In mid-December, the Pentagon announced that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was “escalating” his crusade against Sen. Mark Kelly, launching an “official Command Investigation” into the Arizona Democrat after he appeared in a video urging service members not to follow illegal orders. It was, as The Washington Post noted, an “unprecedented use of the military justice system to investigate a political adversary.”
In the weeks that followed, the campaign intensified. In January, the beleaguered Pentagon chief issued a “letter of censure” to the decorated Navy veteran, calling it a first step toward a demotion and a decrease in pension. Kelly pushed back in court, filing a lawsuit against Hegseth, arguing that the Cabinet secretary’s crusade violates the senator’s First Amendment rights and the speech-and-debate clause of the Constitution, which protects lawmakers from prosecution for official acts.
Not surprisingly, Kelly won. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush-appointed jurist, blocked Hegseth from penalizing Kelly.
“Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces,” Leon wrote.
“Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military,” the judge said. “This Court will not be the first to do so!”
At that point, the smart move would’ve been for the Pentagon chief to call it a day and shift his focus back to all of his other enormous responsibilities. The former Fox News host did not, however, make the smart move. Politico reported:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday ramped up his public spat with Sen. Mark Kelly, appealing a federal court ruling that blocked him from punishing the Arizona Democrat for advising troops not to follow illegal orders. […]
The move reveals that Hegseth has no plans to tamp down his battle against Kelly, a potential 2028 presidential contender who has fought the allegations against him as a threat to free speech.
In a statement, Kelly said, “These guys don’t know when to quit. … A federal judge told Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth that they violated my constitutional rights and chilled the free speech of millions of retired veterans. There is only one reason to appeal that ruling: to keep trampling on the free speech rights of retired veterans and silence dissent.”
Let’s also not overlook the timing: On Monday, the public learned that Hegseth’s former Fox colleague, Jeanine Pirro, agreed to give up on a case against the Democratic military and intelligence veterans who appeared in the video.
The decision followed a radical effort from the U.S. Attorney’s Office to try to secure felony indictments against the Democrats. That didn’t turn out well: The regular citizens on the grand jury rejected the ridiculous gambit. (Under normal circumstances, grand jury members are deferential to prosecutors; MS NOW confirmed that literally zero members of this grand jury were prepared to go along with the partisan scheme.)
In other words, Hegseth and Pirro both launched absurd crusades in response to a harmless video about the rule of law. Both lost in court.
Pirro had the sense to move on and save herself additional embarrassment. Hegseth chose a less constructive path.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
