Transcript of Hegseth Cracks during Cross-Examination over War New

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just cracked under pressure during his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. He was flailing, he was yelling, he was looking like a cornered rat. Let me show you what went down during this pitch-perfect cross-examination of Hegseth. First, you had Democratic Congressmember Carbajal cross-examine Hegseth and also pointing out just how incompetent Hegseth is. Here, play this clip.

Mr. Hegseth, I stand by what I said last time you were here.

You were incompetent then, you're incompetent now, and you're the gift that keeps on giving when it comes to incompetence. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back.

Other than that, I'm doing good.

Thank you.

Next, you had Democratic Congresswoman Houlahan cross-examine Hegseth as he refused to say why General Randy George, the former Army Chief of Staff, was fired. Via text message by Hegseth. Here, play this clip.

I will move on, sir, and I'm going to reclaim my time. General George, let's talk about a guy who's a patriot, somebody who every single person here in this dais and down there in that audience and out there in this world has huge admiration for. Why did he get fired?

Well, as with any moves we make with general officers, first of all, I Thank them for their service.

And ultimately, my impression is you thanked him by a text or a phone call. You didn't even do it to his face.

Out of respect for these officers, we never talk about the nature of their removal, but every one of them, including myself, knows that they served the pleasure of the president. Why didn't you fire him? Ultimately, out of respect to these officers, we don't reveal it. However, I will note it's very difficult to change the culture of a department that has been destroyed by the wrong perspectives.

So you think General George destroyed a culture?

There are many. We've gotten rid of many general officers in this administration because we need new leadership.

You have no way of explaining why you fired one of the most decorated and remarkable men who's—

We needed new leadership.

And so your answer is a very immature way of responding to my request.

Further, during the cross-examination by Congresswoman Houlahan, Hegseth refused to say how many more months would be required to conclude the catastrophic and disastrous war in Iran. Play this clip.

Despite the fact that your recent comments indicate that operations appear to be finished, it's clear there clearly is more work that needs to be done. As mentioned, today is indeed 60 days. So, Mr. Secretary, how many more months, just order of magnitude, do you think that you're going to need to be able to conclude operations successfully? And how many more billions of dollars do you think you're going to ask this body for?

Well, as you know, and as the president has stated, you would never tell your adversary, especially once you—

that is the line that you always—

especially once you give me an decimated their military and you control their trade, how long you would be committed to the mission.

Next, Democratic Congress member Vindman cross-examined Hegseth and said, so Hegseth, are you blaming your daddy now for this war? Trump's your daddy. You blaming daddy? Here, play this clip.

For President Trump, overwhelmingly they voted for that position.

But the president ordered the strike.

Is that correct?

Which strike are you referring to?

The strike on Iran, the war that we're in.

Oh, of course. I mean, he's the commander in chief. He's made the calls.

It sounds like You're blaming Daddy for the mess we're in, and I don't think he's going to be particularly happy with you.

I see what you're trying to do. There's no daylight in this administration on this, on this campaign. And I'm happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with this administration.

Reclaiming my time.

More from Democratic Congressmember Van Minh here as well, saying, you believe that the American people voted for this catastrophic war in Iran. That's what you testified to during your opening statement. Watch this. Play this clip.

Close. And so I just want to kind of give you the state of play right now. It's been 2 months of war. We have hopes for a resolution, but the war continues, really. Iran has closed the strait and we've now gone in and blockaded their ports. 1/5 of the world's oil is unable to transit the strait, and the American people and the department are paying significantly more. And you also said that this is what the American people actually voted for. But actually, the American people voted for a promise not to get into Middle Eastern wars, and they voted for lower prices. And this is the exact opposite of what they got. So let me ask you this. The president ordered the strike, is that correct?

The president's been saying for over 30 years that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. So he's been very clear as a position when they're— American people voted for President Trump overwhelmingly. They voted for that position.

But the president ordered the strike. Is that correct?

And then we heard this cross-examination from Democratic Congressmember Goodlander. And she was saying, so do you agree with the statement that the military should not follow unlawful orders? And then Hanks is like, what a partisan talking point that is. Here, play this clip.

Of American law, that our service members follow lawful orders and lawful orders only. Is that right? Do you agree with the statement, quote, the military won't follow unlawful orders?

I do.

Mr. Hegseth, do you agree with that statement?

