Rapa Nui, also known as Easter Island, is often portrayed in popular culture as an enigma. The rationale is clear: The tiny, remote island in the Pacific features nearly 1,000 enormous statues – the moai^[1]. The magnitude and number of these monuments

When astronomers search for planets that could host liquid water on their surface, they start by looking at a star’s habitable zone^[1]. Water is a key ingredient for life^[2], and on a planet too close to its star, water on its surface may “boil”;

As humans began to explore outer space in the latter half of the 20th century, radio waves proved a powerful tool^[1]. Scientists could send out radio waves to communicate with satellites, rockets and other spacecraft, and use radio telescopes to take in

Senator Mark Kelly sits at an unusual point where civilian office and military law intersect. His appearance in a recent video^[1] urging U.S. service members to refuse “illegal orders” prompted the Department of Defense to open a formal review. The Pentagon relies on statutory authority allowing certain retired officers to remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and to be recalled for potential discipline under 10 U.S.C. § 688^[2]. The review places Kelly in a rare position for a sitting senator and raises questions about how far military obligations extend once a service member steps into elected office. Coverage of the announcement emphasizes the core issue is the point where political speech meets the command structures that maintain discipline in the armed forces.

The Video That Triggered the Review

The video featured six lawmakers with either military or intelligence backgrounds addressing U.S. service members. Kelly’s comments included the phrase that troops “can refuse illegal orders.” According to reporting from Politico^[3], the Pentagon viewed the message as potentially harmful to “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline.” Although five other lawmakers appeared in the video, Kelly stands alone as the subject of the review because the Department of Defense determined he remains under UCMJ jurisdiction as a retired Navy captain. The other lawmakers either never retired from service or come from intelligence agencies outside the UCMJ’s reach. That distinction shapes the Pentagon’s current treatment of the matter.

Legal Grounding for the Pentagon’s Authority

The Department of Defense justified its review^[4] by pointing to its recall authority over retired officers, which appears in 10 U.S.C. § 688, and to several UCMJ provisions that apply to retirees on the rolls. The Pentagon reminded service members the UCMJ presumes orders to be lawful unless they are clearly illegal, such as commands that require a criminal act. It also referenced federal statutes^[5] prohibiting attempts to interfere with the discipline of the armed forces. Kelly’s use of his military rank in the video appears to be a key factor in the Pentagon’s belief his conduct may fall within the scope of UCMJ review.

Why Kelly Stands Alone

Although the video showcased six participants, only Kelly currently faces military legal exposure. The Pentagon has stated that he is the only one whom the UCMJ still governs due to his retirement status. Other lawmakers in the video either served in the military without retiring or came from non-military national security roles, such as the Central Intelligence Agency. That jurisdictional point drives the Department of Defense’s current stance and explains why Kelly occupies a unique position in this unfolding story. The Pentagon has not publicly indicated any comparable review of the other five video participants.

Constitutional and Civil-Military Tensions

This case sits at the intersection of civilian democracy and military command structures. Kelly maintains that his message simply reminded troops of their legal obligations, as he explained in follow-up remarks reported by The Guardian^[6]. The Pentagon, however, views the video differently and frames it as a possible threat to discipline and hierarchy. That tension highlights the longstanding challenge in American civil-military relations: how to balance the constitutional right of elected officials to speak with the military’s need for a stable and lawful chain of command. The situation also creates a rarely tested legal question about whether military authority can reach into the legislative branch when the individual in question retains retired-officer status.

The Constitution assigns Congress the power to regulate the armed forces while vesting command authority in the President. When a member of Congress remains subject to recall for potential military discipline, the separation between the branches becomes less clear. Reporting notes legal scholars consider this scenario extremely rare, with few modern precedents. That rarity underscores the unsettled legal landscape around military authority over retirees who hold high civilian office.

The Stakes for Civil-Military Boundaries

The Kelly investigation invites a deeper conversation about the boundary between military service and civilian governance. If the Pentagon pursues the review further, it could set a precedent for how the Department of Defense handles retired officers who transition into national leadership roles and then speak publicly on military matters. If the review ends quietly, the case may nonetheless shape how current and former service members approach public communication, especially during periods of political tension.

As the Department of Defense continues its assessment, observers will watch closely to see whether this situation becomes a one-off episode or the start of a broader debate over military obligations that continue after uniformed service ends. The answer will influence how the United States interprets the responsibilities of those who once served and now hold civilian power, and how the armed forces maintain discipline without overreaching into political life.

With increasing political pressures on academic curricula over the past few decades, what does this look like for the DoDEA’s College and Career Readiness Education Programs? On August 28, 2025, the College Entrance Examination Board was awarded a $9.9 million dollar contract with the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) per the U.S. Department of War contracts^[1] through sole-source acquisition. The DoDEA has continued to partner with College Board to provide military-connected students with Advanced Placement (AP) programs and scholarships such as BigFuture. 

The DoDEA leverages the College Board’s curricula and nationally recognized standardized assessments for post-secondary preparation and college readiness. According to the DoDEA press release^[2] in October 2024, AP courses are used “as part of DoDEA curriculum offerings, emphasize open-mindedness and intellectual growth by grounding lessons in primary sources and encouraging students to form their own conclusions.” Military-affiliated high school students who attend DoDEA schools participate in the AP exams and scholarships from both the College Board and other organizations via its search feature, which includes the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) that began in 1978 to provide overseas support. Its Blueprint for Continuous Improvement 2025^[3] strategizes four key goals based on student, school, talent, and organizational excellence. Led by DoDEA Director, Dr. Beth Schiavino-Narvaez, this strategy proposes ‘Student Excellence’ through multi-tiered and future-ready learning approaches that include:

• School team process improvement to strengthen standards-based core instruction and data-informed interventions
• Student preparedness for college coursework
• High school student participation and proficiency in college-level coursework

This blueprint serves to guide the DoDEA’s mission of education, engagement, and empowerment to military-connected students through 2030 and beyond. 

