Transcript of Top Trump Official Collapses at Hearing on War New

Donald Trump's new acting Navy Secretary, Hunkow, collapsed under cross-examination before the Armed Services Committee. He made a number of stunning admissions. He admitted that all of his talk about woke this, woke that, shut down Harvard, all BS. He went to Harvard and he was cross-examined brilliantly by Democratic Congressmember Moulton. But another stunning admission, perhaps the most stunning admission, is he said in his opening statement, and then he was questioned about this by a lot of the members who are on this Armed Services Committee, he said that there's still all of these ballistic missiles that are being shot at American ships and that there's currently a very, very, very tense war that's still ongoing in the Strait of Hormuz. So as Donald Trump has said, there's no war, everything's fine, we're in this ceasefire, he let it slip, Huncao, Donald Trump's acting Navy Secretary, and basically said in his opening statement, then he was cross-examined on this a lot, that no, there's actually an active of war that's going on right now that's being covered up by the press, that's being covered up by the military. First, let me show you what went down when Democratic Congressmember Moulton cross-examined Huncao, the acting Navy Secretary.

He replaced the private equity guy who was forced out because he wouldn't build the Trump ships, the Trump battleships with Trump's name on it, like Donald Trump likes from the early 20th century, like those ships. Anyway, here's Huncao cross-examined by Democratic Congressmember Moulton. Let's play it.

He might help us in the Strait of Hormuz today.

Absolutely, sir. Again, when I say the 5, we're talking large ones, and we, we are investing a lot of the small ones. And I will turn that over to Admiral Caudle, who can tell you more about the requirements for small unmanned.

Well, I'm just wondering, I mean, you're requesting $17 billion for a single battleship hull that won't be delivered until 2036. Do you know how many 250,000 drones you could buy for that one Trump-class battleship?

Yes, sir. But those drones cannot carry the conventional prompt strike or have 200.

Okay.

Just to put this in perspective, it's 68,000 drones. I think 68,000 drones when Ukraine is producing 50 to 100, actually, sorry, several hundred a month might help us today in the Strait of Hormuz. I just don't— doesn't not feel like a good investment.

Again, sir, the drones can't get there by themselves. It's like the little turtle that sits on your fence post. You know, someone's got to put it.

You know, it's funny, the Ukrainians managed to get them there. They barely even have a navy. We have 55 times the coastline of Ukraine.

They're not—

if they can figure it out, Mr. Secretary, I'd like to think America could figure out too.

And I thought this was another really good line of questioning by Democratic Congressmember Moulton. Let's play it.

Acting Secretary, you told a powerful and very American story of how your family immigrated from Vietnam a few years after the war. I'm proud that our country supported you and your family. Do you think we should do the same for our Afghan allies who are being hunted down by the Taliban? Right now as we speak?

Sir, before I, I came to this job, actually right after the fall of Afghanistan, I mean, which broke my heart. I mean, watching mothers hand babies to Marines just reminded me what happened in Vietnam.

I understand. And I was there too. I felt the same way. But I'm just asking, do you think we should give the same privileges and opportunities to our Afghan allies that our country gave to you and your family and your friends?

Sir, I mean, I— anybody who comes here legally should be given the opportunity to come here.

Well, I'll tell you what, you and I will disagree on a lot of things. You might even say we're political adversaries. But I'm very proud that President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan did not deport you or your family while you were working on becoming citizens. Now, Mr. Acting Secretary, you have publicly supported Secretary Hicks' proposal to ban active duty military members from attending Harvard. Both your official bio and your bio for the Senate campaign proudly list your Harvard affiliation. As a Harvard fellow yourself, do you believe the education and credentials that you received compromised your ability to serve or lead effectively?

Sir, we are looking at the best education for our military members. I mean, we— that's why Naval—

But did Harvard make you too woke? Did Harvard make you too woke to be the Secretary of the Navy?

No, sir, but Naval Postgraduate School—

So you don't think—

allowed me to have—

So you survived Harvard without becoming woke, but you don't trust your officers who get in there, who want to go there, who apply there to be able to go there themselves and not be indoctrinated?

Congressman, we need to invest into where they would best fit for the Navy. Again, going to Naval Postgraduate School, I actually got a—

But you think it was a big mistake for you to go to Harvard? Because you talk about it a lot in your bio.

