Listen to the article
Defense Secretary Hegseth Appeals Court Order Protecting Senator Kelly’s Free Speech Rights
The Department of Justice filed a notice Tuesday indicating Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will appeal a federal judge’s ruling that prevents him from disciplining Democratic Senator Mark Kelly over a controversial video addressing military personnel.
The appeal will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s February 12 decision, which blocked the Pentagon from implementing Kelly’s censure while his lawsuit proceeds through the courts.
Senator Kelly, who represents Arizona and is a former Navy pilot, responded sharply to news of the appeal on social media. “The only reason for Secretary Hegseth to appeal is to keep trampling on the free speech rights of retired veterans and silence dissent,” Kelly wrote on X. “These guys don’t know when to quit.”
The dispute stems from a 90-second video released in November featuring Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers, all veterans of military or intelligence services. In the recording, they urged troops to uphold the Constitution and resist any unlawful military directives from the Trump administration. The video quickly became a flashpoint in the intensifying political tensions surrounding the presidential transition.
President Donald Trump escalated the controversy by accusing the lawmakers of “sedition punishable by DEATH” in a social media post days after the video’s release. Earlier this month, a Washington grand jury declined to indict the lawmakers over their statements.
Secretary Hegseth had previously vowed to immediately challenge Judge Leon’s ruling. After the decision, Hegseth posted on X: “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain,'” mockingly referring to Kelly by his rank at retirement. The exchange underscores the deepening politicization of military matters and veterans’ speech rights during a period of heightened partisan division.
Judge Leon’s ruling was particularly noteworthy for its forceful language defending veterans’ rights. The judge, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that Pentagon officials had not only violated Kelly’s First Amendment rights but also “threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.”
In a colorful rebuke to the government’s position that Kelly was trying to exempt himself from military justice rules, Leon wrote: “Horsefeathers!” He concluded his opinion with a strong statement: “To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!”
The video at the center of the dispute also featured Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, along with Kelly. The content was first shared on social media by Rep. Elissa Slotkin. All participants had backgrounds in either military service or intelligence agencies.
This case raises significant questions about the balance between military discipline and free speech rights for retired service members. Military law experts have noted that while active-duty personnel face strict limitations on political speech, the constitutional protections for veterans who have returned to civilian life remain a complex and evolving area of law.
The appeal marks another chapter in the ongoing tension between the Defense Department under Hegseth’s leadership and Democratic lawmakers with military backgrounds. The case is being closely watched by veterans’ advocacy groups and constitutional scholars for its potential implications on the speech rights of the millions of Americans who have served in the armed forces.
The timeline for the appeals court to hear arguments and rule on the matter remains uncertain, but the case is likely to move forward with heightened attention given the high-profile figures involved and the constitutional principles at stake.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
As a veteran, I’m troubled by the Pentagon’s actions here. Troops should be able to rely on their leaders to uphold the Constitution, not try to silence those who call for that.
Well said. Senator Kelly’s message seems reasonable – troops should resist unlawful orders. The Pentagon’s appeal is more about protecting its own interests than defending the rule of law.
The Pentagon’s decision to appeal the ruling protecting Senator Kelly’s free speech rights is very troubling. It smacks of authoritarianism and a desire to silence criticism, which is unacceptable.
Exactly. As an elected official, Senator Kelly has a duty to hold the military accountable. The Pentagon should respect the court’s decision and focus on its core mission, not political retribution.
It’s worrying to see the Pentagon trying to punish a Senator for speaking out against potentially unlawful orders. This feels like a violation of democratic norms and the separation of powers.
Exactly. The Pentagon should focus on its core mission rather than trying to silence elected representatives. This is a concerning abuse of power.
This is a complex issue, but the core principle of free speech for elected officials should be protected. The Pentagon’s appeal seems like a heavy-handed attempt to stifle dissent.
I agree. Even if the Pentagon disagrees with Senator Kelly, they need to respect the court’s ruling and his constitutional rights. Appealing this decision is concerning.
The Pentagon’s decision to appeal this ruling is quite troubling. It suggests they are more interested in punishing critics than upholding democratic values and the rule of law.
Absolutely. This sets a dangerous precedent where the military tries to silence elected officials. The Pentagon should focus on its mission, not settling political scores.
Appealing the court order to punish Senator Kelly’s speech is a concerning overreach by the Pentagon. As a public servant, he has a right to criticize the military leadership without fear of retaliation.
Agreed. This feels like a blatant attempt to stifle dissent and free expression, which is antithetical to democratic principles. The Pentagon should reconsider this appeal.
This is a concerning development. The Pentagon should respect the free speech rights of elected officials, even if they disagree with their views. Silencing dissent sets a dangerous precedent.
I agree. Senator Kelly has a right to voice his opinion, even if it’s critical of the military leadership. Appealing the court order seems like an overreach.