Pentagon officials make case for budget request at Senate hearing — full video

[0:00] its own and the sheer scale of our defense commitments sends a powerful signal. [0:07] But what goes under the top line also matters the way this budget request is [0:14] structured matters. This is not a $1.5 trillion defense appropriation [0:21] request. It's a request for $1.1 trillion in base appropriations and [0:28] regretfully another $350 billion in reconciliation. The good news is the [0:36] base request reflects real growth, unlike the net cut in fiscal year 26 [0:45] requests and very much unlike the Biden level CR and 25. [0:54] But some of the most pressing items on the fiscal 27 to do list are [1:00] regularly downstream of missed opportunities in fiscal 26. For [1:08] example, like the failure to fully fund 28 billion in multi year [1:12] contracts for critical munitions. The subcommittee did what we could do, [1:18] increase munition purchases above the fiscal 26 request level. But we [1:23] couldn't do it all without a sufficient top line. [1:31] This year, the fiscal 27 request sets a higher top line high enough. One [1:38] would think to build the department's highest priorities into the base budget [1:43] request instead of showing them off into a one time reconciliation request, which [1:51] brings me to the bad news. The 27 requests failed to make room in the base budget for [1:59] some of the military's top priorities. The distinction between base and [2:05] reconciliation really matters. Base funding is what creates budget stability for the [2:11] services and sends consistent demand signals to industry. And base funding is what gets [2:19] extended by short term continuing resolutions when work on a full year appropriations is unfinished. [2:29] As I said last year, reconciliation should be a supplement to not a substitute for. [2:34] Political realities will not always allow for party line budget reconciliation. And if the department's top [2:50] priorities aren't built into annual appropriations, we're actually taking a big risk. The department is [2:57] right to make golden dome munitions and the F 35 program and drone dominance top priorities. But these key [3:08] lines of effort only work if we put them on solid fiscal footing. So why is the department [3:16] requesting funding for multi year munitions contracts, which by definition requires steady [3:24] year on year funding via a one time reconciliation? And why risk some of the president's top priorities [3:32] like golden dome by not firmly building them into the department's baseline? National missile defense [3:40] will require sustained funding over many years, not a one year expenditure. Other key platforms like the [3:49] second destroyer and the E seven metal management aircraft aren't requested in base or reconciliation. [3:59] So Mr. Secretary, you've been outspoken about the pace of America's armed forces as the most quote, [4:07] powerful, most lethal and most prepared military on the planet. I'm as committed as you are to [4:14] sustaining that role. But that's precisely why I'm confused by the administration's failure [4:20] to prioritize key systems in the year on year base budget spending. So I hope you'll explain the [4:30] department's current approach to allies and partners. The stunning success of Operation Midnight Hammer and [4:39] Operation Epic Fury illustrates the importance of the access, basing and overflight granted by our allies. [4:49] In Europe and in the Gulf, I'm as frustrated as anybody about Spain, but they are the exception to the rule [4:57] when it comes to European allies carrying more of the burden. Likewise, it's impossible to conceive of [5:05] U.S. power projection in Indopact without the breach that comes from decades old alliance relationships. [5:17] So I want to hear the department's view of the role of longtime allies in support of U.S. [5:23] interests across the globe because it's quite clear now that our expectation for European allies is [5:32] no longer the focus of our of our own continent message that they received from your subordinates [5:40] for most of the year. Our adversaries are working together to undermine America in the West, strained [5:48] relations with our partners who are making generational commitments to collective defense and driving [5:55] investment into American made weapons and systems only serves our adversaries interests and limits our [6:04] capacity and deterrent power globally. So I want to hear about the future of capacity building with [6:12] committed allies and partners from the Baltic States to Taiwan and the Philippines. I expect the European capacity [6:22] building investments intended specifically for Ukraine to reach their destination without further delay. [6:32] Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East close to show that we have things to learn from our friends. If we want [6:38] drone dominance, it makes perfect sense to deepen cooperation with the world's most drone warfare experts. [6:46] I want to underscore this is not charity. When our partners are capable, deterrence is stronger [6:57] and the risk of our own service members is lower. This is true in the Middle East today as it was in Europe [7:06] and the Indo-Pacific. And I think it's noteworthy that our allies in the Pacific have an interest in Ukraine, have [7:18] sent representatives to NATO meetings. They're hoping for and expecting that NATO will play a worldwide [7:28] role in defending democratic countries against these adversaries that we're all challenged by. Our allies and [7:38] partners have many of the interests and if we fail to take full advantage of it, we're only hurting ourselves. [7:45] I'll end with one observation on the prospect of supplemental appropriations. The deficiencies of our [7:52] munitions, critical munitions stocks and industrial capacity actually existed long before the conflict [8:02] with Iran and Russia's escalation in Ukraine. If the administration sends Congress a supplemental [8:09] appropriation request, there'll be an important step towards fixing a longstanding problem and investing [8:17] in future deterrence. It shouldn't be a referendum on the war in Iran. I supported a national security [8:26] supplemental in 2004, even though I thought President Biden's approach to Russia and Iran was too weak. [8:33] I did it not because supporting Ukraine is in our strategic interest, but because these funds helped [8:41] replenish American stockpiles and restore our own defense industrial base. And in fact, jobs are created in [8:50] 38 different states in this country, in our country, American jobs, by a significant percentage of what that [8:59] went for. Today, the need to expand munitions production and replace battlefield losses is actually [9:08] even more urgent. So with that, I'll ask each of our witnesses after we hear from Senator Kunz to [9:20] make an open statement and hopefully limited remarks to five minutes. Chris? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [9:27] Thank you, Secretary Hegseth, General Cain, Chairman Cain, for appearing before us and for your testimony [9:33] today. Let me just begin by expressing my gratitude to the service and sacrifice of the 2.8 million [9:40] members of the joint force and the civilians who support them. And in this urgent moment, to focus on [9:47] a few simple and clear questions. It bears repeating that the regime in Iran is a terrible regime that has the [9:54] blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands over decades and that they pose a sustained [9:59] and real threat to the United States and the region. And it bears repeating that our allies are [10:04] increasingly distanced from us as our adversaries are increasingly aligned. I agree with much of what [10:12] the chairman said, including that we are in a moment of real contest and danger in no small part because [10:18] Russia, China, DPRK and Iran are partnering. Russia and China are helping resupply Iran and the drones [10:27] that they're using to contest and close the Strait of Hormuz, to target and kill Americans and degrade our [10:34] facilities. And so if our adversaries are increasingly aligned, I think a core question is, are we? We have [10:43] so many questions, Mr. Secretary, about this budget proposal, this $1.5 trillion budget request. And at [10:52] the core is going to be, what's the cost of the war we're in in Iran? How long will it go? What damage [10:59] has been done to our security and our strategic position? When will we get a supplemental request [11:05] and of what scale? When will we be requested to authorize this war? And when will the American people [11:13] get a clear answer about our strategic goals and how we will achieve them? I share the chairman's [11:19] concern that we have created real distance with our allies, most principally our NATO allies who have [11:25] stepped up and contributed tens of billions of dollars more to purchase the munitions for the [11:31] defense of Ukraine and to dramatically increase their long overdue investments in our joint defense in [11:38] Europe. But unfortunately, the way that the move towards war was launched 74 days ago without consent, [11:46] without consultation, has caused a real rift with our vital European allies. And again, as the chairman [11:52] said, and I agree, there is also a critical and urgent need for us to recognize and embrace that in the most [12:00] important test field, the battlefield in Ukraine, where the Ukrainians are fighting bravely and [12:06] successfully against Russian aggression, they have innovated, they have delivered the most lethal and [12:12] capable drone and counter drone technologies in the world. What is bedeviling us in Iran right now? [12:20] Their ability to use thousands of cheap, effective Shahed drones to hit our allies, their military [12:28] facilities and their oil and gas production facilities, and to target and hit civilian shipping. Who's the [12:35] world's best at intercepting Shahed drones? Ukraine. Last year, the administration requested zero for [12:42] Ukraine and zero for our key NATO allies in the Baltic States. And on a bipartisan basis, this committee put [12:48] in $400 million. When we met just about a month ago for the first time over at the Pentagon, and thank you [12:55] for that conversation, we all emphasized the importance of coming to us with a spend plan for these $400 million. [13:04] This is a $1.5 trillion request in front of us. Why am I taking your time on $400 million? Because I think it [13:12] shows a key piece, a missing piece in strategic vision. We should not be standing aside from the war [13:20] in Ukraine and saying, eventually, we want to be a part of some peace between Russia and Ukraine. [13:26] We should be learning the lessons of Ukraine. Our allies in the Persian Gulf are. They're buying [13:32] their interceptor systems at scale. Some of our current and former leaders in our military [13:38] were working very hard to learn the lessons of Ukraine. I must say, in a recent briefing for this [13:44] subcommittee, I was very encouraged by two very senior members of the United States Army who are in [13:50] Ukraine and have been helping our armed forces learn. But my heart fell when I left and was told [13:57] that those two senior officers were being forced out. I am concerned that we have a distracted [14:04] administration and a distracted department. From your written testimony, Mr. Secretary, [14:09] it seems at times you're more passionate about fighting culture wars than winning the real war that [14:14] we're in, at banning books, at cleaning alleged DEI off of websites, at taking on an anti-vaccine [14:22] position rather than continuing the long-standing public health policies, at interfering with promotions. [14:29] I'm stunned that you fired the 44-year Chief of Staff of the Army in the middle of a hot war [14:35] and dismissed the Secretary of the Navy in the middle of a naval blockade. As dozens of senior flag [14:41] rank officers have been dismissed, I am worried about what that does to focus and morale. We have [14:48] a President who seems more focused on a billion-dollar ballroom and a victory arch rather than achieving [14:54] actual victory. And a piece, a small piece, of the $1.5 trillion request in front of us is for a new [15:01] Trump class of battleships, a so-called Golden Fleet, which I think goes in the wrong direction. Let me come [15:08] back to the basic point I was trying to make. The world of warfare is changing. Every major service [15:15] can and should embrace smaller, lighter, faster, more distributed, lethal capabilities that will [15:21] mostly be autonomous. This move towards a Golden Fleet, towards a new battleship, strikes me as moving in [15:27] exactly the wrong direction, giving our adversaries a bigger target rather than a more capable platform. [15:34] How do I explain to my constituents the cost? The cost of this war and the cost that we are looking [15:40] together to invest in our national defense. I share the Chairman's concerns about reconciliation. [15:45] Last year, $150 billion was provided to the Department. But the mismatch between base year [15:53] and one year, between long-term and short-term, caused tens of billions of dollars in errors. [15:59] Errors in how shipbuilding was handled. Errors in how new munitions are being acquired. And working [16:05] together on a bipartisan basis, we fixed many of those problems. This year's budget proposal triples [16:12] that request to $350 billion. I agree with you about the urgency of our national defense. In your [16:20] written testimony, you lay out four key goals – defend the homeland, deter China, increase burden sharing [16:26] with our allies and partners, and supercharge the defense industrial base. As you've seen in the last [16:33] Congress, I've worked with you and Deputy Secretary Feinberg on multi-year munitions. I cheer the goal [16:40] of finally passing an audit in 2028. I think we have critical investments to make in our defense [16:46] industrial base. I think we are absolutely in the fight of our lives as a republic to win AI and quantum, [16:56] space and surveillance, and the capacity to fight drones and launch drones. But I'm concerned that you, [17:03] sir, and this department is distracted by issues that are not focused on the core thing we need [17:10] to achieve. I could not agree more with what you said in your written testimony. For a generation, [17:17] the United States was largely distracted by open-ended wars of regime change and nation-building. [17:22] And as you summarize this administration's approach, we will not send America's best to advance [17:29] foolhardy or reckless adventures halfway around the world. Mr. Secretary, I agree that the Iranian [17:36] regime is a terrible regime. I am grateful for the service and the sacrifice of the Americans who've [17:41] been wounded or