Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Now: Trump Admin Officials Testify On $87 Billion Funding Request. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired July 21, 2026 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[17:00:00]
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: 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.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): 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. It's also a fact that the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in front of the Intelligence Committee that it was our assessment that Iran did not intend to restart its nuclear program. The president of the United States just about a week ago said Iran has committed not to develop a nuclear weapon, which, of course, is a commitment they've made for many years.
We need to enforce that. That's what we are doing under the JCPOA.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): Senator Rounds.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I had the opportunity to serve as governor of South Dakota for eight years. During that time, we deployed over 5,000 young men and women into harm's way. National Guard members from South Dakota, I attended their departure ceremonies, I attended their welcome home ceremonies, and I attended 31 funerals.
One of the main reasons that I decided to come to Washington was because I never wanted to see young men and women going into harm's way again if they didn't have the best leadership, the best training, and the best equipment possible. Now, this body, the Senate, with regard to the Iranian war, to date, this body has chosen not to impose war power limitations on the president, nor have we pushed for the withdrawal of forces from the theater. I think the decision to take out Iran's nuclear program and their missile production capacity was the right one. And it should have been done a long time ago. But when the president did that, we also assumed that there would be risk involved. And when you put young men and women in harm's way, you want to do everything you can to make sure that you get in, you get the job done, and you get out. I think that's what we talk about. Now today, it has been since February that we now have the Iranians that are shooting back. We haven't finished the job.
I think the question that the American people have is when the difficult decision comes, because I don't think diplomacy is necessarily working. And I think most people would say we've got more issues in front of us before this is complete.
For General Caine, when the time comes and the president is asking for the decisions about the options available to him to appropriately end this war favorable to the United States and to take care of this problem permanently, are you prepared to provide him with the appropriate options that he is going to have to make a decision to choose from?
GEN. DAN CAINE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Sir, I always provide the president with appropriate options and risks that he can choose from.
ROUNDS: And those options that he will have to choose from will cost money. And that's our role here. Because if we don't do it right, young men and women die.
CAINE: Yes.
ROUNDS: Question to you, sir, is this. You've offered a supplemental request and I recognize that it's part of a 1.5 trillion overall. But is this enough money to get the job done or is this going to just get us far enough until we've got to come back in here? And in the meantime, we may very well not have these young men and women out of harm's way yet. That's my question.
CAINE: Sir, I want to first start with recognizing your 31 fallen from home and mourn their losses. We carefully consider the use of military force every single day. And the most important thing that I do is make sure that the president and the other leaders understand the risks and carefully consider the Dover test, a place you've been many times, and that is are we willing to go to Dover as we will tomorrow to bring back the fallen?
ROUNDS: So --
CAINE: I can't answer the question on what it will cost because the enemy has a vote. What I'll commit to you as this plays out. We'll make sure that the Congress is informed. But because I'm not quite sure how this is going to play out yet, it would be unwise for me to comment on what a future cost may or may not be, depending on what they choose.
[17:05:17]
ROUNDS: In general, you will provide a plan to Congress at whatever the appropriate classification level is on what resources are required to execute what the president's intent will be to successfully end this conflict.
CAINE: Sir, I will -- I will always make sure that as we have to -- that we're moving data as appropriate to Congress. Yes, sir.
ROUNDS: OK. Let me come back in just in terms of follow up on this a little bit. Some have criticized Operation Epic Fury for expending many of our munitions stockpiles. Were our munitions, the inventories of those munitions and the capacity of our munitions industrial base sufficient for great power competition with near peer adversaries like China prior to Operation Epic Fury? Secretary Hegseth?
HEGSETH: Senator, as I laid out because of the previous administration short -- funding shortfalls, munitions transferred to Ukraine and not replaced. And then ignoring threats, it built a lot of risk that required -- that requires this kind of investment. So you look at the 67 billion alongside the remainder for 1.5. That's the kind of generational investment that not just matches peer adversaries near, but far surpasses them. Which I think is your expectation, having been to those ceremonies, which is mine, having been to them and going to them, is that we give everything possible to the war fighter that they deserve.
