See how Mark Kelly actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Mark Kelly's record on the issues you care about — not party, not press releases. Take the 2-minute values quiz to see your personal alignment.
Sign in and take the values quiz to see how Mark Kelly's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Mark Kelly's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
100%
Accuracy
1
Correct
0
Incorrect
37
Pending
Right119-sjres-184
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Based on 1 data point across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
119-sjres-184·Consistent
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
92/100
What they said
May 1, 2026
Senator Kelly questions the strategic justification and cost-effectiveness of the ongoing Iran military operation, arguing that the war is not achieving its objectives while depleting critical munitions stockpiles and driving up costs for Americans. He also challenges Secretary Hegseth's characterization of military operations and the scale of the defense budget request.
Voted Yea on A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Senator Kelly's statement directly opposes the Iran military operation as ineffective, costly, and strategically unjustified—questioning its objectives and munitions depletion. His yes vote on S.J.Res. 184, which directs removal of U.S. Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities against Iran, is strongly aligned with this position. Both the statement and vote reflect opposition to the ongoing operation absent congressional authorization.
Pairs with ambiguous language and high uncertainty are withheld until more data is available. Procedural, cloture, and amendment votes are excluded — they don't cleanly signal substantive support or opposition.
Pro analysis
AI rep analysis — Pro
Get an AI-narrated read on Mark Kelly's full voting record against your stated values — aligned themes, conflicts, notable votes, and what to watch for.
We haven't extracted campaign positions for Mark Kelly yet. Once their campaign website or position pages are processed, this card will track what they said vs how they voted.
Crossing the aisle
No party-break passage votes recorded for Mark Kelly. Either they've voted with Democrats on every substantive passage vote in the corpus, or their tenure overlaps few high-threshold party-line votes so far.
WATCH: In SASC Hearing, Kelly Challenges Hegseth on Munitions Burn Rate, "No Quarter" Comment, and Massive Defense Budget Proposal - Senator Mark Kelly
Position: Senator Kelly questions the strategic justification and cost-effectiveness of the ongoing Iran military operation, arguing that the war is not achieving its objectives while depleting critical munitions stockpiles and driving up costs for Americans. He also challenges Secretary Hegseth's characterization of military operations and the scale of the defense budget request.
“So, we fired years’ worth of munitions… But, Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck.”
This week, during a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing on the annual defense budget, Arizona Senator and Navy combat veteran Mark Kelly (D-AZ) pressed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on how this administration justifies burning through America’s critical munitions stockpiles in a war that is not achieving its objectives while driving up costs for Americans.
Kelly also gave Hegseth a chance to clarify his “no quarter” comment from March and questioned the Department of Defense’s staggering $1.5 trillion budget request.
Kelly pressed Hegseth on the cost of the ongoing Iran operation: “The questions we should be asking and answering are: What does this cost us and what does it achieve for the American people? Many of these strikes use our best weapons, and we're using a lot of them, and a lot of interceptors. […] We can't make these munitions overnight and it's clear from your budget requests that you know that.”
Hegseth acknowledged to Kelly it would take years to replenish America’s stockpiles.
Kelly continued, “But, Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Iranian regime is in place. The nuclear material still in their hands. Americans are being crushed by higher costs. And it's not clear to them, at all, what the goal of this war is.”
Kelly also confronted Hegseth directly over his recent "no quarter" comment, demanding clarity on whether the Secretary of Defense understands the term's meaning under the laws of war: “I saw your hearing yesterday, and I'm going to give you one more chance to address a question here. It's my understanding that the definition of no quarter is ‘that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees will be executed.’ Is that your understanding of the definition?”
When Hegseth declined to clarify, Kelly was direct: “The things you say matter. Your response here right now makes it clear to the American people exactly why you are not right for this job.”
Sen. Kelly questions Secretary Hegseth during a SASC hearing.
