Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Now: Trump Admin Officials Testify On $87 Billion Funding Request. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired July 21, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:05]
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): I'm making a point, not asking a question.
This is unfair. Thank you.
Secretary Hegseth said, on February 28th, when you initiated this war without authorization from Congress, the Straits of Hormuz was open and providing vital fuel supplies for the whole world. Now they're closed effectively, impacting globally the price of oil and the economies of the whole world. But the Department of Defense has been planning for potential operations against Iran for many, many years, and one of their obvious assumptions was that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed.
Were you unaware of that?
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Senator, you are correct. Nobody plans more and looks at more contingencies than our department. And so, of course, undertaking a historic effort like this of this scope and scale, of course, the Strait of Hormuz was front and center in every single aspect of that. Hence why one of our key objectives to begin with was to sink the entirety of Iran's Navy, which its conventional Navy was sunk.
Now, you can't get rid of every single fast boat and every single machine gun and a fast boat or every single coastal cruise missile. So we acknowledge that if the state decided to become a terror state shooting at commercial shipping that would be an ongoing and contested part of the battle to include their willingness to mine international waters. So one side weaponized the Strait and we've been fighting back.
REED: We're clearly aware that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed and obviously sinking their ships. has not affected their ability to effectively close the straits.
Did you --
HEGSETH: We had U.S. boats that surrendered to Iranian ships under the Biden administration. So their navy was affected in --
REED: We're talking about the war you started, not a situation in which oil was flowing freely. There was no conflict. We weren't losing personnel as a result of Iranian actions. So your fallback to the Biden administration is just a very, very
obvious excuse for what I think is probably, as you described, so often gross negligence. You did not fully inform the president that you would be in a situation where the Strait of Hormuz could be effectively closed, oil prices could surge, and effectively, the Iranians could maintain their ability to strike back as they are right now. They just killed some of our servicemen last weekend.
HEGSETH: This battlefield and all the dynamics of it of which the chairman and I are responsible for ensuring the president understands every branch and sequel of what could happen and we did.
REED: So --
HEGSETH: The fact that those contingencies all were part of the possibility and we understood that is all the more reason why President Trump deserves the kind of praise he should get for undertaking this effort having the courage to ensure that crazy Islamists can't have a nuclear weapon to hold us at issue and he's been willing to stay to do that regardless of the challenge.
REED: Excuse me. So he should be praised -- he should be praise for starting a war without authority, creating a situation in which the world economy is suffering tremendously. We have to have extra money for our farmers, and we have no outcome, at least no realistic outcome in sight yet.
Let me switch to General Caine.
General Caine, these airstrikes have not yet deterred and defeated the Iranians. Do you think airstrikes alone will do that?
GEN. DAN CAINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Sir, I think academically, as you look across the totality of history, air power's got limits, and we always have to be mindful of those. I think where America's area of exclusivity is, is when we bring the totality of the diplomatic, informational, economic, and pair that with the military, and there's a lot of that work going on, sir.
REED: Well, the military, the next step would be escalation by ground combat. Do you anticipate that escalation?
CAINE: Sir, I think it'd be unhelpful for me to opine on hypotheticals. What I can tell you is we always develop an unbelievable amount of options and the associated risks. And then my main job is to always ensure that leaders understand those options and the risks.
REED: Now, if you employ ground troops to seize objectives, which I would assume would be the first stage, Are you prepared for an extended guerrilla war, which would likely happen in that area?
CAINE: Sir, with all due respect, I think it'd be unhelpful for me to opine on hypothetical situations, on whatever decisions the president may or may not take in the future. REED: Have you advised the president that a ground combat would be very expensive in the lives of our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and also could probably lead to an extended unconventional war in that area. I don't see the Iranians sort of throwing the hands up saying, you know, welcome to Iran.
CAINE: Senator, I always advise the president on a range of military options and all of the risks that are contained within that.
[16:05:02]
But I have to keep my military advice to the president private, sir.
REED: But, well, thank you.
CAINE: Thank you, sir.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME), CHAIRWOMAN, APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senator Hoeven.
SEN. JOHN HOEVEN (R-ND): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Rollins, I want to thank President Trump. I want to thank you for including Farm Bridge assistance in this supplemental request. I know I've worked very hard to get included. I know you have worked very hard to get included, and I want to thank you and your whole department for your work on it and for this vital support of our farmers and ranchers.
What I want to ask you about, though, is actually crop insurance. The number one risk management tool that our farmers have is crop insurance. And the buy-up option is critically important. It covers 67 million acres, 67 million acres of farmland, in this country.
It -- it was decommissioned and we need to get reinstated. Again, you and I both worked very hard on this. Please update me on where we are in terms of getting that buy-up option for crop insurance reinstated.
BROOKE ROLLINS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE: We are 100 percent supportive of that and are moving forward to execute that buy up option. Thank you for your leadership on that, Senator.
HOEVEN: Thank -- thank you for your support. Also, Secretary -- Assistant Secretary Fordyce for his support. It's very impactful, very important, and will make a big difference for our farmers right now, so thank you for that.
ROLLINS: Thank you.
HOEVEN: Secretary Hegseth, are Russia and China helping Iran, and if so, how?
HEGSETH: Well, Senator, as the chairman alluded to, there's definitely adversary alignment, attempts to do so, and there are many ways that we deter that, some of which are, and the depth and extent of it ought to remain classified, and it should, but there are ways in which both of those countries are limiting, at different levels, enabling some of the things Iran is doing, yes.
HOEVEN: General Caine, would you like to add?
CAINE: Sir, I'd rather not opine on the specifics because that would divulge what we know. And I never want the adversary to know what I know. I just want to know it.
