Transcription: Sen. Mark Kelly on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” January 12, 2025

The following is the full transcript of an interview with Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” that aired on January 12, 2025.

---

MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, who joins us from Tucson, Arizona. Good morning to you, Senator.

LATE. MARK KELLY: Good morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It will be a very busy week in the Senate. Before I get to those confirmation hearings, I want to follow up on what the FBI director told our Scott Pelley there in his description of some of the Chinese hacking and what incoming national security adviser Mike Waltz called “cyber time bombs” throughout America’s infrastructure. What will happen? What should the consequences be for China, having done this and remains in our infrastructure?

LATE. KELLY: Well, we have to be strong to stand up to them and- and ex- explain them, and in some cases I think the consequences have to be severe. There are things we can do, we have the tools. But I would say, even beyond that, we have to figure out a way to get them off the infrastructure. In terms of the telecommunications system, there are several companies, you know, Chinese cyber software is currently on these systems and we are working to try to resolve this. Some of this will require the telcos to upgrade their infrastructure. It can be expensive. We are currently working with them to do so.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s quite unbelievable that this espionage happened in the first place, and it’s so difficult to deport them. I also want to ask you about another Chinese question and it has to do with Tiktok because the lawyer for the company said they will go dark next Sunday unless the Supreme Court steps in and stops this national security law from going into effect or delays that which Mr. Trump has asked the court to do. What do you think is going to happen here?

LATE. KELLY: Well, based on the oral argument in the case two days ago, it looks like the Supreme Court — I mean, I don’t really want to speculate, but it looks like they’re going to uphold the law that we passed. So – I think on the 19th, so a day before – before the inauguration, you know, Tiktok becomes on our systems, on our servers something that has now been banned by Congress. So I imagine there will be a disruption in service here, you know, from the 19th. I know this is controversial. I know there are people out there making a living, you know, on Tiktok, but it has a national security risk. You know, one is the data, one is the risk. What I am more concerned about is their ability to manipulate the people of the United States, especially in times of conflict. So it was the right decision. I voted for it. And it looks like the Supreme Court will uphold the legislation we passed.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re following that story. I want to follow up on something Senator Barrasso brought up, which was the Laken Riley Act. You say you support this. It’s a bill that would require federal authorities to detain undocumented immigrants accused of theft-related crimes instead of releasing them on parole. This bill was introduced last Congress, went nowhere. Was it wrong for the Democrats not to address it? Was it election-year politics that made Democrats worried about bringing it up?

LATE. KELLY: Well, for the last year we’ve been working with Republicans on bipartisan border security legislation with the hope of getting it passed and then moving on to comprehensive immigration reform. I think we could do that. I think there’s a lot of, you know, there’s- you know, there’s an effort, I think, that will continue. You know, right now this is definitely bipartisan. I voted cloture on the motion to start talking about it. And finally, I will vote –

(BEGIN CROSS STACK)

MARGARET BRENNAN

But do you regret not doing it when you took that stance earlier?

LATE. KELLY: -to- pass it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: If the Democrats were more muscular on this issue –

SEN: KELLY: Well—

MARGARET BRENNAN: -what was such a live issue during the campaign?

(END CROSSTALK)

LATE. KELLY: Well, I mean, the Laken Riley Act is very specific. I mean, it does a certain thing. We were working on something that was much more comprehensive, money for Border Patrol agents and changes to hiring and infrastructure. And policy changes, you know, you really have to do in a bipartisan way. We cannot do that through the reconciliation process you talked about. So there’s – you know, I think there’s – there’s going to be an effort going on. This is bipartisan. You’re right, we didn’t do it a year ago, maybe we should have. But we worked on bipartisan border security legislation. We weren’t able to get that over the finish line. I hope we can do that at this Congress.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get to two of the two of the choices here. You sit on the Defense Committee. Typically, only the committee’s ranking and chairmen get to see the FBI background check on a nominee. But as you know, many senators are asking for more information on Pete Hegseth, here. Do you have any information from the ranking member of the committee, from Senator Reed, that you will access or get any information from the FBI background check?

LATE. KELLY: Margaret, let me just start by saying that there is no job more serious and more critical to our national security than secretary of defense, and we need a qualified person in that job, and he just doesn’t see appear to have qualifications. And then on top of that, you look at his personal behavior, especially when he led Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans of America. You know, these two organizations were economically-financially mismanaged. There were reports of being drunk on the job and creating an environment, you know, where there was, you know, some issues with, you know, sexual harassment. So I think it’s in the nominee, Mr. Hegseth’s best interest, if he wants to be confirmed for this job, that we have all the information. You know, the information from these organizations, but also the FBI background check. Right now, the chairman and the ranking member, as you say, must get it. It is an agreement with the White House, but there have previously been exceptions for certain nominees. This, obviously, because it’s bipartisan, like a bi- you know, across the aisle, people want to see the FBI background check. I think we should get an opportunity to look at it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, the New York Times is reporting that your — that the ranking member had been briefed as of Friday. Are you saying no information has been shared?

LATE. KELLY: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, do you think it will be before Tuesday…

LATE. KELLY: Not yet.

MARGARET BRENNAN: —when the hearing—

LATE. KELLY: I don’t know. i think –

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

LATE. KELLY: — you know, we’ll have an opportunity, you know — I’ll talk to the ranking member, and I also talked to the chairman about this, about his nomination in general. Moreso, the discussion I had with Roger Wicker was about meeting Mr. Hegseth. We have contacted him several times. Have not been able to schedule a meeting at my office. And he does not meet with any Democrats on the committee other than the ranking member. More information is better. If – if he wants to be confirmed for this job, I think it’s in our best interest to get everything on the table.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re on the Intelligence Committee. Former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, she is also controversial. Republican Sen. Capito was on FOX today and said that when she met privately with Tulsi Gabbard, she pressed her on the 2017 trip to Syria that came in the wake of a chemical weapons attack by dictator Bashar Al-Assad against civilians. Gabbard told her, she said, that she didn’t even know she was going to Syria, that she intended to go to Lebanon on the planned visit and ended up in Syria. Is it a credible answer?

LATE. KELLY: I spoke with Congresswoman Gabbard this week, met with her in my office. We talked about the trip to Syria. She didn’t tell me that part. I mean, I think it’s kind of unusual to end up in one place, it wasn’t part of the plan. But what worries me more, especially about that trip, is that it was widely known that Assad gassed the civilian population by using chemical weapons against the population several times. And she didn’t argue about them, but she took the time and effort to argue that there were two cases, and she used, you know, experts who weren’t critical-credible to try to prove that he didn’t use chemical weapons in these two cases. And I have a hard time understanding why you would do that, use your political capital to try to prove something when there are multiple cases. And you know, on top of that, when you look at – you know what’s – what – in Russia with disinformation, she seems to have a penchant for – for disinformation -.

(BEGIN CROSS STACK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will…

LATE. KELLY: -and not to have-

MARGARET BRENNAN: – we’ll see –

LATE. KELLY: — presents a case that isn’t strong and doesn’t listen to the intelligence community.

MARGARET BRENNAN: My producer is yelling in my ear, I have to go, Senator, I’m so sorry to cut you off…

LATE. KELLY: Okay.

MARGARET BRENNAN: – but we’ll see when the hearing is scheduled.

LATE. KELLY: Hi.

(END CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be back in a moment.