First Amendment

Pete Hegseth Wants the D.C. Circuit To Let Him Punish a Senator for Criticizing Him

The defense secretary's asserted authority to control the speech of retired military officers "would chill public participation by veterans," a brief supporting Mark Kelly warns.

Jacob Sullum | 4.17.2026 4:55 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Sen. Mark Kelly and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Pool via CNP/Mega/Newscom/RSSIL/Jessica Koscielniak)

Mark Kelly, a Democrat, is an American citizen and the senior U.S. senator representing Arizona. He serves on the Senate's Armed Services Committee and Select Committee on Intelligence. But according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Kelly's status as a retired Navy captain constrains what he is allowed to say in those other capacities. Hegseth thinks he has the authority to punish Kelly, a legislator whose job includes oversight of Hegseth's department, for criticizing his leadership of the Pentagon and the Trump administration's military policies.

In February, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, rejected that astonishing claim, deeming it inconsistent with the First Amendment. Leon issued a preliminary injunction that barred Hegseth from "giving effect" to a letter of censure that faulted Kelly for saying things that irked Hegseth and from penalizing Kelly by reducing his retirement grade and pension. Now Hegseth is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to override that injunction, reiterating his argument that retired military officers are subject to punishment, potentially including criminal prosecution, for political speech that he unilaterally deems "prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces."

In an amicus brief filed on Friday, 73 former admirals, generals, and service secretaries who held positions under presidents of both major parties emphasize the alarming implications of that position. Hegseth has taken "the unprecedented step of punishing a U.S. Senator and retired Navy Captain for accurate statements of law and criticisms of federal policy," they note. "No retired servicemember could be lawfully sanctioned for these statements, least of all one whose public office requires that he speak on these issues."

If Hegseth's vendetta against Kelly were allowed to proceed, the brief warns, it "would chill public participation by veterans everywhere. Diverse viewpoints are critical to a free marketplace of ideas, and silencing veteran voices would be especially harmful—depriving the public of experienced and informed views on critical matters of national security."

According to the brief, that threat already has had an intimidating impact. "Amici are aware of many fellow veterans who would participate in public debate, but are declining to do so today, fearing official reprisal," it says. "This chilling effect risks silencing dissent from those who served in uniform—a critical ingredient in American self-governance dating back to those who fought for our independence."

Hegseth's beef with Kelly stems mainly from a November 18 video in which he and five other Democratic members of Congress reminded military personnel of their duty to "refuse illegal orders." That obligation is legally........

© Reason.com