Technical point (the best kind of point?): you're getting a bit mixed up as to the relationship between the Laws of Warfare (LoW) and Rules of Engagement (RoE) here OP. Laws of Warfare are international laws designed to prohibit atrocities when nations are engaged in wars. Rules of Engagement are entirely self created by the DoD/US and are a set of internal rules that set the standard on what troops are allowed to do. Key distinction: Laws of Land Warfare are international law. Rules of Engagement are limits we voluntarily place on ourselves. So when Hegseth said "we also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement" he means we're not going to limit ourselves in ways that don't make any sense. He didn't say or mean that we're going to start ignoring the Laws of Land Warfare. As an example: In the Vietnam war, significant limitations were placed on the ability to attack targets in Hanoi even though the LoW would state that these are perfectly legitimate targets. We established RoE against attacking them for political reasons. As a more contemporary example. RoE in Iraq could say "under no circumstance are you allowed to shoot at a target until you are first fired upon." Under that kind of RoE a military convoy in the middle of the desert, where no civilians live, could in theory see a road-block with armed people in defensive fighting positions set up ahead of them, and they would have to either stop and seek legal permission to violate the RoE or continue to drive towards that ambush until they were shot at. This is the kind of stupid rule of engagement that Hegseth is talking about. To repeat my earlier line: the meaning of his words was not that we're going to fight with zero RoE or ignore the LoW. His message was that we're not going to self-impose dumb rules on the troops. Answer from theRealHobbes2 on reddit.com
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/news › pentagon says it's investigating sen. mark kelly for video urging troops to defy 'illegal orders'
r/news on Reddit: Pentagon says it's investigating Sen. Mark Kelly for video urging troops to defy 'illegal orders'
November 24, 2025 - Mark Kelly is literally an American hero; astronaut and former navy pilot who flew combat missions, yet they're 'investigating' him because he dares to defy the criminal, terrorist Trump Administration by citing what is true: the military has ...
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/askpolitics › how is mark kelly's video wrong when the sec. of defense recently said he would not follow the rules of engagement?
r/Askpolitics on Reddit: How is Mark Kelly's video wrong when the Sec. of Defense recently said he would not follow the rules of engagement?
November 26, 2025 -

I am sure most people here are familiar with the unfolding controversy over Mark Kelly's recent video stating that soldiers can disobey illegal orders, with Hegseth having just ordered an investigation of the issue: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/nov/25/us-politics-pam-bondi-appeal-james-comey-letitia-james-cases-donald-trump-venezuela-latest-updates

What I want to understand is what reason anyone has why this kind of statement is wrong or unreasonable to make, when the Secretary of Defense, Hegseth himself, just recently stated his intent to not follow rules of engagement.

You can read his full speech here: https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318689/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-addresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/

But I am referring to this excerpt:

>War is something you do sparingly on our own terms and with clear aims. We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy.

We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country.

The US Marine Corps describes the Rules of Engagement as "those directives that delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States (US) forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement." It is a subset of the law of war. See here: https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936%20Law%20of%20War%20and%20Rules%20Of%20Engagement.pdf

He does not say he's going to change the rules of engagement. He simply says they're not going to fight with them. So it seems this is an unambiguous announcement of intent to issue illegal orders. Why then would it be wrong, let alone illegal, for a representative to say that soldiers can and should disobey illegal orders?

