers appearing in the video. The list includes Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin and Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania.
All six lawmakers share backgrounds in military service or intelligence work, lending credibility to their concerns about potential illegal orders. Their combined experience provides context for why they felt compelled to release the controversial video.
The FBI's involvement signals the seriousness with which the administration views the lawmakers' actions. Whether the interviews will lead to formal charges or simply serve as fact-finding missions remains unclear.
Kelly pointed to Trump's comments during the 2016 Republican presidential primary as evidence of concerning views about military compliance. Trump had declared that if he orders something done, the military will do it because that's what leadership means.
This statement suggested Trump believed he could compel military obedience regardless of order legality. Such thinking alarms lawmakers who understand military personnel's duty to refuse unlawful commands supersedes their obligation to follow orders.
Kelly also referenced Trump's suggestion earlier this year that the military should use dangerous U.S. cities as training grounds. This comment further fueled concerns about the administration's approach to military deployment and potential for unlawful actions on American soil.
Defense Secretary Hegseth responded to the video by calling the Democratic lawmakers' message despicable, reckless and false. Kelly fired back with even harsher criticism, labeling Hegseth as the least qualified secretary of defense in the history of our country by far.
The exchange highlights growing tensions between Democratic lawmakers and the current administration regarding military ethics and accountability. Kelly's willingness to directly attack a Cabinet secretary demonstrates how seriously he views the situation.
Recent reports alleging Hegseth ordered a Navy SEAL team to kill everybody on a boat suspected of drug trafficking have intensified scrutiny. Kelly expressed hope the reporting was inaccurate while calling for thorough investigation.
Kelly leveraged his Navy veteran background to explain why the video was necessary. He stated that during his service, he never questioned whether orders were legal because military personnel can typically distinguish between lawful and unlawful directives.
However, Kelly emphasized that if he had ever received an unlawful order, he would have refused to comply. This position reflects standard military training that emphasizes the duty to disobey illegal commands regardless of who issues them.
The senator's military credentials give weight to his arguments about appropriate conduct. His willingness to stand firm against presidential criticism shows how seriously he takes threats to military ethics and constitutional governance.
Kelly demanded accountability for the allegations against Hegseth, promising to put relevant parties under oath to determine what happened. He stressed the importance of transparency and responsibility within military and government operations.
The senator's insistence on thorough investigation reflects Democrats' determination to maintain oversight despite administration pushback. Whether Congress can compel testimony and enforce accountability remains a critical question as tensions escalate.
As investigations unfold, the dispute raises fundamental questions about military ethics, the rule of law and responsibilities of those wielding power. The outcome will likely influence civil-military relations and set precedents for how future administrations interact with service members.