Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona filed a civil lawsuit on Monday against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, seeking to block Pentagon actions that could reduce his retired military rank and associated pay. Kelly, a retired Navy captain, alleges the measures constitute unconstitutional retaliation for his protected speech, including participation in a video urging service members to refuse illegal orders.
The 46-page complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., names Hegseth, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and Navy Secretary John Phelan as defendants. Kelly requests the court to declare the actions unlawful, vacate the censure, and prevent any enforcement of punishments related to his retirement status.
Background on the Dispute
The conflict stems from a video posted in November by Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds. The video, released amid military activities including a buildup around Venezuela and strikes on alleged drug boats, reminded service members of their obligation to disobey unlawful orders.
The statement drew sharp criticism from President Trump and Hegseth, who described it as “sedition” and “treason,” claiming it undermined the chain of command and constituted conduct unbecoming an officer.
In December, the Pentagon escalated its review of Kelly into a command investigation. Last week, Hegseth announced the initiation of retirement grade determination proceedings under federal law, which could lead to a reduction in Kelly’s retired grade and a corresponding cut in retired pay. Hegseth also issued a formal letter of censure against Kelly for “reckless misconduct,” stating it would be placed in his permanent military personnel file.
Unlike the other lawmakers in the video, who do not receive military retirement pay, Kelly remains subject to certain aspects of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as a retiree drawing pension benefits.
Kelly’s Legal Arguments
In the complaint, Kelly’s legal team asserts that the Pentagon’s actions violate the First Amendment by punishing protected political speech. They argue there is no legal basis to sanction post-retirement statements, describing the move as unprecedented.
“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,” the filing states. “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.”
The suit also invokes the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which provides immunity to lawmakers for legislative acts and related speech, contending that Kelly’s criticisms and oversight activities fall within this protection.
Kelly’s lawyers emphasize that his public statements address significant matters of public concern and align with his responsibilities as a senator overseeing the military.
Kelly’s Statement on the Lawsuit
In a statement accompanying the filing, Kelly highlighted his 25 years of Navy service, including combat missions over Iraq and Kuwait, and his role as a Space Shuttle pilot.
“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly said.
He added: “His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”
Kelly stressed that military rank is earned through service, risks, and leadership, not subject to revocation based on later political views.
“Now, Pete Hegseth wants our longest-serving military veterans to live with the constant threat that they could be deprived of their rank and pay years or even decades after they leave the military just because he or another Secretary of Defense doesn’t like what they’ve said,” he continued. “That’s not the way things work in the United States of America, and I won’t stand for it.”
He referenced his oath to defend the Constitution at age 22 and vowed to continue upholding those principles, concluding: “So today, I filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense because there are few things as important as standing up for the rights of the very Americans who fought to defend our freedoms.”
The Pentagon and Hegseth have not issued an immediate public response to the lawsuit. The case raises questions about the limits of military discipline for retirees, protections for political speech, and the balance between executive authority and congressional independence.