COLLINS: Senator Heinrich.
ROUNDS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-NM): Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
General Caine, our military is the best in the world. And -- so I don't think any of us should be surprised with the technical execution of its attacks on the Iranian regime's forces. They've been flawless. What I don't want us to confuse is flawless technical execution with long term strategic success. And I think one objective that is relatively modest because it puts us back to where we were when we started this, but none the nonetheless is incredibly important as a critical objective is that I want to see the strait open again.
And I want to see it open where shippers can transit that strait without being extorted by Iran. And I would love to see that before our commercial and other oil reserves are exhausted because of the impacts that that will then have on the pocketbooks of American families. Is that a reasonable objective? And is one -- is it one that you share?
CAINE: Sir, I'll defer on the military objectives to the political leaders who set them. What I can tell you is U.S. Central Command is working hard to ensure that Iran cannot terrorize the southern flank down there. And they're doing so every single day and night. And you and the rest of the Senate would be proud of the actions and activities for the forces that are down there.
The character of war is changing, though, like I said in my opening statement. And so there's a variety of mixed munitions that are down there coming at the commercial traffic. But I would like to be clear and unambiguous with you and the rest of the Senate and the Iranian forces, they have a choice to make and they should knock it off. HEINRICH: I have no doubt I would be incredibly proud of the actions of our service members in this conflict. And I hope we can achieve that kind of strategic objection on the timeline that obviously avoids the worst impacts of the limitations of commercial oil supplies right now.
Secretary Rollins, I want to shift gears. One of the things that you mentioned in your opening statement that we appear to agree on is that there is simply too much consolidation in a number of agricultural sectors. You mentioned fertilizer and seeds. But in particular, I want to talk about the meatpacking industry because in a previous Trump administration bailout, about $90 million went to the corrupt Brazilian meatpacker JBS. I think that Congress really intended those funds to go to American ranchers.
So I want to ask you, what are you going to do this time around to ensure that the proposed relief dollars that we're talking about today, that those funds go to American producers instead of to the very foreign corporations who have created the business model where ranchers bear the risk and meat packers reap the profit -- profits?
BROOKE ROLLINS, AGRICULTURE SECRETARY: Well, that's right. And we're obviously at a 75-year-herd low. There are a lot of reasons for that, but working to solve for that. Number one, the Department of Justice is investigating right now significantly the four but especially the two foreign owned. Number two, USDA is investing significant funds in deconsolidating packing and supporting midsize and smaller packers around the country.
[17:10:22]
I know that wasn't your question, but just to answer the bigger question, which is a really important one. But from my perspective, what the Trump USDA 2.0 has been hyper focused on small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers, we have worked really hard on the 40 billion that has already moved through to make sure that that goes to where it is intended which is not multinational foreign agricultural corporations.
HEINRICH: I very much support the efforts of the Department of Justice. I think there is a very important antitrust case to be made here. At the same time I've watched as your department has rescinded three important rules that were put in place to protect farmers and ranchers from unfair practices by the large meat packers. Those rules were supported by the American Farm Bureau and the National Farmers Union. Explain that discrepancy to me.
ROLLINS: Which rules? I'm not tracking.
HEINRICH: The inclusive competition and market integrity rule. The Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments rule and the Poultry Grower Payment Systems and Capital Improvement Systems rules.
ROLLINS: The packers and stockyards I think is what you're talking about. So we are executing an additional review on that. I think that the point is very well made that sometimes that inures to the benefit of the larger corporations. As I have begun to make a larger case and a more vigorous case in the importance of deconsolidation, we'll be taking a second look at that and I would love your input.
HEINRICH: And I would very much support the consolidation. Thank you.
COLLINS: Senator Husted.
SEN. JON HUSTED (R-OH): Thank you Chair Collins. Thank you all for being here today.
In my brief time in the Senate I've learned that we're really good at embracing our oversight role. But oftentimes there are many people who don't want to do their jobs in terms of funding the government on time and actually doing the work that we're supposed to do as appropriators. And I'm not for blank checks. Believe everybody should be accountable, but I also believe we should do our job. And now we have a supplemental funding request that we're discussing today.
