No, the Secretary of defense is not subject to the UCMJ. Answer from eskimospy212 on reddit.com
Reddit
reddit.com › r/navy › mark kelly responds to potential court martial
Mark Kelly responds to potential court martial : r/navy
November 25, 2025 - Anyway, I’m selling “Traitor ... and put the middle one on the bottom, bottom one in the middle. He definitely deserves to be recalled to active service and court martialed for this heinous crime....
Reddit
reddit.com › r/military › senator mark kelly’s statement:
r/Military on Reddit: Senator Mark Kelly’s statement:
2 weeks ago -
This is Senator Mark Kelly’s response to the censure. I’ll not add my thoughts as they don’t matter.
Videos
“In some ways, maybe I hurt his ego in a way that he now is ...
00:42
'They Need To Get Over Themselves': Mark Kelly Blasts Pete Hegseth, ...
Sen. Mark Kelly said he's been told by the Pentagon that he ...
06:47
Pentagon may recall Sen. Mark Kelly to military service for court ...
10:44
Pentagon threatens to recall Sen. Kelly to military service, court ...
03:33
Ex-Trump official: Sen. Kelly's court martial response 'destroys ...
Simple Justice
blog.simplejustice.us › 2025 › 11 › 25 › tuesday-talk-should-senator-mark-kelly-be-subject-to-court-martial
Tuesday Talk*: Should Senator Mark Kelly Be Subject To Court Martial | Simple Justice
November 25, 2025 - Kelly, nor anyone else for that matter, will not be prosecuted under 18 USC 2387 (assuming, arguendo, the case even got that far). To do so, a court-martial convening authority would have to charge the allegation using the assimilation clause in Article 134, clause 3, UCMJ, 10 USC 934 for a state or federal non-capital crime.
Reddit
reddit.com › r/askpolitics › can the secretary of defense be court martialed?
r/Askpolitics on Reddit: Can the Secretary of Defense be Court Martialed?
November 26, 2025 -
With all the talk about Mark Kelly possibly being recalled for a Court Martial, it made me wonder, can Pete Hegseth be Court Martialed as well?
Mark Kelly reminded troops that they have an obligation not to follow illegal orders, which is what the UCMJ says. In a way, wouldn't it be in violation of the UCMJ for Hegseth to imply that soldiers should be following illegal orders? Is he implying that he (and/or Trump) will be issuing illegal orders? Additionally, he doesn't respect the rules of engagement, he's a well-known drunk, and the list goes on and on.
But my question isn't really about whether he meets the standard of a court martial. On a more basic level, is it even possible to court martial the secretary of defense? Who would command that? What would happen if they did?
Top answer 1 of 24
47
No, the Secretary of defense is not subject to the UCMJ.
2 of 24
35
Army JAG here There's a lot of wrong answers in this thread. Most Secretaries of Defense, technically yes. Pete Hegseth specifically, no. Military retirees, as in did 20+ years, getting a pension, are still subject to the UCMJ and involuntary recall. It doesn't happen very often, but they're basically an emergency bench. Senator Kelly is subject to recall because he retired from the Navy and is drawing a pension. Hegseth didn't retire, he's just not in Army anymore. He didn't retire, he just ended him time. He's not subject to recall and not still drawing a paycheck, and not subject to the UCMJ
X
x.com › DeptofWar › status › 1992999267967905905
Department of War 🇺🇸 on X: "OFFICIAL STATEMENT: The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations" / X
OFFICIAL STATEMENT: The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
thefire.org › news › can-pentagon-strip-mark-kellys-rank-over-speech
Can the Pentagon strip Mark Kelly’s rank over speech? | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Without evidence tying a retiree’s comments to concrete disruption within the ranks of the military, an Article 134 court-martial will likely fail. Kelly is no longer in the military, but his remarks were directed toward active service members.
Reddit
reddit.com › r/military › mark kelly responds to potential court martial
r/Military on Reddit: Mark Kelly responds to potential court martial
October 3, 2025 -
This is going to become a whole thing isn't it?
Top answer 1 of 5
873
🫡 Aye sir ! You’re not alone!
2 of 5
409
God bless this man and keep him safe!!! This IS what it means to be American, he has given his life in service to the country and the people. Just read an article that nobody in TRUMPS family ever did any service going back 150 years, that does not surprise me. Trump = looking out for myself. What a god damn disgrace……..
