Members of Count Every Hero and other former service secretaries and retired general and flag officers file an amicus brief in Kelly v. Hegseth to argue that punishing a retired servicemember for political speech violates the First Amendment and harms democratic self-government by chilling veteran participation in public life.
Washington, D.C. — Seventy-three former secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, retired senior military officers, and the Vet Voice Foundation (VVF) filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Kelly v. Hegseth. The brief supports Senator Mark Kelly and urges the court to affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction against Department of Defense efforts to sanction the retired Navy Captain and current U.S. Senator for his public statements.
In the brief, the coalition of former military leaders—who served under every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Donald Trump—emphasized that silencing veteran voices through the threat of official reprisal is a profound threat to democratic self-government.
The leaders argued that veteran participation is essential to a healthy democracy because retired servicemembers offer unique perspectives and specialized expertise that are vital to public discourse. By chilling their speech, the government not only infringes on individual rights but also “impoverishes public debate” on critical national security and foreign policy issues. This is particularly relevant when discussing the duty to disobey illegal orders, as Senator Kelly’s statements on the matter concern a “settled principle of military administration and federal law.” This obligation is a critical matter of public concern.
Furthermore, the leaders argued that the speech restrictions authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice for active-duty personnel cannot be lawfully applied to retirees. A retiree’s expression of opinion on military policy bears no “direct and palpable connection” to the type of harm that would justify discipline for “conduct unbecoming an officer” or “prejudicing good order.” Ultimately, the attempt to punish such speech creates a dangerous chilling effect, as many veterans may now feel forced to withdraw from public debate to avoid official retaliation or the potential loss of their hard-earned retirement benefits.
This case underscores the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between military discipline and the protected political speech of those who have returned to civilian life.
Read the full amicus brief here.