who've lost their lives in this current conflict. But I do not understand the [17:47] strategy. And as the average American is seeing the costs at the pump and at the grocery store, [17:52] and as this committee is being asked to approve the largest single-year increase in defense spending [17:58] in decades, I need to better understand the answers to the urgent questions I've put before you. [18:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [18:13] Yes, sir. Chairman McConnell. [18:16] I have plenty of questions. [18:24] Go ahead. [18:24] Okay, sir. I'll try to keep it short. [18:27] Ranked Member Coons, other members of this committee, thank you for being here. I'm honored to be here [18:32] alongside the Honorable Pete Hegseth and the Honorable Jay Hurst to talk about this year's [18:37] president's budget. I'm grateful for the opportunity today to speak with you about the foundation [18:44] of America's strength, our 2.8 million members of our joint force. And I'm continually inspired by [18:50] the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, guardians, and civilians standing to watch. [18:56] They all could choose to do something different, but they choose to come serve our nation and do [19:01] something more important in themselves. I would also like to highlight the 40 members of the joint [19:08] force who've passed on from operations, combat, and training during my time as chairman to include the [19:15] 14 members who passed and were killed in action in Operation Epic Fury and also highlight our most recent [19:22] loss, First Lieutenant Key from Africa who was out there, TDY. [19:28] As chairman, my duties to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military [19:35] options and the associated risks required to make our nation's most difficult and complex decisions. [19:42] I owe the president, the secretary, and you, the Congress, the truth at every turn. And my blueprint for [19:48] this role has always been General George C. Marshall. His firm commitment to civilian control, [19:54] to a non-partisan military remains my constant standard. I strive to follow his example by working [20:02] with you and providing clear and candid, strictly non-partisan military advice, and to present this [20:09] committee and my civilian leadership the clearest possible assessment of risk, readiness, and [20:14] executability, and mindful today of the unclassified environment that we're in here. We are, as you said, [20:21] chairman and ranking member operating in a delicate and dangerous times. Global risk is scaling and the [20:27] complexity of the modern battlefield demands constant adaptation and innovation. Your joint [20:33] force is operational at its core, purpose-built for the realities of a complex world. We're organized, [20:40] trained, and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision, [20:47] as demonstrated by the actions and activities over this past year. We are the most professional military [20:54] on earth, and we're able to do these things because of the deep enduring reservoir of training, [21:01] professionalism, and commitment. Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it and [21:07] rebuild quickly, but we need to rebuild faster. We build readiness every day, we train professionals every [21:14] day, and we learn to sharpen our edge every day, and we build continually on emerging technologies, [21:20] as the ranking member said, like AI, quantum, and others, and advance every day, led by great people [21:27] in our joint force, like Commander Gary Wald, or Wald comma G, as we call him, who's out there [21:33] working every day on our joint staff. Driving this pace of change requires timely, predictable capital, [21:40] and sustained investment, and I look forward to discussing it today. The president's budget [21:46] supports the department's goal of recharging the defense industrial base and the national industrial [21:52] base, those small mom-and-pop manufacturing companies that are out there in your districts [21:58] that help us generate combat capability and combat capacity to ensure that we're globally integrated, [22:05] properly armed, and ready when and if our nation calls on us, while always taking care of our [22:11] most important treasure, and that's our people. I'm deeply humbled today to be joined by the senior [22:18] enlisted advisor to the chairman, Fleet Master Chief Dave Isom, who represents the 1.8 million members of [22:25] our enlisted joint force. They are the special sauce of America's military. We face dynamic and dangerous [22:33] times, but I have incredible trust and confidence in the joint force today. I'm deeply grateful for [22:40] those deployed members of the joint force that are out there right now doing our nation's work, [22:45] and I remain humbled by the gift of the ultimate sacrifice that those fallen have given us, [22:51] not just for the 40 during my time in this job, but across the history of our great nation and their [22:58] families who continue to soldier on. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. [23:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, [23:11] thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of President Trump's historic [23:14] 1.5 trillion dollar 2027 budget for the Department of War. The president's budget [23:21] request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing both the deferred maintenance of [23:26] long-standing problems as well as positioning our forces for current and future fights. I'm honored to be [23:32] joined alongside the chairman of the joint chiefs and Jay Hurst. If I may interject, I ask that we have [23:57] order in the hearing room so we can proceed. I ask the witnesses to suspend until the room is cleared. [24:04] It appears it's cleared. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. I'd like to start by thanking this committee [24:12] and Congress for your partnership in securing the investments needed to maintain the most powerful [24:17] military in the world. Our nation's ability to build, to innovate, and support the critical needs of [24:21] warfighters at speed and at scale is the foundation upon which our survival rests. When President Trump [24:28] took office, he inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America last [24:33] policies, resulting in a diminished capacity to project strength, offshoring, outsourcing, cost [24:40] overruns, and degraded capabilities. Under the leadership of President Trump, a builder in chief, [24:47] we are reversing the systemic decay and putting our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. [24:53] Urgency informs everything that we do. We're rebuilding the military that the American people [24:58] can be proud of, one that instills nothing less than unrelenting fear in our adversaries and confidence [25:04] in our allies. We fight to win in every scenario to include ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon. [25:12] The $1.5 trillion FY27 budget put forward by the President will build upon the historic $1 trillion FY26 [25:21] top line and will continue to reverse four years of underinvestment and mismanagement of the Biden [25:27] administration. The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure that the United States continues to maintain the [25:34] most capable military in the most complex of environments. Not to mention, however, that this budget [25:40] also includes a historic troop pay increase, 7% that builds on the pay increases that Congress has given [25:47] in previous years, and the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. Quality of life for our troops [25:53] is front and center in this budget. By supercharging our industrial capacity and transforming how the [25:59] Department does business, we are restoring American commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations, [26:07] transforming the defense industrial base from the broken, slow-moving systems of the past. We have flipped [26:14] Pentagon acquisition processes from a bureaucratic model to a business model, decisively moving from an [26:20] acquisitions environment paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape to an outcome-driven organization focused on [26:26] delivering the most for taxpayers. Over the past year, through historic multi-year procurement agreements, [26:34] smart business deals, we have sent an unambiguous demand signal to our industry partners, large and small, [26:42] to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great American factories [26:50] and a massive reinvestment in the skilled American workers who serve as the industrial muscle behind our [26:56] warriors. I'll provide a brief overview of what's been accomplished on that front in just a few months. [27:03] These are announced new facilities and investments in support of American warfighters. The Department [27:08] has helped stimulate more than 250 private investment deals in 39 states and 180 cities in 150 companies, [27:16] not just the big primes, worth more than 50 billion dollars. This has resulted in 280 new or expanded [27:24] facilities and more than 18 million new square feet of American manufacturing, 70,000 new jobs. These 50 billion [27:33] investment in investments in new plants, new assembly lines, and new factories are private investments, [27:40] not taxpayer dollars. By completely transforming our department's business model, American companies, [27:47] private companies, are investing in their own factories with their own money. A historic demonstration of [27:54] American manufacturing and defense revitalization, all with their capital, not Uncle Sam's. This has not been done before and is long [28:03] overdue. It's from a bureaucratic model to a business model. These investments equal great things for American [28:09] families and American workers and help ensure that we can defend the American dream, all American made. [28:16] Together with the help of this Congress, we're turning the lights back on on the arsenal of freedom. [28:23] We're firing up the American economic engine at every level of our defense industrial base. Every policy we pursue, [28:29] every budgetary item we request, serves to ensure that this department remains laser focused on increasing [28:36] the lethality and survivability of our fighting forces from the front lines to the factory floor. [28:42] We truly believe this is a historic budget. And at every level, we have made it a fiscally responsible budget. [28:50] This is also a warfighting budget. Under President Trump, we are restoring the unbreakable might of [28:57] American manufacturing, which has to underwrite everything. We're providing for our warfighters, [29:02] and we are putting the people and interests of this country first. May almighty God continue to watch [29:08] over our troops and may he honor me. We honor the legacy of those brave Americans that we've lost. [29:13] That is our sacred mission. And that's what we'll continue to execute on. Thank you for this [29:19] opportunity. And we look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know we all understand you're [29:28] going with the president to China. We all agree they're the greatest long term military and economic [29:38] challenge to us and our Western allies as well. Of course, Taiwan, Japan and Philippines look to us. [29:54] So can you reassure the countries out there in the Pacific that their security will not be on the table [30:02] during the talks in Beijing? Is our strategy to preserve American primacy or simply to accommodate [30:12] China's rise? And can you speak to our commitment to preserving freedom of navigation in places like [30:20] the South China Sea? Well, thank you for the question, Senator. I would never purport to speak on behalf of [30:28] the president or what he will say or how he'll approach these talks, but having an opportunity to watch him [30:34] work, every aspect of what he pursues inside this relationship is to ensure that American interests [30:40] are advanced. And our department, underneath that, we've worked very hard in that region, [30:46] in the Indo-Pacific, with Japan, with the Philippines and others to make that a priority to ensure that [30:52] America's security is amplified by burden sharing of partners who recognize the shared threats that we face [30:59] and are willing to invest alongside us. And some of those things are known to the public. [31:04] Some of those things are not known to the public. But since the beginning of my time in this job, [31:09] we've focused in that area of operations to ensure that Admiral Paparo has every option available to [31:15] include with partners to create all the dilemmas necessary to give America every advantage possible, [31:20] whether it's freedom of navigation, access basic and overflight, [31:23] and ultimately put the president in a position where he's going into Beijing in a position of strength, [31:30] which he will be. [31:30] So would you be a little more specific about navigation, particularly in the South China Sea? [31:43] I think what you've seen from this administration is a commitment to freedom of navigation. Take, [31:47] for example, the BAM and the Houthis, which under the Biden administration, [31:51] they allowed American ships to get shot at without consequence. And President Trump undertook that [31:59] mission, Operation Rough Rider, for 50 days, and the Houthis stopped shooting at our ships. It wasn't a [32:05] nation-building exercise. It was an advancing of freedom of navigation and our interests. The same [32:10] would pertain to any waterway in the South China Sea. American ships should sail freely. So should others [32:18] in the international maritime sphere. Army Secretary Driscoll has described Ukraine [32:29] as the Silicon Valley of warfare, as I suggested earlier. I think we'll agree on that. And the outcome [32:37] of the war really matters to American interests. Is there a policy preventing senior department officials [32:45] from traveling to Ukraine? Do you support or oppose senior officials traveling there? [32:52] Senator, we've had many senior officials travel there, and we learn a great deal. In fact, [33:00] I've personally approved additional personnel there to learn from that drone battlefield, [33:06] both on offense and defense, to ensure that we're learning every possible lesson from that conflict [33:11] and incorporating it in real time into how we defend and we go on offense in an era where drone [33:16] dominance is required. And that's why this budget spends so much on drone dominance. Take the lessons [33:21] learn from Ukraine and other battlefields and ensure we're applying them throughout the fighting force [33:26] as quickly as possible. Well, you know, I think what's not in dispute is that NATO is the most [33:34] important military alliance in world history. Nobody's ever pulled something together like this [33:43] and held it together to prevent the worst for a longer period of time. Basically, it seems to me that a lot of [33:54] the European countries think that we're reducing our influence there, that they're sort of on their own, [34:02] and somehow American leadership is not essential to NATO going forward. I would argue that it's certainly [34:12] essential for us to continue to be the leader. And it's important to note the other countries that are [34:19] looking to NATO, our allies in the Pacific, helping Ukraine, interested in coming to NATO meetings, [34:31] anxious for America to continue to defend the free world, not just NATO, but worldwide. It's a big job, [34:39] and they're looking to us. There's nobody else who can do that. So what is the department's concise [34:46] vision for the role of our allies and partners in defending America's global interests? Senator, [34:56] our vision is to have real, capable allies and partners. I think that's what we saw, we've seen [35:04] in Epic Fury. Israel's Air Force and their ability, will, and their capability is a demonstration to the [35:09] world. There are other allies like that, and we need more of them. So flags are not the goal. The number of [35:16] flags involved in an operation are not the goal. The goal is the number of capable formations, [35:21] who can actually fight alongside the American fighting man and woman. So it's not just us all [35:26] the time. I saw that in Iraq. I saw that in Afghanistan. Our generation has experienced that. [35:31] This, no administration has done more to ensure that our allies and partners realize they need to step [35:37] up so that we can amplify our capabilities. That's what burden sharing is all about. It's not just, [35:42] we carry the burden for other countries. It's other countries are capable, capable of coming [35:47] alongside us as well. But I also think Putin's invasion of Ukraine helped get their attention, [35:55] that they need to step up as well. The president's been very clear about that. So they are headed in [36:01] the right direction. What I'm worried about is which direction we headed in. I think it's very [36:08] encouraging that European countries have stepped up to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself. I think [36:12] that's a very good development. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Secretary, in January, [36:24] President Trump signed the fiscal year 26 defense appropriations bill. It provided 400 million [36:30] dollars specifically to aid Ukraine in their fight against Russia. This is at a time when our European [36:37] allies and partners have stepped up to take on the overwhelming majority of the cost of any munitions or [36:42] support for Ukraine. So far, your department has not spent a dime of that 400 million dollars, [36:48] despite repeated follow-up requests from the chairman and myself. In a call just last week, [36:55] your staff indicated we will see a spend plan for those funds this week. Will you commit to spending [37:02] those 400 million dollars for weapons for Ukraine, and when will we receive your department's spend [37:08] plan? I appreciate that question. The 400 million for European capacity building has been released from [37:16] the Secretary's War's office, and we'll work with UCOM to make sure they spend it accordingly and [37:21] properly, which we have all faith that they will. Mr. Secretary, when will this subcommittee get the [37:28] associated spend plan for the 400 million dollars? Yeah, I mean, we will work with your committee to make sure [37:34] that the spend plan as allocated. I want to make sure UCOM is fully informed in how they want to spend [37:40] this. They're the closest to the problem set, and so working with them to ensure that you have the spend plan [37:44] will work with you. Mr. Secretary, thank you, but it's May, and this has been the law since January, and you or your [37:51] representatives have been asked this repeatedly on a bipartisan basis by members of this committee, and I think dragging [37:58] our feet on this small investment in Ukraine's defense sends exactly the wrong signal to Putin at [38:05] a time when the contest for freedom has its front lines in Ukraine. As you said, Europe has stepped up, [38:13] donating billions to buy U.S. weapons to send to Ukraine to help them as they continue to take [38:20] ground on the battlefield. But it seems not all the money donated by European allies is going to buy new [38:26] weapons for Ukraine, as they had understood. The memo you released just last week prior to your testimony at [38:32] Senate Armed Services indicated DOD has and will continue to divert some of these funds back into DOD accounts [38:39] for our own use. Will you commit, Mr. Secretary, to spend every dollar donated by our European allies for Ukraine on [38:48] new weapons and capabilities for Ukraine? The Pearl Initiative, which you're referring to, which is instituted [38:55] underneath this administration so that European countries are paying for American equipment to [39:00] provide as they see fit. NATO allocates where it would like to allocate that. It can choose Ukraine if [39:05] it'd like. That money, when it's paid for, that's where it goes. It goes to those efforts. [39:10] Well, look, as the chairman raised, and as I will repeat, I view NATO as the most successful mutual defense [39:17] relationship we've ever had. And your comment about we need not flags, but real and capable allies, [39:24] and the foot dragging on both Pearl and the investments in our Baltic allies and Ukraine [39:30] causes me real concern. As you know, a bipartisan group of us from the Senate and the House went to [39:36] Denmark to lay a wreath at the memorial to the 52 Danes who served, fought, and died alongside our troops [39:44] in Afghanistan. Those were not just flags. Those were real war fighters who fought and died at our request in a [39:52] war that began by NATO's initiation, a service and sacrifice in Afghanistan. I just think we're [40:00] sending the wrong signal by the president's announcement of the intention to withdraw 5,000 [40:05] troops from Germany. Could you help me understand what is the strategic reason for a drawdown of U.S. [40:11] troops from Western Europe? [40:12] I would just like to clarify, Senator, it's never about the heroism of foreign troops. I fought alongside [40:19] great British and Australian allies in Afghanistan. It's the political caveats and the limitations that [40:26] they come with. It's not the troops. It's the capitals of those militaries that limit what they're [40:32] able to do, where they're able to go, who they're able to fight, that create limits on our own. And [40:36] anybody that's been in these formations knows that. So it's easy to talk about here. It's another thing to [40:40] apply. We need allies that are burden sharing, not becoming a burden with political limitations. [40:46] I'm not talking about the troops. Thank you. Our president said in Europe that we never asked [40:51] for and never received anything from our NATO allies. Was that your experience in Afghanistan [40:57] serving and fighting alongside our NATO allies? I've written extensively about that and the vast [41:03] majority of my experience was frustration with the limits of what those troops were able to do because [41:08] of the political caveats, rules of engagement, and limits that came from their capitals. But you [41:12] don't doubt our question that about a third of all the combat casualties in our war in Afghanistan [41:17] were our NATO partners and allies. I would have to go back and check that number, but I take your word [41:21] for it. Let me just assert that hundreds and hundreds of service members from, as you put it, Australia, [41:26] the United Kingdom, as well as many other of our allies served, fought, and died alongside us. So [41:32] I'm just going to simply say in terms of our reliance on our partnerships, I'll agree with the [41:38] chairman that at a moment when Russia and China, North Korea and Iran are coming closer together [41:45] and delivering a bedeviling lethality in this ongoing war in Iran for which we don't have a clear [41:51] strategy or clear answers, our better strategy would be to partner more closely with Ukraine, dig in [41:58] deeper with our real values-based allies, our treaty allies in the Western Pacific and in Europe, and [42:05] together find a path out of this, rather than berating them and bullying them for not coming [42:10] along in a war they were not consulted about or briefed on before it began. I look forward to a [42:16] second round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [42:19] General Cahill. [42:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Cahill, when the Department of War was planning its operations in Iran, [42:31] did you anticipate the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting impact on oil supplies for many [42:43] countries, including here in the United States where we've seen gas, diesel, and home heating oil prices go up? [42:53] I ask this question because there's historic precedent. Obviously, during the Iraq-Iran War, [43:03] tankers were fired upon in the Strait. Senator, thanks for the question. As always, [43:11] we have an incredible staff over at the Pentagon and down at USNCOM, and we always look at the range [43:19] of military branches and sequels. I won't comment on any particular one because that gets to whatever [43:26] advice I may or may not have given to the President, and I do that in private, but you should rest assured, [43:33] as should the American people, that we cover and consider the full range of things all the time in our [43:41] careful consideration of military actions and the advice and or options that we present our civilian [43:48] leaders. It seems to me that there's been a different plan almost daily with dealing with this problem, [43:57] which is why I ask. Mr. Secretary, let me start by thanking you for visiting Beth Ironworks in the [44:07] state of Maine. The workers were very pleased to greet you and hear your encouragement and praise. [44:17] The Aegis destroyers play such a critical role in our national security from intercepting Iranian missiles [44:27] to supporting combat operations around the globe. While visiting Beth Ironworks, [44:34] you correctly described the DDG destroyers as the workhorse of the fleet and emphasized maxing out on [44:45] DDGs sends a message to the world. I was also delighted that you noted that Beth built his best built, [44:53] a slogan of which we're very proud. I fully agree with all those sentiments. That's why I was alarmed to see [45:03] that this year's budget request only includes funding for just one DDG 51. That's down from two in FY26 [45:16] and three in FY25. That reduction to a single DDG 51 creates uncertainty for U.S. surface combatant [45:28] industrial base at a time when BIW is demonstrating huge progress in workforce retention, production stability, [45:42] and faster throughput. So there needs to be a steady demand signal for DDGs in order to keep the yard [45:54] operating at all phases from cutting the initial steel to completing the ship. So I'm puzzled by why only [46:06] one DDG is requested and concerned about what that will mean as far as maintaining that workflow. I'm [46:17] particularly puzzled by the decision in reconciliation to request 1.8 billion for foreign-born surface combatants [46:31] at the same time that there's the proposed cut for American-built destroyers. Wouldn't providing a demand [46:41] signal for U.S. built DDGs from the department help the industry further increase the speed at which these [46:51] ships are being produced? And I'm sure when you were at Beth, they probably showed you the chart [46:58] of the enormous progress that they are making. I appreciate the question, Senator, and it was a great visit, [47:07] and it's incredible what they do. To both your questions, the answer is shipbuilding capacity. [47:13] And that's why we invest, you know, $65 billion in shipbuilding in our shipyards, is because the [47:18] reason for our request of that number is the ability to build them and how quickly. And so as soon as [47:24] that capacity is increased, which we anticipate this investment will do, then we look forward to ordering [47:29] DDGs into the future because they are the backbone of our naval fleet. [47:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Irwin. [47:40] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Coons earlier about the $400 [47:46] million for Ukraine, and I hope that it is allocated quickly. I'd like to ask a similar question about [47:53] the $200 million in that same appropriation bill that was designated for the Baltic Security Initiative. [48:01] Has that money been released? If it has not been, it should be. I don't know. Has it been released? [48:08] Senator, so I believe there was a mistake with how the appropriations bill was written. We're [48:13] trying to rectify that through a reprogramming action to make sure we have sufficient funds in [48:17] the DSCA account to execute BSI. It's five months after that bill was signed into law. How long will [48:25] this take? I think it's contingent on the reprogramming action be improved by the committees of jurisdiction [48:31] of the Department of War. So you're suggesting it has to go back through Congress for the current [48:35] appropriation? I need to move money between DSCA accounts to execute BSI. That's right. [48:40] Well, I can tell you, I would like to work with you to dispatch that money. It is needed [48:46] for the Baltics in Poland and needed on a timely basis. Absolutely. [48:50] I'd like to take a moment to reflect on the war in Iran, which you, Mr. Hurst, testified before [48:59] Congress has cost us $25 billion, 14 U.S. military personnel tragically killed, and a tenuous ceasefire in place. [49:10] As I look at the achievements, Iran, to date, led now by an even more extreme supreme leader, [49:18] the global economy is held hostage to the standoff in the Straits of Hormuz. [49:24] Our munitions stockpiles are dangerously depleted, and Iran is no further from a nuclear weapon than [49:29] before our invasion. General Cain, the President has claimed on several occasions over the past couple of [49:35] months that the war is over, that the conflict has been concluded. What were the goals of the U.S. [49:42] conflict in Iran, and have we achieved them? Well, sir, I'm going to be mindful of my need to maintain [49:50] trust with a variety of stakeholders in the job that I'm in, which includes you, the American people, [49:55] the Joint Force, and the President. And to that point, only our political and civilian leaders set [50:00] the national military objectives. Our military objectives have been clear the whole time around [50:07] targeting Iran's ballistic missile systems, preventing them from threatening