Seventy-three former U.S. admirals, generals and service secretaries have submitted a legal filing in defense of retired Navy Capt. and Sen. Mark Kelly, who has battled the Trump administration for months due to a controversial video that spiraled into court battles.
Kelly and a handful of other Democratic military veterans made and released a video in November 2025 reinforcing active-duty service members of their constitutional right “to refuse illegal orders.” It sparked a contentious back-and-forth between Kelly, a retired Navy captain and astronaut, and the Trump administration, extending into legal battles.
The 39-page amicus brief filed Friday morning was signed by retired senior military officers and secretaries of the Air Force, Army and Navy who are described as possessing extensive experience in leadership roles along with a demonstrated commitment to, and expertise in, promoting a disciplined and strong military and ensuring the security of the nation.
They collectively served under each president, from Dwight Eisenhower to Donald Trump, and include 16 4-star signatories.
“This decision is not made lightly: the attempt to punish Sen. Kelly suggests that public disagreement with the secretary—even if made in good faith and supported factually—invites retaliation,” the amicus brief states, adding, “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.”
The ex-service members are represented by legal counsel with the Protect Democracy Project, States United Democracy Center, and the Vet Voice Foundation.
“The administration’s attempts to silence veterans are an insult to their service and their sacrifice,” Beau Tremitiere, counsel and deputy impact director at Protect Democracy, told Military.com. “We are stronger when our veterans exercise their First Amendment rights and share their wisdom in public debate. Government punishment for veterans who speak up has no place in America, period.”
Military.com reached out for comment to the White House and Pentagon.
“President Trump publicly expressed his concerns about the troubling comments made by Sen. Mark Kelly and other Democrat lawmakers encouraging them to defy lawful orders from their Commander-in-Chief,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Military.com. “Secretary Hegseth rightfully directed a review to determine future actions as a result of these dangerous comments by Sen. Kelly, who as a military retiree is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
How We Got Here
The video that sparked the ongoing legal scuffle included Kelly, a senator from Arizona, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (MI), along with House Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan—both of Pennsylvania.
It resulted in fierce blowback from the administration, with President Donald Trump at the time accusing them of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth opened an investigation into Kelly’s remarks, saying they were subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Hegseth censured Kelly for reasons including engaging in a “pattern of reckless misconduct.”
Kelly then sued the Trump administration in January after attempts by Hegseth to demote his retirement rank and pension.
In February, two days after a grand jury declined to indict Kelly and the five other Democrats for their remarks, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon—appointed by former President George W. Bush—temporarily blocked Hegseth’s intentions on grounds including free speech and lacking deference to military veterans. The Pentagon appealed that order.
“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote in part.
List of Signatories
The following is the full list of the 73 signatories:
- Former Secretary of the Army Louis E. Caldera
- Former Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton
- Former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
- Former Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro
- Former Secretary of the Air Force Michael B. Donley
- Former Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James
- Former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall III
- Former Acting Secretary of the Navy James E. McPherson
- Former Secretary of the Navy Sean C. O’Keefe
- Former Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters
- Former Secretary of the Army Christine E. Wormuth
- Admiral C. Steve Abbot, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Admiral Thad W. Allen, U.S. Coast Guard (Ret.)
- Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- General George W. Casey, Jr., U.S. Army (Ret.)
- General Peter Chiarelli, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Admiral William E. Gortney, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Admiral John C. Harvey, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- General Michael V. Hayden, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Admiral Gregory G. Johnson, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Admiral Samuel Jones Locklear, III, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Admiral John B. Nathman, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Admiral Robert J. Natter, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Admiral William A. Owens, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Admiral Gary Roughead, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Admiral Scott Swift, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Admiral Henry G. Ulrich III, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- General Anthony Zinni, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
- Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Vice Admiral Michael T. Franken, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Lieutenant General Walter E. Gaskin, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
- Lieutenant General Russel L. Honoré, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Lieutenant General Jan-Marc Jouas, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Lieutenant General Charles P. Otstott, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Upper Half) William D. Baumgartner, U.S. Coast Guard (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Upper Half) Kelvin Dixon, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Major General Richard T. Devereaux, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Major General Paul D. Eaton, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Upper Half) Albert Garcia III, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Upper Half) F. Stephen Glass, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Major General Jonathan S. Gration, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Upper Half) Donald J. Guter, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Major General Richard S. Haddad, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Major General Irving L. Halter, Jr., U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Upper Half) Janice Hamby, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Upper Half) John D. Hutson, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Major General Steven J. Lepper, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral Thomas G. Lilly, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Major General Randy E. Manner, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Major General Frederick H. Martin, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Upper Half) David R. Oliver, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Major General Gale S. Pollock, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Major General Patricia S. Rose, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Major General Linda Singh, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Major General Antonio Taguba, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Major General F. Andrew Turley, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Brigadier General Steven M. Anderson, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Michael S. Baker, M.D., F.A.C.S., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Lower Half) James A. Barnett, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Jay A. DeLoach, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
- Brigadier General John W. Douglass, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
- Brigadier General Robert J. Felderman, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Charles D. Harr, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Brigadier General David R. Irvine, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Brigadier General David McGinnis, New York National Guard (Ret.)
- Brigadier General Joseph V. Medina, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
- Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Harold L. Robinson, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
- Brigadier General John M. Schuster, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Brigadier General Paul G. Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Brigadier General Allyson Solomon, U.S. Army (Ret.)
- Brigadier General Robin B. Umberg, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Three Main Arguments in Defense of Kelly
There are three main components of the signatories’ argument.
One is that veteran participation in public life is essential to democratic self-government, invoking how the Constitution broadly protects the right to speak on issues of public concern “because deliberation is essential to decision-making in a democracy.”
“In a system of government where the people govern themselves, there must be wide latitude for differing views on public controversies so issues can be robustly debated. … This is especially true when the speaker is a retired member of the military,” the brief says. “By virtue of their service, retired servicemembers have distinct perspectives and specialized expertise that contribute uniquely to the public discourse.”
They also populate all walks of public life, including holding elected public office—like Senator Kelly—and other prominent civic roles.
The second argument calls the “duty to disobey illegal orders is a critical matter of public concern,” claiming that it is a settled principle of military administration and federal law. That duty goes for obeying lawful orders or disobeying illegal ones, they claim.
“The latter obligation derives from the lesson of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials that it is no defense to illegal conduct for a servicemember to claim he was acting pursuant to the illegal order of his government or superiors,” according to the brief.
The final argument is derived from purported speech limitations authorized by the UCMJ, which the signatories and their legal representatives describe as “irrelevant” in the broader context.
“This is not a close case,” the brief says. “The speech at issue—a retired officer’s restatement of a settled principle of military law and his expression of opinions about appropriate military policy and the safeguarding of its personnel and reputational standing—bears no resemblance to the enumerated actions that may trigger discipline for an active-duty servicemember under the UCMJ.”
In final, legal counsel on behalf of the dozens of retired military personnel say that the Trump administration’s “attempt to punish protected speech jeopardizes a cherished tradition of veteran participation in public discourse that dates to the earliest days of our republic.”
“The district court was right to issue a preliminary injunction and [the plaintiffs] respectfully request that this Court affirm its decision,” they conclude.
Oral arguments are currently scheduled for May 7 in front of Judge Leon.
This story was updated with remarks from the White House.
Read the full article here