Leadership, Power, and How You Treat Your People: A Case Study of Senator Mark Kelly and Donald Trump

Leadership, Power, and How You Treat the People Who Work for You

How a leader speaks and acts toward the people under their authority (employees, soldiers, students, etc.) directly shapes trust, psychological safety, and whether people will do the right thing when it is difficult.

Central Focus

• What does “good leadership” look like in how you treat the people who work for you?
• How do public leaders’ words and actions toward subordinates mirror what happens in workplaces and schools?

Learning Objectives

By the end of the lesson, students working individually should be able to:

1. Summarize the basic facts of the Mark Kelly “illegal orders” video and Donald Trump’s reaction. Navy Times+1
2. Describe key differences between a leadership style based on law and shared values and one based on personal loyalty and punishment. The Guardian+1
3. Explain the concept of psychological safety at work and why it matters for employees’ willingness to speak up. CCL+2online.hbs.edu+2
4. Analyse how leaders’ language (e.g., calling critics “traitors”) affects trust, morale, and ethical behavior. ABC News+1
5. Apply these ideas to a workplace scenario and propose specific leadership behaviors that treat employees ethically and build psychological safety. PositivePsychology.com+1

Materials

1. Video (opening)

A short news or commentary clip explaining:

• • Kelly’s video reminding service members to refuse clearly illegal orders and stay loyal to the Constitution.
  • Trump’s response, calling it “seditious” and suggesting punishment, including references to death as a theoretical penalty.

ideo (starter, students work alone)

1. PBS NewsHour segment: “‘I am not going to be silenced’: Defense Department investigating Sen. Mark Kelly over ‘illegal orders’ video” PBS

Articles (students read individually)

2. Factual background on the video and legal issue

• Navy Times: “Lawmakers urge troops to refuse illegal orders in video” – explains the content of the video, the idea of lawful vs. unlawful orders, and cites military law (Article 92, UCMJ). Navy Times
• FactCheck.org: “Experts Say Democratic Video Not ‘Seditious,’ as Trump Claims” – clarifies what sedition is and why legal experts say the video restates existing law. FactCheck.org

3. Controversy and leadership clash

• The Guardian: “Mark Kelly: call for troops to disobey illegal orders is ‘non-controversial’” – Kelly’s defense of his position and why he sees this as normal democratic leadership. The Guardian

• A current news piece summarizing Trump’s description of the video as “seditious behavior, punishable by death” and his use of the word “traitor” for critics.

Lesson Flow (All Independent Work)

1. Individual Video Viewing & First Impressions

Student instructions (can be projected or printed):

1. Watch the PBS NewsHour segment about Senator Mark Kelly and the “illegal orders” video. PBS

2. While you watch, jot down brief notes on:

• What Kelly says about the role of soldiers and the law.
• How he talks about Trump’s reaction.
• Any words or phrases that sound like “good leadership” to you – and any that sound like “warning signs” in a leader.

1. Immediately after watching, write a short paragraph (6–8 sentences) answering:

In your own words, what is the conflict about, and what does it show you about how leaders should treat the people under their authority?

Watch video below and answer the 10 questions.

---

Watch the video and answer these questions

1. At the start of the press conference, what does Senator Mark Kelly describe as Donald Trump’s “career tactic” in politics?
2. According to Kelly, what was the core message of his original video to service members that prompted Trump’s reaction?
3. What punishments does Kelly say Trump publicly called for against him and the other lawmakers in his social media posts?
4. How does Kelly connect Trump’s rhetoric and threats to his family’s personal experience with political violence?
5. What criticisms does Kelly make about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s qualifications and behavior in office?
6. What incident involving a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean does Kelly describe, and why does he argue it is so troubling?
7. How does Kelly say the investigation into him was launched or announced, and what does he claim this reveals about due process and accountability?
8. According to Kelly, what message are Trump and Hegseth trying to send to other Americans who might be thinking about speaking up?
9. How does Kelly describe the effect of Republican fear of Trump on policy debates, for example around tariffs and the cost of living?
10. Toward the end of the press conference, how does Kelly explain his own decision about whether he will be intimidated or silenced, and what reasons does he give for that stance?

2. Individual Reading: Understanding the Case & the Law

Students now deepen their understanding through reading, still working alone.

Student instructions:

1. Read the Navy Times article about the lawmakers’ video. Navy Times

   • Highlight or underline:

• Any explanation of “lawful orders” and “unlawful/illegal orders.”
• Any sentence that explains what soldiers are supposed to do if an order is illegal.
• Read the FactCheck.org article on whether the video is “seditious.” FactCheck.org

In the margin or on a separate page, note:

• • How legal experts describe the content of the video.
  • What the experts say about Trump’s accusation of “seditious behavior, punishable by death.”

1. Read The Guardian piece with Kelly’s response. The Guardian

Underline sentences that show his view of:

• • What good leadership looks like in a democracy.
  • How leaders should use power when they disagree with others.

Short written task (still individual):

In about 150–200 words, explain:

• What the lawmakers’ video actually tells soldiers to do.

• Why Trump calls it “seditious” and uses the language of “traitor.”

• Why some people say Kelly’s message is “non-controversial” and normal leadership in a democracy.

The aim is not to make students agree with a side, but to ensure they can accurately describe both positions and see that leadership here is not just about “who wins” but how they use power, law, and language.

---

3. Individual Reading: From Soldiers to Employees – Psychological Safety

Now you connect the political case to everyday leadership and workplace dynamics.

Student instructions:

1. Choose one of these workplace articles (or both, if time/interest):

   • “How Leaders Can Build Psychological Safety at Work” (Center for Creative Leadership). CCL

   • “How to Build Psychological Safety in the Workplace” (Harvard Business School Online). online.hbs.edu

2. As you read, create a simple two-column notes sheet:

   • Column A: “Behaviors that make employees feel safe to speak up.”

   • Column B: “Behaviors that make employees feel afraid, silent, or defensive.”

   Put phrases directly from the article into the correct column (e.g., “listens actively,” “invites criticism,” “punishes dissent,” “labels people as disloyal”).

3. At the end of your reading, write a short definition in your own words:

What is “psychological safety” at work, and why does it matter?

Students should begin to see the obvious connection: if a leader calls you a “traitor” for raising concerns or following the law, psychological safety is gone.

1. Who is Senator Mark Kelly, and what was his professional background before entering politics?
2. What was the main message of Kelly’s video addressed to U.S. service members?
3. How do Kelly and Trump each treat people who disagree with them in this case? Give one example for each.
4. What might employees learn about their own safety at work when a leader publicly uses words like “traitor” or “punished by death” about critics?
5. What kind of leader would you rather work for: one who accepts being limited by laws and rules, or one who wants total freedom to punish opponents? Explain using examples from the sources.
6. How did Donald Trump react publicly to Kelly’s video and the other lawmakers involved?
7. What step did the Pentagon or defense leadership say they might take in response to Kelly’s video?
8. According to military law and training, why is the idea of refusing illegal orders not a new or radical concept?
9. In your own words, what is “institution-centered leadership”? Give one example from the Kelly–Trump case.
10. In your own words, what is “personal-loyalty leadership”? Give one example from the Kelly–Trump case.
11. How can a leader’s choice of words (for example, “traitor,” “punished by death,” “duty,” “Constitution”) affect the safety and morale of the people who work under them?
12. Why might reminding employees or soldiers of their legal and ethical responsibilities actually protect them, rather than undermine authority?
13. Imagine you are starting a job and must choose between two bosses: one who demands personal loyalty and threatens people who disagree, and one who insists on following rules and protecting employees who speak up. Which would you choose, and why?