Click here to download a video of Kelly’s remarks. See the transcript below:
Sen. Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here, Secretary Hegseth. Safe to say that our weapons, like SM-3’s, Tomahawks, Patriot missiles, have capabilities that are unmatched. That's why they cost a lot. Take a long time to produce. Your budget requests $31.8 billion to expand production capacity for critical missile stockpiles. Is that correct, 31.8?
Secretary Pete Hegseth: I'm looking at $53 billion for munitions acceleration over 14 critical munitions, of which the ones you listed are a part.
Kelly: More than $20 billion more. So, we've been working together to grow the industrial base, because we're all worried about how our stockpiles would hold up in a conflict against China. Since the start of this war, you've made it a point to highlight the number of strikes the U.S. military is carrying out, citing that more than 13,000 targets had been struck as of April 8th. On March 2nd, you said, and this is a quote, ‘This was a massive, overwhelming attack across all domains of warfare, striking more than a thousand targets in the first 24 hours.’ On March 10th, you said, ‘Yet again our most intense day of strikes inside of Iran’. On April 6th, you said, and this is another quote, ‘The largest volume of strikes since day one of this operation’. Your department has released video after video of things blowing up. None of us doubt the strength of the U.S. military and their ability to do hard things. I understand that better than anybody. The questions we should be asking and answering are what does this cost us and what does it achieve for the American people? Many of these strikes use our best weapons, and we're using a lot of them, and a lot of interceptors. Open-source reporting has estimated that the military has used an outrageous number of Patriots. I'm not going to say the numbers, but a lot of Patriots, a lot of THAAD rounds, JASSM-ERs, Tomahawks. Very expensive. Exquisite. We can't make these munitions overnight and it's clear from your budget requests that you know that. Can you tell us how many years, specifically, is it going to take to replace these systems?
Hegseth: Senator, thank you for the question. I would defer to the comptroller on the amount because I think it's a lot higher than 53. If you look at long range fires, JASSMs, LRASMs, Tomahawks, we're looking at $238 [billion]. About $40 billion for hypersonic. So, I actually think it's closer to $330 billion in munitions.
Kelly: Okay, how many years to replenish. That's the question.
Hegseth: I think that's exactly the right question to ask, senator, because the timeframe we were existing under was unacceptable. What this budget does, I mean, months and years.
Hegseth: Fast. I mean, we're building new plants in real time.
Kelly: So just to replace what we have expended?
Kelly: And then you said years.
Hegseth: But, it depends on the weapon system. But 2 to 3, 4x of what we have today. So yes, we're dealing with the reality under the previous administration of what they sent to Ukraine and what they allocated elsewhere—
Kelly: Ok, I got it. So, we fired years worth of munitions. And it is clear that these are being expended to try to achieve some objectives. That was the plan. But, Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Iranian regime is in place. The nuclear material still in their hands. Americans are being crushed by higher costs. And it's not clear to them, at all what the goal of this war is.
So, I've got about a minute, and I want to go to another topic. I saw your hearing yesterday, and I'm going to give you one more chance to address a question here. It's my understanding that the definition of no quarter is ‘that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees will be executed.’ Is that your understanding of the definition?
Hegseth: The only entity that would kill detainees or target civilians is the Iranians, and they're the ones being crushed. So, Iranian military and their military capability. I disagree completely with the articulation.
Kelly: The question is do you understand the definition that I just read you? Because that's the definition from your Department's Law of War manual. Is that your understanding? And I'm going to just get to the point here.
Hegseth: We fight to win and we follow the law, Senator.
Kelly: Okay so your quote was, ‘We will keep pushing, keeping advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.’ And yesterday you did not clarify whether you stand by this statement. So, I'm going to give you another opportunity to clarify if that is what you meant. Do you stand by that statement you made on March 13th?
Hegseth: We have untied the hands of our warfighters. We fight to win and we follow the law.
Kelly: Okay, so you're not clarifying, so you stand by that statement. So, you're the Secretary of Defense. The things you say matter. And your response here right now makes it clear to the American people exactly why you are not right for this job.
Hegseth: It makes it clear to our enemies, Senator.
Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Kelly: Mr. Secretary, so $1.5 trillion. 1.5 [trillion] is a very round number. If you're putting together a budget, you'd come up with, ‘these are the problems we're trying to solve. This is the capability we need. These are the systems we have to buy.’ And at the end of the day, it would spit out a number. And it's probably not $1.5 trillion. So, to me, it feels like that number was just kind of pulled out of thin air. I took a look recently and it seems that the defense budget of the rest of the world; I'm talking China, Russia, India, every Asian country, every European country, South America. Everybody else is in the neighborhood, it looked like $1.7 [trillion] to $1.8 [trillion]. So, your request is approaching all defense spending from everybody else, with the exception of us. That is a huge amount of money. When I got here, you know, just five years ago, it was almost half of that. Through budget reconciliation, you've received a bunch of money to buy things. Some of the weapons systems to resupply what we need. I'm just trying to understand, where is all this money going to go? And if you've figured out ahead of time, what do you want to spend this on? And by the way, there are systems the president wants. He saw last summer how effective Iron Dome and David Sling were. And because of that, the president decided we're going to build our own version. We're going to call it Golden Dome because the president likes the color gold. We've seen that. Seen it in the Oval Office. We're going to call it Golden Dome, and it might cost somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion. I've heard those estimates. By the way, on that problem, I know a little bit about intercepting stuff in space. It's really hard. And the physics on this favors the offense. There's some things in that program that I think is really important that we do and try to figure it out. But space-based interceptors to hit multiple targets. And by the way, it's important how you size the system. So, I'm trying to understand, Mr. Secretary, what kind of detail did you guys did you work out like a detailed plan? And at the end of the day, it came out. Oh, it just happens to come out to be $1.5 trillion.
Hegseth: Senator, the exact amount is actually $1.535 trillion and it was a product of a highly rigorous process throughout our department, from COCOMM commanders to the services, with our comptroller, with our deputy Secretary, with the Chairman and myself to ensure the budget reflects the realities of the world we live in and the capabilities we're going to need, and that's why there's $65 billion for shipbuilding. $120 billion for the defense industrial base, $331 billion for munitions, $44 billion for quality of life, $71 billion on our nuclear dib. You name it, we're investing in it. And the biggest reason for it is the underinvestment of the Biden administration. I mean, what they spent on defense, the continuing resolutions and others, undercut the buildup that the President Trump had created. So, yes, we're doing a lot of deferred maintenance here around the world and in our department. And this budget reflects it. And it's a commitment, a generational commitment to the security of the American people. And if the rest of the world won't spend on their defense, that's their fault. The American Department of War will invest properly to defend the people. Ans that’s what this budget stands for.
Kelly: I have always been supportive of defense spending in my entire time here. And after 25 years in the Navy, I want to make sure our folks have what they need. I think you should go back and take a look and see if there are places where we are making investments that we actually don't need. There are some systems out there. We're constantly looking and trying to balance. Do we want, you know, F-47, which I've been supportive of. B-21 also supportive. And then we want to make all these other investments in really inexpensive, low cost munitions, because we suddenly realize that the expensive stuff, even through B-21, we can't really maybe not get close enough, but the whole idea behind B-21 and F-47 is we can penetrate further into the A2/AD bubble. So, there's some conflict there. So, I'm just encouraging you to go back and see if there are some systems where we can bring that number, the overall number down. Because as I look at what the Department is trying to field some of this stuff in my judgment, and, I know others might have another opinion, some of this stuff we either don't need or it's not going to work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Kelly Introduces Bill to Protect Federal Workers’ Credit During Government Shutdowns - Senator Mark Kelly
Position: Senator Kelly and co-sponsors introduced legislation to protect federal workers' credit ratings during government shutdowns by preventing credit damage from missed or delayed payments when workers are not receiving paychecks.
Senator Kelly and Senate Democrats have repeatedly voted to fund TSA workers
Read ABC 15 exclusive: Senator Mark Kelly introduces bill to protect federal workers' credit during government shutdowns
Today, Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced legislation to protect federal workers’ credit histories during a government shutdown. The Federal Worker Credit Protection Act of 2026 would prevent harm to credit ratings because of missed or delayed payments when federal workers aren’t getting paychecks, helping ensure federal workers are not financially penalized for circumstances beyond their control.
