Listen to the article
Secretary of War Hegseth Appeals Court Ruling in High-Profile Clash with Senator Kelly
The Department of Justice has filed an appeal on behalf of War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Pentagon officials, challenging a federal court ruling that blocked them from punishing Democratic Senator Mark Kelly over a controversial video advising U.S. service members to defy “illegal orders.”
The appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, represents the latest development in an escalating dispute between the Trump administration and Kelly, who served as a Navy captain before entering politics. The DOJ filed the appeal on behalf of Hegseth, the Department of War, the U.S. Navy, and Navy Secretary John Phelan.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the Pentagon likely violated Kelly’s First Amendment rights when it formally censured him on January 5. The judge blocked the military from demoting Kelly’s retired rank or reducing his retirement pay, prompting Hegseth to immediately vow an appeal.
Kelly responded defiantly to the appeal on social media platform X: “These guys don’t know when to quit. A federal judge told Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth that they violated my constitutional rights and chilled the free speech of millions of retired veterans.”
The Arizona senator added, “There is only one reason to appeal that ruling: to keep trampling on the free speech rights of retired veterans and silence dissent. I went to war to defend Americans’ constitutional rights and I won’t back down from this fight, no matter how far they want to take it.”
Hegseth had previously responded to the district court ruling with a terse social media post: “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.'”
The controversy began last November when a group of Democratic lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds posted a 90-second video urging service members to “refuse illegal orders.” The video, initially shared by Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, also featured military veteran Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania.
Hegseth had previously explained that an investigation was specifically launched into Kelly because he was the only lawmaker in the group formally retired from the military and therefore still under Pentagon jurisdiction. This distinction made Kelly uniquely vulnerable to military disciplinary actions that couldn’t be applied to the other lawmakers involved.
The legal battle has significant implications for military-civilian relations and the free speech rights of retired service members. In his ruling, Judge Leon wrote that Kelly is “likely to succeed” on the merits of his free speech claim and demonstrated irreparable harm would result from the Pentagon’s actions.
The case highlights broader tensions between the Trump administration and its critics. President Donald Trump previously characterized the lawmakers’ actions as “sedition at the highest level,” an accusation that carries serious legal and political weight.
A Washington, D.C., grand jury rejected a separate Department of Justice effort to indict the group of lawmakers involved in the video, further intensifying the standoff between the administration and Democratic lawmakers with military backgrounds.
The appeal signals the administration’s determination to pursue the case despite the initial legal setback. The outcome could establish important precedent regarding the Pentagon’s authority over retired military personnel who enter politics and publicly criticize potential military actions.
Neither the Department of War, the Department of Justice, nor Senator Kelly’s office immediately responded to requests for comment on the latest development in this high-stakes constitutional showdown.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
As someone with an interest in national security issues, I’m following this case closely. It’s a complex situation without easy answers. I hope the legal process can provide some much-needed clarity on the limits of military discipline and civilian control.
Punishing a senator for advising service members seems like a dangerous overreach, even if the video was controversial. However, the Pentagon may have valid concerns about undermining military discipline. This issue needs careful consideration on all sides.
From my perspective, the Pentagon’s appeal seems overly aggressive and potentially detrimental to democratic norms. Elected officials must be able to provide oversight and voice dissent, even on military matters. But the military also requires clear chains of command. It’s a delicate balance.
I’m a bit skeptical of the Pentagon’s heavy-handed approach here. Elected officials should be able to voice dissent without fear of retaliation, even on military matters. But the military also needs clear lines of authority – it’s a tough balancing act.
This is a complex issue with important free speech and civil-military relations implications. The Pentagon’s appeal seems aggressive, but the judge’s ruling was perhaps overly broad. I hope both sides can find a reasonable compromise that upholds democratic principles.
As a former service member, I can understand the Pentagon’s desire for clear command and control. But Senator Kelly also has a responsibility to provide oversight and speak up for service members’ rights. This will be an interesting case to follow.
I’m curious to see how this plays out legally. Elected officials must be able to voice dissent, but the military also needs clear lines of authority. This case highlights the delicate balance between civilian control and military independence.