President Donald Trump speaks at his Mar-a-Lago club, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Palm Beach, Fla., as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth listens (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
The Department of Justice made headlines on Tuesday by seeking to overturn the seditious conspiracy convictions of members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, marking a significant move in the Trump administration’s ongoing narrative reshaping of the January 6 events. This action stems from former President Trump’s steadfast refusal to concede his defeat in the 2020 election. In a related development, retired Navy captain and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly has called on an appeals court to uphold a ruling that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth acted unconstitutionally by labeling him a “sedition” artist for criticizing Trump.
In a detailed 48-page brief submitted to the D.C. Circuit, Kelly and five other Democrats were described as the “Seditious Six.” This label followed their appearance in a video last November where they condemned fatal boat strikes on suspected drug smugglers in international waters. Kelly, an astronaut, advised service members that they could refuse illegal orders, referencing the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Trump administration, however, accused him of undermining the chain of command and engaging in conduct unbecoming of an officer, which led to a proposed reduction in his retirement rank and pay.
Through social media, Trump accused Kelly and fellow Democrats, including Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” This message resonated with both Hegseth and the DOJ.
Amid the Defense Department’s continued disciplinary efforts, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a contender for the role of U.S. Attorney General and currently serving in Washington, D.C., initiated a criminal probe into Kelly and his associates. However, this investigation concluded with grand jury no-bills, essentially bringing it to an unsuccessful end.
Following this outcome, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a ruling in February, blocking the disciplinary measures. He determined that the Trump administration had unlawfully retaliated against Senator Kelly for exercising his right to “unquestionably protected speech,” in clear violation of the First Amendment.
The judge took a bird’s-eye view of the situation and said that what Hegseth attempted against Kelly threatened the free speech rights of “millions” of military retirees. He pleaded with the defense secretary to course correct.
“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon remarked.
Instead, Hegseth responded to the loss by falsely promising an immediate appeal and writing on X, “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.’”
Bold words on social media like these recently came back to bite Hegseth in Anthropic’s First Amendment lawsuit, and Kelly is looking for the same outcome at the D.C. Circuit now that the government has, in fact, appealed.
The senator took direct aim at the government’s contention that Hegseth has the power to censor military retirees at will if he determines their speech has “counseled disobedience to lawful orders[.]”
“On appeal, Defendants abandon most of their arguments from below—including justiciability, reviewability, irreparable harm, and the balance of equities—and leave the bulk of the district court’s analysis unchallenged. And even as they pay lip service to retirees’ speech rights, they continue to ignore ordinary First Amendment principles guarding against viewpoint discrimination and affording full protection to speech on matters of public concern,” the brief said. “Instead they argue that Senator Kelly’s speech was categorically ‘unprotected’ by the First Amendment based solely on an unprecedented, blanket rule: If the Secretary of Defense concludes that a military retiree has ‘counseled disobedience to lawful orders and undermined military discipline,’ the speech receives no constitutional protection under Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974).”
Rather, Hegseth is a “politically appointed civilian officer” who has no “veto power over public debate” and no authority to make this “unprecedented demand for total secretarial deference,” the brief went on.
Oral argument is set for May 7. Law&Crime earlier explained why the judges on the case were not the panel Hegseth was hoping for as he tries to reverse a resounding loss on a straightforward issue.
When notorious Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio on Tuesday praised Pirro for moving to vacate the Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy convictions, he emphasized the recipients “won’t need a pardon anymore” and that “[f]ull rights [were] restored,” and that “full military benefits and back pay will be processed.”
