Last November, six Democratic lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds recorded a video urging active-duty service members to refuse “illegal orders.” It was slick. It was coordinated. And it landed like a grenade in the middle of an already volatile civil-military relationship.
The Trump administration responded by going after them — hard. The DOJ tried to indict them. The Pentagon moved to demote Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, and slash his retirement pay. The message was clear: you don’t get to wear the uniform’s credibility while undermining the chain of command on camera.
On Thursday, a federal judge said: actually, you can.
The Ruling
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon — a George W. Bush appointee, not some Obama holdover — issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Pentagon from demoting Kelly or cutting his retirement benefits. Leon didn’t mince words, calling the Pentagon’s push “horsefeathers” and “a troubling development in a free country.”
The judge wrote that the government “trampled on Sen. Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.” His ruling frames this not as a narrow case about one senator, but as a precedent affecting every retired service member’s right to political speech.
This came two days after a D.C. grand jury refused to indict any of the six Democrats. The Justice Department brought the case, presented it to citizens, and the citizens said no.
That’s two swings and two misses for the Trump administration in a single week.
The Hard Truth
Here’s where this gets uncomfortable for our side, and I’m going to say it anyway because that’s what Bob does.
The Trump administration overplayed this hand. Badly.
Were the “Seditious Six” grandstanding? Absolutely. Was the video a calculated political stunt designed to undermine the commander-in-chief using the credibility of military service? Without question. Did it make your blood boil watching elected officials tell troops to second-guess lawful orders? Mine too.
But there’s a difference between something that’s infuriating and something that’s criminal. And there’s a difference between a bad-faith political stunt and sedition. The grand jury saw the difference. The judge saw the difference. And now the administration has handed these six Democrats exactly what they wanted — martyr status.
Jason Crow’s response after the failed indictment tells you everything: “If these f***ers think that they’re going to intimidate us and threaten and bully me into silence… they have another thing coming.” That’s not a man who feels defeated. That’s a man who just got handed the best campaign ad of his career.
The First Amendment Problem
Judge Leon’s ruling raises a legitimate question that goes beyond partisan warfare. Can the Pentagon punish retired service members for political speech? If the answer is yes, then every retired veteran who posts a political opinion, records a campaign ad, or criticizes the commander-in-chief is at risk. That’s millions of people.
Kelly’s argument — that he’s heard from retired service members who’ve changed what they say and do because of how this administration treated him — is either a powerful civil liberties point or a convenient political narrative, depending on your perspective. Probably both.
The First Amendment doesn’t have a carve-out for speech that annoys the president. It doesn’t have an exception for retired military who say things the Pentagon doesn’t like. And a Bush-appointed judge just said so in writing.
Where the Administration Went Wrong
The video was obnoxious. The Democrats who made it were playing politics with military authority. All of that is true. But the response should have been political, not legal. You don’t indict your way out of a PR problem. You don’t demote a senator’s military rank because he made a video you didn’t like. That’s not strength. That’s a sledgehammer applied to a job that needed a scalpel.
Trump’s team should have let these six Democrats own their stunt. Let them explain to voters in competitive districts why they told troops to disobey orders. Let the political process handle it. Instead, the administration gave them a federal judge calling the Pentagon’s actions unconstitutional and a grand jury refusing to indict. That’s not accountability. That’s a gift-wrapped talking point.
The Bigger Picture
Elissa Slotkin hugged Kelly in the hallway after the ruling and told reporters that “average citizens and average judges are holding up democracy.” That’s the narrative now. Not “Democrats urged insubordination.” The narrative is “Trump tried to silence veterans and the courts stopped him.”
That’s a loss. And it was avoidable.
The “Seditious Six” are still grandstanders. Their video was still a cynical political stunt. But they’re walking away from this week with a court victory, a grand jury acquittal, and a rallying cry. The administration walked away with a legal rebuke and a precedent that makes it harder to hold anyone accountable for this kind of stunt in the future.
Sometimes the best move is letting your opponent hang themselves with their own rope. This was one of those times. Instead, we handed them the rope and tied our own hands with it.