“Federal workers shouldn’t be punished by a government shutdown that isn’t their fault,” said Senator Kelly. “Earlier this month, I met with Phoenix TSA officers working without pay. They shared how the financial strain they were dealing with—including missed payments—hurt their credit scores. That kind of damage can follow you for years. I’m taking action to make sure the people who keep our country running aren’t hurt by Washington’s dysfunction.”
“Our patriotic civil servants should not have to suffer during federal government shutdowns. House Republicans refused to advance a plan that would have ended the shutdown a month ago – insisting instead on holding the financial security of federal workers hostage. It’s just common sense that we pass legislation protecting civil servants from evictions, foreclosure, loan defaults, and credit damage during these disastrous shutdowns. While this Administration keeps up its witch hunt of federal workers, I will keep fighting to protect the federal workers in my state and across the country,” said Senator Alsobrooks.
“In the past six months, Republicans have forced two of the longest government shutdowns in history. At a time when Americans are already struggling with rising costs, federal workers shouldn’t have to worry about their credit taking a hit because they’re not getting paid,” said Senator Gallego. “This bill protects hardworking public service workers from long-term financial damage during shutdowns they didn’t cause.”
“While I helped pass legislation to ensure hundreds of thousands of civil servants and military personnel receive backpay after the government reopens, I know it isn’t the same as getting a paycheck on time when the mortgage and bills are due,” said Senator Kaine. “This legislation helps protect federal workers’ credit and ensure they aren’t penalized for missed payments during a shutdown.”
“Our dedicated federal employees provide essential services for the American people, and they should not suffer during government shutdowns that are entirely beyond their control. This legislation ensures that the risk of credit damage isn’t an added burden on these civil servants while they are going without pay and helps them get back on their feet when shutdowns end,” said Senator Van Hollen.
“Virginia’s federal workers are the backbone of the services Americans depend on. Our public servants credit reports shouldn’t be negatively affected because of a shutdown they did not cause. This legislation would help ease the pain of a government shutdown by giving federal employees time to catch up when the government reopens,” said Senator Warner.
“AFGE is profoundly grateful to Sen. Mark Kelly for introducing the Federal Worker Credit Protection Act of 2026, a much-needed bill to temporarily protect the credit ratings of federal employees during government shutdowns. The sad reality is that all-too-frequent agency funding lapses can permanently harm federal workers, long after the government eventually reopens. Simply giving people backpay, as current law requires, does nothing to undo the undeserved damage to their credit ratings, their good name, and their dignity. Senator Kelly’s bill hits pause on negative credit information during periods when feds are still working hard for the American people while drawing zero-dollar paychecks. We urge swift Congressional passage of the bill,” said Dr. Everett Kelley, National President, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE).
“Federal workers work hard to keep this country running and they’re still being punished because of government shutdowns that aren’t their fault. For them, falling behind on bills because their paycheck stopped shouldn’t hurt their credit standings, sometimes for years after a shutdown ends. We appreciate Senator Kelly for listening to NFFE members and taking a commonsense step to protect workers from lasting financial damage, and we’re proud to support it,” said Randy Erwin, National President, National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM).
“We have been showing up to work since November without a paycheck, then only partial checks and it has taken a real toll,” said Pascual Contreras, a TSA officer at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. “I am three months behind on rent, and my credit score has dropped by more than 200 points. That has put our plans to buy a home out of reach. It’s not fair that something out of our control can impact our financial future like this. I’m grateful to Senator Kelly for listening and working on a solution.”
A month after the Senate passed funding for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and more components at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the House finally passed the same bill and ended the DHS shutdown.
For 76 days, thousands of federal workers missed paychecks, putting them at risk of missing payments on mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards, and more. Even a single missed payment can significantly lower a consumer’s credit score, leading to higher interest rates, reduced access to credit, and long-term financial strain.
