Is It Really Sedition or Reckless Gibberish?

By Mike Bibb

"I am a United States Sailor. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me. I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world." — The Sailor's Creed, written at the direction of Chief of Naval Operations Frank Kelso, appearing in the American Legion Magazine, October 2025.
________________________________________________________

Not certain President's Trump's claim of accusing various members of Congress and department staff of "sedition" is valid in this particular case.

But, I sympathize with his sentiments.

As a USMC veteran, I'm totally aware of the military's position on sedition and those found guilty of it.

Should a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine be prosecuted (Court Martialed) of sedition and found guilty, his future is not very bright. In fact, I'd imagine it's down-right unpleasant.

However, I believe Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ -D), a Navy vet, is aware the penalties associated with the crime probably no longer apply in his case, or of any other veteran. — (see "Update" below for revision of this statement).

Which may be why he's spouting his thoughts on the matter, and maybe he's forgotten the part in The Sailor's Creed that mentions "I will obey the orders of those appointed over me."

Since Mr. Kelly isn't an active, or reserve member of the military, he can voice whatever opinion he pleases for the simple reason his speech is now protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Even if he were to yell in the center of a public park that "No military guy, or gal, has to obey an illegal order from the President of the United States," his ranting is probably permissible.

Unless, he physically hurts someone in the process of his protest. Then, it'd become a civil dispute, possibly criminal depending upon the severity of the injury.

Plus, he's now a United States Senator with all the rights and privileges of the office.

I'm positive he also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution prior to entering Congress.

However, as you will read below, Mr. Kelly may not be lawfully entitled to say whatever he wants. That, in fact, his irresponsible speech could have adverse consequences because of his association with the Navy.

In a civil court, a judge may consider at least two issues when deciding if Trump's complaint against Kelly and others has merit: The "Active, Reserve or Inactive Duty" status of the individuals, and has their 1st Amendment right of "free speech" been violated?

Since Kelly, and associates, have not taken up arms against the government, or advocated violence in expressing their displeasure, rather only suggesting (in their opinion) that military members can refuse to carry out a direct order from their superiors, then it seems doubtful a case would be brought.

Particularly, since no "illegal" orders by President Trump have been cited. Not even by Kelly.

Also, how is an enlisted soldier or officer supposed to distinguish an "unlawful order" from a lawful one?

Furthermore, where is it written a military member has the option to disregard an order because of personal feelings?

The military is not a democracy where leaders and issues are decided by popular vote. Like a large corporation, it is governed from the top down, with the President being the CEO, his cabinet a supervisory board, officer staff providing management and enlisted personnel supplying the work force.

They all function in unison to offer a service or product. In the military's case, they toil together to ensure the safety and continuance of our society.

It takes discipline, dedication and compliance with orders from noncommisoned officers, officers, field and fleet generals and admirals, the War Department and the President of the United States.

That's the way the system works and has worked since before the beginning of the United States.

On a field of battle, or a ship at sea, confusion produced from the discord of failing to carry out orders would inevitably lead to additional chaos.

Imagine the Captain of a nuclear submarine refusing to comply with orders from his superiors because he didn't believe an enemy's threat to launch missiles against the East Coast of Virginia was valid.

Forgetting, others above him probably have more info and intel then he does.

Refusal or hesitation in carrying out an order can be a costly decision. "Sedition," like "Mutiny," is a serious matter; its adherence could get people killed.

While President Trump is also the Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Services, he is not the Supreme Court or "King" over the civilian populace.

He is their highest elected representative and subject to the laws, rules and regulations passed by the Congress and signed by Presidents — past and present.

I certainly do not agree with Sen. Mark Kelly's notions regarding military personnel not complying with orders, I do recognize his inclination to say it.

Although, I don't know why he would. What's the purpose of he, and five others, intentionally releasing a video suggesting active military personnel can reject a direct order from the President or commanding officer, stating — "You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders."

This gibberish coming from a career Navy dude, and current U.S. Senator, who should know better.

What is the benefit in this, other than Kelly's actions are sure to cause a political ruckus, and unduly influence military members into actually believing they can disobey an order.

It's reckless conduct at best and stupid behavior at least. If Kelly doesn't realize this, then he shouldn't be in the Senate.

Should an active Gunnery Sargeant, 2nd Lieutenant, Master Chief, Admiral or General were to insist such commands from the President are "illegal," I don't believe it would take very long before the MPs were arriving to cuff and escort them to the brig.

Then again, things have probably changed since I was wearing the uniform nearly 60 years ago.

Update: Apparently, since Sen. Mark Kelly is a retired Navy vet, he's still subject to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). I guess because he receives retirement pay from the Navy and can be recalled to active duty at the discretion of the Navy.

Consequently, he is the only one of the six involved in the "Disobey Order" controversy that can be Court Martialed. Four others served in the military but not retired from the military, and one was CIA.

Unknowingly, Mr. Kelly may have really "stepped in it" this time.

At least, this is how I understand the present situation.

Of course, I imagine lawyers will have a field day with this one. Before it's over, Trump could be in the brig and Sen. Kelly lounging in the White House!!!