WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday, blocking the Department of Defense from downgrading Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s rank as a retired Navy captain for appearing in a video where he and other lawmakers reminded members of the military they aren’t required to follow illegal orders. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court wrote in the 29-page ruling that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others named in the lawsuit have “trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.”

In his scathing opinion loaded with emphasis and exclamation points, Leon wrote, “After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.’ To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!” 

The senior judge ruled that Kelly is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. The preliminary injunction will block Pentagon action while the case proceeds through the courts.

Leon conceded that while active military personnel are subject to “well-established doctrine” limiting First Amendment rights, “(u)fortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military.” 

“This Court will not be the first to do so!”

Leon was nominated by former President George W. Bush.

Leon concluded the ruling with a biting passage suggesting that “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.” 

“If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues,” Leon wrote.

‘This case was never just about me’

Kelly said in a lengthy statement following the ruling that the federal court “made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.” 

“But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That’s why I couldn’t let it stand,” Kelly said.

Kelly said the nation is at a “critical moment” to defend free speech.

“The First Amendment is a foundation of our democracy. It’s how we demand better of presidents like Donald Trump – whether they are jacking up the cost of groceries with tariffs or sending masked immigration agents to intimidate American communities.  

  “But Donald Trump and his administration don’t like accountability. They don’t like when journalists report on the consequences of their policies. They don’t like when retired veterans question them. And they don’t like when millions of everyday Americans peacefully protest. That’s why they are cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of anyone they can.”

The Department of Defense pointed to Hegseth’s X account as official comment on the matter.

The secretary wrote about the case: “This will be immediately appealed. Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.’”

DOD investigation

Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or national security, posted the video on Nov. 18

President Donald Trump reacted on social media a few days later, falsely claiming the video represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The Defense Department announced on Nov. 24 that it had opened an investigation into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly. Officials wrote the senator could face “recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Hegseth wrote in a social media post on Jan. 5 that he had started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank as a Navy captain and his pay. 

Hegseth wrote Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Kelly filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense and Hegseth on Jan. 12, asking a federal judge to declare the effort “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly wrote in a statement at the time. “His unconstitutional crusade against me 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.”

Court hearing

Leon held a hearing on Kelly’s request for a preliminary injunction on Feb. 3, where he asked the attorney representing the Department of Defense how any retired member of the military who is later elected as a member of Congress, especially one that sits on the Armed Services Committee, like Kelly does, could challenge any actions taken by the Defense Department. 

John Bailey, the Justice Department attorney, contended that Congress has determined that certain retired military members are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Benjamin Mizer, one of the lawyers on Kelly’s team, told the judge the Defense Department’s actions represented a “clear First Amendment violation.” 

Grand jury non-indictment

The other Democratic lawmakers in the video aren’t subject to the military’s judicial system but rebuked the Justice Department Wednesday for seeking a grand jury indictment against them for publishing the video, where they told Americans in the military and intelligence communities they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

Slotkin, a former CIA officer, posted a video on Feb. 5, saying she had informed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro that she wouldn’t be sitting for an interview. 

Slotkin said her letter to Bondi and Pirro also told them “to retain their records on this case in case I decide to sue for infringement of my constitutional rights.”

“To be honest, many lawyers told me to just be quiet, keep my head down and hopefully this will all just go away. But that’s exactly what the Trump administration and Jeanine Pirro want,” Slotkin said. “They are purposely using physical and legal intimidation to get me to shut up. But more importantly they’re using that intimidation to deter others from speaking out against their administration.

“The intimidation is the point and I’m not going to go along with that.”

House members 

Houlahan released her own video the same day saying she would not sit for an FBI interview and that the Democrats’ video “told the truth, it stated facts, it reiterated the law and it exercised speech explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” 

“Free speech is not a favor that the government can revoke,” Houlahan said. “It is a right and I will not surrender it, for myself or for anyone else.” 

Deluzio wrote in a social media post the following day that he would “not be intimidated by any harassment campaign” and does “not intend to sit down for a voluntary interview with DOJ or FBI officials sent to interfere with the important work I’m doing for my constituents.”

