It is ironic as well as troubling that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently went on X to accuse Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a decorated naval aviator who flew combat missions and served as a NASA astronaut, of improperly sharing privileged military information on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday.
It’s ironic because Hegseth himself revealed classified information and compromised operational security last year by sharing sensitive targeting information with a journalist, as well as his wife and brother, over Signal chats regarding a U.S. bombing raid in Yemen. Kelly, on the other hand, in his “Face the Nation” appearance, merely repeated the general concern that U.S. weapons stores are being depleted due to the Iran war. Not only has that concern been reported in the media for weeks, but it has also been discussed with the defense secretary in open congressional hearings.
The “Signal Gate” defense secretary should not be insinuating that Kelly’s public comments violated any oath Kelly made,
The “Signal Gate” defense secretary, whose own inspector general found that he mishandled classified information, should not be insinuating that Kelly’s public comments, such as “we’ve expended a lot of munitions,” violated any oath Kelly made, whether as a military officer or his Senate oath of office (senators do not take secrecy oaths, nor do they have security clearances). But Hegseth continues to reveal himself as a Pentagon chief more concerned with picking frivolous fights with a military-seasoned senator than making the case to the American people for war in Iran.
The defense secretary first targeted Kelly because he was one of the Senate Democrats who recorded a video reminding service members that they can disobey unlawful orders, and Hegseth declared that he was reducing Kelly’s rank and military pension. However, Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily enjoined the Pentagon from doing so.
Alarmingly, Hegseth’s new attempt to mute his nemesis Kelly is part of the Pentagon’s larger effort to muzzle all of us military retirees, especially those with legislative power. During its appeal of Judge Leon’s ruling, which came days before the defense secretary posted about Kelly on X, the government shockingly argued that all military retirees have to essentially give up some of our free speech rights in order to retain the benefits we earned during long and honorable careers on active duty. Furthermore, the government argued that Kelly, instead of his speech being given even more protection due to his oversight role as a senator, should have fewer speech rights because his impact on the military could be greater.
This is quite dangerous. If the Pentagon can shut down a sitting senator, then it can shut down all of us.
Clearly, the Trump administration, and Hegseth in particular, does not want its military narratives challenged by anyone who has the most credibility and experience to do so.
From the tenor of oral arguments, the D.C. Circuit seems poised to uphold Judge Leon’s ruling that Hegseth’s retaliatory attempt to censure Kelly and reduce his military pension was plainly unconstitutional.
As for the “Face the Nation” interview, it seems clear that Kelly did not even come close to revealing any information that was gleaned from classified Pentagon briefings he was privy to as a member of the Senate Armed Service Committee. However, it’s important to mention that even if he did, that would be a matter for Congress to deal with, not the executive branch. That’s the way our hugely important principle of separation of powers works.
It is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to silence its most expert critics.
Indeed, members of Congress do not even have formal security clearances like those held by executive branch officials. Instead, they are privy to necessary classified information in order to conduct their oversight roles as members of particular committees. Any misuse of such information is for Congress to discipline.
This current salvo by the Pentagon against Kelly isn’t about the mishandling of classified information. To the contrary, it is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to silence its most expert critics. We should all be concerned by the government’s argument that those with the most experience in the military should be able to say the least about the military as lawmakers.
Bravo to Kelly and other service members turned lawmakers who are willing to do their jobs despite harassment by those who’ve shown themselves willing to bend the law in an attempt to punish their political opponents.
Rachel E. VanLandingham retired as a lieutenant colonel from the U.S. Air Force. She is the Irwin R. Buchalter professor of law at Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, and president emerita of the National Institute of Military Justice.