Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona

Every so often, politics coughs up a claim so far outside the boundaries of American law that any newsroom with its boots laced should stop and verify before hitting “publish.” Pete Hegseth’s threat to “recall Senator Mark Kelly to active duty” and prosecute him under military law should have been one of those moments.

Instead, Reuters repeated his words without context, without analysis, and without calling a single former JAG officer who could have explained why the entire premise collapses the minute you hold it up to the Constitution.

Let’s start with the basics.

1. Military retirees can be recalled only for crimes committed on active duty.

That’s the narrow holding reaffirmed in United States v. Larrabee (2021). Retired service members remain under limited UCMJ jurisdiction — but only for offenses tied to their time in uniform. Senator Kelly’s actions as an elected official fall entirely outside that category.

2. Civilians, including senators, cannot be dragged under military law.

Supreme Court precedent couldn’t be clearer:

• Ex Parte Milligan (1866): civilians cannot be tried by military tribunals.

• Toth v. United States (1955): former service members who have reentered civilian life cannot be recalled for prosecution.

• Reid v. Covert (1957): constitutional rights override the UCMJ.

These cases make the legal terrain obvious: the military has no jurisdiction over civilians acting as civilians.

3. Article I, Section 6 protects Senator Kelly directly.

The Speech or Debate Clause states:

“For any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

Translation:
A senator cannot be punished, prosecuted, or interrogated by the Executive Branch — including the military — for legislative activity. That protection is absolute. Trying to use military recall as political retaliation is precisely what the Framers designed this safeguard to prevent.

Put simply: any attempt to recall Kelly for Senate actions would collapse on constitutional impact.

And this is where Reuters really failed.

I’ve been covering the military long enough to know the first rule of this beat: you check your facts like lives depend on it, because sometimes they do. When a claim touches military law or chain of command, you don’t wing it. You don’t guess. You don’t grab the nearest political sound bite and dump it into a wire story. You pick up the phone and get a former JAG on the line. You call the legal shop. You make damn sure you’re not spreading garbage under your masthead.

Reuters didn’t bother.

There was no breaking-news clock running. No incoming mortars. No reason to cut corners. They just repeated a fantasy as if it had a uniform and a DD-214. That’s not reporting — that’s laziness wearing a press badge. And in this business, where accuracy is the only thing separating us from rumor mills and barstool experts, that kind of sloppiness is a black mark you don’t shake off easily.

4. This claim wasn’t difficult to debunk.

A single phone call to any senior JAG — active or retired — would have ended the story before it started. The answer is straightforward:

The military cannot recall a senator to active duty to punish political actions.
Article I, Section 6 and decades of Supreme Court precedent make it impossible.

End of discussion.

But instead of delivering clarity, Reuters delivered an echo. And that’s a problem. Because in an era where misinformation spreads faster than correction, the last thing we need is major outlets laundering legally impossible threats.

Accuracy is the job.
This time, Reuters didn’t do the job.