Goodlander wrote in a statement that the “Justice Department is targeting us for doing our jobs, and the aim here is clear: to intimidate, coerce, and silence us. It will not work. I will not bend the knee in the face of lawless threats and rank weaponization — I will keep doing my job and upholding my oath to our Constitution.”

Crow told CNN’s Pamela Brown last week that he was treating the FBI’s investigation as “an attempt to try to threaten, harass and intimidate political opponents.”

“(Trump’s) trying to make an example out of me and Mark Kelly and others because if he can make an example out of a member of Congress or a senator then why would everyday Americans stand up and protest and dissent? But he has chosen the wrong people.”

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly outside the District of Columbia federal courthouse where his lawsuit against the Department of Defense was heard on Feb. 3, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The federal district court judge overseeing the lawsuit Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly filed against the Department of Defense said during a Tuesday hearing he expects to issue a ruling before Feb. 11. 

Kelly has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the Pentagon from demoting his rank as a retired Navy captain for appearing in a video where he and other members of Congress reminded members of the military they do not need to follow illegal orders. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court said toward the beginning of the one-hour hearing that he planned to issue his decision “as quickly as possible” and told the lawyers that he didn’t “want to get too lost in the weeds” of the case at this earlier stage. 

Instead, he asked several questions about First Amendment rights in general, what protections a lawmaker holds, and whether the Trump administration was trying to expand previous court decisions regarding the military justice system to retirees. 

Leon was nominated by former President George W. Bush.

Kelly’s lawyers see a ‘First Amendment violation’

Benjamin Mizer, one of the lawyers on Kelly’s team, said “a lot about this case is unprecedented,” and urged the judge to reject the Department of Defense’s assertion that it has the legal right to demote any retired military member if they say something critical of its actions. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s censure letter and efforts to demote Kelly, he said, represented a “clear First Amendment violation.” 

“Secretary Hegseth demonstrated bias and that he is not a decision maker who has kept an open mind,” Mizer said. 

Mizer also said that all of the cases the Trump administration had cited in briefs to the judge addressed active duty service members, not retired members of the military. He contended that the federal district court does have jurisdiction to decide this case since it addresses constitutional claims. 

Trump administration battles back

John Bailey, the Justice Department attorney representing the Defense Department in the case, said that there is “at least a military clause to the First Amendment.”

Leon interjected to ask Bailey if it wasn’t “a bit of a stretch” to ask him to expand previous court rulings about active duty service members to cover retired members, like Kelly. 

“You’re asking me to do something the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit haven’t done,” Leon said. 

Bailey also contended that Kelly should have exhausted administrative avenues within the Department of Defense to contest Hegeth’s move to add a censure letter to his file and begin the process of demoting his retirement rank and pay. 

Leon also questioned how any retired member of the military who is later elected as a member of Congress, especially one that sits on the Armed Services Committee, like Kelly does, could challenge any actions taken by the Defense Department. 

Bailey said that Congress has determined that certain retired military members are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Later in the hearing, Bailey conceded that there are “perhaps a few unique First Amendment” aspects to the case, but said one important aspect is that Kelly hasn’t stopped speaking out against Trump administration policies he disagrees with, meaning there hasn’t been any “chill’ of his First Amendment rights. 

Leon said it may not be just Kelly who feels a chilling effect but also other military retirees who decide not to question Defense Department actions over concerns they may experience the same demotion Kelly faces. 

Leon wrapped up the hearing saying he would decide whether to grant Kelly a preliminary injunction in the “very near future … so it can be appealed.”

Kelly cites freedom of speech for military retirees

Kelly, who attended the hearing, said afterward the case is not just about his constitutional rights but the rights of “millions of retired service members.”

“There’s nothing more fundamental to our democracy than the freedom of speech and the freedom to speak out about our government, and that’s what I’m fighting for,” Kelly said. “I appreciate the judge’s quick and careful consideration in this case, given what is at stake here.”

Kelly rebuked Hegseth for trying to punish him for telling members of the military they didn’t need to follow illegal orders. 