We're waiting on getting an NDAA done. Despite the chair's best efforts to facilitate forward an appropriations process, there's question of whether that will get done on time in September.
And my question start with you, Secretary Hegseth, just to talk a little bit about what the consequences of failure, what this really means to not do this on time. Because I've talked to defense contractors, as a former executive member of an executive branch, I know that the legislative branch often thinks, well, no matter when we get this done, we just wave a magic wand, we pass the bill and it all magically happens. But that's not how it happens. It takes time for people to -- businesses out there who you're going to rely on to build these weapons systems who don't know if they're going to get paid. They can't plan, they can't -- they can't staff up, they can't order the equipment, they can't do any of these things unless they know that the money is actually coming.
So what are the consequences of not just doing this but doing it on time in a timely manner?
HEGSETH: Senator, thank you. I think the consequences of dysfunction in funding this department put at risk a, I think a first time in 25, 30 year reform effort to change how we do business as a department. We're going to war with the Pentagon bureaucracy because the bureaucracy existed to defend just a few systems and processes and companies. We need all of American industry coming into our department. And if you talk to industry, they've never seen anything like what our deputy secretary and our department are doing right now to run fast, at speed.
But it counts on this body and others funding this department in a way that can fulfill the deals that we're cutting, that saves the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars and gets weapons to war fighters' years and years faster than we ever have in the past. So without the funding we put at issue all those deals, all the reforms, all the ways in which we're changing our department to move at the speed of business. So it's not just dollars and cents, it's demand, it's predictability, it's showing industry, we will meet you at this moment. And if we can't get past our dysfunction to fund the war fighter, we put a lot of that at issue.
HUSTED: General Caine, same question from a military point of view, not knowing if when the funding is going to come and us not doing our job on time, what are the consequences to the war fighter?
[17:15:03]
CAINE: Sure. I'll just add to the secretary's comments. You know, it'll manifest itself in a range of ways. Readiness, capability, munitions, training, cyber unmanned autonomy. This is why I'm really asking for the Congress's help here, for us to look forward at the next couple ridgelines and to be thoughtful about the moves that we make here. And I understand the environment that we're operating in right now, but whatever structure the legislature and the executive branch determine, we need predictable capital my investor had on from my previous life, so that we can go out and procure the capabilities that we need before we need them.
And those things are changing, you know, the advancement of small drones and things like that. We're going to have to make sure that we stay very close with the Congress so that as technology develops at a speed that we haven't seen before, that we're staying very close in partnering with the Congress to enable us to adaptively use that capital with the appropriators buy in so that we're arming the force properly.
HUSTED: Well, I can tell you, in interacting with the people who are that want to build these new generation of weapons systems, because I think you would agree that we've learned a lot from Ukraine, we've learned a lot from this conflict, about how we were underprepared from the standpoint and from a defense standpoint, and that we have to continue to modernize our system, the weapons systems. I think it's very important that we not only do our job, but we do it on time. Because it just --
CAINE: Yes, sir.
HUSTED: -- you cannot run a Department of Defense, run businesses who are supplying these things without knowing if you're actually going to get funded. Whole supply chain, the workforce, everything gets held up when we don't get our jobs done on time.
CAINE: Yes, sir. I used to -- I used to work in the private sector for a company who was headquartered in Pickwick, Ohio, and those leaders told me your entire J-O-B, Dan Caine, is to deliver quality parts, or in this case, weapons, on time with shorter lead times and lower costs. And part of why I'm so passionate about this is because I see how this capital, if the Congress chooses to give it to us, will manifest itself in real combat capability, lethality, and survivability for our joint force.
HUSTED: Thank you. And thank you, Secretary Rollins, for coming to Ohio, meeting with all of our AG leaders.
ROLLINS: It was great.
HUSTED: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
COLLINS: Senator Gillibrand.
