Sen. Mark Kelly - “I’m Not Backing Down” | The Daily Show

Great to be here.

So, how was your day?

Uneventful.

Good.

Uh...

No, big surprise this morning. Big surprise. I was going to be talking to you all about subsidies for health care, and then this morning, if you could just explain very quickly, Secretary of whatever he wants to call it, Pete Hegseth,

Yeah.

censored you, stripped you of some... What exactly did he do?

Well, first, let me-let me back up to November. Myself and some of my colleagues, we put out a little video, and we just said to members of the military, don't follow illegal orders. We stated the law.

Donald Trump didn't like that.

About five of you guys, six of you guys. Yeah, six of us. It was pretty basic. It was a little, it was like, you know, the Imagine video for senators, but okay, I was

with you.

We thought it would get like no reaction. Donald Trump said, I should be hanged, executed, prosecuted. And then when the hanging thing, I guess they couldn't figure out how to do that. You know, setting up the gallows in front of the Capitol didn't work out so well five years ago. So then they got the minion, Pete Hegseth...

Yes.

-...to, like, try to prosecute him.

I don't know that this is helping you right now.

But here's the thing. They're trying to intimidate all of us. Don't say something they don't like. And especially for members of the military, retired members like me, keep your mouth shut or they're coming after you.

They're gonna take away your pension. So, this is much bigger than me.

But they only came after you. Why did they not come after... There's five or six other people in the video.

It's kind of technical. I'm retired Navy. I was in the Navy for 25 years. Okay. So I have a whole career. So...

So, see, it's easy.

They can come after you because you happen to serve longer?

Longer. Exactly. Yep. Because I went over 20 years. I'm a retired member of the military, so they were like, I was the target. But this is not just about me, right? And that's why I'm not backing down from these guys. Right.

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪

Because, John, this is serious. I mean, this is about everybody's constitutional rights. Look, first they come after the senators, and I said nothing.

And then they'll come after the talk show hosts. I promise you that. I wouldn't be surprised to see them threaten, you know, network television. Audience members. Exactly.

Don't clap too hard.

The thing that was weird...

Don't worry, they don't.

Um... Uh, the thing that's totally weird...

There they go.

So, in the message that I saw today, PDAG said that you were being censored because you told service members not to follow lawful orders. I watched the video. Yeah.

It could have used music.

Um...

But I watched the video. You clearly didn't say that. That's right. You said, don't follow unlawful orders. So what is the due process that... What gives him the ability to strip you of something

when you didn't appear to do what he is saying that you did?

Well, he has been appointed as the secretary of defense. Now, let me be clear about this. This guy is by far the most unqualified secretary of defense this country has ever had. It's not even close. So I would pretend, first of all, he doesn't know what he's doing, but there is tremendous power in that position. And in this administration, I mean, the truth

doesn't really matter at this point. I'm aware. You're aware. They're going to say what they're going to say. They're going to do to me whatever they can figure out. I'll fight it like I've got.

So this is an executive order. Is this a legal process? Are they laying out evidence against because I read if I may. This is a memo that you received. This is not the official memo. This is well actually from my printer. No, but this is...

But I want to say, this is why they're saying that you were being censored. You identified yourself as a captain in the United States Navy and stated, uh, we want to speak directly to members of the military. This administration is pitting our uniformed military

against American citizens. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. That sounds like...

Well, it's what we said.

What you... And that's the law. And he said you were telling them to refuse lawful order.

Which is not true. But there's also stuff in there that's ridiculous.

He goes on to say, and this is the part that I thought was sort of bonkers. On November 20, 2025, you issued a joint statement defending the video and reinforcing your call for refusal of what you characterize as unlawful orders.

Well, you didn't characterize it that way. That's what you said. You criticized military leadership also in quotations, asserting you would, and they bolded this, always defend the Constitution.

And in that Constitution, in Article I, I'm in the United States Senate. I'm on the Armed Services Committee. My job is oversight. I voted for those admirals and generals. They fired them.

And this guy's surrounded by a bunch of yes men. They didn't like that I said that.

But you're a United States senator. And if you go on the floor of the Senate and say, the Secretary of Defense is surrounded by yes men, they can go, that's it. Your pension is gone and your rank is gone.

That is what they're trying to do. I am going to do everything in my power not to allow them to do that. I... I... It's...

What's so interesting to me is,

this entire episode speaks of something

inherent in the character of this administration, and that is fragility. I don't think I've ever seen strength portrayed in this manner, this smacks of, I don't think I've ever seen strength portrayed in this manner,

this smacks of weakness and fear. When people have the power and the respect, they don't need to be petty. This is petty.

It's a reflection of the person at the top. It always is in any organization. I've run things before in my career. I was a commander of the space shuttle. I had, you know, adhered to a set of values with my people. And I wanted certain stuff out of them.