I do, but understand what you're insinuating at a partisan point.

I'm not. I'm actually quoting you directly, Mr. Hegseth, from April 12th, 2016. And I appreciate that on the record you've clarified this important principle of American—

The gentleman's time has expired.

Next up, Democratic Congressmember Moulton, a veteran himself, was cross-examining Hegseth. Hegseth was standing by his no quarter statement, which is a war crime, where Hegseth said that if in a war people are surrendering, you are allowed to kill them and show them no quarter. Watch this cross-examination by Moulton here. Play this clip now quickly.

On March 13th, in a press conference, you said we will give them no quarter, no mercy. In order for no quarter or no survivors is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. You understand that's murder. Do you stand by that statement?

The Department of War fights to win, and we ensure that our warfighters have the rules of engagement necessary to be as effective as humanly possible.

You called Democratic members of Congress to be tried for sedition for reminding our troops to follow the law. But when you tell them to commit a war crime, you stand by yourself for insinuating the laws that we're giving them are unlawful.

More cross-examination from Moulton right here. Let's play it.

Okay, so let's just imagine, which, by the way, if they had one, which the Obama administration was going to allow them, including the first Trump administration.

They had prevented them from having a nuclear weapon. So listen, how is this war going?

Do you think we're winning militarily on the battlefield? It's been an astounding military success.

But are we winning the war?

Absolutely.

Okay, so do you call Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz winning?

Well, I would say the blockade that we hold that doesn't allow anything to come in or out of Iranian ports. Okay, so always—

so we've blockaded their blockade, so they've blockaded us. And then we blockaded their blockade. That's like saying, tag, you're it. Or, you know, if President Madison had said, well, the British just burned down Washington, but don't worry, we're going to burn it down as well.

And we heard from another veteran on this committee, Democratic Congressman DeLuzio from the Pittsburgh region. Watch his cross-examination of Hegseth right here. Play this clip.

About this earlier, you said in, I think, your press conference, essentially, and I'll quote you here, no quarter, No mercy for enemies. That's the end of the quote. Is your guidance that you expect our troops in harm's way, if there's a foreign enemy surrendering, laying down their arms, they're supposed to provide no quarter and kill them?

Um, you denied it, but you were indeed trying to take the chairman to a partisan place. That was General Milley. That was the previous administration, which played politics. We don't play that.

It's a simple question. I'm asking you what you meant.

We fight to win, and we ensure the rules of engagements are such that our troops have every authority possible.

I'll give you another chance.

Do you—

in saying that, are you trying to tell commanders that that's what you expect? You're in the chain of command. It's a simple question.

I understand that. My commanders know exactly what the guidance is with each and every mission, and they know every tool.

I think you speak volumes. I think that's a dangerous thing. We all know the expectations. We know the law of war. We know what is lawful. I'd expect our commanders to understand that as well. I yield back.

And then another veteran, uh, Democratic Congress member Ryan, was cross-examining Hegseth. Watch what went down. Let's play this clip.

Let's talk about what defenses they had prior to the attack. Officers on the ground knew our troops were vulnerable. In fact, they requested additional force protection. Did they receive it?

Wherever humanly possible, force protection and counter-UAS was always made available.

They did not. In fact, when asked to describe the base's defense, one survivor who's come forward from the unit said, quote, I mean, I would put it in the none category from a drone defense capability. None. So let's be clear. No counter-drone capabilities, no counter-rocket systems, no counter-mortar or counter-artillery, not even the basic overhead protection that you and I had 20 years ago in Iraq. And now 6 of our soldiers are dead. The next day, you downplayed the attack. You said it was a squirter that squeaked through fortified defenses. But since then, thankfully, brave survivors have come forward to set the record straight. One of our surviving soldiers told CBS, quote, painting a picture that one squeaked through is a falsehood. Another said the unit was, quote, unprepared to provide any defense for itself. It was not a fortified position. Another survivor said the building's protection was about as weak as one gets. Secretary Hagseth, that is obviously in direct contradiction to what you said from the Pentagon podium the next day. So are you saying that these soldiers, our soldiers who survived this horrific attack, are lying?

What I'm saying is before the commencement of the conflict, we put in maximum defensive posture. We could—

That's a direct contradiction to what they said.

In this, in this direct— Can I speak or are you just going to monolog falsehoods all over the place?

