Arizona U.S. Senator Mark Kelly has escalated his response to a formal censure from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth by filing a federal lawsuit challenging the action as unconstitutional and beyond the secretary’s authority. As reported by Conservative Review. Kelly’s legal action marks a rare clash between a sitting senator and the Pentagon over free speech and military discipline.
Kelly, a Democrat and retired Navy captain, is suing Hegseth, the Department of Defense and other defense officials in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit seeks to block the enforcement of Hegseth’s letter of censure and any related administrative proceedings that could affect Kelly’s retired military rank and pension. Kelly argues the censure stems from his participation in a video that encouraged service members to refuse unlawful orders, a message he says reflects long-standing military doctrine and constitutional protections.
The censure, issued by Hegseth on January 5, followed Pentagon criticism of the November video in which Kelly and other lawmakers reminded uniformed personnel of their duty to disobey clearly illegal commands. Hegseth described the senator’s participation as “reckless misconduct” and initiated “retirement grade determination proceedings” that could reduce Kelly’s retired rank from captain and correspondingly reduce his pension.
Kelly’s lawsuit asserts that Hegseth’s actions violate the First Amendment, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, and the principle of separation of powers by punishing a member of Congress for public policy speech. The 46-page complaint seeks to have the letter of censure and related processes vacated and declared unconstitutional, arguing that punitive actions against a lawmaker based on his expressed views threaten the independence of the legislative branch and intimidate other veterans who might speak out.
In public statements, Kelly framed his legal fight as a defense of foundational American freedoms. He wrote on social media that Hegseth’s actions send a “chilling message” to retired service members that expressing views critical of the administration could result in censure, demotion, or even prosecution—even years after their service. Kelly emphasized that military rank is earned through sacrifice and service, not subject to revocation for political disagreement.
The confrontation between Kelly and Hegseth comes amid broader controversy over civil-military relations and political speech. Critics of the censure argue that discouraging lawful, constitutionally grounded discourse by retired military officers undermines both free speech and the principle that unlawful orders should not be followed. Supporters of Hegseth’s stance contend that urging troops to disobey orders risks undermining military discipline, though legal experts have noted that service members have long been taught to refuse orders that are plainly illegal.
No resolution has yet been reached in the courtroom, and the Pentagon has not publicly commented on the lawsuit. Kelly’s legal challenge, however, highlights tensions over how far executive branch authorities can go in disciplining retired military officers who continue to engage in public debate as elected officials.
One Response