U.S. forces in the region, [50:13] destroying the Iranian Navy, degrading its capacity and capability, and ensuring that they can't [50:19] rebuild by focusing on their defense industrial base. I'll defer to the Secretary and the President on [50:25] and other strategic objectives, but that's what we've been focused on, sir. Do you feel that the [50:32] situation in the Straits of Hormuz indicate a victory on our side? Sir, only political leaders decide [50:40] victory or defeat, and I'll leave it to them to opine on that. They are the ones who invoke or stop the use [50:49] of military force. Well, let me put it in strictly military terms. Can you explain to the American people [50:54] who are facing these gasoline and diesel oil prices? What is going on in the Straits of Hormuz where Iran, [51:01] which was attacked by us, seemingly as the Straits of Hormuz at a standstill, with 1,500 tankers [51:09] waiting for either permission or peaceful circumstances to navigate? Sure, I think militarily it's a case where [51:17] Iran is choosing to hold the world's economy hostage through their use of military power across their [51:25] southern flank. And so I would encourage Iran to reconsider that. And I would encourage those [51:33] allies and partners who have an opportunity to come assist with that tactical problem to do so. [51:39] Could you explain to the American people why, with the vast investment we've made in national defense [51:46] and military, how Iran, after they've been attacked by us, is still capable of stopping the traffic in [51:54] the Straits of Hormuz? Well, sir, it's a complex situation out there with a lot of different small [52:00] boats that are out there and other capabilities. You know, some of this is on the commercial traffickers. [52:09] Some of this is on, again, back to the main problem, and that's Iran holding the global economy hostage [52:16] through the Straits. I would encourage them to think wisely about their next moves and to take the [52:23] opportunity to open the Straits. They have that choice to make. They certainly do. I guess the question in [52:29] my mind is, as we talk about trillion-dollar-plus budgets for our military, it appears that a very small [52:35] budget is holding us hostage in the Straits of Hormuz. Thank you. I just want to start off with saying [52:48] that these military operations against Iran have been spectacular. In a matter of months, we have [52:55] degraded the larger state-sponsored terrorism beyond what I thought was possible, probably more to come. [53:04] Mr. Secretary, 900 pounds of 60 percent enriched uranium, do we all agree that's what Iran has buried [53:15] somewhere? In this format, some of that should be classified, so I wouldn't comment on the exact [53:22] amount of anything. Okay. Well, that's just pretty well known. They brag about it. Is it possible they [53:27] could have 60 percent highly enriched uranium without them cheating in the past? We know in every context [53:36] of what Iran has undertaken, they've lied and cheated. The answer is no. Everything that Obama and Biden [53:42] did was designed to keep it to a civilian nuclear program. There is no way in hell they can have 60 percent [53:49] highly enriched uranium unless they cheat. So everything y'all did failed. And you want to [53:54] criticize? You failed. You allowed Iran to be a threshold nuclear nation. Everything you did failed. [54:03] Missiles, Diego Garcia. Did they shoot missiles at Diego Garcia, General Cain, the Iranians? [54:11] Yes, sir. They shot a few. Under the protocols we had in place, were they supposed to be able to do that? [54:17] Without reviewing the fine print, I believe the answer is no. No, they weren't. You failed there. [54:25] You failed to stop Iran from being a nuclear threshold nation. You failed to stop Iran from [54:32] having missiles that could go thousands of miles. Why should we listen to you? Bottom line here, China. [54:41] Does China buy 90 percent of Iranian oil, Mr. Secretary? China buys a very large percentage. [54:51] Okay, 90 percent is pretty large. So does China buy, are they the largest purchaser of Russian oil and gas? [55:00] I would imagine they're up there. They are. They're the largest. So President Trump, when you go to China, [55:08] realize that the person you're talking to is propping up Russia and Iran. I appreciate what [55:16] you've done in Iran. I appreciate what you're trying to do to end the Russian-Ukraine conflict. [55:21] Do you agree with me, Mr. Secretary, that of all the countries on the planet, China could have the [55:26] most influence of ending this war if they chose to? I think the most influence is in President Trump's [55:33] hands and what he decides to do, and he'll set the terms about it. But ultimately, China has a lot of [55:38] leverage, you're right. Yeah, they do. What if they stopped buying 90 percent of oil from Iran? [55:43] That's not President Trump. That's up to China. Do you support putting tariffs on China if they [55:49] continue to buy Russian oil and gas? Tariffs is not my lane, but anything you can do to put pressure [55:55] on people, I usually support. Right. Well, do you believe that when we put pressure on India, [55:59] about 25 percent tariff for buying Russian oil, they kind of backed off? I would say I've had a front row [56:05] seat to the efficacy of tariff policy, yes. Yeah, I think it works, guys. And we're on the [56:10] breakout here in a minute of having a bill that would give the President ability to tariff the [56:15] largest purchasers of Russian oil and gas, and I hope he will use it. So I just want to, Pakistan, [56:22] are you aware of reports that Pakistan are allowing their bases to be used to park Iranian aircraft, [56:30] General King? Sir, I've seen one report on that. Well, is it accurate? Sir, I think based on the [56:43] variety of classification matters that I've seen. Let me just say, do you agree if it is accurate, [56:48] that is sort of inconsistent with it being a peace mediator? Sir, I wouldn't want to comment on that [56:54] based on the ongoing negotiations in Pakistan's role. Thank you, Secretary Hextus. If the mediator [57:01] is allowing reconnaissance aircraft to run to be parked in Pakistani air bases, do you think that's [57:07] consistent with being a fair mediator? Again, I wouldn't want to get in the middle of these [57:13] negotiations. I want maximum efficacy for our people. Well, I do. I want to get in the middle of [57:17] these negotiations. I don't trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them. If they actually do have [57:23] Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me we should [57:32] be looking maybe for somebody else to mediate. No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere. So, [57:39] you know, I appreciate all you've done. I'm very supportive of it. But when it comes to Pakistan [57:44] and China, enough already. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, [57:54] gentlemen, for being here today. Mr. Secretary, we have been trying to track down the expenditures in [58:04] the Operation Epic Fury and Operation Freedom now. And we've sent letters and we've got very few [58:12] responses. We've been sending letters since March 10th. We did understand that it was released that in the [58:20] first six days, $11.3 billion was spent. And then recently, we were told $25 billion was spent. [58:29] Today, I think the number is $29 billion. Can you provide some details as to what consists of that [58:39] $29 billion? Have we counted everything? Yes, Senator Reid. So, I testified this morning to Hack D that [58:48] between the Joint Staff and the Comptroller staff, our operational cost estimate is now $29 billion. [58:53] A lot of that increase comes from having a refined estimate on repair or replacement costs for [58:58] equipment. Our munitions costs are fairly fixed. We think they're very accurate. And there's some O&M [59:03] costs there as well. We're not making an estimate for MILCON at this time. We don't know what our future [59:08] posture is going to be. We don't know how those bases would be reconstructed. And we don't know what [59:12] percentage our allies and partners will pay for that reconstruction. So, you do not consider [59:19] installations that have been damaged in the conflict, correct? We just don't have a good estimate at [59:24] this time. So, it's not in the $29 billion? That's correct. Expended weapons, are they totally [59:30] included within the estimate? Yes. To the best of my knowledge, we have a full count of the expended [59:36] weapons. And weapons transferred to other countries in the region, are they counted in? I would want to [59:42] double check to make sure we have that accurately. Please. I mean, you're coming up and asking for another [59:49] significant supplemental, etc. And before we can, I think, reasonably appropriate additional money, [59:55] we have to find out how the existing appropriated dollars have been spent. So, that's critically [1:00:01] important. And I know also that the budget asks for another $350 billion in reconciliation. [1:00:12] How essential is that to your budget? I would say it's extremely essential to achieve the [1:00:20] generational investment that the president is trying to make. But that would be on top of the $150 [1:00:26] billion we received in the big, beautiful bill, which would be $500 billion, half a trillion dollars [1:00:32] in two years. And again, we're not getting, I think, the detailed spend plan, the detailed obligation plan [1:00:41] for this. And without it, it's very difficult to say, just take the money and run. You know, [1:00:46] we have a job to do too. Any comments, Mr. Secretary? We recognize that in our, you know, in a perfect [1:00:56] world. Everything's, everything's part of your regular order. This is a dynamic place with a lot of [1:01:02] dynamic factors. And so, in order to get where we need to with the historic investment for this [1:01:08] department, we think this is the best allocation in order to get there, Senator. Well, I think detailed [1:01:14] analysis, detailed data that we receive will help us make more sensible judgments. And, you know, [1:01:20] we're just sort of vague generalities are not helping this committee make critical judgments. [1:01:26] And the trade oaths are significant. Deficit is increasing dramatically. We have to be conscious of [1:01:33] that. We also have to be conscious of helping American families just get by. And inflation just hit 3.8% [1:01:43] today, which is the, I think the biggest numbers is 2023 or something. So we're fighting all these [1:01:50] forces that are not directly connected to your mission as Secretary, but they are connected to [1:01:54] our mission. General Kane, your observations on the future course of action in Persian Gulf. We're in [1:02:02] this tenuous ceasefire. What's your sense of the direction forward? Well, sir, I won't opine on a [1:02:12] hypothetical. What I will assure you is that we retain and continue to hold a range of options for our [1:02:20] civilian leaders. It would be inappropriate for me to opine on how it may go. But rest assured, we are, [1:02:29] we still hold many, many options. Have you been surprised by the resistance of the Iranians? [1:02:38] Sir, I, as a war fighter, I always assume an enemy is going to resist. Um, and the job of the joint [1:02:46] force is to, to win at the time and place of our nation's choosing. So I, I always assume an enemy [1:02:52] is going to fight and I find that's the best pathway. I think so too. And you communicated that to the [1:02:57] president, uh, as you advised him before the decision was made? Sir, as I've, as I've said respectfully [1:03:04] before I won't comment on my private conversations with the president in order to make sure that I [1:03:10] maintain trust with him and with you and the American people and the joint force. [1:03:15] That's a principal response. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. [1:03:20] Chairman, thank you. Um, Secretary Hegseth, welcome. Uh, I just returned, uh, Friday from a visit to China. [1:03:27] Uh, and one of the things that, uh, seemingly clear to me is that, uh, Taiwan remains at the forefront of the [1:03:34] Chinese, uh, efforts, uh, next steps in what they want to accomplish. Um, and, uh, we have commitments, [1:03:44] I guess, to, to defend Taiwan. You can explain that to me, uh, as you choose. What I would like to [1:03:51] highlight is while Taiwan is, uh, is still at the forefront, at least in the minds of the Chinese, [1:03:57] the United States, uh, is seeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine and which we're yet to some [1:04:04] degree still involved. Uh, we're having deterrence in the Indo-Pacific in regard to China. We're [1:04:10] conducting operations in the Middle East. Um, all of that has drawn strategic capabilities from, [1:04:17] uh, the joint force. One of the things I think we can do to augment our joint force is strong [1:04:23] allied relationships, partnerships with others. Uh, given the current threat environment that we are in, [1:04:29] uh, and the scale of the global demands upon the, the United States, can you speak to how the [1:04:36] department views the role of allies and partners in sustaining our global posture? And does the defense [1:04:43] budget recognize, reflect the needs to strengthen allied integration and maintain credible unified [1:04:50] deterrence? Senator, I appreciate the question and I think foundational to it is a recognition that [1:04:57] countries closest to the problem set, uh, should be most invested in ensuring that they can deter that [1:05:03] adversary, which is why we want European capabilities to increase, to deter Russian aggression. [1:05:08] And when you look at the Indo-Pacific, uh, it's been a focus of our department since the day I showed up, [1:05:13] whether it's ASEAN or Shangri-La or traveling to the region, going to South Korea, going to Japan, [1:05:18] going to the Philippines, uh, having them to our building to build out our, those relationships in a, [1:05:24] in a very real operational way. It's not about what we can sign. It's about what contingencies and [1:05:30] dilemmas can we create for adversaries who may seek to expand their, their sphere of influence, [1:05:36] whether it's militarily or economically or through pressure. And so I think while we've been involved [1:05:42] in a lot of efforts around the world, the, through the president's leadership, we've reestablished [1:05:46] deterrence. The world knows that America's word means something, um, from Maduro to the Houthis, [1:05:52] to Midnight Hammer, to Epic Fury. When the president says you can't have a nuclear weapon, [1:05:57] he means it. When the president says you're an indicted individual, he means it. Everybody sees that, [1:06:03] including in the Indo-Pacific. And when you do that, plus