Top answer
1 of 10
14
Technical point (the best kind of point?): you're getting a bit mixed up as to the relationship between the Laws of Warfare (LoW) and Rules of Engagement (RoE) here OP. Laws of Warfare are international laws designed to prohibit atrocities when nations are engaged in wars. Rules of Engagement are entirely self created by the DoD/US and are a set of internal rules that set the standard on what troops are allowed to do. Key distinction: Laws of Land Warfare are international law. Rules of Engagement are limits we voluntarily place on ourselves. So when Hegseth said "we also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement" he means we're not going to limit ourselves in ways that don't make any sense. He didn't say or mean that we're going to start ignoring the Laws of Land Warfare. As an example: In the Vietnam war, significant limitations were placed on the ability to attack targets in Hanoi even though the LoW would state that these are perfectly legitimate targets. We established RoE against attacking them for political reasons. As a more contemporary example. RoE in Iraq could say "under no circumstance are you allowed to shoot at a target until you are first fired upon." Under that kind of RoE a military convoy in the middle of the desert, where no civilians live, could in theory see a road-block with armed people in defensive fighting positions set up ahead of them, and they would have to either stop and seek legal permission to violate the RoE or continue to drive towards that ambush until they were shot at. This is the kind of stupid rule of engagement that Hegseth is talking about. To repeat my earlier line: the meaning of his words was not that we're going to fight with zero RoE or ignore the LoW. His message was that we're not going to self-impose dumb rules on the troops.
2 of 10
2
Did he say they’re not going to fight with any rules of engagement or with stupid ones? If it’s “stupid ones”, then it would depend on which ones are considered stupid and whether those specific ones are legally binding in the US as to whether he’s giving an illegal order. The US has changed ROE numerous times. For instance, the US is legally bound by the 1949 Geneva Protocol and the 2005 Additional Protocol III. Both were signed and ratified. But the 1977 Protocols I and II were never ratified and therefore not legally binding (although we use some of their principles). International law is irrelevant if it hasn’t been ratified in some way to make it legally binding, so it really depends what specific rule is in question at the time. Soldiers do have a right to refuse orders they consider illegal. Of course, they can be punished for it and would have to successfully defend their actions in court or be held responsible for insubordination or other crimes.
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/askaliberal › what does this sub think of mark kelly?
r/AskALiberal on Reddit: What does this sub think of Mark Kelly?
October 1, 2025 -

​He was my choice for Harris's running mate. He cooled down pretty fast. Is there a reason why that I don't know about? I know he's a lot of "more of the same" that most of us are tired of, but given the options we had I felt he was the strongest. His depth of character and history of experience in the military, with NASA, and in congress gave him a strong look that we need. At least that's how I felt at the time. I know he's not the most progressive but anything is an improvement on where we're at now. Would the folks of AskALiberal like to see more of him or nah?

🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/military › senator mark kelly is in the wrong job - article from the atlantic - agree/disagree?
r/Military on Reddit: Senator Mark Kelly Is in the Wrong Job - Article from the Atlantic - Agree/Disagree?
November 27, 2025 - I'm not a fan of Kelly's stance on gun control but there's no denying that the man is an American hero and patriot. He's a no brainer for SECDEF and he'd definitely have my vote for president. Gun rights are important to me but with what happened to his wife, I empathize with his position. Not to mention I have faith that he wouldn't try to bypass Congress to push his own agenda. ... Mark Kelly truly is in the wrong job: he and the country would be better off if he was POTUS.
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/moderatepolitics › pentagon to cut sen. mark kelly's military retirement pay over 'seditious' video: hegseth
r/moderatepolitics on Reddit: Pentagon to cut Sen. Mark Kelly's military retirement pay over 'seditious' video: Hegseth
1 week ago - Pretty sure the difference is the content of the message. Mark Kelly didn't even say Trump is illegitimate or say that service members should disobey his orders. Some observers might believe that's the intent, but the actual words used were "Our laws are clear.
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/askreddit › how would you feel about mark kelly running for president?
r/AskReddit on Reddit: How would you feel about Mark Kelly running for President?
1 week ago - Senator Mark Kelly is facing a Pentagon investigation. His service and sacrifice of 39 combat missions, four space shuttle flights, and decades defending the Constitution, speak louder than any bully’s threats.
Find elsewhere
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/arizona › what is the general public opinion on mark kelly?
r/arizona on Reddit: What is the general public opinion on Mark Kelly?
July 22, 2024 -

(to preface, this is not saying anything negative towards him, just personally curious)

I remember seeing his ads years ago on TV, never thought much of it. Guess I didn't even pay attention enough since I never knew he was a senator of ours until like a year ago. Haven't really heard much about him lately, but I've seen a few people call out that he would be an interesting Dem VP pick.

Again, haven't heard much about him for a minute, but I guess politically wise that's not necessarily a bad thing. Never even really heard him being discussed politically or even as a person locally. I've at least heard as a person he's a really nice guy and has led a pretty interesting life.