Actually, I mentioned it once, sir. I mean, it's just that—

you think it was a mistake?

So I, I would, I would love my— I love my education in Naval Postgraduate School because it allowed me to learn.

Yeah, but I'm asking you about Harvard. If you can't answer the question, sorry, I mean, don't take the job, Mr. Secretary.

Now here, I thought was a very important, uh, part of the cross-examination where you had Democratic Congresswoman, uh, Jacobs from San Diego. And here she exposes what, uh, I said at the outset, and, and hung admitted that there's active ongoing war that's taking place right now. The war's not over, the war is going on. There are ballistic missiles being shot at American ships by Iran. This is what he says. Here, play this clip.

Can you commit to deliver to this committee, um, the department's current assessment of commercial shipping transit through the strait under U.S. escort, Iranian acquiescence, or, or neither, along with the Navy's force generation plan for sustaining the presence required through FY27?

Congressman, we will provide whatever information you need. Again, this is still an ongoing operation. As of yesterday, they're still launching over 100 one-man, one-way attack drones and more than 3 or 4 dozen cruise missiles at us. So the operations are still going on. You know, even though there's a ceasefire, they're still firing at us, ma'am.

Sure. I mean, But the president said it was over and now you're saying it's ongoing. So you can understand why we as the committee that's trying to figure out what you're actually going to need, need some more information from you all.

Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. But yes, our operations, our kinetic operations have finished. We're just protecting other people. And that's, that's what we're doing with that. The Iranians are still shooting at allied shipping and just being belligerent, ma'am.

Okay, well, we would like to know what you all in the Navy are going to need to sustain either this US escort presence or this blockade or, you know, whatever we're doing. So please get that to us.

And then you have more from Hung Kao about this. Let's play this clip.

We've heard from the administration that the Iranian ability to project force has been decimated. They can't fire any missiles, they are 90% attrited, they're flat on their back. I heard you say in your remarks that, and you might have misspoken, and so I want clarification, have the Iranians been firing at American assets or are they firing at other countries in the region or both? Because it comes to this question of whether and when Congress is going to speak on this war. It is Congress's authority to declare war. And so I'm just curious whether or not the Iranians are firing at U.S. assets in that region.

Congressman, after we stopped the hostilities and we were talking to them for peace negotiations, again, they have a lack of command control right now. No one really knows who's in charge over there. And so you have these onesies and twosies go out and they're launching, they dug out from their rubble and they pulled out a couple missiles and they shoot at these merchant ships that are coming by. That's why our ships are protecting those ships as well. I mean, there's always—

So, I mean, I'm sorry, sir, are they firing at American vessels?

They're firing at commercial vessels.

Because that sounds very much like a warlike activity. And the Congress has yet to speak to the American people. On the question of whether or not we ought to be at war. So I'm just curious what's happening with respect to our assets in the region of operation.

They're shooting at merchant ships, sir.

Okay.

Next, you have Democratic Congressmember Smith, who's also the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, meaning Democrats take control, he'll become the chair of the committee. Here's what he had to say. Let's play it.

Building off the theme of the opening statement in terms of, you know, how can we get to more cost-effective solutions, I've been very impressed by the fact that when it comes to like shooting down drones, we've invented some new systems. We were shooting them down with $2-3 million missiles. L3Harris has come up with the Vampire system that's $30,000 a shot, very effective. Another private company came up with MIROPS. By the way, I think Vampire is a much better name than MIROPS if you're going to name a system, just for those paying attention to those things. $15,000 a shot. And it was all about figuring out, okay, we have our needs, how do we meet them in a very cost-effective way? What is the equivalent in the Navy and Marine Corps in terms of how you're thinking about meeting your needs in a more cost-effective way? And that's one of the many things that troubles me again about the battleship. We look at new technology, new ways to deal things, all these demands, asymmetric advantages, and we come up with, say, you know what, we're going to go with a massive $22 billion solution. That seems to be the exact opposite of taking advantage of modern technology to meet your needs in a more cost-effective way.

So how are you all thinking about options equivalent to instead of $2 million, we're going to do $30,000 and achieve the same objective and using new technology to get there.