“Secretary Hegseth censured me and is now trying to demote me for things that I said and for doing my job as a United States senator,” Kelly said. “And this isn’t happening in isolation. Since taking office, this administration has repeatedly gone after First Amendment rights of many Americans. That’s not how we do things here in the United States.”

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly speaks with reporters in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Dec. 1, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s lawyers on Monday urged a federal judge to block the Defense Department from downgrading his retirement rank as a Navy captain and his pay for telling U.S. troops they aren’t required to follow illegal orders. 

Paul J. Fishman wrote in a 35-page filing that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempt to punish Kelly for appearing in the video alongside other members of Congress violates several constitutional rights.  

“As a decorated combat veteran and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Kelly is deeply committed to the necessity of good order and discipline in the armed forces,” Fishman wrote. “He asks this Court to reinforce, not degrade, those principles. 

“His speech—simply reminding servicemembers of their fundamental obligation not to follow unlawful orders— promotes good order. And discipline does not demand silence —particularly from those no longer serving on active duty.”

Fishman firmly rejected the Department of Justice’s assertion in a brief filed last week that the federal court system has no authority over the Defense Department’s actions in this instance. 

“Defendants begin from the premise that questions of ‘military discipline’ lie beyond judicial review,” Fishman wrote. “Their claim that this Court is ‘not permitted to address’ Senator Kelly’s challenge disregards reams of precedent reviewing military disciplinary actions and demands an untenable level of deference.”

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, had scheduled a hearing on the issue for Wednesday, but postponed that until Feb. 3 due to the snowstorm. 

Hegseth pursues penalties

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced earlier this month that he had started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay, writing in a social media post that his “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

The Defense Department letter of censure to Kelly alleged that his participation in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer. 

The video at the center of the debate featured Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or intelligence community.

They said that Americans in those institutions “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

Kelly lawyer’s arguments

Fishman wrote in his brief that the Trump administration is asking the court to “embrace a novel rule” regarding the First Amendment: “that retired military veterans have no constitutional protection for their speech whenever the Secretary of Defense—in his sole discretion and without even identifying all of the speech at issue—concludes that it ‘risks undermining military discipline and good order.’” 

The Justice Department’s brief from last week, he wrote, erroneously argued that retired military officers can legally face punishment for speaking out against Defense Department policies they oppose.

“From Alexander Hamilton denouncing President Adams’s fitness to command during the Quasi-War, to modern episodes in which retired generals publicly called for Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation over the Iraq War, retired officers have long participated forcefully in public debate over military policy,” Fishman wrote. 

“The same is true today: retired servicemembers, including Members of Congress, have openly criticized presidential decisions ranging from the Afghanistan withdrawal to vaccination requirements,” he added. “Many continue to serve with distinction as legislators, governors, and federal judges. Yet against that backdrop, Defendants assert the power to limit the First Amendment rights of more than two million retired servicemembers, all without judicial review.”

The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., home of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on July 14, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender troops came under scrutiny again in federal court Thursday — this time before a three-judge appeals panel considering the merits of the president’s executive order.

The policy has been challenged in two major federal cases, one of which the administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s emergency docket. In May, the justices allowed the ban to go into effect while the lawsuits continue in the lower courts.

For just over three hours at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, judges pressed the Trump administration and the lawyer for the plaintiffs in Talbott v. Trump for clarity on the ban instituted just under one year ago.

The panel was made up of Judges Judith W. Rogers, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994; Robert L. Wilkins, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2014; and Justin R. Walker, a 2019 Trump appointee.

U.S. Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli, arguing for the administration, told the judges the ban in question rests on the findings and policy of former Secretary of Defense James Mattis. 

“The Mattis report does provide the rationale,” Kambli said, when pressed by Wilkins on why “people who’ve been in (service) for years, with Bronze Stars and commendations” are swept up in the policy.

“What we have here is an area of medicine, which we can all agree there’s uncertainty over,” Kambli argued.

Mattis, who served during Trump’s first term, disqualified transgender service members from the military, except in very narrow circumstances. 

A February 2022 Defense Department report concluded that transgender service members, even members who are not suffering a gender dysphoria diagnosis, “could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military.”

