Senator Mark Kelly and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are involved in a dispute that goes beyond a simple morality play. While one side claims that Kelly crossed a line and deserves punishment, the other side insists that Kelly is a hero beyond reproach and the administration’s response is villainous. Both perspectives are comforting but inaccurate.
The key issue here is not about who appears righteous or reckless in the moment, but rather what happens when legality is left unresolved. In this case, junior service members are left to make legal and moral judgments without clear authority, guidance, or institutional support. Decision-makers are shielded from consequences, while those who carry out the decisions face risks.
The conflict began with a short video released by Kelly and other Congress members who are veterans of the military or intelligence community. The video reminded service members of their duty to refuse unlawful orders, a principle deeply embedded in US military law. The video was a response to recent boat strikes in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific that raised significant legal questions, which went unanswered by the Department of Defense.
Instead of addressing these legal questions, Hegseth labeled the video as “seditious” and moved to censure Kelly, a retired Navy captain, potentially stripping him of his rank and pension. Hegseth’s response indicated a clear stance on how dissent would be handled.
The duty to refuse unlawful orders in the military is not meant to be a standalone concept; it assumes a functioning system where legality is clarified through proper channels before service members are forced into personal defiance. Refusal should be a last resort, not the primary means of enforcing legality.
However, in this case, the structures meant to provide clarity have been weakened deliberately. Senior military leaders have been removed, legal advice ignored, and explanations of legal authority avoided. Civilian leaders have emphasized compliance over clarity and signaled a punitive approach to dissent.
This environment leaves service members in a moral quandary – obedience carries personal and professional risks, but refusal can lead to severe punishment. With limited authority, individuals must navigate ambiguity created by higher-ups without legal backup or institutional support.
The episode is not just about a video or clashes between personalities; it highlights a series of leadership failures that reinforce one another. Congressional members raised valid concerns but opted for performative gestures rather than sustained institutional confrontation. Hegseth failed to explain the legal basis for operations and resorted to punishment instead of clarification, abusing his power in the process.
Senior uniformed leaders also share responsibility for remaining silent in the face of ambiguity, becoming complicit in a system that shields decision-makers while exposing those who must act. This dynamic creates a corrosive environment for junior service members, who are instructed to refuse illegal orders within systems lacking legal backing and institutional cover.
In conclusion, a professional military requires leaders – civilian and military – who take responsibility for their decisions before asking others to execute them. Abdicating or abusing this responsibility leads to a culture of avoidance and silence, reshaping institutions in lasting ways. Service members need clarity and institutional support to navigate complex legal and moral dilemmas that arise in their line of duty.
