WASHINGTON, D.C. — Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Issues Scathing Rebuke of “Seditious Six,” Signals Possible UCMJ Action Against Retired Cmdr. Mark Kelly

In a dramatic escalation of the political and military firestorm surrounding the now-viral video released by the group dubbed the “Seditious Six,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth delivered a forceful condemnation on Tuesday, calling the video “despicable, reckless, and false” while announcing that one of the individuals involved — retired Navy Commander and former senator Mark Kelly — may face consequences under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The video, which circulated widely across social media platforms, shows six former or affiliated national-security figures urging active-duty service members to question or ignore certain orders issued by senior military leadership. The message immediately sparked outrage among defense officials, prompting Hegseth to address the issue directly in a formal statement from the Department of War.

“Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of good order and discipline,” Hegseth declared. “Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in danger.”

He went on to break down the status of the six individuals involved. According to Hegseth, five of the six are beyond the jurisdiction of the Department of War — one being a CIA operative and the remaining four being former service members who separated from the armed forces without entering retired status. As such, they are no longer subject to military law.

But Kelly, Hegseth emphasized, is a different case.

“Mark Kelly, a retired Navy Commander, is still subject to UCMJ — and he knows that,” Hegseth said. “The Department is reviewing his statements and actions, which were addressed directly to all troops while explicitly using his rank and service affiliation. That lends the appearance of authority to his words.”

According to defense officials, the review will examine whether Kelly’s participation constitutes an attempt to influence active-duty personnel in a manner that violates Article 88 (contempt toward officials), Article 92 (failure to obey regulations), or Article 134 (conduct unbecoming) of the UCMJ. No formal charges have been announced, but Hegseth made clear that the Department views the matter as serious.

“Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately,” he stated.

The controversy has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum. Supporters of the “Seditious Six” claim their video was a protected act of political expression aimed at raising concerns about the direction of military leadership. Critics argue that invoking former ranks and addressing active-duty troops crosses a bright red line that threatens civilian control of the military — a foundational principle of American democracy.

Military law experts note that while UCMJ action against a retired officer is rare, it is not unprecedented. “Retirees remain part of the armed forces and can, under certain circumstances, be held accountable for conduct that damages military discipline,” said Dr. Aaron Wexler, a professor of military justice.

As the Department of War continues its review, Kelly has not yet issued a public response. For now, the situation marks one of the most contentious civil-military clashes in recent memory — one that could have far-reaching implications for the boundaries between free speech, political activism, and military authority.