Bold claim: a federal judge just stepped in to halt Pete Hegseth’s bid to punish Sen. Mark Kelly for participating in a video that reminded service members of their right to refuse illegal orders. And this is far from a simple political skirmish.
A U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. issued a preliminary injunction on Thursday, blocking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from censuring Sen. Mark Kelly over his involvement in the video. The ruling also temporarily bars Hegseth from cutting Kelly’s U.S. Navy rank or retirement pay as punishment for the video, in which Kelly—an Arizona Democrat and a former Navy captain—appeared alongside other lawmakers to emphasize servicemembers’ rights.
Judge Rich Leon said Hegseth trampled Kelly’s First Amendment protections, signaling that Kelly is likely to succeed in his lawsuit challenging the Pentagon’s punishment efforts. The judge’s injunction could become permanent if Kelly’s case proves the government overstepped, as Leon indicated he expects this will eventually be decided in Kelly’s favor.
The ruling comes amid a separate, high-stakes legal moment: two days earlier, a federal grand jury in D.C. sought indictments of Kelly and Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA analyst, on criminal charges tied to their participation in the same video. Prosecutors alleged seditious conspiracy, though the effort to indict did not succeed at that time.
Former President Donald Trump condemned the Democratic lawmakers’ appearance in the video, falsely framing it as “seditious behavior, punishable by death” on his Truth Social platform. He also urged that each participant be arrested and tried.
In a sharp, pointed opinion accompanying the injunction, Judge Leon rejected the idea that retired service members—as Kelly is a retiree and a sitting member of Congress with oversight over the military—should face unique, carte blanche restrictions beyond ordinary First Amendment protections. He stressed that no court has previously extended the military’s limited free-speech doctrine to a retired servicemember who is now in Congress, let alone one exercising oversight.
Leon also dismissed Hegseth’s assertion that courts should not adjudicate such military-punishment matters and that Kelly should first pursue a military appeals process. The judge asserted the court has the authority to adjudicate the constitutional rights at stake and warned that punishing retirees for public commentary would threaten the liberties of millions of veterans.
Quoting Bob Dylan in spirit, Leon emphasized that the wind of constitutional rights should be visible to all, not only to those with ongoing military status. He underscored that veterans deserve respect from their government, and the Constitution requires it.
Kelly responded via X (formerly Twitter), noting that the court’s decision makes clear that Hegseth violated the Constitution by attempting to punish him for his speech. He described the ruling as a pivotal moment against attempts to undermine Americans’ rights, while acknowledging ongoing contention from Trump and Hegseth.
The Department of Justice, which represents Hegseth and the other defendants (along with the Department of the Navy and Navy Secretary John Phelan), did not immediately comment. The Defense Department likewise did not provide a statement at the time of reporting.
Key players named in the case include Hegseth, the Defense Department, the Navy Department, and Navy Secretary John Phelan, alongside Sen. Kelly and Sen. Slotkin. The situation highlights the ongoing tension between executive-branch actions aimed at lawmakers and the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional rights, especially for individuals with military backgrounds who transition to public office.