HOEVEN: And hopefully we'll get a chance to do that in the SCIF.
CAINE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I'd be happy to do that in the SCIF, sir.
HOEVEN: This -- so this relates both to the funding, but also, again, to how we achieve our objectives. with Iran, starting with you, Secretary, can we get to the point, and we're seeing continued, I think, improvement and progress on this, but essentially where we can, and hopefully our allies will, they need to step in there with us, but where we get to the point where we can operate in the Strait of Hormuz, but keep Iran blockaded.
We're continuing to get better at that, but that's how we keep, they'll never do anything. that they say they're going to do. They've proven that over and over. We have to keep the pressure on. But if we can do that effectively, we keep the pressure on and achieve our objectives. Tell us where we are in getting that accomplished.
HEGSETH: Senator, I think that's a really good point. That's effectively what we did to create the pressure that led to the circumstances of the MOU, which was we're running a route where ships, and we did it covertly in cooperation with Gulf countries and others who are willing to take some of the risk with our protection, and then maintain the blockade.
So effectively, oil is coming in and out, oil prices are coming down, but our blockade is staying and the pressure is mounting on Iran. That's something we have done and can continue to do. We moved into an MOU where Iran said, we won't shoot at shipping. And then they turned -- the IRGC turned around and decided to start shooting at commercial shipping again.
At which point the president, I mean, as he should, cannot tolerate that. And so we respond, as he said 10 times, You shoot at ships, we're going to shoot at you overwhelmingly, which we have been doing now for, I believe it's a 10th consecutive evening. So consequences come with the willingness to shoot at commercial shipping. Our blockade has been re-imposed and is effectively impenetrable.
We mount, we got, seized a ship inside the Arabian Gulf as well. So there's a lot of different angles to it, a lot of levers we can pull, and ultimately, A lot of the strikes that Admiral Cooper and CENTCOM have been undertaking are taking Iran's ability to see and sense away in the Strait of Hormuz, which has tactical benefits for us.
HOEVEN: And that's what this funding is about. This funding is about making sure that we and our allies can operate in the Strait of Hormuz, which helps bring down energy prices for every single American consumer, and that we force Iran to meet our objectives. Isn't that what this package is all about?
HEGSETH: This is a peace through strength package. That's what $1.5 trillion has always been about, a generational investment at a -- as the chairman alluded to -- a step change moment. We need to be able to do it at speed, at scale, with autonomy, with A.I., with exquisite high cost and low cost to be ahead and stay ahead so that you're not just able to do what we need to do in the Strait of Hormuz, but deter adversaries like Russia and China from getting involved in future contingencies.
[16:10:14]
HOEVEN: And just General Caine for any follow-up that you would like on that issue?
CAINE: Sorry, I wouldn't have anything to add.
HOEVEN: Okay, again, thank you, and thank you to all of our men and women in uniform, we appreciate them so much.
COLLNS: Senator Shaheen.
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Hegseth, since you last testified before this committee, we finally received the spend plan for the $400 million FY26 appropriation for Ukraine security assistance. This funding was passed back in January, and now there are only three months left in this fiscal year.
And while I appreciate that we now see what most of the funding is intended for, I just heard from the CEO of one of the manufacturers of the defense articles that are contained in the spend plan that they not only haven't received funding, but they haven't even seen a contract.
So when are we going to see a contract for those defense articles that are contained in the spend plan for Iraq? I'm sorry, for Ukraine.
HEGSETH: For Ukraine.
Senator, I'll have to get back to you on the specifics of the timeline of that. I'll talk to our policy shop as well as the UCOM commander to determine where that's at.
SHAHEEN: Well, you've told this committee that you've barely spent half of the $150 billion in reconciliation funding, and if you still have $75 billion available, why are you asking the American people to absorb the cost of a war they don't support instead of asking for transfer authority for unspent reconciliation funding, especially if you can't even get $400 million in Ukraine funding out the door?
HEGSETH: As I mentioned earlier, Senator, that money from the one big, beautiful bill is otherwise allocated to the rebuilding of our military with priorities of the president like Golden Dome for America and hypersonics and other munitions investments that we made upfront as we tried to adjust the Biden budget into an America First budget.
And so reallocating that away from those priorities is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Those are allocated to rebuild.
SHAHEEN: But my point is if you can't spend it on a timeline that makes sense. Why do you need to come back and ask for more money? Wouldn't it be better to spend money that you already have?
And one of the things I noted was, or at least I think, that the supplemental doesn't include funding to repair damage to our bases or to our military infrastructure in the region. And I have not heard that we've gotten the full extent of any of those damage estimates.
So should we expect another request to address that military construction costs?
And at what point do you stop asking Americans to foot the bill for a war they don't support on top of an inflated budget request and billions in reconciliation funds that you still haven't spent?
HEGSETH: Well, Senator, I obviously don't agree with your characterization of that.
SHAHEEN: I appreciate that, but you didn't ask -- but I want you to answer my question. I know you don't agree with my characterization. I don't agree with yours either.
HEGSETH: Well, I -- one of the reasons I take issue with that characterization is something that Senator Durbin said, when he talked about Ukraine, and he talked about winning. And I appreciate as much as anybody winning a war, but I sit in front of a committee that wants to talk about winning a war that's been going on for four years and talks about strategic defeat of a conflict that's been going on for four months to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.
I want -- I would hope for some perspective in this town of the historic nature of what President Trump is undertaking. Do you want radical Islamists to have a nuclear bomb that scared down the world?
SHAHEEN: I don't want -- I don't want to hear your speech because I have limited time.
HEGSETH: I can understand.
SHAHEEN: So, if you can't answer my question, then I will move on to my next question.