It's not a falsehood.

We moved 7,500 troops off the X based on the intel.

Stop.

Based on the—

Stop reclaiming my time.

Because you yell doesn't make you right. Just because you yell doesn't make you right.

I'm reclaiming my time on behalf of these survivors. You just said what they said is a falsehood.

There's a much larger picture. There's a much larger picture at play here that included integrated air defenses, bunkers, moving people off the X.

And why, Mr. Secretary?

To ensure that they were not part of the target. We moved those troops and all across the theater, thousands of troops off the X, off of their bases, because we knew what Iran was going to try to strike. And we knew there would be a tragic moment. No, it could be a tragic moment where something could get through. Of course, that's the consequence of conflict. And we remember those 6 every single day.

I want to finish.

Don't play games with—

I'm not playing games. I want to finish with one more quote from a survivor of the attack, and I put this on the record. Telling the truth is important, and we're not going to learn from these mistakes if we pretend these mistakes didn't happen. Secretary Hagel said those soldiers Told the truth. Those soldiers are braver than you are.

I commend—

they are asking for accountability. They deserve accountability. And I'm asking for the same, starting with you. And as I said a year ago, you need to resign immediately.

I commend those—

I yield back.

More cross-examination from Democratic Congressmember DeLuzio right here. Let's play it.

Secretary, you heard direct quotes from some of them via CBS's reporting. They were willing to talk to the press. Things like they were unprepared to provide any defense for themselves and the unit. Things like we were moved closer to Iran to a deeply unsafe area that was a known target. Your spokesperson, Sean Parnell, in response to that reporting, said it was not true.

Do you agree with that?

He was calling these guys liars?

I'm not calling our troops liars, and I don't know if what you're representing is correct or not. I'll take you at your word on that. But all I know is that we took every effort possible at the commencement of this campaign to ensure the defense of our troops, to include moving them off of known bases to places that were not known. And we had intel—

Understood, Secretary.

And then those were fortified with bunkers, other fortifications, with theater air defenses. Was our concern— I'm going to pause you there.

I'm going to give you a chance.

Absolutely.

Secretary, you're disparaging me that I don't care.

I'm asking you whether you think they're liars or not. That's what I asked.

You are disparaging me that I don't care about the passing of our troops.

Nope.

I asked you if you thought they're liars, Secretary.

That's disparaging and smearing in every way. Nobody cares more about the fate of our troops. Nobody cares about the health of our troops. Nobody wants to bring them all home.

Secretary Perry, I understand, but he controls the time. He controls the time.

You could control your answer. And the gentleman's right.

If we're allowed to answer, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Secretary. My question was clear whether you thought they were liars or not. You don't seem to want to answer it. We can move on.

Then under questioning by the ranking member on this committee, Democratic Congressmember Smith, uh, finally, uh, a DOD official in the Trump regime admits that the Iran war has already cost at least $25 billion. Let's play this clip.

Drag you into the conversation here. We have not yet received from the Pentagon the costs of the war. Um, so just for the record, we'd like to get that as soon as possible. Certainly the munitions expended, but also reported is we've had a fair amount of equipment destroyed, including two C-130s with the rescue of our downed airmen. So do you have either a, a cost estimate coming to us anytime soon, or b, a specific supplemental request?

Thank you for that question. So approximately at this day, we're spending about $25 billion on Operation Epic Fury. Most of that is munitions. There's part of that is obviously O&M and equipment replacement. We will formulate a supplemental, uh, through the White House that will come to Congress, uh, once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict.

So you're saying the full cost at this point is $25 billion?

Yeah, that's our estimate for the cost.

Okay, interesting, because we— I'm glad you answered that question because we've been asking for a hell of a long time and no one's given us the number. Um, so if you could get those details over to us, that, that would be great.

More cross-examination right here from Congressmember Smith, and you'll see that Hegseth really ran into trouble throughout this cross-examination. He claimed that Iran's nuclear facilities were obliterated. But then when Smith pointed out, well, how are they obliterated? But you claim that their nuclear capabilities posed an imminent threat, to which Hegseth then compared to, well, they have nuclear ambitions, their ambitions were an imminent threat. But they had all of these conventional ballistic and cruise missiles like North Korea. Well, Hegseth, thanks for bringing up North Korea, where Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un exchanged love letters, and Kim Jong-un ultimately was able to build nuclear weapons. And now he's apparently bragging about producing 10 nuclear warheads like a month and building the largest nuclear arsenal. But because Donald Trump's so utterly pathetic and because our media is so compliant, nobody really talks about that other than independent media and us here at the Mice Touch Network leading the way. Here, play this clip.

