Summary
Highlights
Senator Kelly opens by stating that Donald Trump's consistent strategy throughout his career in various fields has been to bully opponents into silence. He cites examples from Trump's past as a casino owner, TV host, and president. Kelly explains that he and other senators released a video advising service members to refuse illegal orders, a message he considers basic and uncontroversial. However, President Trump reacted by calling for their arrest, hanging, or execution, a response Kelly vehemently opposes. He contrasts this with how any other president would have responded, emphasizing the dangerous precedent set by Trump's rhetoric and actions, particularly regarding political violence.
Senator Kelly asserts that Trump uses threats to silence people and, if that fails, abuses his power to intimidate. He criticizes the appointment of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, describing him as historically unqualified and more interested in publicity than the rule of law. Kelly reveals he learned of an investigation into him via Hegseth's tweet, further illustrating the secretary's unprofessionalism. He references reports of Hegseth ordering a second strike on shipwrecked survivors in the Caribbean, calling for an investigation and public questioning of Hegseth.
Kelly describes the current moment as dangerous, with the President and his loyalists using power to silence senators. He believes this is a message to all Americans, warning them against speaking up. He points out that Trump's second term has focused on intimidating opponents rather than addressing national issues. Kelly cites instances of Trump bullying companies, universities, and late-night hosts. He argues that this behavior damages freedom of speech and the balance of powers, leading to unchallenged bad ideas, such as reckless tariffs and inaction on healthcare costs.
Senator Kelly firmly states his refusal to be intimidated or silenced by the President. He recounts his extensive military service, contrasting his experiences with Trump's behavior during those times. He emphasizes that he has faced far worse in service to his country and will not back down. Kelly concludes by reiterating his commitment to fighting for Americans, upholding the Constitution, and not letting intimidation or threats deter him from his duty.
During the Q&A, Senator Kelly addresses the alleged second strike on a Venezuelan vessel. He stresses the need for an investigation by the DOD Inspector General and the Armed Services committees, expressing concern if reports of a second strike on survivors are true, which could be a war crime. He notes that the White House's statement today might suggest the reports are accurate. He hopes the allegations are false due to his deep respect for Navy SEALs and military personnel, but underlines the military's obligation to follow international law. He reiterates Hegseth's unprofessionalism and inadequate qualifications for his role.
Kelly acknowledges increased threats to his and his wife Gabby's lives following Trump's comments, but affirms that he will not be silenced. He highlights the unusual nature of a president calling for the execution of senators and emphasizes the serious implications of such rhetoric. He notes a significant increase in threatening calls to his office. He reiterates his First Amendment rights and his role as a US Senator, stating he is not intimidated by Trump or Hegseth.
Kelly clarifies that the issue isn't about him personally, but about a president who dislikes dissent and is ignorant of the Constitution. He fears that if he and others are silenced, Trump will target other service members, government employees, or citizens who speak out. He raises concerns about the Department of Justice's potential involvement and the erosion of First Amendment rights. He also raises questions about the FBI's involvement in the inquiry into him and other lawmakers, suggesting political motivation behind it and urging reporters to investigate. He confirms that the Senate Armed Services Committee is investigating the alleged strike, but expresses concern about the Secretary of Defense's influence on the department's integrity.
Kelly criticizes Hegseth as unqualified, focused on 'lethality and warrior ethos' rather than strategic leadership, accountability, and equipping service members. He finds Hegseth's behavior embarrassing and questions what allies think of him. He stresses the importance of the Secretary of Defense role as second only to the President, especially in nuclear command, and dismisses Hegseth's online antics as unserious.
Kelly confirms that the video he and other lawmakers created was proactive, given Trump's history of discussing illegal actions, such as shooting protestors or using American cities as training grounds. He explains that it was a reminder to service members about their duty to refuse illegal orders and to show them support. He discusses potential legislative avenues through the NDAA or defense appropriations bill to address concerns with the Defense Department, but acknowledges the challenge of bipartisan support given Republican fear of crossing the President.
Regarding Secretary Hegseth's actions, Kelly states he's not an attorney but suggests the alleged second strike could be an impeachable offense if confirmed. He calls for a thorough investigation to ascertain all facts. On healthcare, he advocates for a bipartisan solution to prevent millions of Americans from losing coverage, noting that the president's lack of engagement is hindering progress. He confirms receiving messages of support, both public and private, from Republican colleagues, noting the difficult political climate where crossing the president leads to chilling consequences.
Senator Kelly expresses confidence in the Senate Armed Services Committee's leadership but has zero confidence in the Secretary of Defense, criticizing his negative impact on the department. He supports Senator Schatz's call for Pete Hegseth to testify before the NDAA passes and agrees that public and classified hearings are necessary to inform the American people. He questions Trump's justification for potential kinetic strikes in Venezuela, emphasizing the president's responsibility to articulate a clear goal before engaging in war. He also points out the contradiction of potentially intervening in Venezuela while pardoning a figure similar to Maduro, and cautions against regime change as a generally unsuccessful US foreign policy.