Secretary Rollins, the timber industry has also been hard hit, as you know, by trade wars, by drought, by wildfires, by other natural disasters that are increasingly common. In New Hampshire, which is the second most heavily forested state in the nation, one of the things that we really need, as you know, because we've had this conversation, is a research program, and Forest Service staffing on the ground in a variety of ways, but particularly at Bartlett Experimental Forest.
These small investments in research and staffing and sound management help make the forest economies healthier and more competitive. I very much appreciate your having staff visit Bartlett last week with my staff and with staff from the governor's office. But can you commit to restoring staffing at Bartlett and to keeping the facilities there open, now that you've seen the critical nature of that research?
[16:15:00]
ROLLINS: Why -- don't I follow up with you? I have not gotten a report from their visit, so I would like to do that first, but obviously you and I have been in a continuing conversation about that.
The good news, there's no doubt our timber industry is in distress and has been for a long time. The fact that we import 90 percent or something from other countries of our lumber needs is crazy. We're changing that, but the good news, we had more board feet sold last year than any time in 30 years. This year, we're going to exceed that target again, so we're making the right moves on this, But there's no doubt that research is important to that, as we've discussed.
And I'll follow up with our team, and then we'll reconnect.
SHAHEEN: Thank you. I appreciate that. As you pointed out, research is critical to ensuring that the timber economy continues to be successful.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
COLLINS: Senator Kennedy.
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here today.
General, in the war between Russia and Ukraine, who do we want to win?
CAINE: Sir, I want -- I want Ukraine to win.
KENNEDY: Is Russia America's friend?
CAINE: I'm sorry, sir, I couldn't quite hear your question.
KENNEDY: Is Russia America's friend?
CAINE: I think that depends on your definition of friend. I think it's a complicated relationship. But no, I don't think they're our friends.
KENNEDY: Thank you. If we could cut off Russia's cash flow, which depends substantially on its sale of oil, would that help Ukraine win?
CAINE: So I think militarily, anytime you can restrict resources and cash flows against --
KENNEDY: General, I have so much respect for you.
CAINE: Yes, sir.
KENNEDY: But I have so little time.
CAINE: Yes, sir. I'll try to be briefer.
KENNEDY: Just give me succinct answers. CAINE: Yes, sir. It would assist a --
KENNEDY: Would help, would it?
CAINE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
KENNEDY: Okay. If we could stop people, entities, and countries from buying Russia's oil. That would help cut off its cash flow, wouldn't it?
CAINE: Yes, sir.
KENNEDY: We have a bill to do that, as I'm sure you're aware. We have the votes today to pass it, overwhelmingly.
I have also have enormous respect and admiration for our majority leader, Senator Thune. But I hope everybody on this panel will today contact Senator Thune and ask him to bring that bill to the floor. We should vote on it at a minimum of next week.
Some of my colleagues, General, want America to just stop in Iran. End the blockade, bring all of our warriors home. What would be the consequences of that, in your estimation?
CAINE: Sir, I think termination criteria is always a political decision. However, I assess that Iran will continue to be a challenge moving forward, so we have to be thoughtful about that.
KENNEDY: Will they put tolls on the strait?
CAINE: I don't know, sir. That's a decision. That's a hypothetical and will depend on what happens to be --
KENNEDY: Yes, it's not hypothetical. We've got a blockade to stop them.
CAINE: We do, sir. That's putting economic pressure on you.
KENNEDY: I'm not asking you for -- I'm not trying to get you in trouble. I know your advice to the president is -- it is -- is private. But this is serious as four heart attacks and a stroke.
Now, what happens if we come home and end the blockade to the world?
CAINE: Sir, Iran has the potential. to continue to be a threat, and we're going to -- we will need to prepare military actions to do that.
KENNEDY: Will they toll the strait?
CAINE: Sir, that's a hypothetical question, and I don't know the answer to that.
KENNEDY: Oh, it's not hypothetical. We come home. It's not going to be hypothetical. You know that, General. And I do, too.
And I appreciate your discretion, but we're down to it. We need some hard answers and some straight talk.
What will happen, Pete?
[16:20:03]
HEGSETH: Senator, I would -- I would agree with the chairman, but the likely outcome is they would try to impose their will on the waterways in ways that the world would not like.
KENNEDY: Will they toll it?
HEGSETH: Call it a toll, call it a fee, call it an exchange, call it control. They would do something that they would try to hold it at issue. Yes, sir.
KENNEDY: Would they try to commence development again of a nuclear warhead?
HEGSETH: Part of the reason President Trump had to have the courage to do what he did after Midnight Hammer is that they didn't give up their ambitions even though their nuclear sites had been obliterated. So this is a regime hell-bent on nuclear ambitions and President Trump will go after.
KENNEDY: Guys, we need straight answers. We need straight answers.
Do we have the ability to destroy whatever is underneath Pickaxe Mountain?
HEGSETH: A lot of -- Senator, a lot of our capabilities are classified, but if anybody in the world can reach anything on this -- on God's given -- God's green earth, it's the United States military, the most powerful military in the world. It's all about options and trade-offs.
KENNEDY: I'm going to take a little extra time because others got it. Madam Chair, I won't abuse it.
Secretary, are shrimpers farmers?
ROLLINS: Absolutely, yes. There are farmers of the same.
KENNEDY: Are oyster harvesters farmers?
ROLLINS: Yes. In this USDA, yes.
KENNEDY: Are they having to compete with other countries who grow oysters and shrimp in a ditch and shoot them full of antibiotics?
ROLLINS: One hundred percent, yes.
KENNEDY: And if you eat too much of that foreign shrimp and oysters, you'll grow an extra ear, won't you?