build out your alliances, not based on talk, [1:06:09] but based on capabilities, access, spacing, and overflight training, interoperability in, in discreet ways, [1:06:15] I think all the right people pay attention to that and see it. And that's been the focus in the Indo-Pacific [1:06:21] for us for a while. And the budget request reflects those, uh, that, that, uh, circumstance [1:06:26] that you just described. Very much so. I would say Admiral Poparo, uh, his request, his line items, [1:06:32] his input was front and center in the build of FY 27 to ensure allies and partners are considered. [1:06:37] Yes, sir. Secretary Higsteth, let me change the, change the topic. Um, I worked closely with Senator [1:06:43] Cruz to introduce and secure the, the unanimous Senate passage of the Rotaract. Uh, that was an airplane, [1:06:51] uh, that, uh, originated from Kansas that, uh, saw the death of 30, 67 people, uh, near, uh, Reagan [1:07:00] Airport. The department in December, December the 17th, released a statement in support of the Rotaract. [1:07:07] And yet when the House considered the Rotaract, the department released an additional statement [1:07:13] and claimed that enactment would create significant unresolved budgetary burdens and operational [1:07:18] security risks affecting national defense activities. Can you explain what happened between [1:07:24] the first statement and the second statement that caused there to be a different reaction? [1:07:29] And I ask this because it's still very important to me that the Rotaract or something very similar [1:07:34] to the Rotaract is enacted into law. And apparently for it to be passed, it needs to be something that [1:07:41] the department of defense is supportive of. So what is it that changed between the initial [1:07:47] statement, the second statement so that we can, uh, bring this, uh, legislative endeavor to fruition? [1:07:54] Well, I appreciate your attention to what occurred there. We've taken it seriously from the beginning. [1:07:59] We recognize the need, uh, for the requisite oversight. It was an earnest change. Uh, we don't, [1:08:06] the department didn't think that the changes that we had asked for were incorporated properly into the [1:08:11] bill. And as a result, uh, we came out and opposed it, but we look forward to an iteration of that [1:08:17] bill to get passed because we think it's important that it happened. So if I can paraphrase in my words, [1:08:22] so I understand what you're telling me, it isn't that something changed. It was that what you asked [1:08:27] for didn't get enacted in the Rotaract before it passed the Senate. Correct. We think some changes [1:08:32] that need to be made were not made to the bill. And as a result, we changed our position, but we look [1:08:37] forward to, uh, supporting something in the future. Yes. Um, in my 15 seconds left, uh, General Kane, [1:08:44] could I ask you to visit with me momentarily after the hearing so that I can raise a topic with you [1:08:49] and have you point me in the direction of where I can find an answer? Of course, sir. Thank you. [1:08:54] General Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. uh, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the war in Iran has not only cost [1:09:04] 13 American service member lives, it is also costing American taxpayers dearly. Tens of [1:09:12] billions of dollars and counting, and that's money that could be helping people perhaps get health care. [1:09:17] But instead we're paying for bombs dropped in a war that American people overwhelmingly oppose. [1:09:23] Now, earlier this morning, I know that your team testified Trump's war with Iran cost 29 billion so [1:09:28] far. That is $29 billion blown on a war of choice. And that's what it would have cost actually to save [1:09:35] the ACA tax credits. But as my colleagues have already stated, what is concerning as well is [1:09:41] it seems quite clear that that is that cost estimate is suspiciously low. Now, your acting comptroller [1:09:48] suggested that damage to us facilities was not factored into that figure. It is clear that there has [1:09:54] been extensive damage to American military assets. New reporting from the Washington Post and others [1:10:00] indicates that Iran has hit at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at US military sites. Can you [1:10:09] tell us what the cost of damage done to US facilities is because of this war? Well, I think Jay covered [1:10:17] pretty clearly what we can or cannot share, but I would simply respond that, um, and I think it's an [1:10:23] important point considering what the president is undertaking is what is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear [1:10:27] weapon. And the fact that this president's been willing to make a historic and courageous choice to [1:10:32] confront that, it comes with cost and we recognize that. I understand what your judgment is. We have [1:10:36] a judgment as well and I'm asking if you can tell us and at what point you can tell us what the cost of [1:10:40] damage done to US facilities is because of this war. Yeah, ma'am, thanks for the question. So for, uh, [1:10:46] future posture at least, we don't know what that's going to look like. We don't know how we're going to [1:10:50] design these bases. The damage to date, you do not have any cost estimate on it at all. For the military [1:10:55] construction, I don't have a cost estimate to provide you at this time. Well, when will we get [1:10:59] that? Again, it depends on what the future posture is, how we decide to construct those bases. To date, [1:11:04] you know what has happened to date. We can't get that number and that is a real concern to us. Our job [1:11:08] is to appropriate dollars and we're just told it's coming, it's coming and we don't get it. So it's very [1:11:13] hard to do our budgets. And right now, Mr. Secretary, people are paying four or five, even six, seven [1:11:19] dollars for gas and American taxpayers are now on the hook as well for paying for this [1:11:25] disastrous war. You're spending families hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose. [1:11:32] And you're forcing people to pay more at the pump and yet you're not even providing a real breakdown [1:11:37] for the cost of this war so far. We have no real details, you have indicated that, and yet now you [1:11:44] want Congress to send you one and a half trillion dollars more. To me, that is unacceptable and I hope [1:11:51] our Republican colleagues will join us in not only rejecting that absurd request, but in insisting [1:11:58] that the American people get the actual answers on how much money, their money, we are spending on this. [1:12:05] Now, let me turn and say, Secretary Hague says that the President has called Medicaid, Medicare, [1:12:12] and child care little scams and said, quote, we're fighting wars, we cannot take care of daycare. [1:12:19] I'm just trying to understand that. Is it your position, since you're asking taxpayers for another [1:12:24] half a trillion dollars for the war, that American families should be forced to give up child care [1:12:29] and health coverage so that you can have one and a half trillion dollars for this budget? [1:12:33] Senator, that's not my department. I certainly support this and I also support the President's [1:12:40] efforts to find and remove fraud wherever possible in a general sense. And we do that in our department [1:12:45] as well. I'm not talking about fraud. I actually asked whether an American family [1:12:51] should lose their health care or their child care to pay for this budget. That is literally what the [1:12:56] President suggested. The President has proposed a historic 1.5 trillion dollar budget that will defend [1:13:04] the nation and confront threats like Iran, which previous presidents allowed to happen, as Senator [1:13:10] Graham pointed out. Previous administration said they wanted to take care of this problem, [1:13:13] and they did not, and he's doing it. The question in front of this committee, [1:13:16] the question in front of the American people, is what are they being asked to give up for this [1:13:21] one and a half trillion dollars? That's where I was talking about. And lastly, Mr. Secretary, [1:13:26] your budget request cuts through Trump's ramblings and really, to me, makes the truth clear, [1:13:32] that you and the President don't value families as much as you value defense contractors. You want to [1:13:38] increase the war budget. I meet every family at Dover. Okay, don't tell me we don't care about [1:13:42] families. We sure do, and we take care of them in every way we possibly can. I'm asking you about [1:13:48] taxpayer dollars that everybody has. When we've been to war before, we've asked people to do victory [1:13:53] gardens. We've asked them to pay more. You are not doing that. You are asking for one and a half [1:13:58] trillion dollars, which means something else has to be given up. That is what this committee is looking at. [1:14:03] You want to increase the war budget for the next year by half a trillion dollars. That is taxpayer [1:14:09] money that could be used to feed families, or build new affordable homes, or wipe out some diseases [1:14:15] completely, or increase child investments 20 times over. But you are asking us to blow it all on war, [1:14:22] and that's not even counting the money that you have spent bombing Iran, or that you may still request in a [1:14:27] separate supplemental. And to me, this budget wasn't even strategically crafted. One and a half trillion [1:14:33] dollars. It's like the president decided that was the number, and you all filled in the blanks. [1:14:38] So what I'm here today to say is you asked for a massive laundry list of unnecessary spending. It's [1:14:44] a huge payday for defense contractors, and you still don't even ask to give DoD civilian workers a pay [1:14:50] raise. And to me, this is absurd. I know you do not care what I have to say. So let me quote you [1:14:56] someone you might actually listen to, President Eisenhower. He said, every gun that is made, [1:15:03] every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and [1:15:11] are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, [1:15:17] it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. [1:15:24] That is what this budget proposal is asking. It's going to leave Americans cold and hungry to fund [1:15:29] Trump's war and make defense contractors a fortune. So that is why I hope this committee throws that in [1:15:36] the trash and comes together with a budget that works for all American families. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [1:15:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hovind. First, I want to thank you, [1:15:46] gentlemen, and all of our men and women in uniform for the incredible defense of our nation, what [1:15:52] we're seeing really around the globe and certainly in the Gulf right now. The professionalism, the [1:15:58] capability of our men and women in uniform is frankly beyond belief. It's just amazing. And we need to say [1:16:07] thank you to those men and women and their families every single day. It's really something. My first [1:16:16] question is, Mr. Secretary and General, is there a way to secure the Strait of Hormuz before we fully [1:16:25] resolve with the conflict with Iran? Well, thank you for your statement up front about the the troops [1:16:33] and we certainly feel the same way. They're the best of America and deserve the best from all of us. [1:16:37] As it pertains to, I actually didn't get a chance to reply to Senator Durbin who said that Iran was [1:16:42] attacked by us. I would take issue with that. For 47 years, we've been attacked by Iran and they've been [1:16:47] right on line to pursue a nuclear weapon. And President Trump had the courage to do something [1:16:51] about it. I don't think enough has been stated about the blockade and the power of the blockade [1:16:57] and the dilemma that our blockade creates for them. They can't move anything out of Iranian ports and [1:17:02] over I think it's 65 ships at this point have been turned around or disabled. Economic pressure that [1:17:08] creates on them greatly outstrips the pressure on us. And we don't use the Strait of Hormuz anywhere near as [1:17:15] much as the rest of the world does or certainly they do. And I think it creates a lot of dynamics [1:17:19] for future energy dominance for the United States of America, considering the increased capability [1:17:24] that our country has, not to mention opportunities in Venezuela. So we have a range of options, [1:17:29] as the chairman and I have discussed extensively, mostly privately, but some in public to ensure that [1:17:35] transit were to continue should the president or others want us to go in that direction. But ultimately, [1:17:40] we control the Strait because nothing's going in that we don't allow to go in. And trust me, [1:17:46] when we look at what Iran's thinking about that, they know they can't break it. And it's very [1:17:51] concerning for them. [1:17:52] Speaker 2 [1:17:53] Iran only responds to strength and force. And that's specifically why I asked the question, [1:17:59] in that their evil regime can make their people suffer and hang in there. But if we can keep the [1:18:07] pressure on with the naval blockade and navigate the Strait of Hormuz, we can keep the stranglehold on [1:18:14] this evil regime and force the type of solution that we need and the kind of verification we need to [1:18:22] enforce it. And that's, again, why I asked this question. And maybe both of you gentlemen could [1:18:27] respond to that. I get I'm not saying that is what the outcome will be. Or, you know, ultimately, [1:18:33] it's up to President Trump. But what I'm saying is it possible to keep that stranglehold on with the [1:18:38] blockade, even though, you know, the tyrants, the IRGC won't give up right away and secure the Strait of [1:18:47] Hormuz while we continue to put that pressure on them for a result that can work for this country [1:18:53] and the world and it's enforceable. And I'd like you to give me some more color on that. Both of you [1:18:58] gentlemen. Sir, I'll take a take a moment here and talk about pressure. And what you're really [1:19:07] alluding to is is what the entirety of the interagency is working on. With a hat tip towards [1:19:14] Secretary Besant, Secretary Rubio and the rest of the interagency, the totality of total pressure, [1:19:21] which the military element is just one component on is what the the regime in Iran is feeling right [1:19:30] now. And I think there's no shortage of ability to hold that pressure. The decision on for how long [1:19:37] to hold that pressure is, of course, a political one and within our civilian leadership. But but I would [1:19:45] highlight that they are absolutely feeling that pressure, not just from the blockade, [1:19:49] as the Secretary talked about, but the continuation of sanctions that Treasury and others have put on [1:19:55] there. And we retain a range of military options. Well, I 100% agree with you. But their their [1:20:01] ability that the regime's ability to endure pain is significant because they just put it on their [1:20:05] people. My point is keeping that pressure on them, but at the same time, securing passage in a way where [1:20:11] commercial traffic will start moving. That relieves pressure on us and our allies. And that's what I'm [1:20:17] asking for more color on how you effectuate that. Senator, there are options for that, [1:20:21] should we go in that direction? There's a multitude of different directions. If should the president [1:20:27] seek to go that way that we're prepared to operate on evidence by the destroyers that went in and came [1:20:33] back out. Exactly. To the great detriment of the limited ability of Iran to defend. I mean, [1:20:37] remember the entirety of Iran's conventional navy is at the bottom of. As with everything you do, [1:20:42] you start out at a really high level and then you just get better. And I'm seeing that with this [1:20:47] blockade right now with the way you disabled those last two tankers. I mean, you're getting better at [1:20:52] blockade. And again, that's why I'm looking for continued options to secure traffic in the straight [1:20:58] while we continue to put pressure on Iran. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Chairman, Secretary [1:21:08] General. Thank you for being here. Secretary, I want you to provide some reassurance for [1:21:14] my constituents. In 2019, the DIA published that Iran, quote, had swarms of small boats, [1:21:24] large inventory of naval mines, and arsenal of anti-ship missiles that can severely disrupt maritime [1:21:29] traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. In 2025, after Operation Midnight Hammer, Brookings expert said, quote, [1:21:37] it is wrong to conclude Iran is now a defeated nation and will act accordingly. Iran's demonstrated [1:21:42] destructive missile capabilities have penetrated nearly every part of Israel. Iran's arsenal could [1:21:48] endanger American forces in the Gulf. And Senator Collins asked General Kane about the extent to which [1:21:56] you were briefed and the president was briefed about the very likely outcome of this kinetic [1:22:03] engagement. And there are some data points that seem to indicate that we did not see all of this [1:22:10] coming or that we didn't account for it. We may have been briefed on it, but we didn't account for [1:22:15] it. Parts of the THAAD and Patriot systems in South Korea were moved to the Middle East. This is after the [1:22:20] war. After the war, munitions were removed from around the world to defend U.S. sites in the region. [1:22:26] There was a rush. There was a rush to evacuate United States personnel. And Iran struck more than 200 [1:22:34] structures and equipment at 16 U.S. sites. So, Secretary, can you just reassure us that this was all [1:22:43] foreseen and part of the plan? Or can you tell us whether there were any surprises here? [1:22:50] Well, thank you for the question, Senator. I can reassure you that it was all accounted for. [1:22:54] Every aspect of this was poured over by the joint staff, by civilian leadership and represented [1:23:00] in pursuit of a very clear goal. And the chairman laid out correctly what the metrics militarily were [1:23:05] from the beginning, whether it's ballistic missiles, Iran's Navy. You know, you can't contest a blockade if [1:23:10] you don't have a conventional Navy destroying the defense industrial base. But it was all in service of [1:23:16] ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon. So as a for example, I mean, that was so I want you to know, [1:23:21] it's all seen through the lens of preventing Iran from having to threaten the region for us. [1:23:24] Yeah, I understand that's the underlying objective. And I do not dispute the military [1:23:28] success. I don't think there's any doubt that when the most powerful, most well-funded, most [1:23:33] technologically advanced, most disciplined, most trained military in human history sets out to do [1:23:39] something, they almost always accomplish it. And so that's not what I'm talking about. I'm just wondering [1:23:45] why we're moving THAAD assets from South Korea after the war started. I'm just wondering why there [1:23:51] was a scramble to evacuate personnel. And I'm wondering why the president of the United States, [1:23:56] our commander in chief, said that he was shocked that Iran would retaliate by striking other countries [1:24:06] in the region. This was not just foreseeable, it was foreseen. It was, you know, this is, you don't [1:24:11] need to get into a skiff to understand that their likely play was to asymmetrically retaliate, and then [1:24:18] to close the strait. And then it happened. And the president said, gosh, who could have seen this [1:24:22] coming? I'm just trying to figure out for those of us on the left and the right, who are wary of [1:24:29] regime change wars, who are wary of happy talk, who have learned through terrible experience, the cost of [1:24:37] this kind of adventurism. Why is this any different? And why didn't we see this coming? I appreciate your [1:24:46] lauding of the force up front, and earnestly, that it's the greatest fighting force on planet Earth. But [1:24:51] that was the same fighting force that surrendered to Iranian fastboats under the Biden administration. We [1:24:55] all remember the pictures. Remember the Americans with their hands above their head at gunpoint of the Iranians? [1:24:59] It's because they didn't have leadership like President Trump, who empowered them to do what was [1:25:03] necessary. The Biden administration allowed them to pursue nuclear ambitions, didn't do anything about it. [1:25:09] President Trump stepped in. We factored all the risk and ranges of options, put in maximum defensive [1:25:14] capability for our troops as we could in real time, empowering the CENTCOM commander with everything [1:25:22] he needed to ensure this mission could be as successful as possible, knowing there are branches [1:25:27] and sequels of every operation that have to be accounted for. Factor the Navy. You might wonder, [1:25:33] why would you sink the Navy if you're trying to prevent a nuclear Iran? There's reasons for that, [1:25:37] because you're planning for contingencies and other ways that this could go as well. [1:25:40] I just, I don't, Secretary, I'm trying to stay on time here. I hear what you're saying. I just don't [1:25:46] hear an answer to the question of why we had to take certain actions that could have been taken before [1:25:52] the kinetic engagement and would have kept our assets and our personnel more safe and would have looked [1:26:01] and actually been more planful, more thoughtful, more well executed. Why are we doing all of this [1:26:07] stuff as if it's a scramble if all of this stuff was foreseen? I think we, I'm quite confident along [1:26:13] with the CENTCOM commanders that we took every action possible to ensure that we were prepared for [1:26:17] this conflict. Thank you. Senator McCoskey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary. Gentlemen, thank you. [1:26:26] I wanted to start off my questions with a focus on the reconciliation package. I know that it has not [1:26:33] yet been introduced, but we're told $350 billion. Here's my concern, and I'm just going to be really [1:26:43] direct. We've, we've got a second reconciliation that we're going to be dealing with in these next few [1:26:50] weeks regarding immigration enforcement. And we're halfway through a calendar year. A third reconciliation [1:27:01] may or may not happen. I'm just being direct and upfront. I think certainly the focus will be to [1:27:07] try to move us to that. But here's my concern. If we have a $350 billion sitting in the reconciliation [1:27:16] package, you look at what is contained in that. 53 of your 85 requested F-35s. So I look at that and say, wow, [1:27:26] if the reconciliation bill fails or doesn't advance, you drop below your own FY26 fighter procurement [1:27:35] baseline. Over $53 billion for drone dominance. I think this is all something we support. Over $113 billion [1:27:42] for munitions production and industrial based investment. There's other areas. So here's, here's my, my, [1:27:50] my question. Um, I worry about us banking on a third reconciliation package. Um, I know we don't want to [1:28:03] engage in this speculative here, particularly if it's a negative, but I'm, I'm worried about the committee [1:28:09] accepting a defense budget where effectively a quarter of it, including some of the bread and [1:28:17] butter procurement requirements depends on a third reconciliation package that, that may be an uphill [1:28:25] climb. And so I, I, I don't know, Mr. Secretary, if you can kind of walk me through why I shouldn't be [1:28:32] worried about this, why, uh, what is included in the base, um, budget bill will, will be the good [1:28:41] coverage that we need. And it is not necessarily, uh, dependent on an additive of the reconciliation. [1:28:51] Senator, I, I appreciate that, that perspective and share your concern. That's why one of the main [1:28:57] efforts, uh, setting aside operations and what everything we do in real time for the troops [1:29:02] is ensuring that both the base discretionary budget and reconciliation are passive that [1:29:07] President Trump's historic budget is realized because of the underinvestment of the past, [1:29:11] whether it's continued resolutions or Biden budgets, we need to supercharge our defense [1:29:15] industrial base, our, our munitions into the future. Uh, and so we, we're our entirety of our [1:29:21] team and our department is running in the same direction to ensure that reconciliation as swiftly, [1:29:27] uh, and as clearly and cooperatively as possible as passed alongside the base discretionary [1:29:32] budget. Well, I understand that, but I just need you to understand our concern here that you've got [1:29:38] your base budget and then you have, you have the, uh, the reconciliation. I want to ask about the Iran [1:29:45] authorization. Um, no great secret around here. I have been, I have been talking about, um, an authorization [1:29:54] of use of military force. Uh, I understand that the administration, uh, has made clear that you believe that [1:30:03] the actions, um, taken thus far fall under the president's article two authority. Um, I think [1:30:10] reasonable people have disagreed about the boundaries of presidential war powers for a long time. [1:30:16] Um, but the war powers resolution is pretty clear here. It requires the president to terminate [1:30:21] hostilities within 60 days, absent congressional authorization. I think it's important that we [1:30:27] in Congress actually, actually, uh, assert our own, uh, role and responsibility to this. That 60-day clock [1:30:37] expired April 28th. Um, and then on the 1st, the administration sent letters to congressional leaders [1:30:44] asserting that the hostilities had, has ended. Um, but I think where there is confusion is when the [1:30:51] president says hostilities have ended, we still have 15,000 troops that are forward deployed, more than 20 [1:30:57] warships in an active naval blockade. Um, CENTCOM has redirected 61 commercial vessels, disabled tankers. [1:31:05] In other words, it doesn't appear that, that hostilities have, have ended. And so the question [1:31:11] to you is, is whether or not the administration, um, has, has considered, uh, or had intended to seek [1:31:22] an authorization of use of military force from the Congress? Senator, our view is that should the [1:31:28] president, uh, make the decision to recommence, that we would have all the authorities necessary [1:31:32] to do so. Do you think that it would be helpful to the president if it was made clear that in fact [1:31:39] the Congress did, did allow, did provide an AUMF? I think the president, our view is that he has all [1:31:49] the authorities he needs under article two to execute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, here's where we are. [1:31:55] Um, the vote is about over. The secretary has to get with the president on the China trip. I'm gonna ask [1:32:06] Senator McCaskey to wrap up and, uh, thank you all for being here. Baldwin, Shaheen and Kennedy. [1:32:16] Hmm? Baldwin, Shaheen and Kennedy still have quick wrap up after. Hold here. Yeah, obviously there's not a whole lot of time for a second. [1:32:34] around, so we'll get through everybody. And, uh, Senator McCaskey, I appreciate your taking over. [1:32:46] Thank you. Um, Secretary Hegseth, uh, Chairman Cain, thank you for being here today. Um, today is the first time [1:32:54] either of you are appearing before this subcommittee since the abrupt choice was made to cancel the acquisition [1:33:01] of the Constellation-class frigate, which was being built in Wisconsin. Um, these ships were meant to [1:33:08] provide vital capability to the Navy in the event of a future war against China. Um, and they were certainly [1:33:17] part of our calculus of deterrence through strength. Canceling this program placed thousands of jobs in [1:33:24] Wisconsin at risk and left our fleet less prepared. You know, President Trump has talked a lot about [1:33:31] making ships in America again, but I have to tell you, uh, dramatic and misguided decisions like this [1:33:39] pull the rug out from under our shipyards. The U.S. shipbuilding industry needs stability if we are [1:33:46] ever going to compete with Chinese shipyards. Wisconsin workers who have decades of experience [1:33:52] building world-class vessels that defend our nation, that serve commerce and provide transportation, [1:33:58] they need stability as well. So I'd like to start with a question to you, Chairman Cain, [1:34:04] on the medium landing ships. The Navy's new amphibious ships, which will now be built at the same [1:34:12] Wisconsin shipyards working on the, that we're working on the Constellation-class less than a year ago. [1:34:20] How important are medium landing ships to future U.S. operations in the event of a war with China? [1:34:28] Well, Senator, thanks for the, uh, the question. And, uh, I, I do want to highlight no matter what [1:34:34] the policy decisions are, the great workers up there and in your state. And as the joint force considers, [1:34:41] uh, the options that the medium landing ship would bring to the table in terms of assuring a mobility gap [1:34:47] and filling that gap and allowing us to project power at the Secretary and the President's, uh, [1:34:54] choice and choosing, uh, I, you know, will not stepping into the Navy's boundaries, uh, and mindful [1:35:01] that the CNO and SEC NAV and acting SEC NAV in this case will