Sen. Mark Kelly says Trump administration $1.5 trillion Defense budget request is "outrageous"

[0:00] We turn now to Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, who we spoke with earlier and began by [0:05] asking whether the Pentagon has provided an answer on how depleted U.S. munitions are [0:11] because of the war with Iran. [0:12] MARK KELLY, Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, [0:14] Yes, Margaret, we have. We have been tracking it. [0:17] A number of times, we have been briefed by the Pentagon on specific munitions. Actually, [0:22] it's been pretty detailed on tomahawks, attackums, SM3s, THAAD rounds, Patriot rounds, [0:29] those interceptor rounds to defend ourselves. And the numbers are, I think it's fair to say, [0:36] it's shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines because this president got our country [0:43] into this without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline. And because of that, [0:49] we've expended a lot of munitions. And that means the American people are less safe, whether it's a [0:56] conflict in the Western Pacific, with China or somewhere else in the world, the munitions are [1:04] depleted. You may have seen me ask the secretary of defense this question about how long it's going [1:08] to take to replenish. We're talking about years. [1:10] LISA DESJARDINS- Well, you know, Admiral Paparo, the head of U.S. Pacific Command, [1:14] was recently asked in front of Congress about American readiness and whether the diversion to the [1:20] Middle East was hurting it, he said he did not see any real cost on our ability to deter China. [1:27] From what you have heard, when you say it's shocking, do you think that the U.S. would be able [1:33] to defend, for example, Taiwan, if China tries to move against it? Or are you saying, [1:39] we are not in a position to do that right now? [1:41] uh, well, it all depends on the length of a conflict. You know, conflict that last [1:47] a matter of days or just weeks, I think we're well positioned to do that. [1:51] If a conflict goes on for months or years, when it takes years to replenish some of these munitions, [1:58] of course, we're going to be in a worse posture than we otherwise would be in if this war in Iran [2:06] didn't happen. And, by the way, Margaret, what are the American people getting out of this? [2:10] I mean, this president said he wasn't going to start any new wars. He was going to bring down [2:14] costs. He's done exactly the opposite. War against Iran, costs on everything are up. [2:19] LISA DESJARDINS- Well, that is true. Of course, [2:22] you know their argument that this was an inevitable conflict in some ways. [2:27] But when it comes to making America ready to defend our allies and ourselves, [2:32] does what you describe basically make it impossible for a Democrat like yourself to say no [2:37] to that request from the White House for $1.5 trillion in defense spending? [2:42] JOHN YANG- Well, first of all, let me just back up a second. [2:46] Things like this, nothing is inevitable. There are always other options. During the Obama [2:53] administration, the Iran deal, the JCPOA kept the enrichment at a lower level. Donald Trump tore [2:58] that up. That's the reason we're here. But this also was not inevitable. There were other things [3:04] that we could do. The $1.5 trillion requests from this administration, it's outrageous. [3:10] When I got to the Senate five and a half years ago, the defense budget was just over $700 billion. [3:17] Now they're asking for twice as much money. It's nearly the amount that the rest of the world [3:23] pays for its defense. And as I pointed out in that and I pointed as I pointed out in that hearing, [3:28] there's stuff in there like Golden Dome. The physics on that stuff is really, [3:33] really hard. I'm very confident we're going to spend a lot of money and we're going to get a [3:36] system that doesn't work. There are other things in there we do not need. [3:41] I mean, they need to submit a defense budget that makes sense for the moment we're in. [3:46] AMNA NAWAZ, Okay. Sounds like you're saying no on that. [3:49] Let me ask you about something that the administration released late Friday, and that was [3:54] sanctioning four entities for providing satellite imagery to enable Iran's military strikes against [4:00] U.S. forces and allies. Three of those entities are based in China. How extensive is China's [4:09] support for Iran and targeting of American assets? [4:13] Well, of course China's supporting Iran. You know, so is Russia. I mean, they are allies. [4:22] They're all adversaries of ours, so I'm not surprised. [4:25] Not surprised. Should there be a cost for it beyond the sanctions? [4:31] Well, I think, you know, sanctions on whether it's on the Chinese for supporting Iran or the [4:38] Russians, you know, for their war against our ally in