I expected things. I also, in my case, I expected them and demanded that they often disagree with me. Uh, that's not this president. And I think he's got a major ego problem. I mean, here's a guy who, uh, avoided the draft five times.

Yeah, he puts his name on... The only other people that put their name on everything are eight-year-olds going to camp.

Like, this is... He just writes his name on everything.

And Kim Jong-un. And Stalin. going to camp like this. It's like to say I'm going to come on yes and Stalin but let

me ask you so is there anything in retrospect when you think about the video because it is the idea that no one was going to react to it probably doesn't seem realistic when members United States and make a direct appeal to camera to service members like that's going to get attention, especially in this environment.

Is there anything that you would do differently about that video? Forgetting about now not, you know, not cowing before somebody threatening your speech, but in retrospect, was it the right way to send the message you wanted to send?

It was the right way, and the only thing I would change is what you said earlier. Better music.

That is it.

Can I tell you my...

Because the message, you know, was important. Right now, it was especially important. Let me tell you why. This president, when he was running in 2016, talked about killing the family members of terrorists. That means women and children.

Murdering children. He also talked about shooting U.S. citizens in the legs. He has recently talked about sending U.S. troops into cities for the military to train. He's done it. Well, and then train on U.S. citizens.

What does that mean? So, as a member of the military...

You thought there was an urgency.

I felt an obligation. An obligation to send a message and also to stand up to this president.

If I may... The thing about it that maybe struck me, if I may be slightly critical, is it felt like people in power in our government putting the onus of the knowledge of the nuance of that type of law on the... in the hands of rank and file,

that I worry that putting that burden on... Like, I don't know the ins and outs of whether the strikes on those boats are illegal or legal, and I would assume that there are probably a lot of soldiers who might not. Isn't there something to senators

taking on that task themselves and not necessarily maybe outsourcing it to rank and file that might not be as versed in what is legal and what isn't? Isn't that a hard decision for them?

Well, let me explain this as plainly as I can. This is a question about what would a reasonable person think under these circumstances. Is that the standard? That's the standard. It's not nuanced. It's not complicated.

If a reasonable person would think that this thing that they are asking me to do is illegal, you have an obligation. It's not an option. You have an obligation not to follow those orders.

So are the boat strikes illegal?

Well, so I've been asking this question for a long time. I'm on the armed services and the intelligence committee. They have some complicated legal rationale, 40 pages of why these are legal. It's questionable at best. And by the way, at first it was fentanyl, then it was cocaine, then it was about regime change,

then it was about oil.

I understand.

So... But what I'm... Do you see my point? You yourself are saying like, I don't know. I totally see your point.

But our point is to members of the military who don't get reminded of this often when something is Clearly unlawful you have an obligation not to follow right those orders. It's a pretty simple thing and we've seen in our history Multiple times when even under those circumstances Members of the military have done stuff that was clearly over the line. We did not want that to happen.

Under the Obama administration, they did extrajudicial killings of an American citizen through drone strikes. Like, we criticize that. That's... My point is, there's enough gray area in some of these actions. I mean, is any of this legal under the AUMF?

You know, under...

There's no AUMF for Venezuela right now.

No authorization. Right. But everybody is grabbing these authorizations that were given during the war on terror and justifying bombings in Libya and justifying... My question to you is... And this has been something that's been somewhat difficult

for Democrats to feel. There's a helplessness, right? And what we're hearing is, you guys gotta fight back. You gotta resist this. You're in the Army, you've gotta resist the illegal orders. You're in the streets, you've gotta take to the streets.

And we're looking at Washington and going, you got Chuck Schumer going, we're very, very, it gets me, I get a little gassy. Like it's, can you understand why, as an outside observer... I totally... I totally understand. ...this is... It's really frustrating and an abdication of leadership, it seems.

It is incredibly frustrating. Yeah. And I understand why the American people are freaked out, frustrated, unhappy. Unhappy with the Republicans, unhappy with us. Right.

We have to do better. We have to address the issues that matter to the American people right now. Venezuela is not solving their problem in trying to pay their rent. Right. Or buy groceries or put their kids through school. That's not the focus that this president should have right now. Right.

And it certainly will not be the focus. You know, hopefully after 2026 or after 2028 when we have different people in charge, we can solve a lot of these problems. These are some of them are challenging, but but I feel that when Democrats are in charge, we often try to address issues that oil company executives who...

That was my favorite part.

Multiple times?

He didn't brief Congress, but he briefed the oil executives. But in that sense, do you think Congress still has... Have they abdicated their role as a co-equal branch of government to the point that you're not gonna be able

to get that back? If Democrats don't get a super majority in the Senate and regain the House, what role do they have in possibly stopping all of this?