ROLLINS: I'm not sure about that, but I know it is not good. And I also know we import 90 percent of our shrimp. KENNEDY: Why are we expecting the shrimp and the oysters from abroad?
ROLLINS: Well, it goes much larger than that. Why are we importing so much from abroad, which goes to the president's trade agenda?
KENNEDY: I'm in big trouble.
ROLLINS: Yes, you are.
KENNEDY: Guys, look, we need straight answers now. We're down to it.
COLLINS: Senator Merkley.
SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): Thank you, Madam Chair and Secretary Rollins. I appreciate your partnership on addressing several issues in Oregon. And I sent you information about a couple others and you responded. Appreciate it.
We'll follow up on the research service. We'll follow up on the concern about in-kind contributions serving as a match. But I particularly need your help on the fire funding. And I know you've indicated how important that is.
Where we stand now is that the Senate seems hamstrung that they're seeking to have OMB give them a number on that. Various sources say the number is probably about $5 billion. I don't really care if it's 4.5 or 5 or 5.5. The point is that folks here, senators, asking for a number from OMB in order to go forward and when we're looking at the fires right now in my home state's the epicenter of the highest risk in the -- in the -- in the country. So can we get your help to get that number and move this process?
ROLLINS: Yes, absolutely. It is a paramount importance especially in the middle of fire season right now.
MERKLEY: Thank you -- thank you so much.
ROLLINS: Thank you.
MERKLEY: And, Chairman Caine, the -- I think there was a sense that the President expressed at the start of the war that the U.S. military power was overwhelming and would likely produce unconditional surrender quickly by Iran. And that obviously hasn't happened.
Was it your opinion as well? Did you feel like our military force could produce an unconditional surrender and quick order?
CAINE: Sir, I won't -- with due respect, I won't share my private advice to the president. What I will assure you and the American people is I always speak truth to power and offer an accurate assessment of what my assessment is of both our readiness, the plans and activities that might be undertaken, the associated risks, and the secondary and tertiary considerations that go with those opinions or options.
MERKLEY: Thank you. So you feel like the various risks, that the Iran would close, could possibly close the strait, despite the destruction of their navy, that the possibility of assassinating their political leaders and their military leaders could produce a strengthened hardline and weaken the reformers, that Iran would have the ability to sustain its ability to attack sites throughout the Middle East, that the initial requirements of the war could surely deplete our basically high-end standoff munitions, that this could affect our relations with our allies.
All those were factors well considered in this decision to go to war?
CAINE: Sir, as I said, I won't opine on or share my private advice to the president.
[16:25:02]
MERKLEY: Yeah, I'm not asking about your advice to the president. I'm asking you, did you understand these issues or have these become revelations as the wars unfolded?
CAINE: Sir, my job is to understand all of the considerations that go into the carefully considered use of military power.
MERKLEY: Let me ask you this then.
CAINE: Yes, sir.
MERKLEY: I understand why you don't want to respond, but these are all massive risks that seem to be poorly weighed in the beginning of this misadventure. Currently, there are reports that we have hit the Bunji desalination plant that provides water to about 20 villages or about 10,000 people, and we also damaged the desalination plant at Qeshm Island.
Were these deliberate targets by the United States?
CAINE: Sir, I'm not aware of those as being particular targets, nor am I aware of those reports, and I'll have to go back and get back to you on that.
MERKLEY: If you could, I'd appreciate that. You are aware that infrastructure that civilians rely on to survive is not generally considered legitimate military targets?
CAINE: Sir, as you know, we have a robust process which considers a target that goes through a system that looks at a variety of considerations to include what you're alluding to around both purely civilian or dual-use targets. I have trust and confidence in CENTCOM, that they're looking at the range of those things on a daily basis.
MERKLEY: It sounds like you are assuring us that we will, the United States, not target, even in retaliatory sense, infrastructure that is generally considered to be primarily for civilian survival.
CAINE: Sir, as I mentioned, we have a robust process and, you know, we have the most professional military force of law.
MERKLEY: It'd just be nice to have you say yes, because this is international law. Do you understand the international law?
CAINE: I do, sir. I've got a lot of lawyers that help me understand it.
MERKLEY: Thank you.
CAINE: Yes, sir.
MERKLEY: Will you get back to us on that question of whether we targeted --
CAINE: Of course, yes, sir. Of course.
MERKLEY: -- the desalination plants, and if so, why?
My time's up, but I do want to express encouragement to look at what the negotiators have put forward or advisors as to whether a 10-day break could facilitate returning to dialogue that might find a path forward.
COLLINS: Senator Hyde-Smith.
SEN. CINDY HYDE-SMITH (R-MS): Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank all three of you for being here today.
I am going to direct my first question to Secretary Rollins. And again, I want to commend you publicly for the outstanding job you're doing at USDA. You know, this is my world as former Ag commissioner. I hear from a lot of producers in Mississippi, and they are so pleased with your performance, and that is just truly genuine right there.
But I'm pleased to see the administration's supplemental request, as for Ag producers, because before I comment on that, I just want the entire committee and administration to take note of the tremendous timber losses as well in places like Mississippi due to winter storms and the tornadoes we've had there. It is significant and I certainly look forward to working with you with the concerns of the timber sector.
Regarding this supplemental, you know, our row crop producers, as you've mentioned in your opening remarks, they are truly in a serious situation. I've talked to multi-generation farmers back home who are the best of the best that did not even plant this year because they could not make the numbers work. And producers in Mississippi and nationwide, you know, we continue to face these economic conditions. They're not going away anytime immediately or soon. But we've seen the commodity prices drop and the input costs just go through the roof.
If we want the next generation to stay on the land, Congress, we're going to have to take this opportunity to provide this critical market assistance for our farmers and enact policies that build structural demands for commodities like the Buy American Cotton Act that year- round E15, all of which would make the paths better, more favorable for these producers going forward.
