Kelly Video, Trump’s Threats, Court Dismisses DOJ Cases, ICE Detention Facility Issues

TL;DR

• Mark Kelly video urges troops to refuse orders; Trump threatens death and Pentagon investigates
• National Guard deployed to Washington D.C. for crime fighting amid nationwide unrest
• Court dismisses DOJ cases against former FBI Director Comey and AG Letitia James
• ICE detention center in federal building faces accusations of inhumane conditions and lack of due process
• U.S. and Germany bilateral relations see decline as perception of partnership drops

Mark Kelly video ignites unprecedented military‑justice showdown

Timeline of key actions

• 18 Nov – Six Democratic lawmakers post a 32‑second video urging service members to refuse unlawful orders.
• 20 Nov – Former President Trump calls the video “seditious” on Truth Social and threatens death for its dissemination.
• 24 Nov – The Department of Defense opens a formal UCMJ review to determine whether retired Captain Mark Kelly should be recalled or face administrative action; Secretary Pete Hegseth confirms Kelly remains subject to the UCMJ.
• 24 Nov – White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denies any execution order while labeling the lawmakers’ speech as “sedition.”
• 24 Nov – Republican strategist Steve Schmidt publishes a Substack analysis warning of political retaliation against the legislators.

Legal stakes

• 10 U.S.C. § 688 (UCMJ) permits recall of retired officers for court‑martial‑eligible offenses.
• 18 U.S.C. § 2387 criminalizes interference with military loyalty, morale, or good order.
• UCMJ Articles 92‑94 require obedience to lawful orders and protect disobedience of manifestly illegal orders.

Service record relevance

• Retired Navy captain with 22 years of service and four Space‑Shuttle missions.
• Under Title 10, retired officers retain UCMJ jurisdiction for qualifying offenses.

Soldier sentiment data

• Defense‑internal poll (9 Nov) shows 9 % of active‑duty personnel would disobey any order deemed illegal.
• 25 % indicated they would refuse specific unlawful orders such as targeting civilians.
• 56 % said they would first consider legality before compliance, up from 45 % in the prior quarter.

Pattern analysis

• First instance of a sitting senator’s public speech triggering a UCMJ review without a specific alleged breach.
• All principal actors used X/Truth Social, compressing policy debate into a 48‑hour news cycle.
• Trump’s “punishable by death” phrasing conflicts with constitutional free‑speech protections for retired officers.
• Democrats cite lawful‑order doctrine; Republicans cite military‑discipline doctrine, creating a bifurcated legal strategy.

Emerging trends

• DoW’s rapid initiation of a review suggests growing use of military‑justice mechanisms for political oversight.
• Public dissemination of “order‑refusal” messaging aligns with long‑standing doctrine but gains partisan framing.
• Drafts of a “Military Speech Protection Act” are circulating in House committees to clarify UCMJ applicability to civilian speech by retirees.

30‑day outlook

• 70 % likelihood DoW recommends recalling Kelly for a limited administrative investigation.
• 20 % likelihood of formal UCMJ charges leading to a court‑martial, with probable dismissal or reprimand under political pressure.
• 10 % likelihood of congressional action halting the recall on First‑Amendment grounds, resulting in legislative stalemate.

Implications for civil‑military balance

• Potential erosion of normative civilian control if political actors routinely threaten punitive military action for speech.
• Survey data indicate a measurable rise in order‑questioning attitudes; sustained politicization could affect chain‑of‑command efficacy.
• A court‑martial or formal recall would set a precedent expanding UCMJ reach to post‑service political expression, reshaping conduct guidelines for retired personnel.

Judicial Check on Interim U.S. Attorneys: Dismissals of Comey and Letitia James Indictments

Case Timeline

• 22 Sep 2025 – Lindsey Halligan sworn in as interim U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia.
• 25 Sep 2025 – Grand jury indicts former FBI Director James Comey (false statements, obstruction).
• 9 Oct 2025 – Grand jury indicts New York Attorney General Letitia James (bank fraud, false statements).
• 24 Nov 2025 – Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismisses both indictments “without prejudice,” citing Halligan’s invalid appointment.
• 24 Nov 2025 – DOJ announces intent to appeal.

Legal Reasoning

• Statutory limits (28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 546) restrict interim U.S. Attorney service to 120 days without Senate confirmation; Halligan exceeded this period.
• The Appointments Clause requires Senate advice and consent for officers wielding significant authority; the court deemed Halligan’s appointment unlawful.
• “Without prejudice” dismissals preserve prosecutorial discretion, but re‑filing must respect statute‑of‑limitations deadlines.

Implications

• Judicial enforcement of the 120‑day limit may curb executive use of interim appointments for politically sensitive prosecutions.
• Statute‑of‑limitations already barred further action against Comey; the dismissal therefore has no practical effect on that case.
• DOJ’s appeal indicates a near‑term increase in appellate activity concerning appointment validity.
• Recurring procedural defects across high‑profile cases could drive congressional hearings and potential statutory reform.

Outlook

• Short‑term: appellate decision expected within 12‑18 months on procedural grounds.
• Medium‑term: if upheld, DOJ must appoint a compliant interim or permanent U.S. Attorney before any remaining limitation periods expire.
• Long‑term: repeated dismissals may prompt legislative clarification of interim appointment authority, reducing future procedural risks.

ICE Detention Surge Threatens Due‑Process and Human Rights

Detention Volume Outpaces Prior Year

• 60,000 detainees in September 2025 versus 45,000 in September 2024 – a 33 % increase.
• Federal allocation of $45 billion through September 2029 earmarked for domestic immigration enforcement.

Criminal Versus Non‑Criminal Detainees

• 71.5 % of detainees hold no criminal record.
• 70 % of ICE arrests involve individuals already charged or convicted in U.S. courts.
• Case examples: Rosa family detained 10–70 days; Jasmine Mooney subject to multiple border crossings without criminal indictment.

Documented Facility Deficiencies

• Reports of inadequate medical treatment, nutrition, and sanitation at the federal‑building ICE center.
• Internal ICE correspondence acknowledges “ignored requests” for basic care improvements.

Legislative and Judicial Tension

• Congressional hearings (6 Aug 2025) raised concerns about facility conditions and due‑process gaps.
• State statutes in Connecticut, Illinois, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Ohio restrict ICE arrests at courthouses.
• Federal lawsuits challenge these restrictions, creating a fragmented enforcement landscape.

Emerging Trends

• Funding aligns with a systematic detention scale‑up rather than a temporary surge.
• Jurisdictional conflict between federal expansion and state‑level limitations is prompting continued litigation.
• ICE leadership emphasizes a “worst‑of‑the‑worst” narrative despite data showing the majority of detainees lack criminal histories.

Forecast

• Short‑term (0‑6 months): Additional congressional hearings and potential DOJ inquiries into facility standards.
• Mid‑term (6‑18 months): Likely introduction of federal amendments clarifying bond eligibility for non‑criminal detainees.
• Long‑term (18‑36 months): Possible detention reductions if state restrictions gain judicial affirmation and funding is re‑allocated.

Policy Recommendations

• Mandate quarterly independent audits of medical, nutritional, and sanitation conditions.
• Standardize bond eligibility criteria based on criminal history rather than immigration status alone.
• Condition portions of the $45 billion allocation on measurable compliance with human‑rights benchmarks, such as zero‑incident reports and timely grievance resolution.