Kambli, moments later, added the courts are “ill equipped” to decide the issue and should show deference to the military.

But Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said Kambli and the Trump administration ignored new information revealed after President Joe Biden reversed the Mattis ban and allowed transgender troops to serve openly.

Minter, who argued in court for the plaintiffs, said there was “zero evidence of any problems. … That is part of the record now.”

“So for someone to come in and just go back to keeping people out … this is based on animus,” Minter said.

The government “has to show there is a legitimate purpose,” Minter said.

Process for discharging trans troops debated

Kambli told the judges that “so far no one has been discharged” and the policy is still “in progress.”

The transgender service members would be informed via letter of an honorable discharge, and would have the opportunity to go before a three-officer administrative discharge panel, he said. 

The special panel process is usually reserved for members who’ve served six or more years, but the military will make an exception for trans members with less than six years of service, Kambli added.  

In an animated exchange, Rogers pressed back: “The end result is predetermined. It’s a meaningless process. It’s just moving paper around.”

Jennifer Levi, senior director for GLAD Law, one of the organizations representing the roughly 30 plaintiffs, told States Newsroom after the arguments that trans members have already been “forced out” through a voluntary process.

“This was an important hearing, and the plaintiffs in this case are all meeting military standards and reflect some of the highest ideals of this country. They’ve committed their lives to service, and the military has conceded that they have been able to contribute and meet all of the rigorous standards for service,” Levi said.

“This hearing brought out just how devastating and harmful it is to purge a group of people who have been contributing and putting their lives on the line in service of the country.”

The Pentagon declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

Trump order

Trump signed the order on Jan. 27, 2025, asserting the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” 

Further, the order said that being transgender is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

Eight active-duty service members and transgender individuals who are actively pursuing enlistment in the armed forces initially brought the case against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, among other officials and three branches of the U.S. military. The number of plaintiffs has since grown.

U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction in mid-March, criticizing the administration in her 79-page opinion for a lack of data proving the claims in Trump’s order.

“Transgender persons have served openly since 2021, but Defendants have not analyzed their service. That is unfortunate. Plaintiffs’ service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence,” Reyes wrote.

Administration officials swiftly appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral arguments were heard April 22 before Judges  Cornelia Pillard, appointed during Obama’s second term, and Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both appointed during Trump’s first term.

On Dec. 9, the three judges issued a 2-1 decision staying the lower court’s preliminary injunction, with Katsas and Rao writing the Hegseth policy “likely does not violate equal protection.” 

Pillard issued a blistering dissent, asserting the ban “brands all transgender people, without regard to individual merit, as unworthy to serve in our armed forces solely because they are transgender.”

In a separate case, Shilling, et al v. Trump, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 18 upheld a lower court’s ruling that allowed transgender troops to continue serving, denying the government’s appeal. 

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military.

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly speaks with reporters in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Dec. 1, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the department on Monday for trying to demote Kelly’s retirement rank and pay after he appeared in a video where he and other lawmakers told service members they didn’t need to follow illegal orders. 

Kelly’s suit, filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, says attempts by the Trump administration to punish him violate the First Amendment, the separation of powers, due process protections and the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution.

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly wrote in a statement. “His unconstitutional crusade against me 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.”

Kelly appeared in the video alongside Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander — all of whom are former members of the military or intelligence agencies, though none of the others are still subject to the military’s legal system.

President Donald Trump was irate after seeing the video, posting on social media that he believed it represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

DOD investigation

The Defense Department announced in late November that it was looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly, a retired Navy captain, for participating in the video. 

Kelly said during a press conference on Capitol Hill in December the Defense Department investigation into him, along with one by the FBI into all of the lawmakers in the video, marked “a dangerous moment for the United States of America when the president and his loyalists use every lever of power to silence United States senators for speaking up.”

Hegseth, who originally threatened to court-martial Kelly, said in early January the Defense Department would instead downgrade his retirement rank and pay. 

“Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response,” Hegseth wrote in a social media post. “The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.”

Kelly said at the time he would challenge Hegseth’s course of action. 

