Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona filed a civil lawsuit Monday against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, seeking to block the Pentagon from downgrading his military retirement rank and pay in what Kelly calls an unprecedented act of political retaliation by the Trump administration.
In a 46-page complaint filed in federal court, Kelly — a retired Navy captain — argues that the Defense Department is punishing him for constitutionally protected speech after he criticized the administration’s military posture and urged service members to refuse illegal orders. Kelly asked a judge to halt the Pentagon’s actions and bar enforcement of any disciplinary measures against him.
Kelly alleges that Hegseth’s actions violate the First Amendment and amount to an unconstitutional effort by the executive branch to intimidate a sitting member of Congress for dissenting political speech. The lawsuit also invokes the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers from retaliation tied to legislative acts and oversight of the armed forces.
“It appears that never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech,” Kelly’s attorneys wrote. “Allowing that unprecedented step here would invert the constitutional structure by subordinating the Legislative Branch to executive discipline and chilling congressional oversight of the armed forces.”
Retaliation claim tied to Venezuela criticism
The dispute stems from a video posted in November, in which Kelly and several other Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds urged service members to reject unlawful orders. The video was released amid escalating U.S. military operations around Venezuela, including maritime strikes tied to alleged drug trafficking.
Trump administration officials denounced the lawmakers’ remarks as “sedition” and “treason,” with Hegseth claiming Kelly’s comments undermined the chain of command and constituted “conduct unbecoming an officer.”
While other lawmakers who appeared in the video have not faced consequences, Kelly alleges he was singled out because he receives military retirement pay — making him uniquely vulnerable to Pentagon discipline.
The Defense Department announced last week that it had initiated a “retirement grade determination” process that could reduce Kelly’s retired rank and corresponding pay. Hegseth also issued a formal censure letter, which he said would be placed permanently in Kelly’s military personnel file.
“This Censure is a necessary process step,” Hegseth said, citing what he called Kelly’s “reckless misconduct.”
Constitutional clash between branches
Kelly’s lawsuit argues that the Pentagon has no legal authority to punish a retired officer for post-service political speech — particularly when that individual is a sitting U.S. senator exercising oversight of the military.
His legal team says the administration’s actions represent a dangerous escalation that threatens civilian control of the military by placing Congress under executive discipline.
Kelly echoed that warning in a statement Monday.
“His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military,” Kelly said. “If you speak out and say something the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”
The complaint argues that Kelly’s statements addressed matters of public concern and were made in his official capacity as a lawmaker responding to military actions authorized by the Trump administration.
Rare use of military law against retirees
Under federal law, retired service members remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can, in rare cases, be recalled to active duty or face non-judicial punishment. The Pentagon said in December that it had escalated its review of Kelly into a formal command investigation.
Kelly’s lawsuit contends that invoking those authorities against a sitting senator for political speech would cross a constitutional line and weaponize military law to suppress dissent.
The Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