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Secretary Hegseth, you're requesting billions of dollars in supplemental funding for a war that you said would last for weeks and that the president has no plan or ability to end. At the same time, this still unauthorized and extremely unpopular war has caused gas, diesel, fertilizer and other essentials that New Yorkers and our farmers need across the country has become much more expensive. So how do I go back to New York and what would you say to them who are seeing their health care bills rise because massive cuts to Medicaid. They've seen their grocery and gas bills rise. And this unpopular and unauthorized war abroad is a higher priority to this administration than their ability to feed their families and provide health care to their loved ones who are sick.
HEGSETH: Well, Senator, you're talking about political tradeoffs and our job is to deliver for the United States military and the president of United States and we look at the cost of a nuclear Iran and we want to prevent that for future generations. And that requires funding and supplementals and this budget and next generation capabilities. And that's why we're here today to request some of that to ensure we can ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
GILLIBRAND: So you're essentially saying you're asking for literally $1.5 trillion for a war that President Trump said he already won. You're asking for $1.5 trillion unlimited money for bombs but insufficient money in the American -- for the American people for their health care, their food, their housing and our farmers, Secretary Rollins, who we have cut SNAP program. We are not funding the losses from emergencies that have happened in blue states, particularly when we had cross --
ROLLINS: That's not true.
GILLIBRAND: False? False? You're not funding it.
But back to you, Secretary Hegseth --
ROLLINS: And I would like to respond to the fertilizer and gas.
GILLIBRAND: Have your chance. Secretary Hegseth --
ROLLINS: There's no reason to be rude.
GILLIBRAND: -- you are -- you are asking for unlimited money for bombs when people can't feed their families. And I don't know how this administration intends to defend those decisions to the American people.
[17:20:02] HEGSETH: Not unlimited bombs, Senator. I'm asking for the right bombs at the right time to ensure we can deter our adversaries into the future. And that's why this is a --
GILLIBRAND: OK.
HEGSETH: -- generational investment.
GILLIBRAND: You see, Mr. Heg -- Secretary Hegseth --
HEGSETH: And it was the previous administration that didn't fund this department.
GILLIBRAND: -- the reason why people are so upset --
HEGSETH: They didn't fund it.
GILLIBRAND: -- the reason why they are so upset with you and this administration is because the words you have used in the past don't add up. About Iran specifically. You said that we had "obliterated," quote, unquote, Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons. The president made the same claim. Yet eight months later, in February of 2026, the president launched an act of war claiming Iran was within two weeks of having a weapon.
So when you say two very different things, the American people don't know who to believe or what to believe. They just know they can't afford their health care, they can't afford their food, they can't afford housing, and our farmers are continuing to suffer. So which is true? Was it obliterated or wasn't it? What's the status?
HEGSETH: The nuclear sites under Midnight Hammer were obliterated. But Iranians foolishly continued to attempt to pursue nuclear capabilities, which is why we destroyed their defense industrial base --
GILLIBRAND: OK.
HEGSETH: -- and so many of the other capabilities --
GILLIBRAND: Let's take --
HEGSETH: -- to ensure they can't get to a nuclear weapon.
GILLIBRAND: OK.
HEGSETH: We're staying laser focused on the objective and you're trying to make campaign commercials.
GILLIBRAND: No, we're not.
HEGSETH: And that's fine.
GILLIBRAND: So listen to this. You also say that you made the missile program, quote, "destroyed" and made combat ineffective, quote, "Iran's entire ballistic missile production capacity, every company that builds every component of those missiles has been functionally defeated and destroyed. And that the missile program, existing stockpiles were depleted and decimated, almost completely ineffective." So why are there missiles left to hit Jordan and result in the loss of life of our brave men and women?
HEGSETH: As we stated from the beginning, the Iranian defense industrial base is effectively gone. But they do have underground facilities because they're the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. And they've spent 47 years trying to hide their missiles under mountains, just like their --
GILLIBRAND: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you.
HEGSETH: -- just like their nuclear capabilities because they would like to get a nuclear weapon to wield it against us.
GILLIBRAND: Just don't know what version of the war to believe. Because it's either over or it's not over. It's within two weeks or it's not two weeks. We have no missiles or we have missiles. And that consternation is why so many New Yorkers are perplexed, stressed out, and find this war to be incredibly unpopular.
