Skip to main content

Transcript: Sen. Mark Kelly on ‘Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,’ Aug. 2, 2026

▶ Watch Video: Sen. Mark Kelly says Trump administration is “flailing” and “stuck” on Iran

The following is the transcript of an interview with Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Aug. 2, 2026.


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

SENATOR MARK KELLY: Good morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re now in the sixth month of this war we had been told would last four to five weeks. In the past week, the targets have widened. Iran hit Egypt. We saw Saudi Arabia join the U.S. in bombing Iranian-backed militias there, and then late last night, President Trump used the term that he had been considering military action on levels unseen since World War II. You sit on Intelligence, you sit on Armed Services. Has the administration shared anything in regard to its plans on Iran?

SEN. KELLY: I mean, not these latest plans, and I think what we’re seeing here is a president who has an approach to this that’s just rather erratic. He says one thing, he does another thing. It’s escalatory. At this point, he’s trying to get us back to February, and I think if he could, he would. If he had a big reset button he could hit, he would certainly take that option. Hey, we’ve got 18 dead Americans. Prices have skyrocketed across the country for the American people. I was here in Ohio- I’m here in Ohio now, but I met with some veterans the other day, and they’re struggling. I mean, these are a lot of retired service members that can’t afford to put gas in their car, can’t afford groceries. Rent is going up, and this president is not dealing with the issues that the American people need him to deal with.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you know, in our polling, we see that this is a very unpopular war, and it’s weighing on the president’s own approval ratings. But Democrats are faring slightly worse. According to CBS polling, when asked who has the better approach to Iran, 32% say Trump and the GOP. Only 30% say the Democrats. So we are in this thing. Do Democrats need to offer an affirmative vision for ending it?

SEN. KELLY: Well, I don’t think it’s the president’s vision. Here’s a guy who got us into this without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline. He’s got a Secretary of Defense that doesn’t know how to manage this war, who decided a good metric at the beginning was just to drop as many munitions as he could on as many targets, and now we’ve got a munitions shortage. Big surprise. So they’re flailing. They’re stuck. They’re responsible for this, and the president is the one that has to try to figure out a way out of this. I would suggest to him, though, that the solution is not to do the same thing that he’s been doing, not to have his real estate buddy and his son-in-law in charge of a negotiation, to put some people in here that know how to do this, how to talk to the Iranians, and put a coalition together, bring our allies back together. He’s alienated not only our GCC allies but our European allies as well, and it’s just making this much harder for him to figure out a way out.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the Washington Post is reporting that the top U.S. general in Europe, General Grynkewich, warned the Pentagon that he lacks resources to protect Israel from incoming ballistic missiles, and if he’s without another Navy destroyer, he will be forced to choose between defense of the homeland versus that of Israel. It sounds like for the moment Israel’s not rejoining combat operations. But what does that say to you? Have you heard these concerns from this top commander yourself?

SEN. KELLY: I haven’t heard this specifically from Grynkewich on- on this issue, but we- it’s- it’s not- Margaret, it’s not- this isn’t rocket science. It’s not hard to figure out. I mean, we- we struck over 14,000 targets with multiple munitions. That- that is- puts a lot of stress on the magazine depth. So of course, our commanders, probably not only in Europe but in other places are starting to feel some stress on can they meet the need if they need to defend the homeland or our allies. You can see why this is an issue for him, and that’s because at the beginning of this thing there was no strategic goal, and without the goal, it’s hard to figure out what to do next.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

SEN. KELLY: And I think that’s why, that you know, that’s why Hegseth went just to try to set records on the number of targets hit.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, I should say for the record that the Pentagon says it’s media speculation, and they don’t comment on operational capabilities. We did ask them to clarify that. But on the point about restocking, Secretary Hegseth says he needs money from Congress to do that to replenish munitions. He needs money from Congress to pay salaries. He needs $67 billion. You recently were asked, and you said you were undecided on how you would vote on additional funding. How do you deny that needed funding?

SEN. KELLY: Well, Margaret, last year we passed a defense budget that was over a trillion dollars. That was the first time ever. It was sold to us as a one-time generational investment in the department, and in my view, they squandered that. Now they’re coming and they’re asking for $1.5 trillion, plus a supplemental. We’re gonna- we’re approaching the amount of money that every other country on the planet spends on defense in a year. This is irresponsible, and now they want a blank check. Hey, I’m going to make sure the troops have what they need to defend themselves and defend the United States– 

MARGARET BRENNAN: — So you would vote for the 67?–  

SEN. KELLY: –but they need to come to us– no, not- no, not necessarily. They need to come to us with a reasonable approach here. The $1.5 trillion, you know that has systems that I am very confident aren’t going to work. They’re still working on space-based interceptors for ICBMs. The physics on this is really very, very challenging. It’s not going to make us safer. The other systems that we don’t need. They- they need to understand that we do not have unlimited resources in this country. We’ve got 39 and a half trillion dollars in debt, and the defense budget that they’re requesting is twice what it was when I got to the United States Senate in 2021. It’s twice that budget.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you mentioned that you’re in Ohio right now, and you were campaigning for fellow Democrats there. We’re about 90 days out from the midterms. We looked at some recent Quinnipiac polling. It showed Democrats have a 23%- two, three percent- approval rating, worse than President Trump’s approval. You’ve got a lot of headwinds. Republicans have an advantage in terms of fund- over Democrats in terms of funding. There’s redistricting that I know Democrats say disadvantages them, though they’ve also gerrymandered. We see interparty fighting in Minnesota and in Michigan with no real promise to unify Democrats over a- a common candidate here. How concerned are you that- that Democrats are going to lose this thing or- or end up with this very, very tight race?