have views. Uh, I hope we'll carefully [1:35:06] consider this capability and then, if appropriate, bring it forward to the joint force. [1:35:10] Yeah. Well, unfortunately, the Department included the request for funding the construction of six [1:35:17] medium landing ships in that partisan part of the budget request, the reconciliation, [1:35:23] which is in danger of potentially not even passing this year. Um, to be frank, it does not give me [1:35:29] confidence that we are taking this program seriously. What would the impact be if Congress did not [1:35:36] appropriate funding for the medium landing ships in fiscal year 27? And are you comfortable with the [1:35:42] pace that the Navy is planning on building them, Chairman Cain? Well, they, uh, I'll acknowledge that I [1:35:48] think it was yesterday, the day before that they released their shipbuilding plan. And given all [1:35:53] the things that I'm juggling in this job that I'm so lucky to have, I've not gone and done a deep dive. [1:35:59] So I'd like to come back to you, um, if you're okay with it on, on that matter so that I don't, uh, [1:36:06] don't wing it. Yeah. Thank you. I want to now turn to the war with Iran. Yesterday, I had a chance to [1:36:14] meet with service members, um, who were injured in the opening days of the war. They struggled to [1:36:21] receive adequate and timely care for their injuries in the Middle East. And the fighting kept them from [1:36:28] being quickly evacuated to Landstuhl, um, after being injured. These service members have since been [1:36:35] diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, um, but initially struggled to get properly evaluated or [1:36:42] treated in part because, uh, some of our military hospitals overseas and in the U.S. did not have [1:36:49] the capacity for them. They needed, uh, they had to wait for more than three weeks to retreat, receive [1:36:56] the treatment they need. And it seems clear to me that our military medical system was not prepared to [1:37:03] treat those injured in this war. Secretary Hegseth, did DOD review our military health systems [1:37:12] readiness to treat those injured in a war with Iran? And did that impact your recommendation to begin [1:37:21] Operation Epic Fury? Well, the view of the department was always to, uh, as expeditionally as possible, [1:37:28] move, uh, anyone injured that needed further care, uh, to Europe for that care, uh, with the recognition [1:37:34] that thankfully, you know, 90 percent of those, uh, that have been injured in Epic Fury have returned to [1:37:40] duty. So most of those injuries have been minor enough that they return, but we always catalog [1:37:44] if there could be future complications to ensure that they get care in the future. It seemed to me [1:37:50] from what I heard, uh, that we weren't prepared in theater, we weren't prepared in Germany, and we [1:37:55] weren't prepared immediately upon these, uh, soldiers returned to the U.S. Um, uh, can you commit to ensuring [1:38:04] that every service member, including my constituents, will receive necessary medical care after being [1:38:10] injured in this war and that the military health system is now prepared for any future casualties [1:38:18] in this war? We have been, and we will continue to be. Uh, Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, [1:38:31] and thank you both for being here, all three of you for being here. Um, since your testimony two weeks [1:38:38] ago, Secretary Hegseth, um, before the Armed Services Committee, the department has sent over your legal review, [1:38:47] which I appreciate, thank you, um, for use of security assistance funding for Ukraine. However, as was [1:38:53] determined earlier in the testimony, funding still has not gone out the door, and I didn't hear you give [1:39:02] a date when this committee or the Armed Services Committee can expect to hear or receive a spin plan [1:39:10] for those dollars. Um, General King, the day of the testimony, um, got back to us as he said he would [1:39:19] and explained that he had coordinated on the spin plan on April 13th. So that's been almost a month, [1:39:26] and we still haven't gotten anything. So when are we going to see the spin plan for Ukraine? [1:39:32] The spin plan for the European capacity building is in conjunction with U.K. [1:39:36] No, no, no, no, no. I'm asking for the spin plan that we are providing. Are you suggesting [1:39:43] the parole funding is part of that spin plan? Did I understand? Do I misunderstand you? [1:39:47] The specific line item was European capacity building in the budget. [1:39:50] I understand. [1:39:51] And as a result, we're working with U.K. Congress to allocate it. [1:39:54] The intent of Congress was to spend that $400 million. I think you heard from Chairman McConnell, [1:40:00] you heard from, um, Senator Coons. Um, there was discussion at the time with the Congress that [1:40:08] that those dollars were intended to be used for Ukraine. And the reason it was designated as it [1:40:15] was was because what we heard from Speaker Johnson was that the president was going to veto the bill [1:40:23] if Ukraine was mentioned in it anywhere in the bill. And so that's why the determination was to use the [1:40:31] term European, but the clear intent was for that money to be spent for Ukraine. So again, [1:40:39] when is the money going to go out the door? When is this committee going to get the spin plan? [1:40:45] Ma'am, uh, we're expecting to see a final spend plan for that this week. And once we have it, [1:40:49] we can provide it to Congress. Um, and who still has to review the spend plan? [1:40:54] So General Cain's review isn't enough? Well, ultimately, um, and he passed me a note on this [1:40:59] earlier. European command is going to take the lead on ensuring this. [1:41:02] Well, I know, but General Brankovich, as I pointed out two weeks ago, had already reviewed the spin plan. [1:41:09] So we're not waiting for him to do that, as I understand. [1:41:12] No, ma'am, I believe we are. I think EUCOM has tried to make a few tweaks to the spend plan. [1:41:17] Okay, so when do we think we will get it? I believe we'll have it to you this week. [1:41:21] Okay, and when do we expect money to go out the door once that spend plan is available? [1:41:27] I don't know what they're putting in the spend plan, so I can't tell you what the schedule [1:41:31] will be for contracting. That will matter. What they choose to buy with that money will [1:41:35] determine how fast it goes out the door. Um, okay, this, if this committee doesn't come back to you, [1:41:44] I can guarantee you the Armed Services Committee is going to come back to you [1:41:48] and get an answer to that question. Um, Secretary Hegseth, a number of members of Congress have [1:41:57] expressed our concern that Iran is receiving intelligence support from Russia to target our [1:42:02] service members, even as we loosen sanctions on the Kremlin. Russia's making four billion dollars [1:42:09] from oil sanctions relief because we've loosened those sanctions. Um, as has been testified to an [1:42:16] Iranian Shihad drone costs about 35,000. That's enough money for hundreds of thousands of drones [1:42:24] supporting Russia's war in Ukraine, and billions for Iran to reconstitute its industrial base. [1:42:30] So if one of the goals that's been outlined by the president as part of this war is to destroy Iran's [1:42:38] defense industrial base, don't you think we ought to be putting more pressure on Russia and putting [1:42:46] those sanctions back on those Russian oil ships so that they are not, um, continuing to fund Iran in this war? [1:42:56] Senator, we, we know Russia, uh, is a nefarious actor on a lot of levels and account for that, [1:43:00] but I would say the destruction of Iran's defense industrial base has been highly effective. [1:43:03] All evidence to the contrary. We're not accounting for that if we're giving [1:43:07] Russia the opportunity to earn four billion dollars a month, 20 billion dollars by the end of the year, [1:43:13] if we leave those sanctions lifted for that time, during which they can continue to fund Iran. [1:43:19] Well, the destruction of Iran's defense industrial base has been clear and overwhelming. [1:43:24] The destruction of Iran's defense industrial base has been clear and overwhelming. [1:43:28] Well, it's certainly not clear to me as a member of the committee because what we see is Iran still [1:43:33] producing drones. They're still engaged in this conflict. We have not won this war. [1:43:38] There's a difference between the rhetoric pulling a drone out of a cave that's been [1:43:42] collapsed and producing more drones. That's a different thing. [1:43:45] Well, maybe so. But if Iran still has almost 50 percent of their missile capacity [1:43:51] and the ability to pull drones out of caves and still injure our allies and U.S. service members, [1:43:57] then we have not won the war. We are told that Senator Kennedy should be here in mere minutes. [1:44:05] And so, Senator Coons, if you want to ask a couple of questions until he arrives. [1:44:10] Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I'm Mr. Secretary. I'm just going to follow up on the questions I asked in [1:44:15] my first round and the questions that have been asked by members of both parties. In my assessment, [1:44:21] there was no imminent threat to the United States that justified the president using his Article 2 [1:44:26] powers. And there was insufficient preparation to make sure that we had the right troops, [1:44:31] the right capability deployed. There used to be a consensus in national security that America should [1:44:39] only go to war when there's an imminent threat to our national security, when all other options have [1:44:44] been exhausted and when we have clear objectives and a plan for how it ends. As General Cain testified, [1:44:51] the military was given three clear goals, sink the Navy, attack and destroy the ballistic missile [1:44:57] launchers and degrade their defense industrial base. And you've accomplished those. But President Trump [1:45:02] celebrated regime change after saying that regime change was the real goal. And our NATO allies have [1:45:09] delivered. They have allowed overflight. They have allowed projection of force despite not being [1:45:13] consulted. You said just a few moments ago, Mr. Secretary, we control the strait. But it's clear [1:45:21] that reopening the Strait of Hormuz for commercial traffic eludes us in no small part because Iran [1:45:27] retains a robust stockpile of cheap, lethal Shahed drones. And they are getting help from our adversaries [1:45:36] in rebuilding them. What is your plan for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Mr. Secretary? [1:45:42] I would just note that the majority of your question was highly disingenuous and loaded with [1:45:47] suggestions that I very much don't agree with. From the beginning, please feel free, sir, to pick any [1:45:53] one of those. From the beginning, we've been very clear about the military objectives and the underlying [1:45:57] strategic objective, which is preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Yes. Take, for example, [1:46:01] the fact that Iranians, conventional Navy, they had aircraft carriers with Shaheed drones on them [1:46:07] before this started. They had full-on destroyers and battleship capabilities, none of which they [1:46:11] have anymore. And did the Iranian Navy have aircraft carriers? The Iranian Navy had three drone [1:46:18] aircraft carriers. The Iranian Navy had 11 submarines. They had launch platforms for drones. Sure. They had 11 [1:46:22] submarines. And you've sunk all of the regular Navy. Great. Good. They retained fast boat capabilities, [1:46:28] which they've always had. We understand that, which we can control for and will. We've degraded [1:46:32] almost completely their defense industrial base capabilities. Right. The idea that they control [1:46:37] anything. You can terrorize something. Yes. You can hold it at issue with piracy, as I've talked [1:46:42] about at the Pentagon podium time and time again. Correct. That doesn't mean you control it. We control [1:46:46] what goes in and out. And we control whether or not we have to restart conflict. The president does as well. [1:46:51] Mr. Secretary. So we're the ones that will manage where this goes in the future. And they have very limited [1:46:55] ability to set the tempo or respond to it. And that gives the president a lot of options to ensure that Iran [1:47:02] never gets a nuclear weapon. The connection between their ability to close the Strait of Hormuz using [1:47:08] fast boats and Shahed drones and our strategic goal shared broadly to prevent them from ever having a [1:47:15] usable nuclear weapon is utterly unclear to me. And my question was, what's the plan for reopening the [1:47:21] Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic? Shared broadly, but never executed. Shared broadly, [1:47:28] but never executed because previous administration didn't have the willingness to actually [1:47:31] do what it would take. And when Iran was at its weakest moments following the 12 day war, [1:47:36] but still wanted the pursuit of a nuclear capability, President Trump made the courageous decision to go [1:47:42] at their conventional umbrella and shield, which they were using to protect their nuclear program, [1:47:47] which we knew came with threats and branches and sequels. My concern, Mr. Secretary, is that you've [1:47:53] achieved a series of tactical successes, but are on the verge of a strategic loss because we are now [1:47:59] negotiating. Just think it's so foolish. Here we are in a committee in the United States Senate, [1:48:03] 74 days in, and you're talking about strategic loss. We have the ability to defeat a 47-year threat [1:48:10] of a pursuit of a nuclear weapon. We have more leverage than we've ever had. We've had incredible [1:48:15] battlefield successes. And you're talking about a strategic loss, cloaked and disingenuous [1:48:20] questions. This is how you undercut efforts that could otherwise and are otherwise be very effective. [1:48:25] I am not your enemy, sir. I am not your adversary. I share your goal of preventing Iran from ever [1:48:30] having a usable nuclear weapon. To finish my sentence, control of the Strait of Hormuz, [1:48:36] the ability to degrade our partners and allies' gas and oil production capabilities through cheap drones, [1:48:43] the ability to harass and harry commercial shipping remains in Iran's hands. And their demands are that [1:48:50] we recognize sovereignty for them over the Strait of Hormuz, which I believe our president's rejected, [1:48:56] you've rejected, I reject. But my question remains, how do we reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial [1:49:03] shipping? If we control it, how do we reopen it? And your average American is