Military Law Expert Says Hegseth Doesn’t Even Have Authority To Strip Senator Kelly of Military Rank

Geoffrey Corn, a 20-plus-year U.S. Army veteran, told Mediaite founder Dan Abrams this week that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth likely overstepped his legal authority when initiating a process that could strip Sen. Mark Kelly (R-AZ) of his military rank and reduce his pension.

Corn joined Abrams on SiriusXM’s The Dan Abrams Show, where he broke down how Hegseth’s actions could lead to a showdown in federal court. Corn is a retired U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) officer.

Hegseth accused Kelly of “seditious” conduct in a video where Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers urged intelligence and military service members not to follow any illegal orders. The lawmakers claimed there are threats to the Constitution within the United States in the video that Trump called “seditious.”

Corn, the chair of criminal law and director of the Center for Military Law & Policy, told Abrams that he believed Kelly’s words were “not the wisest,” but “legally accurate.”

Hegseth wrote in a Monday morning post that the Department of Defense had begun retirement grade determination proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f) against Kelly. He said a Letter of Censure should also be added to his military personnel file.

Corn explained that normally, such a proceeding would need to be kicked off by the secretary of whatever branch of military the service member in question retired from, not from the Secretary of Defense. Kelly now has 30 days to respond, and he will face a panel of three military officers of higher rank who can advise whether he is guilty of Hegseth’s accusation.

“The mere fact that the Secretary announced that the department is initiating this proceeding is problematic because, according to the statute, it has to be the secretary of the service from which the member retired, so long as it’s not a general or officer or admiral,” Corn said. “So the proper procedure would be that the Secretary of the Navy should initiate this process. I don’t think the Secretary of Defense has statutory authority to initiate it.”

Even if Hegseth is directing the Secretary of the Navy to initiate the process, Corn argued this is still problematic because of “the impartiality or objectivity of the decision-making process.”

The current process for Kelly smells like corruption, Corn added.

“Normally, what would happen here is there’d be some report of very serious misconduct, like a serious criminal conviction that would come to the attention of the Navy,” he said. “And then there would be a legal opinion from the office of General Counsel that would then be presented to the secretary who could initiate this proceeding. So the procedure right out of the gate seems corrupted.”

Corn noted Kelly could seek “some type of extraordinary writ” to prohibit the potential proceedings by arguing he’s being punished for exercising his free speech rights.

If Kelly were guilty of seditious behavior, Corn argued, the government would be holding a court-martial and presenting its case.

“If the government is that confident that their evidence is strong enough to prove that, why are they doing this instead of recalling Mark Kelly to active duty and subjecting him to a court martial in an open court where they would have to prove the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt?” he said. “And he would have the opportunity to have a jury of military officers sit in judgement of the government’s accusation.”

Watch above via SiriusXM.