It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, on Monday sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon over a move to punish him for a video he released with other lawmakers reminding military members that they must not follow illegal orders. The Defense Department said last week that it was taking administrative action against Mr. Kelly, a retired Navy captain and astronaut who is serving his first full term in the Senate, that could reduce his retirement rank and military pension.
Mr. Hegseth has accused the senator, who is regarded as a potential 2028 presidential contender, of sedition and treason for posting a video along with five other Democratic lawmakers in which he did not name any specific order but said: “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.” The lawsuit filed in Washington asked a federal judge to block the Pentagon’s efforts to punish Mr. Kelly and find them “unlawful and unconstitutional.”
“The First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech,” the complaint stated. “That prohibition applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy.” The Defense Department declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. .
In a “formal letter of censure” that Mr. Hegseth released last week, he accused the senator of characterizing lawful military operations as “illegal” in a “sustained pattern” that began in June 2025. The letter cited the senator criticizing Mr. Hegseth for firing generals and admirals and saying that the defense secretary had surrounded himself with “yes men.”
“That’s my job,” Mr. Kelly said on the Senate floor on Monday. “I have every right to say these things as an American, as a retired service member and as a U.S. senator.”
Mr. Hegseth wrote on social media last week that Mr. Kelly’s status as a sitting senator “does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.” The defense secretary indicated that a decision on whether to reduce the senator’s rank and pension would be made by mid-February.
But the lawsuit argued that Mr. Kelly’s public statements about policy and personnel were lawful under a section of the Constitution known as the “speech or debate” clause. That section has long been interpreted to protect members of Congress from executive or judicial discipline for not only their speech but also their legislative work broadly.
Mr. Kelly argued in his lawsuit that as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he has a role to provide congressional oversight over Mr. Hegseth’s actions. Failure to block any disciplinary action against the senator “would invert the constitutional structure by subordinating the legislative branch to executive discipline and chilling congressional oversight of the armed forces,” the complaint stated.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice still applies to Mr. Kelly as a retired naval officer. The administration could recall him to active duty and discipline him, unless the court were to block such action. His fellow Democratic lawmakers in the video released last year did not serve long enough to retire and receive a pension, and are not subject to military law.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
It is his job, and his duty, and his Constitutional right.
Bonus - Hegseth stripped of all his benefits and given an orange jumpsuit.
Hegseth may be susceptible to war crimes prosecution at the Hague.
This couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow!
They include the Navy Pilot Astronaut Badge, earned by fewer than 200 service members,
and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. As Clymer notes, the NASA Distinguished Service Medal
is 'the highest award bestowed by NASA and one of the rarest awards in the federal government.'
Since the medal was created in 1959, it has been awarded fewer than 400 times."
"Kelly’s lawsuit notes that the First Amendment prohibits the government from retaliating
against those engaging in protected speech and that the Constitution’s protection of the speech
and debate of lawmakers provides additional safeguards. Indeed, the lawsuit says,
'never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions
on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech.'"
"If the court permits that unprecedented step, the lawsuit argues, it would allow the executive branch
to punish members of Congress for engaging in their duty of congressional oversight.
Kelly asked the court 'to declare the censure letter, reopening determination,
retirement grade determination proceedings, and related actions unlawful and unconstitutional;
to vacate those actions; to enjoin their enforcement; and to preserve the status
of a coequal Congress and an apolitical military.'"
"The warning Kelly and the other five Democratic lawmakers offered to military personnel
that they must refuse illegal orders took on renewed meaning this evening.
Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt, John Ismay, Julian E. Barnes, Riley Mellen, and Christiaan Triebert
of the New York Times reported that when the U.S. military attacked a small boat
apparently coming from Venezuela on September 2, 2025, the first such attack
of what now number at least 35, it used a secret aircraft that had been disguised to look
like a civilian plane."
"The journalists report that disguising a military aircraft to look like a civilian plane
is a war crime called 'perfidy.' 'Shielding your identity is an element of perfidy,'
former deputy judge advocate general of the U.S. Air Force retired Major General Steven J. Lepper
told the reporters. 'If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft,
it should not be engaged in combatant activity.'"
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-12-2026