Arizona Sen. Kelly sues Hegseth over military pension cuts following video message
Arizona Sen. Kelly sues Hegseth over military pension cuts following video message
Sen. Mark Kelly fired back at Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on Monday after the Trump administration cabinet member announced Kelly would receive a censure letter over his illegal orders video.
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a retired naval officer, is suing the War Departmen, as well as War Secretary Pete Hegseth, over the agency’s actions to demote him and cut his retirement pay for urging military service members to “refuse illegal orders” in a video message with other leading Democrats.
A federal lawsuit filed in Washington D.C., names Hegseth, the Navy, the Department of Defense – now renamed the War Department – and Navy Secretary John Phelan as defendants.
The lawsuit said the Trump administration’s actions “trample on protections the Constitution singles out as essential to legislative independence.”
Sen. Mark Kelly is suing over Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s move to reduce his rank and military pension.
“It appears that never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech,” the lawsuit states.
The Pentagon’s actions “violate numerous constitutional guarantees and have no basis in statute,” the lawsuit adds.
A War Department official told Fox News Digital that the agency was aware of the lawsuit.
“However, as a matter of policy, the Department does not comment on ongoing litigation,” the official said.
Hegseth has sought to reduce Kelly’s retirement rank and military pension amid a feud with the Trump administration, after Kelly joined five other Democratic lawmakers in a November video telling service members that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders.
In a letter censuring Kelly, Hegseth said Kelly’s remarks did not promote good order and discipline. Such a letter typically calls out figures for wrongdoing and can be used to justify reductions in rank, pay or benefits. It also serves as an official warning that future misconduct could result in harsher consequences.
HEGSETH RIPS MARK KELLY’S POST ABOUT HIS SERVICE: ‘YOU CAN’T EVEN DISPLAY YOUR UNIFORM CORRECTLY’
War Secretary Pete Hegseth listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House, on Dec. 2, 2025.
In a statement posted to X, Kelly said the “unconstitutional crusade” against him “sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”
“Every servicemember knows military rank is earned, not given,” he wrote. “It’s earned through the risks you take, the sacrifices you and your family make, the leadership you display, and the respect you earn from the superiors who recommend you for promotion.”
“Now, Pete Hegseth wants our longest-serving military veterans to live with the constant threat that they could be deprived of their rank and pay years or even decades after they leave the military just because he or another Secretary of Defense doesn’t like what they’ve said,” he added. “That’s not the way things work in the United States of America, and I won’t stand for it.”
KELLY SHRUGS OFF TRUMP COURT-MARTIAL THREAT, SAYS GROWING UP IN TONY SOPRANO’S HOMETOWN MADE HIM ‘RESILIENT’
Sen. Mark Kelly in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 27, in Washington, D.C.
At the time of the video in which Kelly appeared, the War Department said Kelly’s status as a sitting U.S. senator “does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”
In the Nov. 18 video, Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Jason Crow of Colorado told service members and intelligence officers: “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”
In December, the Pentagon announced it was launching a full command investigation into Kelly over allegations of “serious misconduct.”
President Donald Trump threatened the lawmakers with jail time.
“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at the time.
IT ALL CAME OUT' – GAVIN NEWSOM BLOWS UP AFTER BEING EXPOSED LIVE ON AIR
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As the 2028 presidential election cycle rapidly approaches, life is getting increasingly complicated for California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The ambitious Democrat, widely expected to declare his candidacy for his party's highest nomination, is currently drowning in a massive, rapidly expanding ethics scandal centered on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable corporate donations. As federal investigators continue to circle both the governor and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the sheer scale of his fundraising tactics is raising serious alarm bells across the political spectrum.
At the absolute center of this controversy is Newsom’s unprecedented and unapologetic use of "behested payments"—a controversial practice in California law that allows elected officials to personally solicit massive, unlimited donations from deep-pocketed corporations, wealthy individuals, and labor unions to fund specific charities or government initiatives.
