by Jacob G. Hornberger

February 5, 2026

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s attacks against U.S. Senator Mark Kelly constitute a fascinating and very revealing insight into the national-security-state way of life.

Hegseth is upset with Kelly, along with five other members of Congress, for participating in a video that reminded U.S. soldiers of their duty to refuse to obey illegal orders. Since Kelly is a retired Navy officer, Hegseth is targeting him with the possibility of being recalled to active duty and harshly punished for daring to participate in such a video.

Let’s be clear. Kelly and the others did not say to U.S. soldiers: “You have the right to disobey orders.” If he had said that, I could easily understand why Hegseth would be upset.

But that’s not what they said. They said that U.S. soldiers have the right — and the duty — to refuse to obey illegal orders.”

The difference between those two admonitions is day and night.

What Kelly and the others stated is the absolute truth. Under U.S. law and international law, soldiers absolutely do have the right and the duty to refuse to comply with illegal orders.

So why would openly reminding soldiers of that upset Hegseth? Surely Hegseth is not claiming that Kelly and the others are wrong. Surely, he isn’t claiming that U.S. soldiers should obey illegal orders.

In my opinion, what Hegseth seems to be saying is that soldiers simply shouldn’t be making that type of decision. In other words, I think what he is saying is that soldiers should simply blindly follow the orders of their superiors without making any determination as to whether they are being ordered to commit an illegal act or not. I think that’s why Hegseth labels the message in that video as “reckless” and “seditious” and encouraging soldiers to defy authority.

Yet, if soldiers are expected to blindly and loyally follow orders, no matter how illegal, then what’s the point of saying that soldiers should not obey illegal orders? It seems to me that if Hegseth is correct, then the point that soldiers should never obey illegal orders simply goes out the window. It essentially becomes non-existent.

After all, deciding whether to obey an illegal order requires thinking about whether the order is legal or not. It seems to me that Hegseth doesn’t want soldiers thinking about that at all. It seems to me that he wants them to simply obey orders and not think about whether the orders are legal or not.

Indeed, I can’t help but wonder what Hegseth would say about the prosecutions of Nazi officials at Nuremberg. Would he say that those prosecutions were illegitimate? Weren’t those officials prosecuted for blindly following orders to commit illegal acts?

In the final analysis, I don’t think Trump and Hegseth have anything to worry about. As I have long pointed out, even though U.S. soldiers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, it’s really just a sham. The fact is that soldiers’ loyalty is to the president. In their minds, when they blindly obey the orders of the president, they are supporting and defending the Constitution. That was made clear at My Lai in Vietnam, the undeclared wars against Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and, more recently, the killing of more than 100 people in the Caribbean. I contend that in the unlikely event that any U.S. soldier was to disobey illegal orders, including orders to kill American citizens, (e.g., Americans who have been labeled terrorists, communists, or narco-terrorists), that soldier would be immediately removed from his position (and possibly executed) and quickly replaced by a soldier who wouldn’t hesitate to blindly follow orders to commit whatever acts he is ordered to commit, no matter how illegal. That’s just the way life is under a national-security state.