Who?
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) — Astronaut; Armed Services Committee
LISTEN: Laslo & Kelly
Ask a Pol asks:
Did you catch the latest Wall Street Journal UFO piece?
Key Kelly:
“I saw something about that… I read part of that article. I’m not surprised,” Sen. Mark Kelly exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “No. I don’t know if it’s true.”
Kelly calls Navy’s “Tic Tac” video “compelling”
“The one very public case, the one with the “Tic Tacs” on the FLIR, the F/A-18 FLIR, with the squadron commander that went out there? Pretty compelling, with not a straight explanation,” Kelly says. “I’ve looked at the video, I’ve talked to the guy. He’s a really a very credible observer.”
Oh interesting, and so that one makes you kind of pause?
“Yeah,” Kelly says. “It makes me curious.”
NEW: Find Ask a Pol on YouTube, TikTok or Instagram!
Caught our ear:
“When you’re trying to keep our adversaries from learning about, you know, some of the new cutting edge, best technology we have. Why not?” Kelly tells us of WSJ’s reporting.
Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), slightly edited for clarity.
TRANSCRIPT: Sen. Mark Kelly (6-10-2025)
Scene: Sen. Mark Kelly is making his way through the basement of the US Capitol when Ask A Pol’s Matt Laslo starts interviewing him, including riding the Senators Only elevator with him up to the Senate floor.
Matt Laslo: “Hey, did you catch that Wall Street Journal piece?”
Kelly shakes head no.
Wall Street Journal article (unpaywalled via MSN):
ML: “It was on the cover this weekend. It talks about legacy — well, it kinda claims. Look at it — it’s on UFOs/ UAPs — but it claimed they, kinda whole Roswell thing was…”
MK: “…promoted by DOD [Department of Defense].”
ML: “Yeah. It was fake all along.”
MK: “I saw something about that.”
ML: “It was fake all along.”
MK: “It was DOD was pushing that.”
Laslo and Kelly exit the elevator.
MK: “Yeah. That UFOs from other…”
ML: “Yeah. To distract from like the stealth…”
MK: “...coming from space.”
ML: “Yeah.”
MK: “To distract against the development of the F-117 and probably the B-2.”
ML: “Read the piece.”
MK: “No, yeah, I read part of it.”
ML: “Yeah. Makes sense to you?”
MK: “No. I think I actually read like — I read part of that article. It — you know, I’m not surprised.”
ML: “What’s that?”
MK: “I’m not surprised.”
Consider chipping in to support Ask a Pol’s summer interns.
We’re on Venmo, PayPal, Cash App — or just buy them a coffee!
ML: “No?”
MK: “No. I don’t know if it’s true, but …”
ML: “Yeah?”
Laslo laughs.
MK: “…you know, the Wall Street Journal published it. I’m sure they checked and had enough sources.”
ML: “They said had more than 12, maybe two dozen.”
MK: “When you’re trying to, you know, keep our adversaries from learning about, you know, some of the new cutting edge, best technology we have. Why not?”
Kelly laughs.
ML: “Do you think that would explain the UAS [unmanned aircraft system] or whatever that we’re seeing intruding over bases or is that different?”
ICYMI — The 119th Congress is ‘investigating’ UAS
MK: “I mean, could we find out later that this was kind of something that was, you know, US government? I guess that’s possible.”
ML: “But they haven’t…””
MK: “Some of it — the one very public case, the one with the “Tic Tacs” on the FLIR, the F/A-18 FLIR…”
ML: “Yeah?”
MK: “…with the, you know, the squadron commander that went out there. Pretty compelling, with not a straight explanation.”
ML: “Yeah. So that one…”
MK: “I’ve looked at it — I’ve looked at the video, I’ve talked to the guy.”
ML: “Yeah?”
MK: “He’s a really a very credible observer.”
ML: “Oh interesting.”
MK: “Yeah.”
ML: “And so that one makes you kind of pause? Yeah?”
MK: “Yeah, it makes me curious.”
ML: “But also like what happened at Langley — 17 days shut down.”
MK: “Yeah, but those are drones.”
ML: “But a year after that, they still couldn’t tell [Senate Intel Committee Vice-chair Mark] Warner (D-VA) and [Sen. Tim] Kaine what the hell they were.”
ICYMI — Pentagon lying to senators or still clueless
MK: “They were drones. We know what they were.”
ML: “That’s not what — well, talk to Warner and Kaine.”
MK: “Yeah?”
ML: “They said, a year later — they were pissed this December when they got another briefing.”
ICKMI — In Case Senator Kelly Missed It…
MK: “Yeah, but they can't — they don’t know the source. A little drone comes flying up to a base — it’s hard to do something about it — and then flies away.”
ML: “I’ve actually heard that they recovered one of the craft, like, that one of them crashed.”
ICYMI — Did the Pentagon recover a craft at Langley?
MK: “Well, I’ve got a couple drones in my closet. If I would fly it over Davis-Monthan [Air Force Base] and crash it, nobody would know where it came from.”
ML: “Yeah?”
Mk: “And I could do that from my house.”
Kelly walks onto US Senate floor to vote.
ML: “Yeah?”
The mistake, and perhaps the likely desire of the WSJ article, is to get people to assume this explains all UFOs. Conceptually, there is nothing new in the article.
💯— possibly ‘greatest’ thing Kirkpatrick did is plant, entice and spin that WSJ piece…
The only way he could launch a drone from his house to spy on a military base is if he had no intention of retrieving any data from it and just to fly it over on GPS or something. Why would any state or non-state actor do this? I'm no expert but if you were provoking or signalling capability then you either claim it or you've played your hand. If you wanted the origin to remain a mystery to scare and/or reshape strategy... if a real capability was used and burned gaining no data... doesn't this make no sense?
Given that this would be a costly, complex and high risk operation - wouldn't they have done something like Spider's Web. The cost to benefit makes no sense - am I being stupid here?
Edit to add - Great job Matt and team