But I appreciate the administration's effort to this date, including the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program that was so valuable, implementation of the updated Farm Safety Net with Working Families Tax Cut Act, and now the supplemental request before Congress.
But will you speak to why it's critical for Congress to act swiftly to pass this supplemental and the need for us to pass legislation that drives the demand for farmers' products?
[16:30:00]
ROLLINS: Yes, thank you, Senator, for your kind words.
A couple of really important points. Number one, as we work to open the markets around the world, and we're seeing, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, just extraordinary numbers, that $50 billion agricultural deficit we inherited a year and a half ago is now down into the 20-ish billion. We expect it to go down significantly this year.
Again, the highest price we've seen in over a year in corn is today, in soybeans is today, et cetera. Your point, Senator, about opening up the domestic markets is really important, whether that's E15, renewable fuel standards. Obviously, the RVOs came out, which is a reason for the drive up in some of our row crop prices in the last month, which is really important.
But also, as I mentioned, bringing the cost of inputs down. We are expanding fertilizer, the largest ammonia plant. We're going to break ground in Louisiana in two weeks, reshoring, bringing back to America real fertilizer production. And then also the long term, we got to figure out how we are doing these supplementals and these bridge payments, which we have to do for these farmers to survive.
But what we're seeing is just survival. And we're seeing a lot of the input companies, equipment, seed, fertilizer, make record profit. So, we've got to be able to dig into that as well.
But as of today, ensuring that we can keep these farmers farming while we're opening the markets, while we're bringing down the cost of inputs is paramount for a secure America, and that's why this is so important today.
HYDE-SMITH: Thank you very, very much for that.
And Secretary Hegseth, thank you for being here and the amazing job that you're doing. I have the utmost respect for you, your team, and what you're accomplishing. But I as well am committed to ensuring that our warfighters have all the tools necessary to accomplish the mission in Iran and whatever else that they need to defend our nation's interest.
The supplemental request is in line with that goal, and I'd like to shift my conversation right now quickly to shipbuilding, which is extremely important to the state of Mississippi and our country's ability to protect itself. The president's FY 2027 budget requests funding for one DDG 51, while Navy leaders have said their goal remains to build two destroys a year. And at the same time, the department is exploring options for using allied shipyards and overseas fabrication in future naval construction, which raises questions about the long term role of the American naval industrial base for shifting work away from domestic shipbuilders.
Shipyards like Ingalls in Mississippi, which I would love to invite you down to there. It is amazing. And the thousands of suppliers and small businesses they support, they need the confidence that the work will be there so they can invest in new facilities, hire and train skilled workers, and expand capacity that we will need in the future. Will you help or talk to us about the department's short and long term shipbuilding plan and how it gives industry the confidence to invest?
HEGSETH: You just made the case for this generational investment because of the underinvestment, Senator, in shipbuilding in the previous administration. Just static, flat, bureaucratic, slow. We're having to revitalize that industry. And one DDG is a reflection of a backlog in capability.
So as we ramp on more capacity, those numbers of DDGs, the workhorse of our Navy, will go up as we grow that force.
COLLINS: The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Coons?
SEN. CHRISTOPHER COONS (D-DE): Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Murray.
Thank you, Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Rollins, General Caine, for your service.
I want to start with the things I know we agree on. We agree that we should honor our fallen, that we should stop and remember them and console and comfort their families, that we should be mindful of the hundreds of Americans who've been wounded and injured in this war in Iran.
General Caine, your observations about how our adversaries are aligning more and more closely. Technology is accelerating, and cheap and lethal and easily accessible drones pose greater and greater risks to our troops, our homeland, and our security.
And, Secretary Hegseth, that we need to protect our troops wherever our president directs them, that we need to protect our partners and allies, and that the dangerous, radical Iranian regime should never possess a nuclear weapon. I think we agree on all of these core basic points.
Where I think we may disagree is on this supplemental and on the strategic choices made to achieve some of these core goals. We're 143 days into a war with Iran, a war of choice that we started with Israel but did not include, consult, or incorporate our core allies, our NATO allies, our regional allies, the American people, and Congress. And the reason to consult and include our allies and Congress and the American people is so that when the costs and the length of a war extend beyond what we'd initially imagined, the American people and their representatives in Congress understand that sacrifice and can continue to support it.
[16:35:05]
I think your first strategic mistake was to not consult the American people in Congress and make a clear case for the reasons behind this war. There have been many, lots offered, and I think our military has executed on the core missions -- attack ballistic missile sites, sink the blue water navy, attack their proxies, constrain their capacity.
But I frankly think it was entirely foreseeable that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, would use cheap, lethal, widely available Shahed drones that they've led the world in manufacturing to attack our bases, our troops, our partners and allies, and impose real costs. Higher costs in fertilizer, in fuel, higher costs for the world, and tragically, increasingly higher human costs for us and for our troops.
So, two questions, the two general lines of questioning, if I could. Mr. Secretary, your question says, without these supplemental funds, we will face critical shortfalls that threaten our ability to pay our service members and sustain global operations without disruption. You've been asked repeatedly, there's $75 billion appropriated but un- obligated.
Can we really not avoid critical short-term shortfalls? What does that mean about the budget management within the department in terms of unexpected and unbudgeted wars? First, Operation Southern Spear and then Operation Epic Fury.
HEGSETH: I would just note I was sort of updated, 95 percent of that One, Big Beautiful Bill funding will be allocated by the end of September in accordance with congressional intent. So these are things we said we would spend, we told you we would spend them on, and we plan to spend them on those things by the end of September. So this is a new request based on new realities of a world we face, stepping up to meet that moment.