Ranking Member, you're absolutely right, sir. I mean, when we're launching an SM-2 missile that costs $2.25 million per shot to take down a $1,000 drone, it's ridiculous. And that's why electronic warfare is so important. I mean, we need to cover everything from 30 MHz to 8 GHz with no band breaks in between. But also we need static radar to look at it. But Also gimbals, because a lot of their cross-section, the radar cross-sections of these drones look very similar to our aircraft as well. So there's many options out there. And you mentioned like a large ship. Well, there's— as far as I was in the Navy, even all the way back to 2011 when I worked in OPNAV N96, the Surface Warfare Division, we had a requirement for large combatant. It's called CGX at the time because—

You've got a lot of requirements, Mr. Secretary.

Yes, sir.

One of the things that I would suggest that we're going to need to do is get out of the requirements-based approach. I mean, so much that goes on at the Pentagon, and I think the chairman agrees, is we all sit around and come up with requirements. Okay. And there's, gosh, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of pages of them. Let's focus on what actually needs to be done instead of, well, we got a requirement for it. We got to think through it a little bit more than that. Sorry to interrupt. Just had to make that point. Go ahead.

Thank you for that, uh, ranking member. Again, there's— again, I, I pay bills at home and there's, you know, the kids need braces, they need everything, and that's— we have to balance all those things. But again, with the, the battleship, the problem is that your, your DDGs are so decked out right now. The Pinckney, USS Pinckney, is the only ship in our fleet that has a Slick 32 Victor 7 for electronic warfare. And, and I mean, I told you yesterday, I mean, it looks like a big chipmunk with a mouthful of nuts right now because it's, it's so overburdened. And that's why we need a large combatant that has all electronic warfare as well as 200 VLS cells, including conventional prompt strike. Imagine a missile that can go from here to the West Coast in 16 minutes that the enemy can't stop. And this is what's going to deter the enemy. Meanwhile, we need to also invest into our shipyards. We need to invest into our electronic warfare and as well as our sailors and Marines as well. And this is why the job of balancing the budget is so difficult. Sure. Again, I want to read— I'm sorry, sir, go ahead.

Yeah, one other question on that. Um, there are a lot of different companies now making autonomous ships. They're really in— and yes, the autonomous aspect is important, but they're also looking at new ways to do shipbuilding in general. Um, how can we do it more rapidly, uh, more cost-effectively? They seem to have made a lot of progress. What are the principal lessons that have been learned from that, that regardless of what we're building, whether it's a battleship, an aircraft carrier, or something smaller, that we could do it more quickly and cost-effectively? Do you— and I— both Admiral and Mr. Secretary, if you can either—

again, I'll turn to Admiral Caudle in a second, but it's just about using AI so we can streamline our processes as well as additive manufacturing. But Admiral Caudle?

You know, sir, I would say when we were upside down, as the Secretary is talking about, on kills, you know, cost per kill with SM-2, SM-6, we filled it and rallied very quickly during Red Sea operations, Rough Rider, to actually get on board our strike groups, Roadrunner, Coyote, and Hellfire, instantiations of that, to really turn that very quickly. That took collaboration from our Surface Warfare and Mine Development Center, from SURFLANT, from Dahlgren, and of course NAVWAR to get those TTPs, bake that in, get it certified, and every strike group has deployed with that. It's much more effective, and that learning happened very quickly. Directed energy, of course, is part of that electronic warfare. Some of the things that, you know, in the—

I'm out of time. I apologize for that. I don't want to take too much time, but those are exactly the types of answers that I think we need more of.

And this was the part of the opening statement where Hung Kao admitted that you have these missiles that are being shot at US ships. US Navy ships are being shot at, which is being covered up. He let it slip. Let's play it.

American sailors and Marines are currently on the front lines of freedom. In operations to protect our republic. Lincoln and Bush carrier strike groups and Tripoli amphibious ready group with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit are in the Arabian Sea protecting merchant ships and stopping illicit shipping by a terrorist regime. Destroyers Arleigh Burke, Bokeli, Oscar Austin, and Gonzalez are protecting our allies in the Mediterranean against cruise missile attacks from Iran. In the Caribbean, Iwo Jima Argniu is stopping narco-terrorists from poisoning our Americans with illegal drugs.

Now, while we watch all of that, I want to remind you, of course, of the questioning that took place right around that same time in the United States Senate, where Admiral Cooper, commander of CENTCOM, was cross-examined by Senator Blumenthal. Just to remind you, here, play this clip.