Because they don't understand the choices that the president's making, they don't agree with those choices.
Secretary Rollins, so you have cut over 160,000 New Yorkers have been kicked off SNAP. What do you have against hardworking New Yorkers, children who need SNAP and seniors who need SNAP?
ROLLINS: Well, first of all, diesel is down under Biden versus today, 581 versus 480. Gas is down --
GILLIBRAND: Fact that it's over --
ROLLINS: -- from Biden today from 484 to 386 today. Fertilizer is down 56 percent from Biden highs.
GILLIBRAND: Prices are higher than when you took office.
ROLLINS: So this narrative that you were using -- well --
GILLIBRAND: All of those prices are higher than when you took office. So you are not making life better --
ROLLINS: That is not true. That is not true, Senator.
GILLIBRAND: -- for New York farmers.
ROLLINS: And let me tell you what New York is stressed out about is the fact that your state is taking prime farmland and turning it into a solar farms. That is absolutely inexcusable.
GILLIBRAND: Visit the New York farmers you will see that --
ROLLINS: I have visited the New York farms two times.
GILLIBRAND: -- smart farms do both.
ROLLINS: Two times in upstate New York.
COLLINS: The senator's time has expired.
ROLLINS: Thank you.
COLLINS: Senator Boozman.
SEN. JOHN BOOZMAN (R-AR): Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. And thank all of you all for your service to our country and our national security. And I think it's easy for the public to understand how you, Mr. Hegseth, are, you know, your contribution in the position you're in, in general, the position you're in. But some don't understand the position that our secretary of Agriculture's in.
I gave a presentation a couple years ago when Senator Rubio, then Senator Rubio was over here in the middle of it, I was talking about agriculture. He punched me and said, John, always tell them food security is national security. Now Senator Cotton, who's head of the Intelligence Committee now has taken his place. He's doing the same thing.
So, again, what we're talking about today is very, very important to our country. Right now we're in a generational crisis. Our banks, our economists tell us that if we don't start doing things differently, and the good news is that the administration is doing things differently. It's doing things differently. We're going to lose 20 percent, 25 percent of our farmers in the next two or three years.
I visit almost daily with farmers about the difficult farm economy, wildfires, flooding, all the things we've talked about today. My only concern is that the supplemental is very much appreciated. After hearing the testimony today and the concerns, we might need to look at bumping that up a little bit. But again, that's -- we'll discuss that later.
[17:25:08]
The supplemental, though, the supplemental assistance is important in keeping our farmers going, but it's not the answer. Will you just reiterate again what we're trying to do? We're trying to give farmers a bump, an edge to keep going until the programs that we're putting in place now kick in. You mentioned fertilizer, you mentioned E15, you mentioned value adding our products both overseas, finding new markets. Can you talk a little bit about that?
The importance of not only the supplemental, but again, what we're doing in conjunction with that. So we won't have supplementals in the future.
ROLLINS: That's exactly right. The effort to bring the cost of inputs down is real. Fertilizer, seed, labor, interest rates, et cetera, number one. And if we can just get inputs back down to where they were in Trump won, we're going to have a remarkable recovery in farm country. But then you add that to the 19 new trade deals, more coming online every day, the record breaking exports that we're going to see in a lot of our row crops, but also in dairy and tree nuts and others, that's going to be a game changer.
Then you look at expanding the domestic market as you talk about whether E15, obviously all of the biofuels. We've already seen corn and wheat hit record highs or the highest number for the year after announcing the new renewable fuel standards. So we're seeing some pretty incredible movement in the right direction. Then you marry that to all of your work under the Working Families Tax Cut Act, the new reference prices that under the last administration couldn't get a farm bill. You all did that with the president's leadership.
The first time we're going to increase reference prices in more than a decade combined with a 250 billion investment in rural America, the largest investment in rural America in American history. This Congress did that with the White House's leadership. All of that together is going to change the trajectory for the long term of farming and ranching in America. But to get to that point, that's why this supplemental is so very, very important.
BOOZMAN: Madam Secretary, I have a letter from Farm Bureau that I want to put into the record that just outlines requesting relief to sustain America's farmers and ranchers.