Who's hell-bent on getting a nuclear weapon and get them to a point where they're at the table giving it up in a way that—

so they haven't—

or haven't—

so they haven't broken yet. Okay. We haven't gotten there yet for all of the—

well, their nuclear facilities have been obliterated underground. They're buried and watching them 24/7. So we know where any nuclear material—

we're claiming— we're watching a second here. We had to start this war, you just said, 60 days ago because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now you're saying that it was completely obliterated?

They had not given up their nuclear ambitions, and they had a conventional shield of thousands of—

Operation Midnight Hammer accomplished nothing of substance.

It left us at exactly the same place we were before. So much so, their facilities aren't bombed and obliterated. Their, their ambitions continued, and they're building a conventional shield.

Let me try again.

It's the North Korea strategy. You know this very well. The North Korea strategy was use conventional missiles to prevent anybody from challenging them so they could slow walk their way to a weapon. President Trump saw Iran at its weakest moment, took an action to ensure in a way that only the United States of America could do with our Israeli partners, and yet to ensure their conventional shield was, was brought.

One other question, if I could get to it.

More cross-examination here from Democratic Congressmember Adam Smith of Hegseth, where Smith's like, how are you just so wrong on Ukraine? Right, 14 months ago, didn't you say that Ukraine was going to be completely conquered by Russia? So they better make the best deal they could. Like, you objectively don't know what you're talking about. How do you square that? To which Hanks is like, Joe Biden, Joe Biden, Joe Biden. What does Joe Biden have to do with any of it? Makes no sense. Here, play this clip.

So on Ukraine, a year plus ago, your advice, the president's advice, was Ukraine had no cards to play. They should go cut the best possible deal they could. Clearly that was wrong. What did you miss? What did you miss about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine that you didn't see that Ukraine was going to be capable of doing what they've done in the last 14 months?

What we didn't miss, and we're here in this committee, is that Joe Biden, with no accountability, gave hundreds of billions of dollars of our weapons to Ukraine, uh, to an outcome that never would have happened if President Trump was president. So He pulled out our— you guys don't talk about that. Ultimately, President Trump believes there should be a peace deal, uh, between Russia and Ukraine.

So you didn't expect Ukraine to be where they're at right now? I'm asking you just from a strategic standpoint.

I think the Ukrainians have shown great courage, and I appreciate that Europe is now paying for the weapons, any weapons that we provide.

All right, I yield back. Thank you.

And we heard from Democratic Congress member Ro Khanna, who questioned Hegseth about the costs of this war, and Hegseth just found it funny. Brexit was laughing that you and all the American people out there and people throughout the world are suffering economically because of Donald Trump and this despicable war. Play this clip.

How much did it cost American taxpayers in terms of the strike to the Iranian school where kids were killed? You have that number in terms of the missiles we used?

As I've said, that unfortunate situation remains under investigation. You don't know how much it costs, but I wouldn't tie a cost to that, to anything.

It's a reasonable question.

No, sir.

I mean, our taxpayer money was going there. Do you know how much it will cost Americans in terms of their increased cost in gas and food over the next year because of the Iran war?

I would simply ask you what the cost is of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

I'm going to give you that.

I would simply ask you what the— you're playing gotcha questions about domestic things. I'm not—

you're asking— you're I think it's a gotcha question to ask what it's going to be in terms of the increase.

Why won't you answer what it costs to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb?

I'll give you that, sir. But let me—

what would it cost? What would you pay to ensure Iran doesn't get a nuclear bomb?

Do you—

what would you pay?

I reclaim my time. Do you not know? You had no one do the analysis of what the increased cost of gas and food on the American people are going to be?

What is the cost of Iran holding that straight at issue with nuclear weapons?

It's $631 billion. Which means it's an increase of $5,000 a year for American households. Now let me give you this point. You're saying that your operation is preventing a nuclear Iran. Will you acknowledge that there is an economic cost to the American people for doing what you believe is necessary to make Iran, uh, denuclearized? Will you acknowledge the economic cost?