Ukraine, you know, sanctions are a tool we have [4:45] to try to get an effect from our adversaries. And this administration is not using the sanctions [4:49] power it has with regards to Russia. I mean, we're trying to get them to put more sanctions on Russia, [4:57] and this administration has been lifting sanctions on the Russians. [5:00] AMNA NAWAZ, There is, you mentioned Russia, there is this three-day ceasefire in the Ukraine war [5:05] to allow prisoner exchanges and this parade that Vladimir Putin holds annually. He said yesterday the [5:12] Ukraine conflict may be, quote, coming to an end, but it is still a serious matter. [5:17] We know the American diplomacy has failed to date. [5:20] How do you interpret what Putin said there? [5:23] DAVID BROOKS, Well, I think it's a positive statement. We want this to end. [5:28] Nobody wants this to end more than the Ukrainian people. [5:32] I'm going to be traveling back to Ukraine here in about three weeks or so to meet with government [5:39] officials, to get firsthand what the status of the conflict is, to hear from the Ukrainian people. [5:47] We want this to end. They want it to end. I think one of the barriers to peace is that [5:55] Donald Trump has not provided the support to the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian people that [6:00] Ukraine needs. Instead, you know, he often, I mean, we've seen this over and over again, [6:07] how he's got this odd relationship with Putin. He refuses to press Putin in a way. [6:12] He's backed off on sanctions. He's not put the pressure on the Russian government [6:18] with the tools that we actually have to get an outcome and get this thing, this conflict to end. [6:25] AMNA NAWAZ, Well, we'll see if that position changes since the diplomacy, [6:29] Secretary Rubio says, has not progressed. I want to ask you about your own case here. [6:33] You were in court this past week. [6:35] AMNA NAWAZ, You are suing Defense Secretary Hegseth on the grounds that he violated your [6:40] free speech rights. The Justice Department is arguing the video you made [6:44] was calling on active duty service members to reject legal orders. I know you say it was just [6:50] to resist illegal orders. You said it's going to go to the Supreme Court. Why do you think that's [6:55] where this is headed? [6:56] AMNA NAWAZ, Well, Margaret, I actually don't know how this thing ends. The Supreme Court could [7:03] take it up. Maybe they decide not to. I do know this, that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump tend to [7:09] double down on bad ideas. That's why I said that. But the bottom line on this thing is, this isn't [7:15] about me. I said something. It was very clear what we said. Do not obey illegal orders. They're saying, [7:22] I said something else. That doesn't make any sense. What they said in court just the other day on [7:28] Thursday is that if retired service members like me and the other two million retired service members [7:35] out there want to be able to exercise their First Amendment rights, they can give up their retirement, [7:41] so give up their pension, give up their health care, give up that retired status. [7:45] Think about that for a second. The people who have given the most to this country, [7:50] this administration wants them to give up their constitutional rights. How offensive is that? [7:56] AMNA NAWAZ, Well, one of the judges said that you are different because you have a bully pulpit [7:59] because you're a senator, that you're not the same as every other veteran. [8:02] AMNA NAWAZ, Well, I mean, my job is to hold this administration accountable. [8:09] I'm on the armed services committee. That's like specifically, you know, that part of the [8:15] Constitution is a separation of powers, Margaret. My role as a United States Senator on that committee [8:23] is to speak out about these issues. And I said something that they didn't like. But again, [8:28] this isn't about me. They're trying to shut people up. But in this case, they picked the wrong guy. [8:34] I'm not going to let them violate my constitutional rights or the constitutional rights of two million [8:39] retired service members. I had, by the way, I had service members, retired service members there with [8:45] me in the courtroom, because they understand what is at stake here. I mean, if the government was to [8:52] win this, if Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump got their way, you know, I mean, they said I should be [8:57] hanged, executed now. And then they tried to prosecute us and throw us in jail. And now what they're doing. [9:04] Yeah, exactly. And now they're trying to take away these rights, not only from me, [9:08] but they said in court two million retired service members can give up their rights. [9:13] AMNA NAWAZ, Senator Kelly, we will watch what happens next in that case. Thank you for your time this morning.