Mark Kelly: 'I'd Refuse an Unlawful Order' — But Warns Military Faces Tough Real-Time Judgments

Sen. Mark Kelly said he would refuse any unlawful military order, though he added he never doubted the legality of orders he carried out during combat. Pressed on whether officers should make split-second legality judgments, Kelly acknowledged the burden but argued it is part of military responsibility. He criticized inconsistent explanations from the administration about recent strikes and said service members deserve leaders who respect the Constitution and the rule of law.

10:48 AM, 12/01/2025Politics

Mark Kelly: 'I'd Refuse an Unlawful Order' — But Warns Military Faces Tough Real-Time Judgments

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy pilot, defended a recent message urging service members to decline unlawful orders while acknowledging the heavy burden such decisions place on officers in combat.

Kelly responds to a pointed hypothetical

On NBC's Meet the Press, host Kristen Welker asked Kelly whether he would refuse an order to strike suspected drug boats and kill everyone on board if he were still in uniform. Kelly, who said he flew 39 combat missions and "sank two ships" during his service, replied that he never questioned the legality of orders he carried out in combat but would refuse any unlawful command.

'If I was ever given an unlawful order, I would refuse. When time allows, you consult judge advocates and military lawyers. If there is no time, you simply say, I'm not going to do that. That's against the law,' Kelly said.

Context and concerns

The comments followed a video in which Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers urged service members to refuse orders they believe to be unlawful. That video drew sharp criticism from former President Donald Trump and ignited a wider debate about civilian oversight, military obedience and the legal responsibilities of armed forces personnel.

Welker pressed Kelly on whether placing that judgment call on officers — sometimes in split seconds — is fair. Kelly acknowledged it is a heavy responsibility but argued it remains part of military duty: a reasonable person, he said, can distinguish lawful from unlawful actions. He added that recent explanations from the administration about a series of strikes have been inconsistent and that his primary concern is protecting service members from being placed in situations that could later be deemed illegal.

Kelly warned that troops could discover after the fact that actions they carried out were unlawful, which he called unfair to those serving. 'It is not fair to them. That's why we need a president and secretary of defense who understand the Constitution, who understand the rule of law and have more respect for the Constitution and the country and service members than the whims of the president,' he said.

Kelly won't back down

Kelly later told late-night host Jimmy Kimmel he would not back down from the message. 'Members of the military need to follow the law. We wanted to say that we have their backs,' he said, characterizing critics' responses as extreme.

The exchange highlights the tension between civilian leaders, political rhetoric, and the on-the-ground decisions service members may face in combat. Legal experts emphasize that service members are bound by both lawful orders and protections against following unlawful commands, but determining legality in the moment can be fraught and risky.