While technically legal under the state's highly permissive rules, government watchdogs and ethics experts are fiercely arguing that these payments represent a glaring, dangerous loophole. It essentially allows special interests—many of whom have active, highly lucrative business before the state of California—to gain massive political influence and curry favor with the governor, entirely outside the strict boundaries of traditional campaign finance laws.
The $347 Million Man
According to official California disclosure records, the scale at which Newsom utilizes this loophole is utterly staggering. Since 2011, Newsom has reported soliciting more than $347 million in behested payments.
To put that massive figure into perspective, data from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) reveals that all elected officials statewide combined directed roughly $556 million in behested payments between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone accounted for nearly two-thirds—a whopping 62%—of that total.
By stark contrast, his predecessor, former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, reportedly solicited a relatively modest $35 million in behested payments during his entire tenure.
"Behested payments are ripe for abuse," warned Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, pointing out the obvious ethical minefield created when powerful elected officials lean on organizations that have direct business before the government.
The Optics of Influence Peddling
The ethical concerns are not just hypothetical; they are rooted in a pattern of massive corporate donations followed by highly favorable state actions.
Public reports have raised serious questions about several major donors who opened their checkbooks at Newsom's behest and later benefited immensely from state contracts or policy decisions. For example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare giant Blue Shield donated a staggering $20 million to initiatives heavily supported by Newsom. Shortly thereafter, the corporation was miraculously awarded a highly lucrative, no-bid state contract related to vaccine distribution.
Similarly, the Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before securing a significantly expanded role in California’s massive Medi-Cal program. In another instance, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria donated millions to organizations associated with the governor and his wife’s initiatives. Later, they benefited significantly from favorable state decisions involving tribal gaming matters, including efforts to block a rival casino from opening nearby.
While proving an explicit, legal quid pro quo is notoriously difficult, critics argue that the actual transaction is irrelevant. The concern is that the system inherently encourages and rewards a "pay-to-play" culture. Assemblyman David Tangipa slammed the practice, describing behested payments as a blatant form of "political influence peddling," boldly arguing that just because the system is legal does not mean it isn't deeply corrupt.
The Family Business and Federal Heat
The issue has drawn even fiercer scrutiny because millions of these corporate dollars have been funneled directly into organizations tightly linked to the governor’s inner circle. Approximately $4.8 million in behested donations were routed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom. For many critics, corporate money flowing into a charity run by the governor's wife creates, at the very least, a glaring appearance of a massive conflict of interest.
The intense debate over this influence-peddling loophole comes at a highly precarious time for the governor. Newsom recently acknowledged that both he and his wife are currently the subjects of multiple, ongoing federal investigations. While neither has been charged with any wrongdoing, and the Department of Justice has remained completely tight-lipped about the exact nature of the inquiries, the specter of a federal probe casts a dark cloud over his 2028 presidential ambitions.
A "Laughable Slap on the Wrist"
Adding insult to injury for government transparency advocates, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine handed down by the state's campaign finance watchdog, the FPPC. The fine was levied after the commission found that Newsom flagrantly failed to legally report 36 separate behested payments—totaling more than $5.6 million—within the required 30-day timeframe.
The late disclosures involved massive corporate donations solicited during the 2024 and 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, pulling in vast sums from corporate titans like BlackRock, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Anthem Blue Cross. While Newsom's office brushed off the violation as a mere paperwork oversight during an emergency, critics blasted the $31,500 penalty as a "laughable slap on the wrist" for a wealthy politician manipulating a quarter-billion-dollar shadow fundraising system. This marks the second time Newsom has been fined for late reporting of these payments, having previously paid a $13,000 fine in 2024.
Supporters of the governor are quick to point out that these behested donations have funded critical public initiatives, including wildfire relief and charitable causes. However, the public benefit of those projects does absolutely nothing to eliminate the massive concerns surrounding transparency, corporate influence, and the ability of powerful special interests to funnel unlimited cash into causes promoted by the state's most powerful executive.
As Newsom attempts to position himself as the future of the Democratic Party, the growing scandal surrounding his $347 million loophole is forcing a national reckoning. The American people are left to wonder: if this is how Gavin Newsom runs California, how exactly would he run the country?