First Amendment cited

The 46-page lawsuit marks the next step in the months-long saga, with Kelly asking a federal judge to declare the effort to demote him “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“The First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech,” the lawsuit states. “That prohibition applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy. As the Supreme Court held 60 years ago, the Constitution ‘requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy,’ and the government may not recharacterize protected speech as supposed incitement in order to punish it.”

The lawsuit alleges that the Pentagon’s actions against Kelly “also trample on protections the Constitution singles out as essential to legislative independence.” 

“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. ”Allowing that unprecedented step here would invert the constitutional structure by subordinating the Legislative Branch to executive discipline and chilling congressional oversight of the armed forces.”

Kelly’s legal team asked the judge to grant “emergency relief” in their favor by Friday, Jan. 16.

The case was assigned to Senior Judge Richard J. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stands to the side in the U.S. Senate basement following a classified briefing on President Donald Trump's foreign policy plans on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday he will meet with Danish officials next week, following a recent push from the Trump administration to annex or even use the military against Greenland — a course of action questioned by several Republican senators.

Senators sat through a closed, classified briefing Wednesday with Rubio about ongoing U.S. intervention in Venezuela launched over the weekend, and Democrats said afterward that he did not address their concerns about the operation. 

In addition, President Donald Trump is considering options to acquire Greenland, including possible military operations, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday.

Danish officials have repeatedly stressed any move to take the sovereign nation by force would violate NATO bylaws, which bar members from acts of aggression against each other. Greenland, with a population of about 56,000, has its own local government but is also part of the Realm of Denmark.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters she does not support Trump’s goals for Greenland. 

“I hate the rhetoric around either acquiring Greenland by purchase or by force. And you know I don’t use the word hate very often. But I think that it is very, very unsettling,” Murkowski said. “And certainly concerning as one who has actually been to Greenland.”

Rubio told reporters following the Venezuela briefing — open to all senators — that Energy Secretary Chris Wright will outline the Trump administration’s plans for that nation’s oil reserves later Wednesday. Trump said Saturday that the United States will “run the country” of Venezuela until “a proper transition can take place.”

“We feel very positive that not only will that generate revenue that will be used for the benefit of the Venezuelan people … but it also gives us an amount of leverage and influence and control over how this process plays out,” Rubio said. 

The Senate meeting with Rubio, which also included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, followed days of escalation by the Trump administration abroad that included capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and bringing him to the United States to face criminal charges, threatening to take Greenland by force from NATO member Denmark and seizing a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic sea as well as a second tanker tied to Venezuela. 

Hegseth after the briefing defended the U.S. capture of the vessels, arguing the Trump administration was enforcing sanctions placed on Venezuelan oil. 

The episode with the oil tankers was disclosed early Wednesday when the U.S. military issued a social media statement that the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security apprehended a “stateless” ship in the Caribbean Sea and another in the North Atlantic. 

Leavitt said during an afternoon press briefing that Trump officials will meet with oil executives on Friday to discuss an “immersive opportunity.”

Hours after the Jan. 3 military operation to capture Maduro, Trump stressed that Venezuela’s oil reserves were a major factor in U.S. plans. Trump told reporters that major oil companies were notified before and after the operation in Venezuela. 

Senate GOP skeptical

Besides Murkowski, a handful of other Senate Republicans also expressed concern about the White House statement leaving open the possibility of military action on Greenland.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said “we need to not threaten a peaceful nation that’s an ally where we have a military base already.” 

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins said she also disagreed with the Trump administration’s push to acquire Greenland and said she’s not sure if the Trump administration is serious about using military force.

“It surprises me every time it comes up,” she said.

GOP Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said he doesn’t “think military intervention is on the table” for Greenland. 

Louisiana’s Republican Sen. John Kennedy said “to invade Greenland would be weapons grade stupid, and I don’t think President Trump is weapons grade stupid, nor is Marco Rubio.” He instead suggested possibly purchasing the territory, an offer that Denmark has already rejected.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, wrote in a critical statement that “cooperation with Arctic allies from Canada to the Nordics already grants the United States sweeping access to positions of strategic importance.”  

“Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” McConnell wrote. “And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters following his weekly press conference he couldn’t comment on hypotheticals about a military takeover of Greenland, including whether Congress must approve such an action. 

“No, I can’t because it depends on what that is. The Congress has a responsibility to declare war and I think there is no scenario where we’d be at war with Greenland,” Johnson said. “Under Article II, as we talked about in the room, the president has broad authority as commander-in-chief, as all previous presidents have. No one can forecast what is going to happen in Greenland. You’re asking a hypothetical that I cannot answer.”

Johnson said during the press conference that he doesn’t believe anyone in the Trump administration is “seriously considering” military action in Greenland. “And in the Congress, we’re certainly not.”

Democrats move toward vote on war powers

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut called the administration’s plan regarding Venezuelan oil “insane.” 

“They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint for a period of time undefined as leverage to micromanage the country,” he said. “The scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning.” 

Though Murphy said he was glad administration officials held a briefing, he also said he envisioned a “very, very rough ride” ahead. 

Senate Democrats are gearing up to take another vote on a war powers resolution intended to curb Trump’s military actions abroad. An earlier attempt to pass a resolution was prompted by the administration’s multiple boat strikes in the Caribbean, which officials claimed were carrying drugs to the U.S., but backers failed to reach the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

The next vote, led by Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, is expected to take place this week.

Walking out of the briefing, Kaine said “it’s time to get this out of the (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) and get it in public hearings where senators can ask questions and the American public can learn what the hell is going on.” Such facilities are secure settings where classified information can be shared.

Kaine said he could not get a clear answer from the briefing if the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela will be replicated for other countries like Greenland or Cuba.

Sen. Jacky Rosen questioned what the administration’s actions mean for the U.S., despite consensus Maduro is a “very brutal dictator” and satisfaction among many that he’s no longer governing Venezuela. While Maduro is no longer in charge, his vice president was sworn in, Delcy Rodríguez, effectively continuing the regime. 

“We have problems right here at home,” the Nevada Democrat said, pointing to the recent expiration of enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

“Last time anybody checked, December 31st was just about a week ago, and how many people lost their health insurance because they couldn’t afford it because Donald Trump’s so busy, and Pete Hegseth’s so busy with the visuals of all these bombs going off all around the world that they’re not paying attention to people who are going to lose their health care?” asked Rosen.

Murphy, Kaine and Rosen all sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly speaks with reporters in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Dec. 1, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department will attempt to downgrade Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s retirement rank and pay, seeking to punish him for making a video along with other Democrats in Congress, who told members of the military they didn’t need to follow illegal orders. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth originally threatened to recall Kelly from military retirement and court-martial him for his participation in the video, but announced Monday that the department would instead try to downgrade his rank of captain as well as his retirement pay. 

“Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response,” Hegseth wrote in a social media post. “The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.”

Hegseth added that Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Kelly wrote in a social media post that he planned to challenge Hegseth’s attempt to alter his retirement rank and pay, arguing it’s an attempt to punish him for challenging the Trump administration. 

“My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head– all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder,” Kelly wrote. “Generations of servicemembers have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.”

Kelly added that Hegseth’s goal with the process is to “send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.”

Constitutional protection

Members of Congress are generally protected under the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that unless a lawmaker is involved in treason, felony and breach of the peace, they are “privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The Defense Department letter of censure to Kelly alleged that his participation in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer. 

Hegseth wrote in that letter that if Kelly continues “to engage in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, you may subject yourself to criminal prosecution or further administrative action.”

Allegations of misconduct

The Department of Defense posted in late November that officials were looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly for appearing in the video. 

It didn’t detail how Kelly might have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice but stated that “a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Hegseth referred the issue to Navy Secretary John Phelan for any “review, consideration, and disposition” he deemed appropriate. Hegseth then asked for a briefing on the outcome of the review “by no later than December 10.”

Kelly said during a press conference in early December the military’s investigation and a separate one by the FBI were designed to intimidate the six lawmakers in the video from speaking out against Trump. 