COONS: Mr. Secretary, but that's news to me, that that $75 billion will be out the door, appropriated -- sorry, allocated and spent by September. And I was simply questioning how we have ships running out of fuel in the open seas and planes being grounded and --.
HEGSETH: I didn't say ships were running out of fuel in open seas or planes were grounded. I'm saying we're having to make trade-offs.
COONS: Operations and maintenance accounts --
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: Everything our troops need on the battlefield, they're getting in spades and beyond. It's ultimately looking into the future, can we invest above and beyond that, the types of munitions, fast enough as we upgrade and modernize our force, that's what's at issue here in this $1.5 trillion, this supplemental and any other additional funding that comes.
COONS: Two quite different things, a $1.5 trillion base budget request and a now $76 billion supplemental. And I was simply going to point to a Department of Homeland Security is sitting on nearly $100 billion in unobligated funds. You haven't requested reimbursement for the millions of, frankly, billions of dollars the department has spent on law enforcement.
Second --
HEGSETH: We requested reimbursement and are getting a substantial reimbursement from DHS.
COONS: That's good news, and that's news to me.
And frankly, as we reflect on the service and sacrifice of those who put their lives on the line of this war, one of the things I've raised over and over and over is the ways in which this administration has dragged its feet on partnering with Ukraine in order to deploy the best-in-class sensors, detectors, and counter-drone systems to protect everything from Dover Air Force Base to our bases in the region, to our troops, to our partners.
I want to see you focus on accelerating the defense of our troops and our nation, focus on accelerating the defense of our troops and this region, and a strategy that has a real chance at succeeding at the goals that we agree on, because the strategy followed, I think, has no credible likelihood of success.
COLLINS: Senator Britt?
SEN. KATIE BRITT (R-AL): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Appreciate all of you being here today.
So since the beginning of the Putin's aggression into Ukraine, this body has passed five supplemental bills funding different portions of that war. You mentioned in your opening, Mr. Secretary, about not getting those munitions that had come through this body quick enough to Ukraine and also being able to replenish those here at home. Can you talk a little bit more about that? Because I remember the previous administration dragging its feet after this body gave them directive as to what to do.
So can you shed a little bit more light as to what you were talking about in your opening?
HEGSETH: Well, thank you for that question. I sometimes we forget recent history, which under the Biden administration, there were five supplemental requests for Ukraine, which almost every member of this body voted for to send rapidly in a bipartisan fashion for something that this committee and the administration deemed to be urgent.
[16:40:11]
President Trump may take a different view, but that was the view of the Biden administration.
BRITT: And real quick, what you say, it would be urgent to make sure that our men and women in uniform right now have everything that they need.
HEGSETH: I would argue providing for American men and women as opposed to Ukrainian men and women is a higher priority for the United States Senate. So five supplementals that went to Ukraine, as good as that cause may be, why is that righteous to do? But funding troops in harm's way right now, given the threat and what they're undertaking, this is a partisan exercise? And I appreciate you pointing it out.
BRITT: Madam Secretary, real quick, Madam Secretary, question for you. When the Russia-Ukraine war started, we saw, obviously, costs go up around the world. In particular, in that region, we know that supplying of fertilizer, you know, was tremendous. We also know Ukraine was top five when it came to wheat and corn and other things that we utilize, you know, across the globe.
It's my -- it's my recollection that, for fertilizer went up about 55 percent. Obviously, if we were able to create stability there in the region and have peace, it would -- it would follow that then prices would likely go down over time within the agriculture world as well. Is that is that fair?
ROLLINS: Yes, that's correct.
BRITT: Okay. And when we're looking at the Ukraine and Russia war and trying to end Putin's aggression, trying to bring peace. General Caine, if we were to cut off the funding that Russia was getting, would it follow that that would be a driver that could possibly lead Putin to the table?
CAINE: Senator, yes, and their economy is struggling now.
BRITT: Thank you. Thank you.
And we also know, I saw reports this weekend, that it is said that possibly Russia and China, which I know you can't comment on right now, but are actually helping Iran, whether it is targeting our troops, funding, and other mechanisms. So, a thing that we could all agree that ending that would be helpful.
I want to just echo Senator Kennedy's comments that I think the sooner we can get this bill on the floor and passed, it would be huge with regards to Russian sanctions.
I also want to just talk briefly about the dysfunction of this body. So my question is for you, Mr. Secretary, and you, General Caine. I would have to think that our adversaries, and I believe that we need to fully fund our military, making sure that our warfighter is the best ready, trained, and equipped across the planet.
I think we have an obligation and a duty to not only meet the needs of the moment, but to also look at what's to come and be preparing for that. You talked about an insurance policy. You talk about what we need to do. Now is the time to do those things.
But I would have to think that the dysfunction of this body, whether it's the full shutdown, a partial shutdown, a partial shutdown, not being able to pass NDAA, not being able to pass FISA. I would have to think that our adversaries look at that and it gives them a little bit more credence as to what they're doing abroad.
Can either one of you comment on that?
HEGSETH: Thank you, Senator.
That's why I have said, and I will continue to say that the inability to properly fund this department, the Department of War, is probably the single greatest threat our nation faces. Whether or not we will make a generational investment in not just winning the wars currently, but deterring the wars of the future, given the step change in technology of this moment and the underfunding of the previous administration -- you didn't mention continued resolutions, which is a whole another way our department has foolishly budgeted. So I appreciate you highlighting that it's very true.
BRITT: Yeah.
And, General Caine, question for you. Obviously, a shutdown is just -- is a terrible thing for the Department of War and the men and women that you oversee, but I would assume that a CR is not much better. Can you comment on the effects of that?
