Mark Kelly’s ‘Refusal’ Narrative Fails Under Scrutiny

COMMENTARY by Susan Katz Keating

Senator Mark Kelly claims he released a November 2025 video to remind U.S. service members they are obligated to refuse unlawful orders. They already know that. And when fundraising surges and presidential speculation follow, the explanation deserves closer scrutiny.

Clarity has finally cut through the fog in the Mark Kelly affair.

What was framed as a solemn directive about “illegal orders” was not about educating or counseling the troops. It functioned as a political gambit, launched at a combustible moment and poised for maximum utility in the next election cycle. Among the uses: Kelly now says he is considering a presidential bid. 

In November, Kelly joined five other Democratic lawmakers in a coordinated video telling service members and those in the intelligence community that they were obligated to refuse unlawful directives. 

The message carried an edge. Several service members told me they took this as a warning: follow your chain of command today, and a future administration could decide you should have resisted. They could prosecute you.

“These retired bigshots are telling me I could go to prison in future if I follow my chain of command today,” one active duty soldier said. “That’s messed up.”

Critics and President Donald Trump labeled the group’s conduct “seditious.” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth issued a formal Letter of Censure to be placed in Kelly’s permanent military file, and began retirement-grade determination proceedings. 

A federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement. Separately, a grand jury declined to indict the so-called “Seditious Six.” The legal fight continues.

But legal process is not the same thing as motive.

Every service member in the United States military is trained from day one that unlawful orders must be refused. It is not obscure doctrine. It is embedded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is reinforced in professional military education. It is drilled into leaders at every level.

Kelly knows this. He served 25 years in uniform. He commanded. He flew combat missions. He understands the chain of command and the architecture of discipline.

He does not need to make a public video reminding sailors to salute their superiors. He does not need to remind junior officers to follow rules of engagement. And he did not need to remind troops that unlawful orders must be refused.

So why do it?

POLITICO reported on January 23 that Kelly has made strategic political use of being Trump and Hegseth’s “Public Enemy No. 1.” Kelly has used his time in the spotlight to ramp up his contributions to candidates and party committees to nearly $5 million in the last year alone, the outlet states. 

That is not the behavior of a reluctant and virtuous constitutional guardian. That is the language of campaign leverage.

This month, Kelly confirmed he is “seriously considering” a 2028 presidential campaign, even as he says his immediate focus remains on 2026.

National positioning does not begin the day a candidate files paperwork. It begins in moments of high-visibility clashes framed as principle versus power. The astronaut-senator standing up to a Republican administration over military ethics is a potent narrative. It travels well. It raises money. It builds a brand.

None of that is illegal. It’s politics.

But it strips away the pretense that the video existed solely to protect junior troops from confusion.

There was no identified unlawful directive. No emergency breakdown of military legal safeguards. No documented order requiring public senatorial intervention.

By centering “refusal” at a politically charged moment – without identifying a specific unlawful directive – Kelly intriduced doubt into the chain of command while maintaining technical cover. The message was legally accurate and strategically loaded.

To civilians: constitutional virtue. To the ranks: be ready to resist.

The distinction matters.

If a junior service member misjudges that line – independently deciding that a lawful order is somehow unlawful – it will not be Mark Kelly standing before a court-martial. His pension will not be at risk. His career destroyed. The cost of selective obedience falls on the young, not the senator.

The chain of command is not a campaign backdrop. It is not a stage. Politicians come and go. The chain of command remains. And it is not there to be rattled every time someone eyes higher office.

Susan Katz Keating is the publisher and editor in chief at Soldier of Fortune.