There's a huge difference between where we are now and yes, Congress has abdicated its authority.

Even the idea that they're having a vote on whether or not, uh, to continue the authorization for force in Venezuela. Like, why have we, over these past decades, just allowed executives to take these militaristic actions

with no repercussions? They're weak members of Congress that have allowed that to happen over the years.

It should not have happened.

Which ones? Name them!

I think one of them was on that plane standing...

Yes. He's very happy to do it.

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪

But let me just say, you talked about supermajority. We don't need that. We need to win. We need to win elections in 2026. We need people to show up and vote. And, uh, if we can take control of the House and the Senate, we've got tremendous power to put this president in check, to call people down and have investigations

and consequences for the actions that he is taking.

Do you...

I think... and consequences for the actions that he is taking. Do you... That'd be nice.

I think... Do you believe that if Congress were to, uh, take back whatever those rescissions were on appropriations that had already been made, or they-they did those votes, do you think he would abide by them?

Because it's very clear, like, for instance, in the TikTok situation. Uh, Congress voted so that TikTok had to be, uh, shut down. And he... or sold. And he just gave it to one of his friends.

Yes.

So... and he didn't sell it when he was supposed to sell it. So I guess my question is, what mechanisms... I'm trying to figure out what the mechanisms are anymore, because in the old days, it was impeachment. That's clearly now a flawed political process as well.

What are the ramifications? Well, it's certainly better if we have levers of power. Right now, we don't. And then the other thing I think that's unprecedented about the situation we find ourselves in is the president of the United States is a convicted felon.

34 felonies.

Right. But they view that as an illegitimate process.

That's part of the issue. He was tried by a jury. It's not illegitimate.

Do you deal with him at all? Do you have any personal interaction with the president or with the people on his staff or with even Thune? Like, do any of them... Is there any communication?

Well, he-he-he called for me to be hanged. He did not invite me to play golf the next day.

Yes.

No, listen, I can't... I can't...

I can't imagine. But that's what I mean. Is there... Does Sen... Does Senator Thune come up to you and say, he knows you. He knows your heart. He knows the service you've given to this country.

No, not, I mean, usually I don't get into details about what, John Thune did not say that to me.

Did anyone? I mean, when the president of the United States threatens you specifically for doing something you didn't do, do any of them say, hey man, I know you were in the Navy for 25 years.

I know how much you've given to this country. I'm so sorry. Let me see what I can do to broker this.

Well, some of them, like Lisa Murkowski, as an example, came out publicly, very strongly. Just today, Tom Tillis, you know, basically said that letter. He said, that's a bunch of bullshit." -Right. Just... I'm paraphrasing for Senator Tillerson. Yeah, he said, that's a bunch of bullshit.

And then I have other folks that come up to me and say, hey, yeah, this is really... this is ridiculous. And I would say to them, hey, are you gonna say something publicly?

And they'll say, well, this is a food fight, I'll say something publicly. So I don't know if today's the knife fight. What's more knife fight than I want him hanged? Like how much more knifey does it get?

Well maybe this, maybe this is it. I don't know.

We'll find out. So what is the process now? What do you, what, what has to happen?

You go through an appeals process? And there's a second part to this when they decide details about what they're going to do, how they're going to demote me. And then there's an appeals process. I guess I can file a federal lawsuit. But I will do everything that's appropriate in this circumstance to make sure that they know that this is unacceptable, that they cannot do this to people, but also to make sure that the American people know that you-you can't be stifling

people's freedom of speech. We have a right in our country to speak out about the government, to say things about the president.

-♪ I'm a man who can't be free... ♪ -♪ I'm a man who can't be free... ♪

They can't take that away from us. You know what I just realized? Maybe the better strategy would be, don't be a senator to speak out. If you really want freedom in this country, be a CEO of an oil company or run an A.I. company, because they apparently have carte blanche

to do whatever they want to do.

So he surrounds himself with. Right. You know, my under... my understanding, he's got his cabinet members and he's got CEOs... Right. ...around him, and that is it.

Well, we're living in the upside down when a person that has given his entire life to public service in America at great cost, not just to yourself, but to your wife, who is Representative Gabby Giffords, who's also here tonight...

Who's here. ...and-and has, uh, uh... given so much, she out there will take a-take a shot. There. There you go. Um... Yeah, let her, uh...

Yeah.

It's-it's a remarkable thing that's happened in this country, where-where your service is turned against you and the sacrifice that your family has gone through and the activism, it's-it's really... it's dispiriting.

But...

It is. We're gonna get through it, though.

Well, I know you will, because...

We're gonna continue to fight.

You're incredibly resilient, and-and the people support you. You're incredibly resilient, and-and the people support you. And, uh, we really appreciate you being on the show. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator Mark Kelly.