CAINE: Ma'am, the department's done a lot of work to bind together founders, funders, and fighters as we look to the challenges that we face in the future, and a C.R. would hurt badly the effort to properly arm the Joint Force.
BRITT: I hope we can work together to do the right thing. Thanks. The people are depending on it.
COLLINS: Senator Schatz.
SEN. BRIAN SCHATZ (D-HI): Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Secretaries and General, for being here.
I want to start by paying my respects to First Lieutenant Tyler Feehan of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, who was among those killed in Jordan this weekend while serving our country. His courage, selfless dedication, and unwavering commitment to duty reflect the very best of our armed forces. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, his loved ones, his fellow service members, and remain forever grateful for his sacrifice.
[16:45:08]
Secretary, about 190,000 people in the state of Hawaii, believe it or not, voted for Donald John Trump. And I know a lot of them, and I represent all of them. And one of the reasons that they were enthusiastic about Donald Trump and you, Mr. Secretary, was they thought that we were going to have a new foreign policy. And that I think -- I'm paraphrasing, but I think you characterized yourself as a reformed neocon or some such thing.
And people were pretty thrilled about the idea that we were going to -- that America First, in their mind, meant that we were going to not do this kind of adventurism. And so I don't want you to answer me. I want you to answer them. And I want to walk through the sort of stated objectives of this war at the outset. Regime change -- we now have a younger and more radical regime, depleting, eliminating their conventional missile capability. It's true that we've depleted their conventional missile capability. It's also true that anything the Department of War sets out to do, it usually succeeds at.
So the question is not, do we kick ass? It's, when do we decide to use kinetic engagement to extend our power across the globe? And it's clear that Iran still retains enough conventional missile capability to attack our bases and our interests in the region.
Now, it's true that the blue-water navy is destroyed. It's also true, and you know this, that the IRGC has something that you may not call a navy, but it's got capabilities to touch us with drones and missiles and lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, preventing their nuclear capability. It's also true that if you bomb the crap out of a place, they're going to have less capabilities by the end of it, but it's also true that we have not eliminated their nuclear capability, and whatever duration we've set them back actually pales in comparison to the -- and I'll say it -- the Obama nuclear deal, which we did without having to put our people in harm's way.
And then the last objective, which has become a new objective, is open up the Strait of Hormuz, but the Strait of Hormuz was open before this war started.
And so, you tell my constituents why this war is going so well.
HEGSETH: I think you did accurately portray me as a reformed neocon, and members of our generation in Iraq and Afghanistan watched administrations on both sides try to project some remaking of a society in the image of America that spent thousands of lives. I mean, in Iraq, you know, 15 -- I don't know the exact number, but tens of thousands between Iraq and Afghanistan, men and women lost.
President Trump said we're not fighting stupid wars like that again, and he hasn't. That's why we haven't been trying to remake Iranian society, but simply in a realist America-first way, ensure they never have a path to a nuclear bomb, full stop. And he has said, as a candidate, and he said as a private citizen, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon because radical Islamists with nuclear weapon will wield it over our head in perpetuity.
SCHATZ: Secretary, I --
HEGSETH: So President Trump ran on fighting wars differently, and we're doing so overwhelmingly, and he was very clear as a candidate that Iran never have a nuclear capability, so I think he's directly on par with --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHATZ: Let me get a question back in here. I think we're -- I think we're understanding the limits of air power here, because we're basically at a stalemate. Someone says the Strait of Hormuz is closed, and we say, well, we've got a naval blockade, and we're just going to see who blinks first.
And the truth is, in order to sort of change the balance here, change the equation here, some kind of escalation would have to be considered. And if you're taking that off the table, then we are in a holding pattern. And I go back to the original five objectives, and none of them have been met. Some of them have changed, but none of them have been met.
And with gas at now $4.02, with the Brent crude hit $90 today, up from $72 weeks ago, gas up about a buck nationwide, about a buck 50 in the state of Hawaii. People want to know, why are we even doing this?
COLLINS: Senator Fischer, go ahead.
SEN. DEB FISCHER (R-NE): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Hegseth, I appreciated your perspective on the focus on the four-year war in comparison to a four-month war with a nuclear adversary.
[16:50:01]
And I thought it was very well said. Thank you.
If we -- if we want to support Ukraine going forward, I think the best way to do that is to dramatically increase munition production. And we need more interceptors. We have to be able to move forward, so do our allies and our friends. And let me emphasize that this supplemental does that.
This is what we're talking about here today. It's one of the things that we're talking about. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, one of my priorities for over five years now has been on munition production.
General Caine, what happens if Congress doesn't fund this $21 billion request for additional munitions?
CAINE: Well, ma'am, there's been a lot of work done by the department to partner with the private sector. I'll acknowledge some of the efforts that the private sector is doing to utilize their own capital to facilitize factories. If we don't, as a team, figure out how to properly fund the department, then we're not going to get the munitions, and there's going to be a lack of shared risk between the federal government and the private sector.
And I think we're at a point in time in our history where we need to partner. We need to find an ability to share risk. We need to be better sellers and buyers on both sides in order to make sure that the young, all-volunteer force has the weapons that they need before they are asked to go do something.
FISCHER: What you're saying is we need to be prepared as a country. CAINE: Yes, ma'am, and I hope, as I said in my opening statement, that we will find a way to make sure that we seize this moment, in this time in history, to ensure that we've got the right mix of munitions, high, low, scale, autonomous.
FISCHER: What's your plan B if the supplemental doesn't pass? What's plan B?
CAINE: Ma'am, we will always figure things out. We will always have contingencies. We will always determine a way to create multiple simultaneous dilemmas for adversaries around the world in order to create time for us to do the work that the Congress and the department needs to do together.