SEN. KELLY: Well, I think we have an opportunity here, despite the Republican gerrymandering that started in- in the state of Texas, to try to you know rig the- the deck, so to say here, and make it more challenging. That- that provides an advantage to them. But this president is historically unpopular for a midterm president, and he’s not meeting the needs of the American people. You know, gas is up over $4 a gallon. Half of Americans are having a hard time affording food, rent, home ownership is down. Rent is up. The American people are really struggling. So we have an opportunity to win back the House, and I am confident we will. On the Senate side, it’s challenging. I’m not gonna- I’m not gonna paint this as a rosy picture, but we’ve got 90 days to go. We have opportunities in a lot of different places, more than we thought we had six months ago. And a year and a half ago, I would say we had no opportunity to win back the Senate. But because of the horrible job that Donald Trump has done for the American people, I think we have a chance we could win back control of the Senate, and that’s why I’m here supporting Sherrod Brown. You know, he- he- he wasn’t successful in 2024. He could definitely win here in 2026, but it’s going to take some effort.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about what may happen tomorrow. Bill Pulte, who is the acting director of National Intelligence, has said that he is going to hand over the top job to the man who was just confirmed by the Senate, Jay Clayton. Democratic objection had been one of the holdups as well in getting that FISA authority passed. I’m wondering, once you see this change of command, are those Democratic objections going to melt away?

SEN. KELLY: I can’t speak for everybody, but for me they will. Bill Pulte was not qualified in any way for this job; should have never had it. He fired, according to him, about half of the director’s office. And hey, I, you know, thought there were too many people over there anyway. But this guy was not qualified. Didn’t even really understand what the Office of National Intelligence did. So I can’t imagine he did a very good job at figuring out who to let go and who to keep. And because we’re also in the middle of a war right now. So I suspect in fact, when we- when we sort this out, we’re gonna probably realize that he fired a bunch of the wrong people. So, hopefully on Monday he is out of the office and we can talk about FISA renewal. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Senator Mark Kelly, thank you for your time this morning.

Trump needs to get tough on China to get tough on Iran’s economy. He’s been reluctant to do that

(CNN) — The Trump administration appears to have landed on a fallback strategy in the Iran war after military strikes and negotiations failed to deliver victory: threats of harsh economic sanctions.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has called them the “toughest sanctions in history,” which will “collapse this regime.” He’s even called it an “economic D-Day” for Iran, comparing it to the historic invasion of Nazi-occupied France during World War II.There’s just one problem: Making good on those tough words requires not just getting tough on Iran, but also getting tough on China, which is Tehran’s No. 1 trading partner.And Trump and his administration have proved quite reluctant to do that.When Bessent rolled out the economic strategy Monday, he didn’t name specific countries that would be punished — or lay out timelines — if they don’t cut ties. And the announcement notably did not include secondary sanctions on the large Chinese banks that facilitate Beijing’s purchases from Iran.China buys as much as 90% of Iran’s oil. Economic analysts have told CNN that targeting these banks and Chinese companies would be crucial to exacting a major toll on Iran’s economy.But not for the first time in recent days, Bessent punted on exactly what would be done on that front. He suggested messages were being sent — saying “no one is above the reach of US sanctions” — but didn’t detail what will happen with China.“If they facilitate transactions and are part of the ecosystem that turns Iranian oil into money, into repression, they will be targeted,” Bessent said. “We find that the best way to engage with countries is through quiet diplomacy.”He added: “So when the hammer of US Treasury actions falls upon them, they will have no one to blame but themselves.”But you could be forgiven for thinking this might be lots of sound and fury signifying relatively little.That’s because not only has the administration regularly backed off the threats it’s made in the Iran war, but it has a track record of treading gently around China, whose leader, Xi Jinping, is set to visit the White House next month.While Trump has made a big show about getting tough on China over the years, he backed off his trade war with Beijing in October, agreeing to a one-year truce. That followed shortly after Beijing upped its leverage by restricting access to critical rare-earth minerals and halting purchases of American soybeans.Trump last year also ignored federal law to help save the Chinese-owned video app TikTok, despite his first administration having labeled it a grave national security threat because of its ability to spy on Americans.Fast forward to Trump’s visit to China in May, and rather than pressing Xi publicly on a potential invasion of Taiwan, Trump made some major Taiwan-related rhetorical concessions.He also backed off his previous promises to get China to free Jimmy Lai, a former Hong Kong media tycoon who criticized the Chinese Community Party, as well as to ban Beijing from buying American farmland and to “aggressively” revoke Chinese student visas.By July, Trump delivered a primetime address in which he claimed China effectively interfered in the 2020 US election (which is not what the evidence actually showed). But rather than punish China for this seemingly major purported provocation, Trump downplayed the need for retaliation.The president seemed to prefer to use China to try to substantiate his still-baseless claims of stolen elections, without going to the trouble of holding the alleged thief accountable.And even in the context of the Iran war, Trump has been gentle with China.He has repeatedly shrugged off the idea that Beijing is helping Iran. And on his way back from China in May, he said he was considering lifting sanctions on Chinese companies that buy Iranian oil.Trump at the time was trying to secure a deal with Iran. But it’s telling that he’s been willing to telegraph potential carrots involving China, even as his administration is reluctant to publicly threaten to use the stick against it. In the latter case, it prefers “quiet diplomacy.”Also telling would seem to be Bessent’s comments Monday when CNN asked why the major secondary sanctions he previewed didn’t start immediately.“Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior,” he said. “Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?”The administration appears well aware that getting tough on Iran would entail going after China — a risk that it might decide isn’t worth it.There’s an argument to be made that these topics are best addressed next month, during Xi’s state visit to Washington.But such pomp and circumstance can drain Trump of his resolve to get tough (as seen during his May visit to China) — and that’s if he even wants to get tough on China right now.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story