‘Seditious’ Sen. Mark Kelly Can’t Talk His Way Out Of Deepening Pentagon Probe
WASHINGTON, D.C. — APRIL 18, 2026 — The Department of War has officially moved from a preliminary review to a formal Command Investigation into Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.). The retired Naval Captain is under scrutiny for "serious allegations of misconduct" following his lead role in a controversial video encouraging service members to defy "unlawful" orders—a move the administration views as a direct assault on military discipline.
As the only member of the so-called "Seditious Six" currently facing a formal investigation, Kelly’s status as a retired officer puts him in a unique, and precarious, legal position under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
I. From "Review" to "Command Investigation"
A spokesperson for the Department of War confirmed the escalation on Monday, noting that the Office of General Counsel and the Secretary of War are now utilizing enhanced authorities to gather sworn testimony.
The Allegation: Encouraging insubordination through a "politically-motivated influence operation."
The Status: As a retired Navy Captain, Kelly remains subject to military law.
Potential Repercussions: Disciplinary action could range from administrative measures to a full court-martial.
II. The "Seditious Six": Partisan Politics in the Ranks
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has been vocal in his condemnation of the lawmakers involved in the video, labeling them the "Seditious Six." While Kelly is the primary target of the current investigation, the video featured five other high-profile Democrats:
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)
Rep. Chris Deluzio (PA-17)
-
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (PA-6)
Rep. Maggie Goodlander (NH-2)
Rep. Jason Crow (CO-6)
The Department argues that by urging uniformed personnel to "pick and choose" which orders to follow based on vague definitions of legality, these officials have fundamentally undermined the principle of civilian control of the military.
III. Hegseth vs. Kelly: A War of Words
The rhetoric surrounding the probe has intensified as the Department of War prepares its formal findings.
"As veterans, the Seditious Six knew exactly what they were doing—sowing doubt through a politically-motivated influence operation. The Department won’t stand for it." — SECWAR Pete Hegseth
Senator Kelly, however, remains defiant. Posting on X, he characterized the investigation as a weaponization of federal power:
"It should send a shiver down the spine of every patriotic American that the president and secretary of defense would abuse their power to come after me or anyone this way."
IV. Legal Context: The Duty to Obey
At the heart of the probe is a fundamental military tenet: service members are required to obey all lawful orders. While the duty to disobey an unlawful order exists, the administration contends that Kelly and his associates used the term as a political cudgel to invite chaos and insubordination within the chain of command.
By escalating to a Command Investigation, the Pentagon is signaling that it views this "reckless stunt" not as protected political speech, but as a breach of the professional ethics required of a retired senior officer.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
