MS NOW95%
What Pete Hegseth’s fixation on Mark Kelly reveals0%
By Zeeshan Aleem94%
2/26/2026, 3:00:00 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 29.3% saturation with 190 hits. Analysis detected 1,521 faulty-reasoning hits from 649 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.
Pete Hegseth just can’t let it go.
The Defense secretary is appealing a judge’s order blocking him from censuring Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., for participating in a video with five other Democratic lawmakers reminding service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders.
Hegseth’s determination to continue fighting Kelly in court shows how fixated he is on suppressing free speech and punishing dissent against the Pentagon.
His doggedness also illustrates the Trump administration’s determination to reconceptualize the military as a politicized fighting force that shouldn’t be bound by the law.
Hegseth seems to face a steep hill in his bid to punish Kelly.
In November, six Democratic lawmakers who served either in the military or in the intelligence community released a video in which they said at various points that service members “can” or “must” disobey illegal orders and reminded them that they “swear an oath to protect and defend this Constitution.”
Even though it’s true that service members swear to protect the Constitution and are only required to follow lawful orders, and even though their remarks are constitutionally protected free speech, the Trump administration responded hysterically.
President Donald Trump absurdly declared the video an act of “sedition” that should be “punishable by death.”
But the Trump administration has failed so far to silence them.
A Washington, D.C., grand jury declined to indict the lawmakers this month.
As The Associated Press noted then, “Grand jury rejections are extraordinarily unusual, but have happened repeatedly in recent months in Washington as citizens who have heard the government’s evidence have come away underwhelmed in a number of cases.”
Separately from that failed prosecution, Hegseth has pursued a reduction of Kelly’s retirement rank.
Kelly retired as a captain in the Navy, and a reduction in rank would reduce the pension he receives as a military retiree who served at least 20 years of honorable active-duty service.
Kelly responded with a lawsuit, and U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled this month that Hegseth’s sanction violated the First Amendment and “threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.”
As Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham, who’s retired from the Air Force, wrote for MS NOW, Hegseth’s position is that he can treat military retirees the same as active service members — who do face more stringent restrictions on their speech while serving in the military, in part to ensure the military’s need for obedience to commands.
But VanLandingham, who is a law professor at Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, said “no court has ever extended this shrunken First Amendment protection to military retirees.”
She added, “I trust that the D.C. Circuit, and eventually the Supreme Court, will continue to protect the free speech rights of millions of us military retirees.”
Hegseth seems to face a steep hill in his bid to punish Kelly.
But even if he is unlikely to succeed on a legal level, that should not divert our attention from how dishonorable and petty his harassment of the decorated officer is.
The head of the Defense Department should be focused on keeping Americans safe.
But Hegseth — when he isn’t accidentally leaking war plans to journalists, doing childish pull-up competitions or insinuating U.S. soldiers shouldn’t be wary about committing war crimes — is doggedly working to make Kelly’s life more difficult and rob him of his pension because he dared to question the Trump administration.
Hegseth’s efforts also have political effects.
Just like when he investigated hundreds of Defense Department employees for critical remarks after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, Hegseth’s vendetta against Kelly telegraphs a security vision that demands fascistic deference to political leaders.
Ultimately, Hegseth’s fury that lawmakers encouraged service members to disobey illegal orders gives away the game: Why would a man who swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States be so angry that troops are reminded that they ought to do the same?
Speakers
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.