Transcript of 🚨GOP Reps Turn Against Military Officials at Public Hearing!! New

Even Republicans are livid. Republican Congress members are turning against Donald Trump, Donald Trump's top military officials, and Donald Trump's Defense Department in congressional hearings live on TV before the entire world. I want to show you what went down at the latest congressional hearing. This was before the Armed Services Committee where Republican Congress members joined with Democratic Congress members on a fairly bipartisan basis to call out the Trump regime's attack on our military. And these Congress members were not holding back in their questions to these top military officials, including the Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, as well as the new Army Chief of Staff who replaced the very popular Army Chief of Staff Randy George, who was pushed out and fired by Pete Hegseth. So let me show you what went down when Republican Congressmember Don Bacon was cross-examining Driscoll and the other top military officials there, including, uh, the Army Chief of Staff and other top Army officials who were at this hearing. About the decision by Hegseth and the Defense Department to withdraw about 4,000 troops that were being deployed to Poland, which obviously is critical given its proximity to Ukraine and Russia, and given the fact that Poland is a model ally, and Donald Trump and Hegseth are punishing Poland the same way they were punishing Germany and attacking NATO.

Watch Republican Congressmember Don Bacon's questioning of these top military officials from the Trump regime. Let's play it.

Laniv, for being here. I know this wasn't your decision, this was the Secretary of Defense's decision. I gotta tell you, it was reprehensible. It's an embarrassment to our country how we just— what we just did to Poland, in my view. So let's— I know you said we had coordination with NATO or EUCOM. To answer it, the question— the real question is why? Why have we pulled two armored brigades out of Eastern Europe?

Yes, sir. I'm not on the policy side here.

You are the Chief of Staff of the Army. There is no good explanation why we just removed 2 armored brigades from Eastern Europe. There's got to be some explanation.

Well, sure. I think as they reviewed the force structure, the conclusion was that we could, we could reap back one of the brigades that are in the rotation. One brigade, one brigade that's in the rotation pull that we send over to Europe. There's still another brigade there. There's still a division headquarters that's in rotation there. We still have V Corps that is over there as well.

But we pulled the brigade out of Romania. Now we're pulling the brigade out of Poland. Is there a plan to replace that brigade in Poland?

That you would have to ask the COCOM commander, sir, on how he's going to maneuver the forces that he has. We still have a force structure that is permanent force structure that's in Europe supporting our allies through both exercises and continual presence on the continent.

I know there's— I may not represent 100% of people in this committee, but I think I represent the views of the vast majority. We disagree. Russia has invaded Ukraine. Have they given us any concessions to withdraw 2 armored brigades out of Europe as they're invading Ukraine? What concessions have they given us as we withdraw forces?

Sure, I can't answer that question.

Well, I know it's none. It's just— it's— this is why it's so foolish. We're sending a terrible message to Russia and to our allies. Here's another question: do we know if Poland was notified by the Secretary?

Um, we don't know.

Well, I already know the answer because they called me yesterday. They did not know. They were blindsided. These are some of our best allies, and they had no idea. They still don't know what the They know, okay, the order was stopped. They don't know if there's— if this is just a suspension or permanent. We owe Poland, who— and our Baltic friends who are very vulnerable from this decision— a better explanation here and a rationale. We should be doing this before we actually make the decision. We should be coordinating with them. It's an embarrassment. I'm telling you, this is an embarrassment to our country, the way this is being handled. And I happen to know the answer to this. Well, I'm going to ask, did You said we coordinated with EUCOM. I can guarantee you they did not say this was low risk. Can you, can you verify that? Because I happen to know they said it carries risk. So in other words, it was coordinated with EUCOM, but they did not say this is a low-risk decision. Am I right, sir?

That those discussions, that risk statement from the COCOM back into, uh, OSW, it's not part of what the Title 10, you know, of the Army does.

I was just hoping as the Army chief they would keep you better informed. But I happen to know this because I served in NATO. They did not say this is low risk. So in other words, the Secretary of Defense made this decision over some objections of the EUCOM commander. That's what I submit here. I just want to say this is a slap in the face to Poland. It's a slap in the face to our Baltic friends. I think it's a slap to the face in this committee because we've put floors and restrictions on the Pentagon and further reductions in Europe because of what they did with Romania. They told this committee or the leadership of this committee that we were not going to— there's no plans to remove this brigade from Romania. Then a week later it was done. So then we responded in the NDAA to prevent this kind of behavior. And it's happened again. I think this committee under the chairman, the ranking member, We got to hold the secretary accountable for this decision. It's wrong. Okay. My second question. I know I'm the Baltic Security Chairman. Latvia and Estonia have HIMARS, but they just have the launchers.

