Any post about politics with a Navy nexus lacking a Politics flair may result in, at a minimum, a temp ban and removal of the post. Participation in a Politics-flaired post requires a minimum r/Navy specific karma. This will be automatically enforced by the automod. Anyone using the Politics flair should utilize a common sense approach to what is a Navy nexus. This does not mean posts with Politics flair will be unmoderated. All discussion must adhere to r/Navy rule #1 and Reddit rule #1. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. More on reddit.com

This lawsuit is going to be a serious problem for Pete Hegseth and the administration, and the fact that it had to be filed at all is a pretty stark indictment of where things are right now. A sitting Member of Congress has more speech protection than an ordinary citizen, not less. The Speech and Debate Clause exists specifically to prevent the executive branch from punishing legislators for political speech. Whatever limits apply to active-duty service members do not override a Senator speaking in his legislative capacity. Even putting the constitutional issues aside, what Kelly said should not be controversial. Reminding service members that they are not required to follow illegal orders is basic constitutional and military law. If that is now being labeled seditious, the problem is not the speech. It is the standard being applied. The selective enforcement only makes this worse. Multiple veterans in Congress participated in the same statement. Only Mark Kelly was punished. That looks far less like neutral application of military authority and far more like retaliation. The most plausible explanation is that Kelly has name recognition and credibility, so the administration thought making an example of him would deter others. Courts are rarely sympathetic to that kind of reasoning. Finally, yes, the Department of Defense and the Navy clearly overstepped their authority. Retirement grade determinations are tied to active-duty conduct, not civilian political speech years later. Using military retirement authority to discipline a sitting Senator crosses a clear separation of powers line. This is not a close or novel constitutional question. It is an overreach that is likely to age very poorly once a court actually examines it. Given everything else unfolding right now, it is hard to see much value in even debating this. Between the Epstein files fiasco, the confusion around Venezuela and Greenland, and the ongoing Minnesota ICE and CBP situation, this feels less like a serious legal or policy dispute and more like background noise in an administration that is constantly generating new controversies faster than anyone can meaningfully engage with them...sigh. More on reddit.com

His goal isn't to demote Mark Kelly, it is to quiet dissent. More on reddit.com

Just my opinion but I feel like he's doing this to keep other retirees quiet. More on reddit.com