The US Department of Defense has instructed the Navy to complete the investigation by December 10 in statements by Senator Mark Kelly and five other lawmakers who asked US soldiers to refuse orders deemed illegal during operations in the Caribbean and Pacific region. These statements came after at least 83 people were killed in US naval attacks on ships supposedly linked to drug smuggling, events that international organizations described as extrajudicial executions. According to the media source, Defense Minister Pete Hegseth set a maximum date and requested a detailed report on the matter.
According to what was published, Hegseth sent a formal letter to Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, requesting a public review of the statements made by Kelly on or around November 18, 2025. The document published by the Ministry of Defense on
In this context, the video in question shows Mark Kelly, a Democratic senator and retired captain in the US Navy, along with Congressmen Elissa Slotkin, Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris DeLuzio, and Chrissy Houlahan, sending a direct message to the country’s armed forces. The group urged soldiers to disobey orders that conflict with national or international legitimacy. The text message quoted in the original source was: “No one should follow orders that go against the law or our Constitution (…). Know that we have your back. Don’t abandon ship.”
The publication of this letter coincided with a moment of intense international pressure. After confirming the killing of more than 80 people during US military operations in the Caribbean and Pacific waters, the United Nations and human rights bodies denounced the existence of extrajudicial executions, raising questions about the legitimacy of the operation and the United States’ commitment to international treaties. As the original source detailed, these events put the US administration under surveillance regarding the use of lethal force in combating drug trafficking and the legal framework regulating orders in the military field.
After the video was released, President Donald Trump responded publicly and accused Kelly and other lawmakers of being “traitors,” stating that they were engaging in “seditious conduct punishable by death.” According to the media source, these presidential statements increased media and political interest in the potential legal and legislative risks of lawmakers’ intervention. This incident sparked a debate about the limits and responsibilities associated with soldiers’ due obedience versus the obligation to reject unlawful orders.
Thus, as the Department of Defense reported in its official channels, the Pentagon began a formal review of the consequences of the words of members of Congress, with the possibility that Mark Kelly, as a retired captain, would be recalled to active duty to face court-martial or be subjected to other types of administrative measures. This consideration is supported by provisions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which allow reservists to be tried if they are actually needed.
Regarding Mark Kelly’s career, the source media indicated that his military career included missions in the Arabian Gulf and performances as an instructor at the Naval Pilot School. The current extent of his legal responsibility depends on the results of the internal review, as well as the possibility of his return to service to be held accountable before the military judiciary.
With the Dec. 10 deadline to complete the investigation ordered by the Defense Secretary looming, expectations are on what report the Navy must provide on the significance of statements by Kelly and other lawmakers. The controversy also reopened discussions about mechanisms for civilian oversight of the armed forces, the weight of moral and legal obligations in the face of superior orders, and the continuing disagreement between the requirements of national security and the protection of basic rights.
According to the source, the situation is still being analyzed within the Pentagon while controversy continues over the scope of lawmakers’ responsibilities in matters of military leadership and institutional controls that regulate American operations abroad. This incident reflects the context of tensions between civilian and military forces, as well as international pressure on the country to effectively adhere to international humanitarian law.