PENSION TENSION: Sen. Mark Kelly is suing the War Department and War Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging retaliation after he appeared in a video urging service members to “refuse illegal orders.” The lawsuit claims the Pentagon moved to demote Kelly and cut his military retirement pay following the message.

It began as a simple reminder about military duty — but for U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, that reminder has snowballed into a remarkable constitutional clash pitting a retired naval officer and sitting lawmaker against the highest reaches of the Pentagon.

In November 2025, Senator Kelly — a retired Navy captain and former astronaut — joined five other Democratic members of Congress in a video addressing U.S. service members. The video urged troops to remember their legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders, a principle long taught in military law and doctrine.

But what was intended as a constitutional reminder quickly turned into a political firestorm. President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly blasted the message as undermining good order and discipline and even suggested it amounted to “seditious behavior.” Kelly and his colleagues drew intense criticism, and the Pentagon launched a review of Kelly’s remarks under military law.

From Censure to Lawsuit

On January 5, 2026, Hegseth took the extraordinary step of formally censuring Senator Kelly and initiating administrative proceedings to reduce Kelly’s retired rank — a step that would also cut his military retirement pay. Pentagon officials justified the action by saying that as a retired military officer, Kelly technically still falls under certain provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Rather than accept the move quietly, Kelly escalated the conflict dramatically.

On January 12, 2026, he filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., naming Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Navy as defendants. In the complaint, Kelly argues that the Pentagon’s actions are retaliatory, unconstitutional, and designed to punish him for speech that is protected by the First Amendment.