The Federal Worker Credit Protection Act of 2026 would allow federal workers who have been without pay during a shutdown to protect their credit. Specifically, the bill would:
Click here to read the full text of the bill.
ICYMI: Kelly and Garamendi Pen Fox News Op-Ed Warning of American Maritime Decline, Urge Passage of the SHIPS for America Act - Senator Mark Kelly
Position: Senators Kelly and Representative Garamendi advocate for passage of the bipartisan SHIPS for America Act to rebuild U.S. shipbuilding and maritime industries, citing national security threats from Chinese maritime dominance and economic vulnerabilities.
“Never before have we witnessed such comprehensive alignment between Republicans and Democrats, industry, and organized labor for rebuilding our great nation’s maritime industry.”
Today, Arizona Senator and U.S. Merchant Marine Academy alum Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-08) published an op-ed in Fox News highlighting the momentum to rebuild the U.S. declining maritime industry, which poses a serious threat to U.S. national security and the economy. With bipartisan support in Congress and overwhelming backing from maritime leaders, as well as a president who seems to recognize the urgent need to build more American ships, Kelly and Garamendi call on Congress to pass their bipartisan SHIPS for America Act.
Kelly and Garamendi, alongside Senator Todd Young (R-IN) and Representative Trent Kelly (R-MS-01), introduced the SHIPS for America Act to revitalize the United States shipbuilding and commercial maritime industries. Later, President Trump released his Maritime Action Plan, which mirrors the bipartisan legislation and is further proof that now is the time for Congress to act.
Click here to read the full op-ed. See key excerpts below:
On the threat China poses at sea:
China now dominates the world’s sea lanes and is massively outbuilding the United States on merchant and naval fleets. China has the world’s largest commercial fleet and is building over 1,000 vessels every year. In 2024, the United States built only five merchant vessels, while China built 1,400. China also has three times as many Naval Warships as the United States.
This has dangerous implications for our economic and maritime security. In the event of a military or trade conflict, President Xi Jinping could prohibit Chinese ships from entering American ports, an action that could cause industry bottlenecks, cut off supply to needed goods, and jack up prices-—basically overnight.
On President Trump releasing his Maritime Action plan:
And today, we have a president who seems to recognize this urgent need. In February, President Trump unveiled his Maritime Action Plan, a blueprint to make American ships again. It would provide long-term and stable funding for U.S.-built ships, shipyards, and mariners, and cut regulatory red tape to meet the maritime needs of our country today.
We share the goal of revitalizing the U.S. maritime sector. That’s why we introduced the SHIPS for America Act with Republican Senator Todd Young from Indiana, and Republican Congressman Trent Kelly from Mississippi. It’s the most ambitious and comprehensive legislation in a generation to set America on the path to regain our position as the greatest maritime power in the world.
On the alignment across Congress, industry, and White House to build more American ships:
Never before have we witnessed such comprehensive alignment between Republicans and Democrats, industry, and organized labor for rebuilding our great nation’s maritime industry.
It’s clear to us that the opportunity is now. Let’s get to work.
WATCH: In Senate EPW Hearing, Kelly Presses EPA on Lead Pollution Waiver Putting Arizona Kids at Risk - Senator Mark Kelly
Position: Senator Kelly opposes an EPA waiver that allows a mining company to bypass pollution control requirements near an Arizona school and residential community, arguing the exemption prioritizes corporate profits over public health and children's safety.
"It’s just common sense. Nobody wants their kids breathing in lead and arsenic pollution.”
Today, during a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee hearing on the proposed Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) 2027 budget, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly pressed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin on the Administration's use of a Clean Air Act rule allowing a mining company to bypass requirements to reduce toxic emissions in Miami, Arizona. This waiver is putting kids, school, churches, and the entire nearby community at risk.
