Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona offered up a lot of words Tuesday when questioned whether soldiers should have disobeyed President Donald Trump’s orders to apprehend Nicolás Maduro.
You’ll recall that Kelly was one of the “Seditious Six” Democratic lawmakers appearing in a video in November, encouraging members of the military to disobey orders from Trump that they deemed unlawful.
“You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution,” the Democrats said.
Stage 4 TDS. https://t.co/HScieod06n
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) November 18, 2025
Kelly himself said in the video to military personnel, “You can refuse illegal orders.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper noted Tuesday that many Democrats have called the military’s apprehension of Maduro to bring the dictator to stand trial in New York on narco terrorism and gun-running charges illegal.
“Do you think it was illegal, and if so, should the service members who were part of that have refused to obey those orders?” the CNN host asked.
Kelly responded with a flood of words that did not square with the message in November’s video.
“So what we were talking about in the video is about a service member being given a specific order and having to make a decision about whether this is lawful or not. This is like the reasonable person theory,” the retired Navy captain said.
Question: Democrats have said the Venezuela operation was illegal. Should service members have refused to obey those orders?
Kelly: That’s different from what I meant. pic.twitter.com/auUAhRmtJ2
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) January 7, 2026
What does that even mean? The Delta Force operators and many others who supported the raid were given specific orders, and under Kelly’s way of thinking, they were at liberty to decide whether to follow them or not.
“What you’re getting at is constitutional questions,” the senator continued. “Can a president try to do a law enforcement action on a head of state, but use 150 airplanes, and the full force of the U.S. military to do that? So these are two different things.”
Wait a minute — the November video specifically instructed military members that if they determined that their orders violated the law or the Constitution, they “must” refuse them.
In a statement on Saturday regarding Maduro’s capture, Kelly said, “Over the past year, Trump’s foreign policy has been reckless, chaotic, self-serving, and unconstitutional.”
So presumably, according to the November video, he would have been under an obligation not to obey orders if his military unit were involved in the Venezuelan operation.
During his CNN interview, Kelly acknowledged that “Maduro is a bad guy, and it’s good that he’s gone.” Maybe he’s seen polling, featured on CNN, no less, showing most Americans support putting Maduro on trial for drug trafficking.
Trump has to like the dramatic change in the polls on Maduro’s ouster. Support for it is through the roof (up 16 pts) vs. pre-ouster.
We saw a similar rise in support over time for the Iran strikes in mid-2025.
Americans like what they deem as successful military operations. pic.twitter.com/ITTETJR6L0
— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) January 6, 2026
The Arizona senator then went on to make a policy argument, saying that Trump’s decision to allow Maduro’s No. 2 to stay on as interim leader was poor.
Kelly can criticize the president’s decision-making on the issue all he wants, but there is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about it.
The American people elected Trump as commander in chief and head of state under the Constitution.
So, what we’re left with is that all Kelly and his fellow Seditious Six Democrats were trying to do in November was to undermine Trump’s authority.
It was all political messaging, perhaps with an eye on the 2028 presidential race for Kelly or others, with no application in the real world.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