They don't have the warheads or the weapons. What is the plan to fill that?

Next, I'll show you another congressmember, this time a Democratic congressmember, Congressmember Courtney's questions of these officials. Let's play this clip.

Secretary Driscoll, on May 1st, 4,000 Army soldiers of the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team attended a color casing ceremony, a send-off ahead of deployment to Eastern Europe that the Army had announced last March. At the ceremony, Major General Tom Felty, who's the head of the 1st Cavalry Division, gave some very stirring remarks where he said, quote, "Make no mistake, our adversaries are paying attention. When an armored brigade combat team deploys forward, it sends a clear and unmistakable signal. The ABCT is the embodiment of American ground combat power. Given the fact that the administration just canceled this deployment a couple of days ago, we had people actually already over there right now. I guess the question sort of begs itself, which is, is the opposite true? If our adversaries are paying attention, is the cancelation of a deployment of a brigade combat team sending, again, the opposite signal in terms of our commitment to our allies in Eastern Europe?

Sir, thank you for the question. We, the COCOM commander, General Grinkowicz, you know, received the instructions on the force reduction. I've worked with him in close consultation on what that force unit would be, and it made the most sense for that brigade to not do its deployment in theater. We continue to work closely with General Grinkovich and his team on ensuring that he has the right forces from us, the Title 10, you know, headquarters here that mans, trains, equips, and gets the units ready for their deployments. So we worked with him on what would be the, the unit that would, would not execute the mission.

Well, again, I think General Felty is right that our adversaries are paying attention, and that— I mean, I appreciate the answer, but frankly, I don't think really, um, rises to the moment in terms of just, again, the, the situation that exists in Europe. And frankly, it's not just our adversaries that are paying attention, it's our allies. Uh, Poland, which is apparently where the deployment was at least going to, uh, you know, begin and originate, um, has— is an ally that's spending 4.8% of GDP in terms of their defense budgets. And, and all the other Baltic countries are up in that range as well. And given the fact that the administration also canceled or is pulling back 5,000 troops out of Germany. I'm sorry, I just think this is a horrible message that, again, our adversaries and allies are paying attention to.

I'm so excited to tell you about our sponsor, Avocado Green Mattress. Their certified organic mattresses are specifically designed to relieve pressure points, support your body the way it needs, and help you actually get the deep restorative sleep that you've been missing. Every mattress is made with thoughtfully sourced materials and built with real care, so you get incredible sleep night after night. When I invest in something for my home, I want it to last. That's what I love about Avocado. Their best-selling Green mattress is supportive, incredibly comfortable, and feels intentionally made, not mass-produced. It's the kind of purchase that not only helps you sleep better but also feels like a smart long-term investment. Avocado products are crafted with real certified organic materials that provide comfort, breathability, and durability. And because they're made to last, they're a better choice for both your home and the planet. Avocado products are made, not manufactured, and thoughtfully crafted with real materials to deliver lasting comfort and support. Go to avocado-green-mattress.com/mitas to check out their mattress and furniture sale. That's avocado-green-mattress.com/mitas. Avocado-green-mattress.com/mitas. That's M-E-I-D-A-S.

Now, in this next clip I'm going to share for you, I want to show you that this was done on a fairly bipartisan basis. In the Armed Services Committee because the decisions that are being made by these top military officials, specifically at the Defense Department and at the Oval Office level— Donald Trump, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Hegseth— in that level, it's so dangerous, it's so harmful to NATO, it's so harmful to our allies that even Republicans are speaking up. So you have, you know, the, uh, the, the head of the committee, Congressmember Rogers. You have this guy Austin Scott, a Republican congressman from Georgia. And then you have the Democrat Democratic ranking member, Congressmember Smith. All three of them are in alignment here, calling out the Trump regime, the Trump regime military officials. Let me show you what went down here. Let's play this clip.

When was the, uh, 2nd Armored Brigade rotation to Poland canceled?

Um, just a couple days ago, Congressman.

Okay, a couple of days ago. And when, when were, um, so who made the decision to halt that?

Sure, uh, in, in consultation with the COCOM commander, he received the, the, uh, direction to do the reduction. Uh, we looked at what would be the, the best choice.

Um, when did he receive that direction?

Sure, I'm not sure exactly the date that he received it. This was all, uh you know, relatively, uh, recent. And we worked back and forth, uh, on what those recommendations would be, and the, uh, the order came down.

I'm sorry, I'm, I'm short on time. You say recent— when you say recent, you mean 10 days or—

yeah, it's probably been a lot within the last 2 weeks. Yes, sir.