The Nerd Stash
thenerdstash.com › home › politics › texas erupts as senator mark kelly’s defiant clapback ignites online firestorm: ‘there’s absolutely no way this holds up in court’
Texas Erupts as Senator Mark Kelly’s Defiant Clapback Ignites Online Firestorm: 'There’s absolutely no way this holds up in court' | The Nerd Stash
2 weeks ago - Commenters repeatedly pointed out that Kelly’s original remarks simply echoed the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which requires service members to disobey unlawful orders. “Now it seems it is illegal to quote the UCMJ,” one Reddit user wrote, earning more than 2,000 upvotes. Others framed the Pentagon’s move as pure intimidation rather than a serious legal case. “This is why they won’t court-martial ...
AZCentral
eu.azcentral.com › story › news › politics › arizona › 2025 › 12 › 10 › democrats-condemn-court-martial-threat-on-mark-kelly › 87693245007
Court-martial threat on Sen. Mark Kelly is 'dangerous,' Democrats say
December 11, 2025 - Sen. Mark Kelly talks standing up to the Trump administration and a court martial threat "on Twitter" at a Tucson town hall event on Dec.
Reddit
reddit.com › r/tag24 › pentagon threatens mark kelly with court-martial in shocking escalation
r/TAG24 on Reddit: Pentagon threatens Mark Kelly with court-martial in shocking escalation
October 3, 2025 - Posted by u/tag24news - 1 vote and 0 comments
MS NOW
ms.now › home › defense dept. threatens sen. mark kelly with court martial
Defense Dept. threatens Sen. Mark Kelly with court martial
Mark Kelly (D-AZ). Kelly is one of the six Democratic lawmakers who President Trump accused of seditious behavior after they posted a video encouraging service members to refuse "illegal" orders ...
Published November 24, 2025
USNI News
news.usni.org › home › federal law could limit pentagon’s punishment for mark kelly, experts say
Federal Law Could Limit Pentagon's Punishment for Mark Kelly, Experts Say - USNI News
1 week ago - Outside the letter of censure, Hegseth could have recalled Kelly to active duty, which is rare, Carpenter said. Once recalled to active duty, Kelly could then be charged under the military laws and go through the court martial process.
Straight Arrow News
san.com › home › news › sen. mark kelly told troops to defy ‘illegal orders.’ now he could be court-martialed.
Sen. Mark Kelly told troops to defy ‘illegal orders.’ Now he could be court-martialed.
November 24, 2025 - A U.S. senator could face a court-martial charge over his participation in a video where he and other lawmakers called on soldiers to question the legality of some of their orders.
PBS NewsHour
pbs.org › newshour › politics › hegseth-issues-letter-of-censure-to-sen-kelly-after-warning-about-following-illegal-orders
Hegseth issues letter of censure to Sen. Kelly after warning about following illegal orders | PBS News
2 weeks ago - The Pentagon announced that it began an investigation of Kelly late in November while citing a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court martial or other measures.
Military Times
militarytimes.com › news › your-military › 2025 › 12 › 17 › pentagon-escalates-probe-into-sen-mark-kelly-over-lawful-orders-video
Pentagon escalates probe into Sen. Mark Kelly over lawful orders video
1 month ago - On Nov. 24, the Pentagon announced that it would be investigating Kelly and, in a post uploaded to social media, cited a federal law permitting the Defense Department to recall retired service members to active duty for a court-martial.
The Center Square
thecentersquare.com › arizona › article_bcae1161-1dd6-47df-95b8-4b89b9c3a88f.html
Department of War says Kelly faces possible court-martial | Arizona | thecentersquare.com
November 25, 2025 - None of the other former military service members in a social media post are facing a possible court-martial, according to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. He said Kelly, as the only one who retired from the military, is the only person subject ...
CNBC
cnbc.com › 2026 › 01 › 05 › pentagon-mark-kelly-video-hegseth.html
Pentagon to cut Sen. Mark Kelly's military retirement pay over 'seditious' video: Hegseth
1 week ago - The Pentagon in November announced a probe of Kelly for his involvement with the video, and said that further actions could include a recall to active duty and a court-martial proceeding.
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.