FISCHER: As you've heard me say a number of times in our posture hearings on armed services and also in classified briefings, we don't have a lot of time, do we, sir?
CAINE: No, ma'am. That's why I said, if not now, then when? And if not us, then who? And I truly believe we're at one of those moments in history where we have a choice to make, just given what I see on the next couple ridgelines. And I encourage us to move forward.
FISCHER: Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, how would this request scale munitions production and be able to accelerate our delivery times?
HEGSETH: In the past, previous administrations would sort of send the same amount of dollars into trying to encourage companies to build another factory and add an additional shift. What this munition request does is fulfills deals that our department have cut with these companies.
First, multi-year procurement, where these companies that make SM3s or Patriots or THAADs or Tomahawks.
FISCHER: It's a priority for our NDAA a couple years.
HEGSETH: Absolutely. And you have provided that authority, multi-year procurement, and now those companies are spending $4 billion, $5 billion, $3 billion on building their own new factories that then produce 2X, 3X, or 4X the amount of munitions than they did in the past, and they paid for it.
So actually, in this budget, which is $21 billion, as you mentioned, It saves 18 billion over the FYDP on munitions because we're buying munitions at today's cost and not at five or seven years from now when we will also get them.
FISCHER: I hate to interrupt, but we're running out of time. We also have the request includes $4.1 billion for our space-based capabilities, and that includes the AMTI and our space data network capabilities. And these really underpin the long-range kill chains and allow our warfight fighters to detect and also then to attract to track the airborne threats. So, Mr. Secretary, what's the risk to the joint force if we delay
these programs until FY '28 or beyond?
HEGSETH: Senator, not being able to see, not being able to sense before an adversary is able to engage one of our capabilities and which means falling behind in the domain of space, which means falling behind at every other domain.
FISCHER: Great. Thank you.
And General Caine, do you have anything to add on that about why Congress can't wait I think you make such an excellent case on that.
CAINE: No, ma'am. I'll stick with the words that I -- that I offered.
FISCHER: Secretary Rollins, thank you for your focus on year-round sale of B15, for taking care of the horrible disasters we've had in Nebraska.
[16:55:05]
We appreciate you coming out and I have a couple things more of course that I want to bring to your attention but thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
COLLINS: Senator Van Hollen?
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Rollins, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland is one of the crown jewels of agriculture research in the United States. And my question is simple. Can we find some time to get together in the coming weeks to discuss the situation there?
ROLLINS: Absolutely, yes.
VAN HOLLEN: Thank you, Madam Secretary.
ROLLINS: Yes.
VAN HOLLEN: Let me turn to the Iran war. We recently lost three American heroes. That brings the death toll for American soldiers to 18. One is still missing, hundreds have been injured. That's on top of the civilian death toll throughout the region that now stands at several thousand, including the over 150 people killed in the bombing of an elementary school in Minab in Iran.
Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz is closed. Gas prices today in the United States, again, spiked above $4 a gallon. And that will also continue to push up costs for groceries and other things that families buy.
Secretary Hegseth, you said in your opening statement the best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war, and I agree with you about deterrence. I would also submit that the best way to ensure peace is not to start wars, because wars are a lot easier to start than they are to end.
General Caine, I heard your testimony saying Iran will continue to be a challenge. And I think it's pretty clear that that is, in fact, the case. And, General, in order for you to develop a military strategy to accomplish a particular objective, you obviously need to know what those objectives are, right?
CAINE: Yes, sir. It all starts with what is the political objective, and from that we derive military objectives that support whatever that ends --
VAN HOLLEN: And as you say, that is a political objective.
CAINE: Yes, sir.
VAN HOLLEN: So, Mr. Secretary, you've talked a lot about winning. You've talked about winning in your testimony today. You've talked about winning throughout the Iran war. And we all like winning.
But I think the American people deserve a definition of what it means to win in Iran, because this war has dragged out for a lot longer than certainly the president of the United States indicated. Indeed, the President said on March 24th, and I'm quoting, "We've won this war. This war has been won."
Do you know what the President meant by that back in March?
HEGSETH: Well, Senator, I would just note that militarily, I mean, Iran has been completely overmatched and crushed from the beginning, militarily. Their capabilities are nowhere near ours.
I would take issue with your characterization that we didn't start -- that we started this war. Iran started this war 47 years ago and they've killed thousands of Americans, including our brothers on the battlefield in Iraq. Iran has been targeting us for a long time.
VAN HOLLEN: Mr. Secretary, we didn't start what they did. Let me just ask you this, since you said that what the president meant by his statement on March 24th, I think that we had sort of defeated Iran militarily.
But that is not the entire objective of this war. I don't think there was ever a question about whether the United States, with its superior military, could destroy a lot of Iranian assets, military assets or other assets. That was never a question.
But when most people think of winning the war, they think that that means the war is going to come to an end because we've won. And the president said back in March that we'd won.
So I guess my question to you is, how are we going to define winning? I hear back in March, you said about the Iranians, and I quote, "Whether they will have a ceremony in Tehran Square and surrender, that's up to them."
So my question, Mr. Secretary. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz is necessary in order for us to win, right? That's just a simple yes or no question.
HEGSETH: You asked me what the overarching objective is, and I would say ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon. That's been clear from the president from day one. That's why Midnight Hammer was undertaken to obliterate their nuclear sites. That's why we're watching their nuclear sites. That's why that was a part of negotiations, ensuring that the next generation of Americans don't have to deal with Iran that wields a nuclear weapon.
VAN HOLLEN: Since that's what you're leading with, Mr. Secretary, let me just say this. You said, after Midnight Hammer, and I'm quoting, "Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons," unquote. Clearly, that is not the case, based on your testimony today.