Regardless of what the numbers are, Iran continues to pose a significant threat to shipping because it has missiles and fast boats and other assets that are available to attack shipping in the area, correct?

Senator, all— in each of those cases, their capability have been significantly degraded. If I just use my own professional experience, uh, in 100 transits through the Strait of Hormuz, you would typically see 20 to 40 fast boats, and, and lately we've seen 2 or 3. So the degradation means, uh, it's been super— it's been significant, but some residual capability does exist.

With respect to the threat that remains, your forces were successful in Project Freedom in enabling ships to go through the strait, correct?

That's correct, sir.

And Project Freedom was stopped For what reason, sir?

I think I'll look back a couple of days ago on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee. I think he characterized it well. The situation in the Strait of Hormuz is, is rather complex these days, and I would offer just, just these quick points. Uh, first and foremost, uh, the United States controls, uh, via our blockade, which I'd be happy to talk about, the overall flow of commerce going into and out of Iran. The Iranian capability to stop commerce has been dramatically degraded through the Straits, but their voice is very loud, and those threats are clearly heard by the merchant industry and the insurance industry. Those are factors. There's certainly factors in energy.

But I think— of all that, I— and I apologize for interrupting, but I'm going to run out of time, as you understand. Um, I, I think the point that I want to make here is that Project Freedom could be started again, and the voices of the Iranians, large as they are, could be contradicted or reduced in impact if Project Freedom were ongoing and the world could see that shipping was going through the straits.

Am I off base in that Senator, there's a wide range of contingencies that we are prepared to execute, and I would defer to the policymakers on anything having to do specifically with the Strait of Hormuz, particularly during this time of sensitive negotiations where it's front and center in the negotiations.

And have you seen any progress in those negotiations?

Uh, Senator, I'd refer to the diplomats, uh, and the team, uh, engaged in the negotiations.

Let me ask you, uh, in the time that I have left, uh, one of the objectives that President Trump articulated at the beginning of this war, which in my view could not be accomplished with bombing, was to secure the enriched uranium. Would you agree that taking possession of that uranium would require boots on the ground and significant casualties for United States forces.

Senator, in this particular forum, I think it's— it would be highly inappropriate, given the classified nature of, of any contingencies, to talk about the nuclear program.

And then I thought this line of questioning from Senator Shaheen was very important, where she makes it clear how helpful Ukraine has been, uh, to our NATO allies in helping our allies train, get the types of anti-drone interceptors and drone technology that's needed to fight in modern warfare. Let's play it.

One of the things that's gotten a fair amount of attention in recent weeks has been President Zelensky's working with some of our allies and partners in the Middle East in response to the war in Iran on their the expertise that the Ukrainians have developed to address counter-drone responses. Can you talk a little bit about what you're seeing with respect to that and whether our allies and partners find that kind of support helpful from the Ukrainians?

Senator, I think most significantly, we adopted a large number of tactics, techniques, and procedures that the Ukrainians have passed us. That have helped us defend Americans. And all of our partners are working with Ukraine in some way, shape, or form. I'd really defer to them, let them talk about it. But are they more effective as a result? Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And then there was this line of questioning here from Senator King. Let's play it.

General Anderson, talk to me about the loss of soft power in Africa, our abandonment of USAID and what's happened with the Chinese and the Russians that my understanding is, are now filling that, that gap, uh, in addition to the other aggressive actions that they're taking. Uh, Senator, I would say that we look at all facets of national power and how to bring those to bear on the continent in order to provide security outcomes. Oftentimes, uh, taking one facet of our national power off the table unilaterally for no, for no apparent reason. The whim of Elon Musk. Senator, we work very closely with State, with Commerce, and Energy in order to look at the security requirements on the continent. I have a Foreign Service commercial officer joining my staff this summer, along with a liaison from Department of Energy, in order to look at economic opportunities. We have essentially left all of the, the role that USAID played on the continent, that's gone. Isn't that— that's a yes or no question, Senator. There are still, uh, aid programs that are active on the continent. They are much reduced from what they were before. Much, much reduced.

That's a fair way of stating it.

Well, there you have it, folks. Let me know what you think about all this. Let's hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Thanks everybody for watching. 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.