The lawmakers in the video, who have backgrounds in the military or intelligence agencies, told members of those communities they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

The other Democrats in the video — Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander — are not subject to the military justice system. 

Trump railed against the video a couple of days after it posted, saying the statements represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio speak to reporters on Dec. 16, 2025, following a closed-door briefing with all senators about U.S. military action in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators left a closed-door meeting Tuesday with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio split over the Trump administration’s strikes on alleged drug-running vessels near Venezuela, particularly an early September follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to boat wreckage.

Hegseth and Rubio delivered the all-member briefings to Senate and House lawmakers on Capitol Hill as the death toll from U.S. military strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean has surpassed 90, and as U.S. Navy ships are amassed off the coast of Venezuela.

Controversy over the possibility of war crimes during the Sept. 2 follow-on strike that killed shipwrecked survivors drew attention after The Washington Post reported details last month, calling into question Hegseth’s orders.

Hegseth told reporters Tuesday he briefed members on a “highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons — weapons, meaning drugs — to the American people and poisoning the American people for far too long. So we’re proud of what we’re doing.”

Dems decry edited video

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters Hegseth again refused to show unedited footage, which Schumer described as “deeply troubling,” of a second strike on Sept. 2 that killed two people who survived the initial strike. 

“The administration came to this briefing empty handed,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said. 

“If they can’t be transparent on this, how can you trust their transparency on all the other issues swirling about in the Caribbean? Every senator is entitled to see it. There is no problem with (revealing) sources and methods” because the senators will view it in the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, a secure area of the Capitol where classified information is generally shared.

Schumer added that an “appropriate version” of the video should be disclosed to the public.

Senate Republicans downplayed loud concerns from Democrats, pointing to former President Barack Obama’s numerous counterterrorism drone strikes in the Middle East.

“We’ve been using the same technique for 24 years, and nothing has changed except the hemisphere,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla.

Public release called for

Hegseth told reporters the unedited video will be shown to members of the Senate and House committees on the Armed Services Wednesday, alongside Admiral Frank Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, who oversaw the strikes.

Hegseth did not address why the department declined to show the unedited video to all 100 senators. 

He did say, “Of course, we’re not going to release a top-secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public.”

Several Democratic senators have called for the video to be publicly released.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said he was told during the meeting that the video won’t be released because of “classification concerns.”

“It is hard to square the widespread, routine, prompt posting of detailed videos of every strike, with a concern that posting a portion of the video of the first strike would violate a variety of classification concerns,” Coons said.

Coons added “it’s increasingly important that the national security team of the Trump administration increasingly respect and recognize the role and power of Congress.” 

He highlighted a provision in Congress’s annual defense authorization bill that compels Hegseth to release the video or lose 25% of his travel budget. The massive defense bill is expected to pass this week.

Body count from boat strikes rising

U.S. Southern Command posted a video on social media Monday night of the military’s latest strikes on three boats “operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters” in the eastern Pacific. The strikes killed eight people, according to the post.

President Donald Trump has officially promoted his military actions in the Caribbean as a fight against drug trafficking and overdose deaths in the United States, particularly from illicit fentanyl. 

On Monday Trump issued an order declaring the powerful synthetic opioid as a “Weapon of Mass Destruction.”

The smuggling routes for illicit fentanyl and the chemicals used to make it follow the path from China to Mexico to the U.S., and is highlighted as such in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment.

The administration has designated several drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, including “Cartel de los Soles,” an alleged Venezuelan group that the Department of State described as spearheaded by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Trump has hinted at a land invasion of the South American country.

When asked by States Newsroom on Tuesday whether Hegseth addressed during the meeting what type of drugs were alleged to be in the targeted boats, Mullin and Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said cocaine.

“We’ve always heard it’s mainly cocaine. It doesn’t matter. It’s drugs,” Mullin said.

Sullivan said “it’s the same groups” smuggling the cocaine as the ones smuggling fentanyl.

Cocaine mixed with illicit fentanyl has become “an increasing public safety concern” over the last eight years, according to the National Drug Threat Assessment. 

Overall, all U.S. drug overdose deaths have decreased in recent years, according to the assessment and latest data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.