Kelly highlighted the dangers of toxic emissions from a smelter operating near a school and residential community: “During your confirmation hearing, you said that EPA’s mission is, quote, ‘simple, but essential: to protect human health and the environment.’ […] Take what’s happening in Miami, Arizona, a small mining town about 90 miles east of Phoenix. Freeport-McMoRan operates a smelter that emits 12 tons of lead and 3 tons of arsenic into the surrounding community every year. That smelter is located about a mile from an elementary school, and it’s less than half a mile from a church and residential neighborhoods […] We know what lead does to kids. Mr. Zeldin, I imagine you would not want your kids attending that school, I wouldn’t want mine there or going to that church.”
Kelly criticized the Trump Administration for putting corporate profits ahead of the health and safety of surrounding communities: “Accordingly, under EPA’s National Emission Standards, the facility was required to install a pollution control device called a baghouse and that would reduce toxic lead and arsenic emissions. It’s basically just a big vacuum cleaner bag that would cost the mining company, Freeport-McMoRan, about $60 million to install, one time cost […] It’s just common sense; nobody wants their kids beathing in lead and arsenic pollution. But Freeport won’t have to install that baghouse. Because last fall, the company requested and received a presidential exemption from these requirements through a new process set up by your EPA where a company could just email your staff and request an exemption. No public process. No one asking the opinions of the parents whose kids go to that school who are breathing in that pollution every day.”
In response, Zeldin committed to reviewing the exemption and working with Senator Kelly’s office to address the issue and protect the Miami, Arizona community.
Click here to download a video of Kelly’s remarks. See the transcript below:
Sen. Kelly: Thank you, Madam Chair, Administrator Zeldin—thanks for being here. I want to discuss rules that limit hazardous air pollution. During your confirmation hearing you said that the EPA ‘s mission is and this is, quote, ‘simple but essential to protect human health and the environment’.
Now there can be times, and we discussed this in Phoenix—you just mentioned non-attainment when the rules and science is a little bit uncertain and the rulebook says some action needs to be taken that may not make sense. I agree but that's a rare exception. Sometimes the answer is pretty clear cut.
Take what's happening in the town of Miami, Arizona. It's a small mining town about 90 miles east of Phoenix. Freeport-McMoRan, the mining company, operates a smelter there and this smelter emits 12 tons of lead and three tons of arsenic into the surrounding community every year.
That smelter is located about a mile from an elementary school and it's less than a half a mile from a church and a residential neighborhood. Here you can see the elementary school, the swing, that's the smelter in the upper left-hand corner. And we know what lead does to kids. Mr. Zeldin, I imagine you would not want your kids attending that school I wouldn't want mine there or going to that church.
Accordingly, under EPA ‘s national emission standards, the facility was required to install a pollution control device called the bag house and that would reduce toxic lead and arsenic emissions. It's basically just a big vacuum cleaner bag that would cost the mining company Freeport-McMoRan about $60 million to install. One-time cost and that's for a company that had a net profit of 2.7 billion dollars last year, so $60 billion—not a drop in the bucket.
It's just common sense that nobody wants their kids breathing in lead and arsenic pollution. I don't think anybody in here would want that. I don't see anybody raising their hands.
But Freeport, they don't have to install this bag house, because last fall the company requested and received a presidential exemption from these requirements through a new process that was set up by your EPA where a company could just e-mail your staff and request an exemption no public process. No one asking the opinions of the parents whose kids go to that school who are breathing in that pollution every day.
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act says that waivers can only be granted if, and this is a quote, “the technology to implement such standards is not available and it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so.” It's not an either or. Technology not available, national security interest—has to be both. So, to the first requirement the air pollution control technology clearly exists and has been used for decades, including at the other smelter still operating in the United States. It's in Utah.
To the second requirement, somebody could argue the national security connection until you consider that we're talking about here is installing a routine pollution control device that keeps kids from breathing in lead. That's exactly what environmental protections are designed to do. So, Administrator Zeldin, given this waiver fails both of the tests that are laid out in the law and more importantly fails the basic duty to protect human health, how was that legal?
