Senator Mark Kelly Sues Pentagon Over Veteran Speech Crackdown

Senator Mark Kelly has launched a federal lawsuit against the Pentagon, igniting a high-stakes constitutional battle over free speech rights for retired military personnel. The Arizona Democrat and combat veteran filed the action on Monday against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, warning that the Pentagon's effort to punish him 'sends a chilling message' to veterans who speak out.

The lawsuit challenges what Kelly describes as an intensifying crackdown on political speech by retirees, a move that legal experts say could have profound implications for First Amendment protections across the military community. At the heart of the dispute is a video Kelly posted reminding U.S. service members that they are not required to follow illegal orders—a statement that prompted Hegseth to accuse the senator of 'seditious' acts.

The federal lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, names not only Secretary Hegseth but also the Department of Defense, Navy Secretary John Phelan, and the Navy Department as defendants. Kelly's legal team argues that the Pentagon's actions represent an unprecedented attempt to use the military justice system to punish a sitting member of Congress for political speech.

The case centers on a video Kelly shared with five other Democratic lawmakers, in which he emphasized that service members have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. Hegseth responded by calling the video 'reckless and seditious' and 'clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline.' The defense secretary initially sought to court-martial Kelly, threatening him with the military equivalent of a criminal trial, before opting for a lesser administrative punishment.

The process is the punishment. The claim against Kelly had no merit.

Frank Rosenblatt, a retired Army JAG and professor at Mississippi College School of Law, notes that the Pentagon's pursuit lacks legal foundation. The lawsuit argues that nothing in the law allows the military to revisit a retirement determination based on a veteran's speech, a move that would raise 'serious constitutional concerns' and leave retired service members facing a constant threat to their earned benefits.

Legal experts warn that the case extends far beyond Senator Kelly, potentially affecting millions of veterans who have spoken out on political issues. Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School and retired Air Force JAG, explains that Hegseth's effort to muzzle a U.S. senator 'places other retirees who have spoken up potentially in jeopardy.' The uncertainty alone creates a chilling effect across the veteran community.

The Pentagon's approach is particularly troubling because it seeks to punish a veteran for speech long after serving in uniform. Veterans who serve 20 years or more are eligible for military pensions, but those benefits can be revoked or reduced if retirees are found to have violated military law while in uniform. By contrast, Hegseth's move targets Kelly for post-service political expression.

• First Amendment rights for retired military personnel
• Congressional oversight of the armed services
• Constitutional protections for political speech
• Precedent for future veteran speech cases

Senator Kelly's speech is not punishable under the UCMJ.

The National Institute of Military Justice, a nonprofit group, stated in December that Kelly's speech falls outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The lawsuit argues that allowing the executive branch to punish a member of Congress for speech threatens the Constitution and erodes congressional oversight of the armed services.

The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the Pentagon's actions while the case is reviewed on its merits. These emergency measures ask a judge to stop government action before permanent harm occurs to Kelly's military rank and retirement pay.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who has previously ruled against the military's authority over retirees. In a 2019 memorandum opinion, Leon rejected the government's argument that military jurisdiction over all retirees was necessary to maintain good order and discipline of its active force.

I am not concluding today that Congress could never authorize the court-martial of some military retirees. I have not seen a clear argument for why the exercise of such jurisdiction over all military retirees is necessary.

Legal experts note that the military justice provisions Hegseth accused Kelly of violating—Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—are not explicitly tied to sedition and can cover a wide range of alleged misconduct. The Pentagon's actions against Kelly have troubling implications for the political speech of millions of veterans.

The case could move rapidly through the federal court system. Frank Rosenblatt, the retired Army JAG, explains that the Trump administration has been increasingly pushing cases important to its agenda onto a 'rocket docket,' accelerating litigation toward higher courts. If Judge Leon issues a ruling the government doesn't like, the case could move very quickly to the D.C. Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court.

The Pentagon has declined to comment on the lawsuit, with a spokesperson stating, 'We are aware of the litigation. However, as a matter of policy, the Department does not comment on ongoing litigation.' Meanwhile, Hegseth has continued to target Kelly's military rank, posting on X: "'Captain' Kelly knows exactly what he did, and that he will be held to account."

The lawsuit argues that using the military justice system to punish veterans' political speech risks setting a precedent that abuses the First Amendment rights of other retired troops. As the legal battle unfolds, it will test the boundaries between military discipline and constitutional protections for free speech.

This lawsuit represents a critical test of First Amendment protections for retired military personnel and sitting members of Congress. The outcome could determine whether veterans face retaliation for political speech long after their service ends.

For millions of veterans who have spoken out on political issues, the case carries significant stakes. A ruling in favor of the Pentagon could chill political expression across the veteran community, while a victory for Kelly would reinforce constitutional safeguards for those who have served.

The case also raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and congressional oversight of the armed services. As the legal process unfolds, it will serve as a landmark test of how far the executive branch can go in using military justice mechanisms to target political speech.