seeing this at the gas pump [1:49:09] every single day as the cost of gas continues to rise. Senator Coons, I know that your question has [1:49:17] not yet been responded to. And it deserves an answer. It does deserve an answer. But I also [1:49:21] understand I'm delaying my colleagues. But that's the question that deserves an answer, Mr. Secretary. [1:49:25] We do have Senator Kennedy followed by Senator Murphy. And I know that Secretary has a time departure. [1:49:33] Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. Thank you. [1:49:39] Mr. Secretary, welcome. Can we agree that if you took President Xi Jinping and turned him upside down [1:49:48] and shook him, that the African country of Mauritius would fall out of his pocket? [1:49:57] I don't know if we can. But I'd like to indulge you on that. [1:50:00] Well, let me try. Let me let me let me try it another way. [1:50:05] Mauritius is good friends with China, is it not? [1:50:11] I understand there's some level of a relationship there. [1:50:14] Yeah. Yeah. Like they're they're BFFs or whatever the young people call. [1:50:21] Prime Minister Starmer wants to give Diego Garcia and the Chego silence to Mauritius, [1:50:32] which has virtually no connection with Chego silence, who will promptly give a spare key [1:50:41] to Diego Garcia to China. Is that accurate? [1:50:45] What I would underscore is that Diego Garcia is a very strategic location and having the ability to operate [1:50:52] there for the United States military is going to be critically important in the future. [1:50:55] But Starmer wants to give it away, does he not? [1:50:57] As President Trump has stated, there's been some pretty bad deals made by the Brits. [1:51:01] Well, I'd like to hear you. I mean, the president's been back and forth on this, [1:51:06] and I've talked to him a lot. He's he is not going to agree to that, is he? [1:51:14] No, as the president has stated, it was a bad deal that was cut by the by the UK and [1:51:21] Prime Minister Starmer as it pertains to Diego Garcia as evidenced by limitations that [1:51:25] our troops could face in how we use that island. Yes. All right. [1:51:29] I appreciate that. My understanding is that the classified information and unclassified is public [1:51:40] show that our intelligence discovered that not that long ago, Iran had developed a new [1:51:47] supreme leader. Now dead is fried chicken, but they have a new for supreme leader had developed a new game [1:51:53] plan for for their nuclear weapons program. And their game plan was to jack up missile, both ballistic [1:52:01] and and and cruise missile production and drone production and and and put together this huge [1:52:11] stock stockpile of missiles and drones, at which point they would turn to the United States and Israel [1:52:17] and the rest of the world and say, we're going to restart our nuclear weapons program. [1:52:21] If you bomb us again like you did in in June, we will destroy the Middle East. And by the way, [1:52:29] our missiles can now reach Berlin and London and Paris. Is that my understanding of one of the reasons, [1:52:36] the main reason we went into Iran? I think that's pretty well articulated, [1:52:42] Senator, that they were trying to use the umbrella of their conventional established, [1:52:45] conventional stockpiles to blackmail the rest of the world in pursuit of their own nuclear weapons. [1:52:50] Now let's talk about Iran today. Can we agree that Iran, both the public and the private sector is [1:52:55] being held together right now with spit and duct tape? Spit and duct tape is not a doctrinal term, [1:53:04] Senator, but I would agree with something along. It's a Louisiana term. I mean, [1:53:10] seven out of 10 Iranians are out of work. We bomb their their infrastructure. They've got 70 percent [1:53:18] inflation. Their Internet shut off. You know better than I do what we've done on the military side. [1:53:28] Their launchers gone. Their missiles, for the most part, gone. Their drones gone. Do they have some left? [1:53:35] Yeah. Their Navy gone. Their Air Force gone. You can get an airplane, you personally, and fly anywhere you [1:53:43] want to across Iran right now and feel safe because they don't have any air defenses. It will be, in my [1:53:50] opinion, 20 years and cost a trillion dollars before they're even back somewhat to normal. And I don't [1:54:00] have the slightest idea where they're going to get the money. If they think China's going to give it to [1:54:06] them or Russia, they've got to learn a hard lesson. To that extent, have we achieved our objective in Iran? [1:54:12] The objective, as this president has stated from the beginning, is to ensure they don't get a nuclear [1:54:18] weapon. And President Trump remains dedicated to ensuring that happens. And everything you described [1:54:23] with the military degradation of their country was in service of ensuring they never get a nuclear weapon. [1:54:27] Well, this is what I never understood the president to say, I want a regime change in Iran, [1:54:39] and I want to obtain all of their fissile material. I've never heard him say that. What I heard him say [1:54:48] was, I don't want to go back through it, but our goal is to cripple them so they can't blackmail the [1:54:54] rest of the world. Now, many of my democratic friends have now are trying now trying to say we [1:54:59] have lost. Here's a footnote. You're not going to get democratic support. They're not. They're not [1:55:07] going to support you, Mr. Secretary, because they don't support President Trump. I know that's not a news [1:55:14] flash. But they say we've lost. I don't get it. I don't understand how we've lost. Is the [1:55:25] strait closed? Yes. But if we continue that blockade where nothing's going in and nothing's [1:55:32] going out, eventually they're going to have to shut down their oil fields or they're not. [1:55:36] Half of their oil fields are no pressure. Once they put them down, they're not going to get them back [1:55:40] up. Am I missing something here? No, that's why the president is right when he says we hold all the [1:55:45] cards and we do. And we've got the best deal maker in the world able to make the best deal for [1:55:50] the United States of America. And if we have to go back at it as the Department of War, we're ready to do that as [1:55:55] well. Well, keep two things in mind. You're not going to win over my democratic friends. It's not worth [1:56:03] getting your blood pressure up. Focus on other things. And number two, just keep this in mind. [1:56:11] America first does not have to mean America alone. America first does not have to mean America alone. [1:56:24] We need all the friends we can get. They need to carry their own weight. They need to pay their bills. [1:56:30] But the more the better. I'm sorry I went way over, but I should appreciate it. [1:56:34] Senator Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here. [1:56:39] Let me give you a chance, Mr. Secretary, to answer Senator Coons's question, which is a really simple [1:56:44] one. How are we going to get the straight open? Because nothing matters more to our constituents [1:56:49] than doing something about these spiraling gas prices, which are bankrupting families and farmers [1:56:55] all across the country. And maybe let me ask it this way. This is the first time you've come before [1:57:00] this committee. But in other briefings, people that work for you have told us in plain terms that there [1:57:06] is no military mechanism to reopen the straight, that ultimately it will be a political decision made by [1:57:14] Iran. And I think you're confirming that here today by suggesting that it will be economic pressure [1:57:20] that will create a political imperative inside Tehran to open the straight. So can you just confirm [1:57:26] for the committee that there is not a military mechanism or means to reopen the straight, that [1:57:34] ultimately we have to essentially use diplomacy, economic diplomacy in this case, in order to convince [1:57:41] Iran to make the decision to reopen the straight? I would say, Senator, there most certainly are military [1:57:48] means by which we could open the straight, both targets on land and also with what we do with [1:57:55] our naval capabilities, not to mention our naval blockade demonstrated by. Why haven't you done, [1:57:59] if that's true and that's not what has been testified to us in private briefings, why haven't you done [1:58:04] that already? Ultimately, a long term, a preferred long term approach would be a deal where they open [1:58:09] it up, where they stop being pirates of international waters and allow countries from all nations to flow. [1:58:15] You know, these aren't U.S. ships that are being blockaded there. These are ships from all around the world, [1:58:19] creating much more pressure for other countries than ours. So the bad guy here is Iran, who's closing [1:58:24] the straight through piracy effectively, because they don't, they really only have fast boat [1:58:29] capabilities. And we're blockading them. None of their stuff's getting out. They're feeling all the pressure. [1:58:34] Okay, so here's, so here's my follow-up question. You don't worry [1:58:39] that through a study of history, you might come to the conclusion that you are overestimating their [1:58:46] willingness to cave based upon economic pressure. The Russians believed years ago that Ukraine would [1:58:54] cave because of the economic pressure they were putting on Ukraine. We thought the North Vietnamese [1:58:58] would cave because of the economic pressure we are putting on them. Your own intelligence estimates, [1:59:04] as has been reported, suggest that in fact the Iranians are in a position to hold out for potentially years. [1:59:11] This is a high-risk strategy to hope that this economic pressure will eventually cause them to [1:59:18] voluntarily reopen the strait when there's plenty of evidence from military history to show that countries [1:59:24] that are being attacked or invaded or occupied are actually willing to put up with a whole lot of [1:59:29] economic misery in order to preserve national pride. [1:59:31] Well aware. We've looked at all, we understand all of those historical case studies and it's not just [1:59:37] economic pressure. There's military pressure, diplomatic pressure. We certainly have a lot more military [1:59:42] pressure we can bring to bear if the president were choose to do so. I think there are a lot of different [1:59:46] dynamics that we can, that cards that the president can play holding all of them to ensure even greater [1:59:52] economic pressure or even greater military pressure in, in Iran. And they know that and that's why the [1:59:57] negotiations are serious and ongoing right now about giving up their nuclear capability because they [2:00:02] understand that. And the problem is time is not on our side here. I believe you are being way too [2:00:08] optimistic in your assessment of their potential to cave. But if this goes on for another 30 days, [2:00:15] there are going to be thousands more farms that will go bankrupt. There are going to be families that [2:00:19] are going to be ruined. And so time is not on our side. And I just don't believe that Iran is ready [2:00:26] to capitulate yet. And if they capitulate in a year, there's going to be a whole lot of families [2:00:30] and businesses that are ruined in the United States. General Kane, let me finally ask you a [2:00:35] question about what seems to be a difference of opinion between the intelligence services that you [2:00:40] rely on and the public statements of the president of the United States with respect to our war objectives. [2:00:47] The secretary and others in the president's cabinet have said very clearly that our war objective is to [2:00:54] destroy Iran's missile and drone program. The president said just a week ago that Iran maybe [2:01:02] had 18 to 19 percent of their missile capacity left. But there is public reporting suggesting that our [2:01:11] intelligence agencies say that Iran still has 70 percent of their missile and drone capability, which would [2:01:19] be a failure of our objectives if that were to be true. What can you tell us about the number of missiles [2:01:29] and drones that they have left? And do you dispute that intelligence estimate? [2:01:34] Sir, I'm not going to comment with deep respect for the question. I'm not going to comment in this [2:01:39] forum on what may or may not have been opined on by the IC, which would suggest a leak or a confirmation [2:01:46] of any intel. So while I appreciate the question, I hope you'll also appreciate my not answering it. [2:01:52] Well, then just give me what the president said that 80 percent of. Yeah, I'm not going to comment on BDA [2:02:00] on either way, sir. Well, then how do we how do we or the American public assess the success [2:02:06] of the mission when you've stated publicly the purpose of the mission is to destroy their missile and drone capability? [2:02:13] How do we assess whether we should continue funding this if you can't state? [2:02:17] Well, I'm not going to answer what you guys in the Congress considers the decision criteria around [2:02:23] continued funding or not. What I what I know is that I've not read the report that you're talking about. [2:02:30] All of our battle damage assessment matters are classified and it would be inappropriate for me [2:02:36] to comment in this forum on that. And I appreciate the question, but I'm not going to answer it. [2:02:40] Let me just put it to Secretary Heggseth. The president said that 80 percent of their missile [2:02:45] capacity had been destroyed. This public report says it's only 30 percent. Can you give us an answer [2:02:52] as to what the real number is? I mean, I would answer the same way as the chairman. [2:02:57] Not talking to this committee about the damages? Not validating leaked information [2:03:02] that could be wrong or not wrong. Why would I validate what people may leak or not leak? [2:03:08] This is not a classified setting. We don't talk about those things and you like to talk about them [2:03:12] in TV. We don't talk about them here. I would perhaps suggest that that some of these questions [2:03:19] and responses are perhaps best in a classified setting. But I also acknowledge that we are not [2:03:26] in a classified setting. We have held the secretary and the chairman longer than I think they had [2:03:34] anticipated. Senators have one week to submit additional questions for the subcommittee's official [2:03:38] hearing record. We request for a response from our witnesses within 30 days of receiving these [2:03:42] questions. The subcommittee stands in recess subject to the call of the chair and I would ask those in [2:03:47] the audience to remain in their seats until secretary and general Kane depart. And safe travels to you [2:03:54] to China. Good luck.