Okay, within the last 2 weeks the decision was made. So this has been a long-planned— my understanding is Advanced elements were already overseas, is that correct?

That's correct, sir.

And equipment was in transit?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Um, when were you informed of the decision, General?

Just a couple days ago, uh, whenever, uh, well, okay, within that 2-week window, sir.

Okay.

Whenever we work together with, uh, the COCOM commander. Again, Title 10.

I understand. And Secretary Driscoll, was your— were you informed at the exact same I assume you were informed at the same time?

Yes, Congressman.

Okay, um, were you consulted about the decision prior to the decision being made, or was the decision made and you told, this is the decision and we're going to stop this rotation?

Sure, I had consultations with General Grinkovich on, uh, you know, different elements that are in Europe, uh, in, in what would be the most prudent one to stop.

Okay. And these conversations were all within the last 2 weeks?

That's correct, sir.

Okay. All right. I'm— I support NATO. I will say this. I mean, obviously there's a tremendous overlap between NATO and the European Union. I'm very frustrated with European Union on a lot of trade-related issues, and I've told our NATO partners in my office very directly. You know, you don't, you don't get to pretend you're our friends when you pass non-tariff trade barriers through the European Union that damage industry in the United States, like the timber industry with what they've done with the European Union deforestation regulation. So I understand, um, it's tough to balance all of these things, but I'm, I'm I, I want to get to— I mean, my primary concern, I'm not worried about the 5,000 troops coming out of, out of Germany. I mean, they had been plussed up, they're being, they're being pulled back. Um, but I'm— it seems to me that when there's been a long planned rotation, it's a 9-month rotation. How long have we been doing these rotations? They're done on the annual—

yeah, we've been doing them for a couple years now, sir, since, uh, since the invasion. But we, we also continuously do planning on what the force elements will be, uh, utilized by the COCOM commanders based off the needs that they, uh, they present.

But our, um, the advanced were already there The equipment was already on the way before the decision to cancel was made, correct? All right, I want to read what the— what the— this is what the Pentagon said. The decision to withdraw troops follows a comprehensive, multi-layered process that incorporates perspectives from key leaders in U.S. military in Europe and across the chain of command, said Acting Pentagon Secretary Joel Valdez. This is not an unexpected last-minute decision. I don't see how that statement can be true.

Congressman, I would say outside of the broader specifics that General Lanieve is talking about, we are constantly in contact with OSW and the combatant commanders. We are having planning, and this is not meant to hide the ball. This is to say this type of conversation is going on throughout the year. Every single year, and the Army is always ready to move people and things based off combatant commander and Secretary of War's preferences. And so this is not that unusual.

Secretary, I respect you. These are major decisions that appear to many of the members of this committee to be last-minute decisions.

Gentlemen's time's expired, and the gentleman is correct. We have been very focused on this committee about force posture, and EUCOM in particular, not being disturbed, particularly without What statute requires is consultation with us, and we didn't get that, so we don't know what's going on here, but I can just tell you we're not happy with what's being talked about, particularly since there's been no statutory consultation with us. Ranking Member recognizes.

Emphasize that point, and I yielded my question time, but the one thing I really want, and we talked about this yesterday, General, why? Okay, I can't get an answer to that question. All right, we had a brigade combat team ready to go to Poland, decided not to, and the only answer I've got is, well, that's what they told us to do. Okay, why? I mean, what, what is the strategy behind this? And it is a pretty dramatic decision to at the last minute pull a team that you're trying to send over there. If there's some strategy behind it, then you guys ought to know, and you ought to be able to communicate it to us.

And now I want to share with you as well, you have a Democratic Congress member Crowe. Here he was cross-examining Driscoll, and this was a very important moment as well. Let's remember that Congressmember Crow, Special Forces Army Ranger, uh, saw very, very serious, uh, combat tours, uh, knows a lot about the Army, obviously, given his positions in the past, given that he's a veteran, given that he served. Let me show you as he raises what I think is a very critical issue, uh, the fact that the Trump regime has gutted the, the teams that deal with mitigating civilian casualties in war, especially as the Trump regime has engaged in all of these war crimes. Let me share with you what went down. Let's play it.