Curriculum and Legal Controversies

Over the past few decades, the curricula have faced challenges in response to the nation’s sociopolitical climate and ideological biases. For example, the College Board’s Senior Vice President and Head of AP Program, Trevor Packer, sought to have the AP U.S. History curriculum rewritten in the early 2000’s through a committee of history professionals. The revised framework in 2012 ignited discussions over left-leaning “woke curriculum” that included gender-fluidity studies and race concepts. 

Fast forward to 2023, the College Board was perceived as conceding to political pressures regarding its revised AP African American Studies^[4] course framework pilot. Florida’s Department of Education letter^[5] to the College Board on January 12, 2023 criticized its topics such as intersectionality and Critical Race Theory, thus banning the AP course. The current version does keep intact the reparations debate. President Trump’s Executive Order, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History^[6], now advocates for right-leaning “patriotic” education influence on curricula in schools across the nation. Restrictions on how and what history is taught are additionally subject to state policies and laws. 

The College Board continues to face legal and political challenges. Last year in February 2024, College Board paid $750,000 in penalties for the mismanagement and monetization of student data based on the Attorney General of the State of New York^[7], though College Board disagreed in their statement^[8] on February, 13, 2024. On September 4, 2025, the College Board canceled its “Landscape” tool used by admissions to provide socioeconomic information following the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action in 2023 and the Trump Administration’s federal requirement to expose colleges and universities using ‘hidden racial proxy’ discriminatory tools in August 2025. These impacts, sometimes interpreted as an attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, may continue to shape educational content or procedures despite the College Board’s insistence that political pressure has no bearing.

In terms of competing policy-making interest content, essential knowledge components appear aligned between McGraw Hill’s American Democracy Now and AP U.S. Government Politics Framework. These correlations can be found in the Advanced Placement Correlation Guide^[9] for its government course with some non-partisan highlights below (guide not officially endorsed by College Board).

• PMI-5.E.1: Interest groups may represent very specific or more general interests, and can educate voters and office holders, draft legislation, and mobilize membership to apply pressure on and work with legislators and government agencies.
• PMI-5.G.1: Single-issue groups, ideological/social movements, and protest movements form with the goal of impacting society and policy making.
• PMI-5.C.4: Parties use communication technology and voter-data management to disseminate, control, and clarify political messages and enhance outreach and mobilization efforts.
• PMI-4.B.1: Because the U.S. is a democracy with a diverse society, public policies generated at any given time reflect the attitudes and beliefs of citizens who choose to participate in politics at that time.
• PRD-3.B.2: The rapidly increasing demand for media and political communications outlets from an ideologically diverse audience have led to debates over media bias and the impact of media ownership and partisan news sites.

A similar AP correlation for United States History & Geography or United States History: Voices and Perspectives could not be found. For more information on the DoDEA’s contracted primary instructional resources that support the instruction and learning of their College and Career Ready program, see the DoDEA College and Career Ready Instructional Resources^[10] document. 

How the College Board Influences DoDEA Curriculum

All DoDEA AP courses are approved by College Board's curriculum requirements through the AP course audit designation, which are developed for academic rigor, quality, and consistency. Military-affiliated students are provided with access and testing to help them achieve academic success and preparation for college-level reading, writing, and mathematics. It also assists the DoDEA and educators with the data tools to address instruction, skills gaps, and curriculum improvement. The DoDEA’s partnership with the College Board supports their strategic objectives to better support mobile, military families with college and career coursework, planning, and academic learning. 

Both philosophies of the DoDEA and College Board promote students meeting educational core competencies and college readiness. The DoDEA emphasizes student well-being, critical thinking skills, and pursuit of life-long knowledge. The DoDEA additionally encourages ‘habits and dispositions in multiple subjects’ for their graduates in their College and Career Ready Standards^[11]. College Board, a not-for-profit organization older than a 100 years, espouses college and career pathways, skills development, and student resources. 

What Comes Next

The DoDEA’s College and Career Readiness Education Programs future with the College Board rests on ongoing accountability and balance over the curriculum and processes. The strengths in this partnership enable nationally recognized assessment delivery, scholarship opportunities, and access to greater college pathways with both stability and consistency. The DoDEA’s Blueprint for Continuous Improvement 2025 elaborates on its commitment to be adaptable to challenges while maintaining resiliency as military families navigate various education systems and changes in a dynamic world. It is more important than ever that both the DoDEA and College Board demonstrate their own resilience, neutrality, and responsiveness to the communities they serve in the increasingly shifting political and social environment. This, in turn, encourages educators, policymakers, and military families advocacy that focuses on the diverse needs of military-connected students. 

On Feb. 22, 2020, “Mad” Mike Hughes^[1] towed a homemade rocket to the Mojave Desert and launched himself into the sky. His goal? To view the flatness of the Earth from space. This was his third attempt, and tragically it was fatal. Hughes crashed shortly after takeoff and died.

Hughes’ nickname – Mad Mike – might strike you as...

As AI data centers spring up across the country, their energy demand and resulting greenhouse gas emissions are raising concerns. With servers and energy-intensive cooling systems constantly running, these buildings can use anywhere from a few megawatts of power for a small data center to more than 100 megawatts^[1] for a hyperscale data...

High-speed rail systems are found all over the globe. Japan’s bullet train^[1] began operating in 1964. China will have 31,000 miles (50,000 kilometers) of high-speed track^[2] by the end of 2025. The fastest train in Europe goes almost 200 mph (320 kph)^[3]. Yet high-speed rail remains absent from most of the U.S.^[4]

Stephen Mattingly^[5], a ...