Eliminating Mark Kelly is crucial to Trump's strategy: analysis

U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) speaks with members on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 23, 2025. REUTERS/Kylie Cooper

MS NOW editor and writer Zeeshan Aleem says there’s a reason President Donald Trump and his persistent defense secretary can’t let Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) speak in peace without retaliation.

Trump was gravely injured by the decorated veteran’s decision to participate in a video with five other Democratic lawmakers reminding service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders. So much so that Trump’s defense secretary is now appealing a judge’s order telling the administration to back off from censuring Kelly. Trump’s people are also pursuing a reduction of Kelly’s retirement rank.

“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.’”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s determination “to continue fighting Kelly in court shows how fixated he is on suppressing free speech and punishing dissent against the Pentagon,” said Aleem. “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.”

Aleem said Trump doesn’t want a military that honors the Constitution and follows the proper chain of command with a sense of ethics. What Trump and his administration lieutenants want is a personal fighting force stretching from coast to national coast. To do that, Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham told MS NOW earlier that Trump needs to be able to strike just as much fear into retired veterans as active duty members.

“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,” said Aleem. The problem for Trump, however, is that courts do not impose the same First Amendment restrictions to military retirees that they impose on active members.

Despite this, the administration simply must make Kelly’s life more difficult “and rob him of his pension because he dared to question the Trump administration,” said Aleem. “… 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?”

From Your Site Articles