Anyone have any input?

(I did notice rule 3 so if this applies I will remove/mods can remove, all good, don't think i'm much of a 'regular' per se)

🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/navy › statement from senator mark kelly, capt, usn, retired.
r/navy on Reddit: Statement from Senator Mark Kelly, CAPT, USN, Retired.
1 week ago - Well said and I absolutely agree with Sen. Mark Kelly that the President and SECWAR are attacking his and our first amendment right. Active Duty or retired (especially retired), you should be allowed to criticize the current administration without fear of reprimand or losing your retirement benefits.
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/military › senator mark kelly in his own words
r/Military on Reddit: Senator Mark Kelly in his own words
November 24, 2025 -

When I was 22 years old, I commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Navy and swore an oath to the Constitution. I upheld that oath through flight school, multiple deployments on the USS Midway, 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm, test pilot school, four space shuttle flights at NASA, and every day since I retired – which I did after my wife Gabby was shot in the head while serving her constituents.

In combat, I had a missile blow up next to my jet and flew through anti-aircraft fire to drop bombs on enemy targets. At NASA, I launched on a rocket, commanded the space shuttle, and was part of the recovery mission that brought home the bodies of my astronaut classmates who died on Columbia. I did all of this in service to this country that I love and has given me so much.

Secretary Hegseth’s tweet is the first I heard of this. I also saw the President’s posts saying I should be arrested, hanged, and put to death.

If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.

🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › t › mark_kelly
Best Mark Kelly Posts - Reddit
Sen. Mark Kelly: ‘I never thought I’d see a President call for my execution’
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/askconservatives › what are your thoughts on the dow investigation of sen mark kelly (usn retired)?
r/AskConservatives on Reddit: What are your thoughts on the DoW investigation of Sen Mark Kelly (USN Retired)?
October 5, 2025 -

https://nypost.com/2025/11/24/us-news/department-of-war-opens-misconduct-probe-into-sen-mark-kelly-after-trump-accused-him-of-sedition/

ICYMI, the DoW released a statement that it is investigating Sen Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) for “misconduct” (their words), presumably in relation to a video message urging service members to disobey “illegal orders” that he appeared in.

By virtue of being a retired Captain, Kelly can be recalled to Active Duty. In this case, he could potentially be recalled in order to face a court-martial.

As far as I can find, the only instances of such a case being brought were for retired/separated individuals being charged with crimes committed during their service period.

🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/politics › pentagon threatens to recall sen. mark kelly to military service for court martial in wake of illegal orders video
r/politics on Reddit: Pentagon threatens to recall Sen. Mark Kelly to military service for court martial in wake of illegal orders video
October 4, 2025 - Mark Kelly, a retired US Navy captain, in light of “serious allegations of misconduct” the department has received against him, and could even recall him to active duty to face a court martial or administrative punishment.
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/centrist › what is everyone's thoughts about mark kelly as a vp pick, whether it's on his political record, his views, or his past experience?
r/centrist on Reddit: What is everyone's thoughts about Mark Kelly as a VP pick, whether it's on his political record, his views, or his past experience?
June 1, 2023 - ... Strategically Shapiro can deliver PA; whether he wants to be on the ticket or not is another subject. Picking Mark Kelly will create a vacancy in AZ senate and a special election 2 year earlier than his otherwise end of term in 2028.
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/navy › mark kelly responds to potential court martial
Mark Kelly responds to potential court martial : r/navy
November 25, 2025 - I do not hate Mark Kelly, I do not hate democrats, I do not hate SECDEF, I don't hate anyone actually but I believe that Senator Kelly made a terrible error in judgement letting "Captain Kelly USN Ret" participate in this video.
🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/news › pentagon to cut sen. mark kelly's military retirement pay over 'seditious' video: hegseth
r/news on Reddit: Pentagon to cut Sen. Mark Kelly's military retirement pay over 'seditious' video: Hegseth
1 week ago - Pentagon tonight announced they are escalating the review of former Navy Captain Now US Senator Mark Kelly’s conduct into an official command investigation. Pentagon stated possible admin remedies such as stripping him of his rank and pension .