Retired General Sounds Alarm on Trump, Hegseth's Political Attacks

After President Trump’s reelection, a retired Army general who had previously criticized the president grew concerned about how the incoming administration might retaliate if he chose to speak publicly again. He outlined three ways the government could target him: a civil lawsuit, an IRS audit, or even recall to active duty where he could face military justice action. He recently reflected on those fears after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would investigate Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, for appearing in a video reminding service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders.

The retired general described this moment as part of a larger “chilling effect” he sees across the military community. Analysts and former senior officers note that Defense Department actions against Kelly and Rep. Eugene Vindman — both veterans with long public service records — represent a sharp break from long-standing norms that have kept the armed forces insulated from political retaliation. Experts warn that involving the military in disputes between civilian political leaders risks damaging trust within the force and undermining the principle of nonpartisanship that service members depend on.

The video message at the center of the controversy was produced by six lawmakers who previously served in the military or intelligence community. Their reminder that troops must refuse unlawful orders reflects a basic expectation under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While some retired officers have debated the clarity of the message, none who spoke for the report believed it was unlawful. Several noted that labeling the video “seditious,” as Trump and Hegseth have done, raises concerns about due process and could complicate any attempt to pursue charges.

Retired legal experts also pointed out that the Pentagon’s moves raise questions about potential overreach into the rights of retired service members. Under the UCMJ, the Defense Department maintains authority over some retirees, leaving them vulnerable if political disputes are routed through military channels. Some former judge advocates stressed that this moment risks politicizing a justice system originally designed to protect troops from arbitrary prosecution.

For many in the veteran community, including the retired general who first voiced his concerns, the investigation into Kelly underscores shifting standards. He noted that past political statements made by retired officers have not triggered similar scrutiny. If a sitting senator who serves on the Armed Services Committee can be subjected to investigation for addressing lawful orders, he said, then many veterans may feel uncertain about speaking freely. “I have concerns,” he said, “for just about anybody who would say anything.”