EPA Administrator Lee M. Zeldin: Well, first off, with regards to a section 112 presidential exemptions, as I'm sure you're well aware, presidential exemptions are made by the president; our role is to accept the submission and transmit it to the White House. That was the extent of our role consistent with the statue. The White House has publicly posted the proclamations and annexes listing the sources that received exemptions, including the actions on April 8th, July 17th, October 24th, November 21st of ‘25. On the bigger topic of lead, it's a an extraordinarily important topic as it relates to children's health, led in drinking water, on land, and much more. And the agency takes it extraordinarily seriously and there's a lot of accomplishments that we're proud of.
Sen. Kelly: Well, here's the thing, though: your agency created a website specifically to invite companies to fast-track waiver requests, and a FOIA request shows that the company spoke with your staff to coordinate this request. This wasn't just like something that the president. Your EPA may not be granting the exemptions, but you went through great lengths to make sure that that was facilitated. So, I mean, this this is a mile away from a school. This thing is spewing out 12 tons of lead every single year. The bag costs $60 million.
Mr. Zeldin, can I get a commitment from you to fix this? Can you go to the president and say “hey, we made a mistake.” Companies have responsibilities in these communities. Can I get a commitment from you to work with my office, work with the president, to undo this?
Administrator Zeldin: Just for my own background, because this first time we're talking about it, do you know if anyone from your team has raised this to ours before now or is this the first time that we're engaging on this?
Sen. Kelly: Well, it's the first time we are engaging, and we've engaged in other topics. This is a serious issue for the community in Miami.
Administrator Zeldin: I hope that, at this point, after all of the many other topics that you've engaged us with that we've been able to very successfully work together on, I'll just tell you my role has been on these exemptions to receive and transmit pursuant to the statute. If there's something specific beyond that, merits a follow up conversation but it's not familiar, I'm not aware from you guys reaching out.
Sen. Kelly: It wasn't from what we know, it wasn't just received. The website was set up, there was coordination with your staff. You provide no recommendation to the White House on this at all? Your job is to look out for the health of the American people.
Administrator Zeldin: Just following the statute.
Sen. Kelly: But how about the kids that go to that school and people that go to that church? I mean, I would love to have an opportunity to try to solve this problem. It's $60 million to a company that made $2.7 billion, and I'm not saying you specifically, I'm saying this administration, the White House, put the profits of that company over the health of those children.
Administrator Zeldin: The only issue is, as I sit here, and I don't have all the information about the company, the technology, and the emissions that you're talking about because, as I sit here, it's the first time that anyone has raised it but I'm happy to follow.
Sen. Kelly: We will get you all the information, thank you.
Source: GDELT 2.0 GKG, filtered to a curated list of national outlets. Inclusion is not endorsement; opinion pieces and reported news are mixed.
Recent stock activity
Periodic transaction reports filed under the STOCK Act — disclosed by the rep, sourced from public filings.
No disclosed trades on record.
Source: open-data mirrors of the Senate eFD and House Clerk financial-disclosure systems. Disclosure within 30 days of trade is required by law (45 for spouse/dependent trades).
Top PAC donors · 2026 cycle
Political action committees that gave the most to this rep's principal campaign committee this cycle. PAC giving is direct organizational support — industry, ideological, or leadership.
No PAC contributions ranked for the 2026 cycle yet.
Source: OpenFEC (api.open.fec.gov) Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “committee.” Aggregated by contributing committee. Self-transfers from joint-fundraising / victory committees are excluded.
Top individual contributors · 2026 cycle
Itemized individual contributions over $200 to this rep's campaign committee, aggregated by donor employer. PAC giving is shown above; this section is people, not organizations.
1.SELF$17,125
2.MASS GENERAL HOSPITAL$13,750
3.THE WONDERFUL COMPANY$13,200
4.GOOGLE$11,391
5.UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA$10,834
6.FIELD HANDS PRODUCTIONS$10,500
7.ICG$10,500
8.FLAGSHIP PIONEERING$10,250
9.TRANSDIGM GROUP$10,000
10.REGLAGENE, INC.$10,000
Source: OpenFEC Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “individual,” aggregated by the donor's self-reported employer. This is a geographic / industry correlation, not a corporate endorsement.