We have an incredible economic team that's managing this better than Yeah, but what the previous administration did for our economy—

you acknowledge what the previous administration did for the inflation? You know what's upsetting me?

COVID, and you're going to lecture this administration about the economy?

You know what is upsetting?

Incredible.

You didn't even do the analysis on how much it's costing the American people. It's one thing if you said, okay, it costs the American people $5,000, but we think it's worth it. Uh, that's what we've done in World War II and other wars. Here's what it costs, you got to pay for it. You don't even know what the average American is paying. You don't know what we paid in terms of the missiles that hit the Iranian school. You don't know what we're paying in terms of gas. You don't know what we're paying in terms of food. Your $25 billion number is totally off. It's the incompetence.

You think that's a gotcha question? It got— ask the Americans right now who can't afford gas, can't afford groceries, whose house may just about to be in foreclosure, who may be evicted. Tell them that's a gotcha question, Hegseth. More cross-examination here from Ro Khanna. Let's play it.

Because you said you won't get us into bad wars. You said you wouldn't— you would bring down the prices. You know what I'm sad for? I'm sad for all the people who voted for Trump. I'm sad for them because you betrayed them. You betrayed a lot of that MAGA base. And you know who knows that? JD Vance knows that. Gentlemen, time is expired. I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then under some questioning from Congresswoman Takuda, Hanks said that Los Angeles would have been on fire last summer if the military didn't intervene. We would have been on fire here. I'm in Los Angeles. We would not have been on fire. We were perfectly beautiful. We didn't need you here. In fact, you made things horrible like you did throughout the rest of the country, you fascists. Here, play this clip.

50 years ago.

Okay, very good. All right, well, Secretary Hegseth, if President Trump ordered you to deploy troops to polling places during the midterm elections this fall, which would violate the law I just cited, would you implement his order? Yes or no?

What you're trying to insinuate is that the president would give unlawful orders and we would somehow deploy troops as a result. And the evidence of our department is that we've worked alongside law enforcement very effectively for 15 months. Uh, Los Angeles would have been on fire for the summer had we not come across.

I, I humbly disagree with that, but this is not a hypothetical situation that I'm inferring on your president. President in January of this year told the New York Times that he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in key states after the 2020 election.

More questioning from Takuda right here. Let's play this clip.

But voting places was 250 years ago. We're talking 2020. So if the president— again, I'm asking you— orders you to break election law, violate the Constitution and the law, would you follow the orders of the president? Yes or no?

The president You like to insinuate that the president issued—

it's a simple question.

And does not—

would you follow the president or the Constitution?

I will note that in 2024, troops were— Joe Biden, by the way, Joe Biden—

sent—

were deployed to polling locations in 15 states. 2024, Joe Biden, troops deployed to polling locations in 15 states. Explain that one to me.

I am asking you a question now. You seem to really like Joe Biden. You've brought his name up more than many other topics. This today. Answer the question.

Really, Hegseth? Biden put army— put the Army in polling locations? I mean, these people live in their fake dystopian world that just doesn't exist, and they want us to conform to all of their lies. It's such garbage. They're such garbage humans, these people. More cross-examination from Takuda right here. Let's play it.

Answer the question. Who are you beholden to, Mr. Secretary, the president or the constitution?

Well, I very proud—

you can't answer that question.

Very proudly served as president. Very proudly swear an oath to defend the Constitution.

In Los Angeles, he couldn't answer that either. So I think our answer is very clear. Obviously, you have taken a oath of loyalty only to the president and not the people of this country.

Then we got additional questioning from Democratic Congress member Moulton, where it has— what, Hegseth is asked if he considered the risk of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz of time. Watch his response. Play this clip.

Each of military options that are carefully considered with the associated risks with those options and the considerations therein.

So, Mr. Secretary, did you consider this risk?

Of course, this department has looked at all aspects of this risk.

And then why did you send minesweepers, the only minesweepers we had in the Gulf, to Singapore weeks before the war started?

We have lots of capabilities that you may or may not be aware of, aware of at the classified level.

Okay. And deal with, uh, to deal with, by the way, with the Trump-class battleships have helped with this?

You're talking about a prospective future battleship, which we welcome in the fleet.

Okay, so you're supportive of the battleships?

Yes, sir.

