Dan Goldman Exposed Kristi Noem for Dodging Basic Immigration Law in Congress

WASHINGTON — Senator Mark Kelly emerged from a closed-door briefing with senior Pentagon officials this week with more doubts than answers. At issue is a disputed U.S. military operation involving a strike on boats at sea — and a piece of video evidence that, according to Kelly, the Defense Department has declined to share fully with Congress or the public.

The episode has ignited a renewed debate on Capitol Hill about transparency, civilian oversight of the military, and the constitutional boundaries of executive power. Kelly, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Navy combat pilot, described a briefing that he said felt “performative,” dominated by prepared talking points rather than substantive engagement.

“There were nearly 100 senators in the room,” Kelly said in an interview afterward. “Six briefers used most of the time. Only a handful of us were able to ask questions. I walked out with more concerns than when I walked in.”

At the center of the controversy is a video recording of a boat strike conducted as part of a broader maritime operation. Pentagon officials have released several clips portraying the mission in a favorable light, but have withheld one key piece of footage — the very segment, Kelly argues, that may complicate the official narrative.

“They released all the video they liked,” Kelly said, “and then they stopped. There’s a reason for that.”

The operation has been publicly defended by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has framed it as a necessary security measure. But Kelly disputes both the framing and the legal basis. He argues that the mission more closely resembles law enforcement or drug interdiction than a traditional military action — a distinction with serious constitutional implications.

Under the Constitution, Congress holds the authority to declare war, fund military operations, and oversee their execution. While presidents have long relied on broad interpretations of executive power, lawmakers from both parties have increasingly questioned missions that proceed without explicit congressional authorization.

“This isn’t like going after al-Qaeda after 9/11,” Kelly said. “There’s no authorization from Congress. And when you use military force without that clarity, transparency becomes even more important — not less.”

According to Kelly, the briefing included acknowledgments from senior officers, including an admiral overseeing the operation, that raised additional questions he could not discuss publicly due to classification rules. But he said those statements only deepened his concerns about accountability and scope.

Selective disclosure, experts say, can distort public understanding more effectively than secrecy alone. “When officials curate evidence, they shape perception,” said one former congressional aide familiar with defense oversight. “That undermines Congress’s ability to independently judge legality, proportionality, and risk.”

Kelly has called for open hearings in which senior defense leaders — including the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the operational commander — would testify publicly. He has also urged the full release of the disputed video, not just to senators on intelligence or armed services panels, but to all members of Congress.

“We’re all equal in this job,” Kelly said. “We all represent Americans. Oversight is not a privilege for a few committees.”

Cost has also become part of the debate. Kelly estimates the operation is costing millions of dollars per day, diverting resources from other priorities. He noted that while maritime interdiction may disrupt cocaine trafficking routes — often destined for Europe or Africa — it does little to stem the flow of fentanyl, which primarily enters the United States through land ports of entry.

At a time when overdose deaths remain a national crisis, Kelly questioned whether the mission reflects strategic necessity or political messaging. “If this is about stopping fentanyl,” he said, “there are far more effective ways to spend that money.”

The Pentagon declined to comment on the specifics of the withheld footage, citing classification and operational security. A spokesperson for the Department of Defense said the department remains committed to briefing Congress “in accordance with the law.”

But for Kelly and other lawmakers, the pattern he describes — limited questioning, controlled evidence, and resistance to public hearings — echoes past episodes where secrecy preceded failure. From Vietnam to Iraq, historians note, restricted oversight has often delayed accountability at enormous cost.

“Oversight isn’t about undermining the military,” Kelly said. “It’s about protecting the people who serve and the values they’re sent to defend.”

As pressure mounts for fuller disclosure, the dispute has become about more than one strike or one video. It is a test of whether constitutional checks still function when military power is exercised far from public view — and whether transparency is treated as a democratic obligation or an inconvenience.