We're both combat veterans, both served honorably in the Army, and during the course of my 3 combat tours, I had the privilege of serving at the so-called tip of the spear, some of our most elite combat units—82nd Airborne Division, 75th Ranger Regiment—served with the Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan. And I bristle at this notion coming from the Department of Defense, uh, from Secretary Hagseth, that we somehow lack lethality. There's something wrong with our culture because the men and women who I served with, uh, were committed to the mission and fought very hard and were very lethal when it came for the time for that. But over the course of those tours, what became very obvious to me is that what we did lack was a full understanding about how to win the support of local populations, how to lay the groundwork for support for what we were trying to achieve. We were very good with missions, very great, very great with tactics and accomplishing every mission. But we ultimately lost the support of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who we were there to serve and to help liberate. So I created a bipartisan law in 2023 to create a Civilian Protection Center of Excellence to assemble the best practices to understand how we protect civilians.

We make that a priority for our military. That CPCOE passed on a bipartisan basis years ago. It was nestled in the Army where it exists. I'm very concerned by a recent DOD IG report that says, quote, in February 2025, the acting Undersecretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army each developed proposals for the SecDef to consider and approve options to eliminate or significantly reduce the CPCOE. How do you square that with law in the bipartisan intent of this committee, including many fellow combat veterans, that we make this a priority for our military?

Um, Congressman, uh, I just want to start off with the, the statement that as somebody that also deployed to theater about the time you're talking about, um, civilian casualties, um, no one should wish for those, and they create all sorts of beyond the just the morality issues, they create all sorts of negative externalities for a mission that are just bad for the mission. And so we in the Department of War and the Army are perfectly aligned that we want to minimize those in every instance. Specifically what you're referencing, Congressman, as far as I recall, and I will follow up with your offices if this is incorrect, our intent was simply to move it from the Army to DOW. I don't think we had any intention to shrink it. There was an instance about a month and a half ago where I believe I spoke with your office, where in doing some— the United States Army had never matched up its people and its jobs. And so we spent about 10 months going through an exercise to try to save the American taxpayer about $2 billion a year. And what we had found out in that process is we had never accurately coded the positions for the center so that when we went through that exercise, it looked as if we were getting rid of it.

I believe after we spoke with your office, we immediately remedied it.

I, I, I, we, we need to follow up. I know our offices have been talking, but things, things are not squaring here, right? This DOD IG report is pretty clear. There are proposals to eliminate CPCOE, which is different from a coding shift or an accounting shift of personnel and resources, because that report went on and it said, uh, it found that lost personnel and leadership at COE is hindering full DOD compliance with its civilian casualties and harm policy. A policy required by federal law. The Office of the Secretary of War and DOW components lack many of the personnel and tools designed to execute the statutory purpose. So something's not happening. Uh, it is not conducting its, uh, its statutory, uh, role and mission. It's, it's losing personnel, it's losing resources, it's being shifted around. This needs to be fixed because this is law. If you don't like the law, we can talk about that, what needs to be changed, but it has to be changed here. So long as it is law, it needs to be carried out.

Totally agree, Congressman. We'll follow up with your office, and just to speak on behalf of the Army, the intent is to follow all statutory intent and the laws, and so we'll make sure that we're in compliance.

Thank you, Secretary.

Now you had Don Bacon, Republican Congress member, posting the following: I just want to say that what the Trump regime is doing, that this is a slap in the face to Poland. It's a slap in the face to our Baltic friends. It's a slap in the face to this committee. And then in response, the, uh, Republican press secretary at the Defense Department, Sean Parnell, posted, the decision to withdraw troops follows a comprehensive, multi-layered process that incorporates perspectives from key leaders in EUCOM, European Command, and across the chain of command. This was not an unexpected last-minute decision. and it would be a false report. It would be false to report it as such. The truth is, is what the Politico headline says: No idea it was coming. Pentagon officials stunned by Hegseth's decision on troops in Poland. It wasn't clear why the defense secretary issued the order not to send troops on a routine mission to a country the administration refers to as a model ally, to which Republican Congress member Don Bacon writes, this is baloney. For starters, Poland was not notified. Senior leaders contacted me yesterday saying they were blindsided, and I've learned that EUCOM did not say there was minimal risk by canceling the deployment.

This was a foolish and embarrassing course of events, but it was also a course of events that you must ask yourself, who is this benefiting? It's benefiting Putin, right, by creating a situation where Poland is now more vulnerable and a message is being sent that the US isn't going to support support Poland the same way the US isn't supporting Ukraine, the same way Donald Trump is saying that he may withhold the weapons that are supposed to go to Taiwan after meeting with Xi Jinping. As Donald Trump's doing all of that, I mean, you see our adversaries, you see Russia and China, Kim Jong-un and Iran, you know, all rising. Pretty clear what's happening. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Thanks for watching, everybody. Want to stay plugged in?

Become a subscriber to our Substack at MidasPlus.com.

You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at MidasPlus.com.