73 Military Veterans, including 17 4-Stars, Defend Sen. Mark Kelly in Legal Fight

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.

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, organized alphabetically:

• C. Steven Abbot — Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Thad W. Allen — Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard (Ret.)
• Steven M. Anderson — Brigadier General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Donald C. Arthur — Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Michael S. Baker — Brigadier General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• James A. Barnett, Jr. — Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• William D. Baumgartner — Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard (Ret.)
• Dennis C. Blair — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Louis E. Caldera — Former Secretary of the Army
• George W. Casey, Jr. — General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Stephen A. Cheney — Brigadier General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
• Peter Chiarelli — General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• John H. Dalton — Former Secretary of the Navy
• Richard Danzig — Former Secretary of the Navy
• Jay A. DeLoach — Major General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• Richard T. Devereaux — Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Carlos Del Toro — Former Secretary of the Navy
• Kelvin Dixon — Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• Michael B. Donley — Former Secretary of the Air Force
• John W. Douglass — Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Ret.)
• Paul D. Eaton — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Robert J. Felderman — Major General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
• Michael T. Franken — Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Albert Garcia III — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Walter E. Gaskin — Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
• F. Stephen Glass — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• William E. Gortney — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Jonathan S. Gration — Major General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• Donald J. Guter — Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Richard S. Haddad — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Irving L. Halter, Jr. — Major General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• Janice Hamby — Major General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
• Charles D. Harr — Major General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• John C. Harvey, Jr. — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Michael V. Hayden — General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• Russel L. Honoré — Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• John D. Hutson — Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Deborah Lee James — Former Secretary of the Air Force
• Gregory G. Johnson — General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
• Jan-Marc Jouas — Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• Frank Kendall III — Former Secretary of the Air Force
• Claudia J. Kennedy — Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Steven J. Lepper — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Thomas G. Lilly — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Samuel Jones Locklear III — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Randy E. Manner — Major General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
• Frederick H. Martin — Major General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• David McGinnis — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• James E. McPherson — Former Secretary of the Army
• Joseph V. Medina — Brigadier General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
• John B. Nathman — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Robert J. Natter — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Sean C. O’Keefe — Former Secretary of the Navy
• David R. Oliver, Jr. — Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Ret.)
• Charles P. Otstott — Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• William A. Owens — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• F. Whitten Peters — Former Secretary of the Air Force
• Gale S. Pollock — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Harold L. Robinson — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Patricia S. Rose — Major General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• Gary Roughead — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• John M. Schuster — Brigadier General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Linda Singh — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Paul G. Smith — Major General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
• Allyson Solomon — Executive Director, nonpartisan national security organization
• Scott H. Swift — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Antonio M. Taguba — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• F. Andrew Turley — Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Henry G. Ulrich III — Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
• Robin B. Umberg — Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)
• Christine E. Wormuth — Former Secretary of the Army
• Anthony C. Zinni — General, U.S. Marine Corps (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.