Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, argued in a federal lawsuit that the Trump administration violated his First Amendment right to free speech by accusing him of encouraging troops to defy illegal orders.
What you need to know about Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly
Arizona Democrat Mark Kelly is a former Navy fighter pilot and astronaut turned senator. Here’s what else you need to know about the Arizona senator.
WASHINGTON – Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and astronaut, filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on January 12, citing threats to reduce his military pension.
“His unconstitutional campaign against me sends a chilling message to all veterans: If you say out loud what the President and Secretary of Defense don’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, and even prosecuted,” Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, said on social media.
The lawsuit is the latest and one of the most high-profile clashes between Democratic lawmakers and the Trump administration over military policy. A conflict is escalating over sending the National Guard to U.S. cities to assist immigration enforcement officers. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is removed by the US military. And President Donald Trump has threatened to seize control of Greenland.
The Department of Defense did not respond to requests for comment.
Six lawmakers released a video in November saying military personnel have a legal obligation to ignore illegal orders. Trump and Hegseth accused Kelly of “incitement” and “treason.”
Mr. Hegseth issued a letter on January 5 accusing Mr. Kelly of “undermining the chain of command” and “encouraging insubordination.” The department is also considering lowering Kelly’s rank after he retires. Hegseth’s letter then threatened Kelly with “criminal prosecution” if he continued to make similar comments.
Kelly’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., argues that the punishment violates her First Amendment right to free speech. He also claimed that the executive branch was trying to prevent active debate among lawmakers.
“If allowed to stand, the Commissioner’s disciplinary action and the grading process he directed would cause immediate and irreparable harm,” the complaint states. “The process of censure, reduction, and its inevitable consequences imposes public penalties on protected speech, chills legislative oversight, and threatens reductions in rank and pay.”