Okay, then under questioning from Congresswoman Strickland, Hegseth repeatedly refuses to explain why General Randy George was removed from his position in the middle of the war. Why would you remove a 4-star Army Chief of Staff, one of the most beloved people in our military, if not the most beloved. Were you jealous of him? You pathetic, you pathetic stooge. You hear, play this clip.

No one is disputing that senior officers serve at the pleasure of civilian leadership. The issue in front of this is whether the decision to remove General Randy George strengthened the Army or created an avoidable disruption during an active operational period. General George, who also served as commanding general at First Corps at JBLM, has been serving for 4 decades, including multiple command and operational leadership roles, culminating as Chief of Staff of the Army, responsible for readiness, force modernization, and the welfare of over a million soldiers and civilians. He was removed in the middle of an active conflict involving U.S. operations against Iran when leadership continuity is most critical. Look reporting indicates that General George's removal may have followed disagreements over Army personnel matters, including concerns regarding withheld promotions. So my question, Secretary, is this: What specific national security risk, mission risk, or leadership concern did General George present that justified removing him in the middle of a conflict, or was he removed because he challenged some decisions being made?

As I stated earlier, out of respect to these officers, I don't discuss the nature of the removal, but I would, I would ask an earnest question of you. Where does General George fall in the operational chain of command?

So I'm asking you, why did you fire him? But don't change—

you talked about— you talked about an operational moment. Where does General George fall in the op—

no, it's a simple question.

You're on the House Armed Services Committee.

Leadership concern? What did he present that justified removing him in the middle of a conflict?

Do you know where General George serves in the operational chain of command?

So, ma'am, you ask you my question one more time, sir. Don't try to flip it on Why was he removed? Was he a national security risk, mission risk, or leadership concern?

We don't—

yes or no?

We don't talk about the nature of removals, but you also won't answer where it is in the operational chain of command because he isn't in it. He isn't in the operational chain.

Reclaimed your time.

We're gonna—

you want to tie it to the war, but you don't know where he is.

The general lady from Washington's time.

Then, uh, Congresswoman Jacobs just went off on him. Let's play it.

The same courage that Democrats had. Mr. Secretary, you saying that he is the best commander-in-chief we've ever had, the best negotiator.

Talk to the troops.

13 American troops have died. More than 380 have been wounded. The Strait of Hormuz, which was wide open, is now closed. Less than 90% of traffic through the strait is still not going despite the ceasefire. The Iranian regime is still in power. It still has nuclear material. The war is costing Americans billions of dollars. And Mr. Secretary, if you think that this is what winning looks like, then maybe we should be questioning your mental stability. Maybe you are the one responsible for this failure, and the president should think about replacing you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

I'm going to let you yield for that.

Next up, the lady from Virginia, Ms. Kiggins.

Hanks had refused to explain Donald Trump's Jesus post. Let's play it.

Well, I want you to know this is not a partisan thing. In fact, many, many Democrats have had— many, many Republicans have had these same questions. Marjorie Taylor Greene said he's out of control and he's gone insane. Insane. Candace Owens said the 25th Amendment needs to be invoked. Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, who used to work with Alex Jones, Stephanie Grisham. The list could go on. So how do I explain to my constituents that while they are in harm's way, their commander-in-chief is posting these unhinged posts?

How did you explain to your constituents what happened on October 7th, or what happened in Afghanistan, or what happened with the debacle and the withdrawal in Afghanistan where the troops were left? How did you explain that to Joe Biden's leadership?

Mr.

Secretary, I'm not playing that to that didn't get medals, that we restored their medals because of that disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan. Did you explain that to your constituents when Joe Biden was asleep at the wheel and he had an AWOL soldier in Afghanistan?

I don't think you did. How about this next post? How can I explain this next post to my constituents? I'm Jewish, so this doesn't really bother me, but my understanding is that this is quite offensive to many Christians. So how do you explain this post?

I'm not here to explain post. We have an incredible commander-in-chief who puts our troops first. I'm here for a budget hearing about our troops.

This is—

this is a historic budget that's giving us a chance to defeat our adversaries. And President Trump is doing that in world-class fashion.

This is about our troops.

This is about our troops. This is about who is commanding our troops and if our troops can trust that they are being sent into harm's way under good strategy. The mental stability of our commander-in-chief is deeply important to our troops. It's deeply important to this country.

It is.

It wasn't important to you during Joe Biden.

