depleted U.S. – Mark Kelly says the U.S. is drawing down key weapons, risks longer conflicts, and criticizes a $1.5T defense request amid Iran, China, and Ukraine policy debates.
A warning from Sen. Mark Kelly is landing amid growing questions about whether the United States has enough ammunition to sustain deterrence in a major conflict, especially if war stretches beyond the initial phase.
Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on May 10. 2026. the Arizona Democrat pressed the Pentagon for a clear accounting of how depleted U.S.. munitions have become in the war against Iran.. Kelly said he has received briefings that he described as “pretty detailed. ” including on Tomahawk cruise missiles. ATACMS. SM-3. THAAD rounds. and Patriot interceptor munitions.
Kelly framed the drawdown as unusually deep. saying the level of expenditure in current operations has left the American public “less safe.” He tied that outcome to what he described as the administration’s decision to enter the conflict without a strategic goal. timeline. or plan.. In his view. that lack of structure translates into depleted stocks that would be harder to restore on a compressed schedule.
The senator also linked the issue directly to the United States’ ability to deter China.. Kelly said his concern is about the time it would take to replenish spent munitions. warning that the replenishment timeline would likely be measured in years.. He said that matters not just in theory. but for contingency planning—particularly in the western Pacific. where readiness is constantly evaluated against scenarios involving Taiwan.
When Brennan asked whether the U.S.. would be able to defend Taiwan if China were to move against it. Kelly said the answer depends on how long a conflict lasts.. He argued that the U.S.. may be positioned to handle scenarios that last “days or weeks. ” but that a prolonged conflict would worsen the posture once years of replenishment are needed.. The core of his argument is that the current depletion makes longer wars more difficult than they otherwise would be.
Kelly then turned the question to domestic politics and cost.. Brennan asked whether his concerns make it difficult for a Democrat to oppose the White House request for roughly $1.5 trillion in additional defense spending.. Kelly did not deny that the country must prepare for threats. but he called the request “outrageous” and argued it would be an inefficient answer to the readiness problem.
He pointed to changes over the past several years to illustrate how rapidly the defense budget has expanded. saying the Pentagon’s budget request is now about twice what it was when he joined the Senate more than five years earlier.. In his view. that escalation is now near the total defense spending levels of the rest of the world combined—an argument he used to question whether the spending level is aligned with the moment and with operational needs.
Kelly criticized what he called parts of the proposal as uncertain in effectiveness. including systems he said are extremely difficult in their physics. arguing that confident spending would still not guarantee results.. He said the administration should submit a defense budget that makes sense for the situation the U.S.. faces, rather than paying more for systems he believes will not perform as expected.
Meanwhile, the conversation shifted to foreign policy enforcement in the Middle East.. Kelly addressed an administration move late Friday sanctioning four entities accused of providing satellite imagery to help enable Iran’s military strikes against U.S.. forces and allies, noting that three of those entities are based in China.
Brennan asked how extensive China’s support for Iran and its targeting of American assets is.. Kelly said China supports Iran and said Russia does as well. describing both as adversaries and arguing that the administration should not be surprised by such support.. The senator suggested that adversarial alignment with Iran is part of the strategic reality Washington has to factor into its enforcement decisions.
On whether sanctions should come with further costs. Kelly argued sanctions are one of the tools available to change an adversary’s behavior.. He also criticized the administration’s approach toward Russia, saying it is not using its sanctions authority effectively.. Kelly pointed to what he described as efforts to get more sanctions applied to Russia while also arguing that the administration has lifted sanctions on Russia.
Ukraine became the next focal point as Brennan referenced reports about a three-day ceasefire in the Ukraine war for prisoner exchanges. alongside comments attributed to Vladimir Putin suggesting the conflict may be “coming to an end.” Kelly characterized Putin’s statement as positive in the sense that Washington wants the war to end and said he planned to travel to Ukraine about three weeks later to meet government officials and hear directly from Ukrainians about the conflict’s status.
Kelly said one barrier to peace is what he described as insufficient support from the administration to the Ukrainian government and people—particularly compared with what Ukraine needs to reach an outcome.. He alleged that Donald Trump has an “odd relationship” with Putin and described a pattern he believes includes backing off sanctions and not pressing Putin with tools he said are necessary to end the fighting.
Brennan noted that diplomacy, according to the administration’s own account, has not progressed. Kelly did not offer a prediction but framed the stakes as a question of whether pressure is applied at the level needed to change negotiating outcomes.
The interview also moved into domestic constitutional conflict.. Kelly discussed his lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, arguing Hegseth violated his First Amendment rights.. Brennan said the Justice Department’s position is that Kelly’s video called on active-duty service members to reject legal orders. while Kelly said his intent was to resist illegal orders.
Kelly said he expects the issue could head to the Supreme Court. though he said he does not know how the case will ultimately end.. His confidence was directed less at procedural certainty and more at the substance: he said the government’s arguments in court do not match what he said and do not make sense to him.
Kelly said the administration’s legal stance would undermine constitutional protections for retired service members.. He recounted what he said the court argued—that retired service members like him could preserve First Amendment rights only by giving up their retirement status. including pensions and healthcare.. In Kelly’s account. the idea is that those who have “given the most to this country” would be forced to surrender constitutional rights.
Brennan referenced another judge’s comment that Kelly is treated differently because he has a “bully pulpit” as a senator.. Kelly responded that his role is specifically to hold the administration accountable and that. as a member of the Armed Services Committee. he believes his speech is part of constitutional separation of powers.
He also described the case as not only about him. but about the rights of a much broader group of retired service members.. Kelly said he brought retired service members into the courtroom because. in their view. the fight involved more than one dispute—it involved how far government power could reach into veterans’ ability to speak.
Kelly framed the stakes in sharp terms. saying the government’s position would effectively attempt to restrict constitutional rights and referencing earlier claims by prosecutors that were. in his view. extreme.. He added that he would not let the administration violate both his constitutional rights and those of other retired service members.
Taken together. the interview tied three threads—military readiness. sanctions enforcement. and constitutional free-speech fights—into one overarching warning: that decisions made in Washington are shaping not only what the U.S.. can do abroad. but also what it is willing to spend and what rights it is willing to curtail at home.. For Kelly. the central question is whether the country’s leaders are matching policy choices to long-term capability. including the ability to sustain deterrence when conflicts last beyond the earliest window.
Mark Kelly depleted munitions defense spending Iran sanctions China deterrence Ukraine diplomacy free speech lawsuit