Transcript

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

From The Daily Show · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 20 min · 3,452 words · 83 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Sen. Mark Kelly - “I’m Not Backing Down” | The Daily Show", an episode of The Daily Show published January 6, 2026 (20 min, about 3,452 words). It mentions 3 people, works and ideas, including Pete Hegstaff, United States Navy, AUMF.

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 3:00: Pete Hegstaff
  2. – 6:00: United States Navy

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

  • So then they got the minion Pete Hegstaff.
    about Pete Hegstaff · at
  • You identified yourself as a captain in the United States Navy and stated we want to speak directly members of the military. This administration is pitting our uniform military against American citizens. You can refuse illegal orders.
    about United States Navy · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

Companies & orgs

Concepts & topics

  • AUMF — Concept · 1 mention

Full transcript with timestamps

Great to be here. So, how was your day? Uneventful. Good. Uh, now big surprise this morning.

Big surprise. Uh, I was going to be talking to you all about subsidies for healthcare and then this morning uh if you could just explain uh very quickly uh secretary of whatever he wants to call it, Pete Hagsth.

Yeah. Uh 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, do don't follow illegal orders. We stated the law,

right? Donald Trump didn't like that. About five of you guys, six of you guys. Yeah. Six of us. Yeah. Video a little. It was like, you know, the imagine video for senators, but okay. I was with you.

We thought it was would get like no reaction. Donald Trump said I should be hanged, executed, prosecuted. Wow.

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 capital didn't work out so well.

God, five years ago. So then they got the minion Pete Hegstaff. Yes. By the way,

to like try to prosecute. I don't know that this is helping you right now. But here's the thing.

All right. They're trying to intimidate all of us. Of course, don't say something they don't like. And especially for members of the military, retired members, right, like me, keep your mouth shut or they're coming after you. They're going to take away your pension. So, this is much bigger than

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

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

So, so it's 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 I'm not backing down from these from these guys,

RIGHT? Because John, this is serious. I mean, this is after the senators and I said nothing and then they'll come after the talk show host. I promise you that.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them threaten, you know, network television. audience members.

Exactly. Uh, don't clap too hard. The thing that was weird, don't worry, they don't. Um,

uh, the thing that struck me was weird. There we go. So, in the message that I saw today, Pet said, uh, 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. Okay,

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, right? But there is tremendous power in that position.

And in this administration, I mean, the truth doesn't really matter at this point. So,

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 it out. I I'll I'll fight it. Like I've got

So is this is an executive order. Is this a legal process? Are they laying out evidence again? Because I read if if I may

uh this is a a memo that you received. This is not the official memo. This is well actually

from my printer. No, but this is uh but but I want to say uh this is why they're saying that you were uh being censored. uh you identified yourself as a captain in the United States Navy and stated uh we want to speak directly members of the military. This administration is pitting our uniform military against American citizens. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. That sounds like

what we what we said what you and that's the law. You said you were telling them to uh refuse lawful orders,

which is not true. But there's also stuff in there that's ridiculous. He he goes on to say uh and and this is the part that I thought was sort of uh bonkers. On November 20th, 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 criticize military leadership for firing admirals and generals in quotations and surrounding themselves with yesmen, also in quotations, asserting you would, and they bolded this, always defend the Constitution.

And in that Constitution, in Article One, 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 him and

this guy's surrounded by a bunch of yesmen. 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 yesmen, 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 weakness and fear. When people have the power and 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. Uh I've 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 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. I mean,

five times. Yeah. He puts his name on. The only other people that put their name on everything are 8-year-olds going to camp. Like this is

he just writes his name on every Kim Jong-un. 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 of the 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 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, right?

That means women and children, murdering children right? He also talked about shooting US citizens in the legs. He has recently talked about sending US troops into cities for the military to train.

He's done it and well and then train on US citizens. What does that mean? Right. Right. Right. So as a member of

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 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. Yeah. Plainly as I can. This is a question about what would a reasonable person think under these circumstances.

Is that 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 not 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. on them 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,

that's my 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 do you see my point? You yourself. I don't point our point 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 AUM, you know, under under

there's no AUMF for Venezuela right now? No authorization. But everybody 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 been somewhat difficult for Democrats to feel,

there's a helplessness, right? And what we're hearing is, you guys got to fight back. You got to resist this. You're in the army, you've got to resist the illegal orders. You're in the streets, you've got to 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 can you understand why as an outside observer totally it's really frustrating and an abdication of of leadership. It seems

it it is incredibly frustrating 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 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. 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 I feel that when Democrats are in charge, we often try to address issues that matter to the American people. What this president is doing is he's enriching himself, his family members, his friends, his cabinet members,

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 uh role as a co-equal branch of government to the point that you're not going to be able to get that back? Even 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?

Weak members of Congress that has have allowed that to happen over the years. What are their names? It should not have happened.

Which ones? Name them. I think one of them was on that plane standing. He's he's very happy to do it.

But let me let me just say you you talked about supermajority. Yeah. 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 know I think do you believe that if Congress were to uh take back whatever those recisions were on appropriations that had already been made or they they did those votes?

Mhm. Do you think he would abide by them? because it's very clear like for instance in the Tik Tok situation uh Congress voted so that Tik Tok 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 What are the

It's certainly better if we have levers of power. Right now we don't. Right. And then the 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 any personal interaction with the president or with the people on his staff or with uh even Thoon? 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. So the answer to I can't imagine. Yeah. But that's what I mean. Is there does sen does Senator Thun 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 Thun did not say that to me.

Did anyone I mean when when the president of the United States Yes. threatens you specifically for doing something you didn't do

right. Do any of them say, "Hey man, I know you were uh in the Navy for 25 years. I know how much you've given to this country. Yes.

I'm so sorry. Let me see what I can do to broker this." Well, some of them like Lisa Marowsky as an example came out publicly very strongly. Just today, Tom Tillis,

right? You know, basically said that letter, he said that's a bunch of right? Just I'm paraphrasing, right,

for Senator? Yeah. He said that's a bunch of And then I have 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. When it turns into a knife fight, I'll say something publicly.

So, I don't know if today's the knife fight than I want him hanged. Like, how much more knifey does it get?

Yeah. Well, maybe this maybe this is it. I don't know. We'll we'll find out. So, what is the process now? What do you what what has to happen? You go through an appeals process.

Um there's a second part to this when they decide, you know, 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, you know, file a federal lawsuit, but I I will do um 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.

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 AI company because they apparently have cart blanch to do whatever they want to do.

That's who he surrounds himself with, right? You know, my 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 Gfords who's also here tonight

and and has uh uh given so much she'll take a take a shot there. There we go. Um yeah,

it's it's a remarkable thing that's happened in this country where where your service has 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 going to get through it, though. Well, I know you will because we're gonna continue incredibly resilient and and the people support you and uh we really appreciate you being here on the program.

Thank you very much. See you tomorrow, Kelly.

Questions about this episode

What is discussed in "Sen. Mark Kelly - “I’m Not Backing Down” | The Daily Show"?

In order: 0:00 Pete Hegstaff; 3:00 United States Navy.

What is mentioned in this The Daily Show episode?

3 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Pete Hegstaff, United States Navy, AUMF. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Sen. Mark Kelly - “I’m Not Backing Down” | The Daily Show"?

The episode runs 20 min; the transcript is about 3,452 words in 83 timestamped sections.

More from The Daily Show

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.