I'll remind you that when there were concerns, Democrats came together and he was not our nominee for president. So I encourage you to do have the same courage that Democrats had.

But Hagsen says, oh, Donald Trump is the sharpest commander-in-chief we've had in generations. Play this clip.

So, Mr. Secretary, You are with the president a lot, and it pains me to even have to ask this about our president, but my constituents' lives are at stake. Do you believe that the president is mentally stable enough to be the commander in chief?

Did you ask the same question of Joe Biden for 4 years?

Mr. Secretary, Joe Biden is not the president. Mr. Trump has been president for a year and a half, and I'm asking you—

not— and I won't even engage with the level of disparagement that you're putting on the commander in chief, who indeed is— I mean, every—

I mean, Mr. Secretary, single day. Mr. Secretary, Biden is not the president.

Most insightful commander in chief we've had in generations. And you want to compare— I mean, you want to ask that question after you and your fellow Democrats defended Joe Biden, who could barely speak and didn't know what day of the week it was? He governed through an auto pen. We had a secretary of defense who went AWOL for a week. I can't be gone for 10 minutes.

I will reclaim my time.

Reclaim.

There was some other line of questioning also to some of the other individuals at that table that's worth pointing out, like when the Undersecretary of Defense, basically the comptroller, wouldn't answer if he had signal. And then General Caine said that he had signal on his phone but wouldn't say. But then he wanted to change his answer. Well, maybe I have it on my personal. I don't know if I have it on my military. Like, all these people are so freaking compromised. Play this clip.

Mr. Hurst, do you have signal on your phone?

I'm sorry, why is this relevant?

Do you have signal on your phone?

What does this have to do with the budget?

I'm going to take that as a yes. Um, Mr. Kane— sorry, General Kane, do you have signal on your phone?

I do, sir, yes.

Okay, so I want to talk about signal. Last year, the Secretary and other administration officials discussed sensitive and almost certainly classified information about a strike in Yemen using the unclassified Signal app. Mr. What's the current policy for Signal on official DOD devices?

I'm the comptroller. I don't do CIO work.

So therefore it is, uh, allowed? Is that your statement, that it is now allowed to have Signal on your device?

Mr. White said my statement is I run the budget for DOD.

Yeah, okay. Well, he's got it on his phone, so therefore it must be permitted.

Toronto, I got to go back and look if it's on my official phone. I was talking about my personal phone. I'm not exactly sure. I'll go back and look though.

Okay, last month FBI Director Kash Patel made a public announcement that Russian hackers are targeting Signal app users in the government, specifically stated they were targeting individuals of high intelligence value including current and former US government officials. I hope that it is not official policy that you can have Signal on your official phones, and I would love to get a response from Uh, the department on that.

And then Secretary Hagseth said he was the one who terminated the investigation into the Apache helicopter pilots who fly Kid Rock around. Seems like on a daily basis now these Apache helicopters are with Kid Rock. So demented, so deranged, so corrupt. Play this clip.

An investigation was launched by the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade command leadership, but before that review is completed on March 31st, you terminated it. Via social media post. Did you personally direct termination of that review?

I did.

Okay, now the president said they probably shouldn't have been doing it and that I'd take a look at it. So did you talk to the president before terminating that review?

Well, I don't relay what I talk about with the president.

Okay, I think unfortunately that means that you did talk to him, which in turn means that you've just confirmed the president himself overruled the leadership of the 100 101st Airborne. Mr. Secretary, you yourself have affirmed repeatedly the need for higher standards and higher accountability at every level of your agency. Commanders rely on established processes to uphold these standards. How does canceling a command-initiated review by the 101st Airborne leadership support a culture of accountability? Actually, I think I'll ask that of the chairman.

Sir, um, back to my earlier comments about the importance in my role of staying in the middle. What you're alluding to is, in my assessment, with deep respect for your ask, is a partisan question. And I think it would be inappropriate for me to answer that.

Mr. Sir, I actually don't think it is. I think it is actually a fundamental principle of accountability in our department. And I think it was the wrong decision. I'm going to close by just saying one thing, Mr. Secretary. You started this hearing by politicizing it.

There you have it, folks. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. You may think that you're subscribed, but double-check that you're actually subscribed. And help us hit 7 million subscribers. Thank you all so much for watching. We appreciate you so much. 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.