Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona faced scrutiny this week as he addressed a question about military obedience to President Donald Trump’s orders regarding Nicolás Maduro. His hesitance to firmly answer the question of whether soldiers should disobey presidential commands drew attention, particularly given prior statements he made alongside other Democrats in a video where they encouraged the military to question Trump’s directives. The rhetoric from that November video echoed through Kelly’s latest conversation, leading to real confusion.
In that video, Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers made it clear: military personnel must refuse illegal orders. “You must refuse illegal orders,” Kelly stated, urging service members to stand up against commands that violate their constitutional responsibilities. However, when CNN’s Jake Tapper pressed him on whether the military’s order to apprehend Maduro was illegal, Kelly’s words took a different direction. He emphasized the need for a “reasonable person theory,” explaining the situation required service members to assess the lawfulness of specific orders.
This is a notable pivot. In effect, Kelly was suggesting that soldiers had the liberty to question the legality of their orders, a stance that contradicts his earlier rhetoric. He criticized Trump’s methods, asserting that using military force to apprehend a foreign leader raises “constitutional questions.” But as critics have pointed out, Trump’s order to capture Maduro was not unlawful. In fact, it is a decision stemming from his authority as commander in chief.
The attempt to rationalize his shift left many observers puzzled. If soldiers are commanded to execute an operation targeting a dictator like Maduro, a figure tied to serious allegations of drug trafficking, why would they hesitate? It seems that the very principles Kelly espoused in the November video were conveniently cast aside when he was pressed for a response on a real-world scenario.
Kelly did acknowledge the gravity of the situation, admitting, “Maduro is a bad guy, and it’s good that he’s gone.” This comment suggests that Kelly recognizes the strategic benefits of Trump’s military action against Maduro, especially in light of increasing public support for putting the Venezuelan leader on trial. Recent polling indicates a significant shift in American opinion, suggesting a favorable view of military operations perceived as successful.
While Kelly has the right to critique Trump’s decisions regarding Maduro’s interim leadership, it’s clear that those critiques are rooted more in political strategy than constitutional law. His statements seem less about the legality of military action and more about challenging Trump’s authority as he possibly eyes a larger political future. Ultimately, the episode demonstrates the complexities of political speech within the realm of military engagement, where words can shift dramatically depending on context and audience.
This situation reflects a broader pattern among some Democrats to question Trump’s military decisions while downplaying their potential repercussions. It raises serious concerns about the consistency of their messaging and whether these political gestures have any grounding in reality. Kelly’s recent comments may serve him in a future campaign, but they also underscore the difficulty of maintaining a coherent position in a politically charged environment.
"*" indicates required fields