Secretary Hegseth, General Caine, one of the things that we're concerned about is that in the military construction aspect of things, we're really not asking for that in the supplemental. I know that the success of Operation Epic Fury particularly for our missile interceptors and short range aircraft, really basing was a large part of that. Can you tell us how we can help you again try and plus up our military construction in some way so that we're not going to be faced with this in the future? You know, trying to double up.
HEGSETH: Senator, I think by Congress finding the ability to meet up to close to or the totality of 1.5 trillion means we're not making the kind of tradeoffs this department has made now for decades. Those are the types of things, construction, maintenance, that fall off when tradeoffs occur. And so you dig the hole even deeper. And what this budget does it first of all, it fully funds the UPL list, which is the unfunded priority list of PACOM, a priority theater. And then it gets at every single substandard barrack that we have across the department.
So we're funding the military construction in a way that we've never done before to get out of the hole that we've had for a while.
BOOZMAN: Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair.
COLLINS: Thank you, Senator Boozman.
To the very patient Senator Baldwin.
SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Vice Chair. And thank you for appearing before our Committee today.
To many I represent and to me, this supplemental request is another example of this administration's misplaced priorities. Instead of spending tens of billion dollars more for this president's war of choice in Iran that both houses of Congress, I may add, have voted to end, absent explicit authorization by Congress, we should be focusing on the needs of American families. We could invest this money to accelerate new cures and treatments for cancer and Alzheimer's. We could use it to help more families with rising home energy costs.
We could use this funding to help more families afford quality child care. We could use this funding to help more kids get free school lunch. We could use this funding to restore health care for working families. We could use this funding to support our public schools and special education.
[17:30:18]
This is a war of choice, and every dollar spent on this war is a dollar not spent helping families afford housing, health care, groceries, child care at home, investing in the opportunities for the American people. First, I want to express my condolences and my respect for the 17 American service members killed in this war since February, including three over the past few days.
Their lives are the price this country has paid for this war. The deadliest day for U.S. forces was on March 1st, when an Iranian drone struck an Army facility at Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, killing six soldiers and injuring more than 30 others, including soldiers from Wisconsin. The soldiers from the unit stationed at Port Shuaiba told reporters that the facility did not have adequate air defense capabilities.
These soldiers and their families believe they were sent into harm's way without the defenses they needed. Secretary Hegseth, what would you say to those soldiers and their families?
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: First of all, that we honor and recognize their sacrifice and what they've given. I'm in touch with at least one of those families on a regular basis and understand the pain of losing a loved one is unfathomable, which is why we greeted them at Dover and will greet those again tomorrow.
I would say, in talking to Admiral Cooper, the CENTCOM commander, before all of this was undertaken, maximizing defensive capabilities, mostly by moving as many people as possible off the X, which we did in historic fashion, moving almost 90 percent of Americans in theaters off of where they could be a target. First of all, bunkers that they would move into early morning. Ultimately --
BALDWIN: So I want to focus fully in on Port Shuaiba. And I will quote from the "Washington Post" article of July 12th. Shuaiba, this is a quote, "Shuaiba did not have any of the systems that would take down the one-way attack Shahed drones and initial security assessments found that the base was not adequately protected."
Soldiers at Port Shuaiba have also been quoted in news reports saying that requests for additional medical and drone defense systems were denied prior to the conflict with Iran beginning. Why were those requests denied, Secretary Hegseth? HEGSETH: I would confer with Admiral Cooper, but there were not a single drone or defense request denied at any level that I'm aware of. We did everything we could to move heaven and earth into every single location to protect every single American we possibly could.
BALDWIN: Again, Secretary Hegseth, an article from July 12th, "Washington Post" also quoted a soldier saying that the unit's request for an Eagles drone defense system was denied because of lack of assets. That's an end quote. U.S. Army Central has conducted an investigation into that attack. Do you commit to releasing the findings of that investigation publicly? Yes or no?
HEGSETH: We'll get you the status of that. I would argue if it was a resource constraint, that's precisely why we're having this hearing today, to speed up systems to the battlefield to warfighters as fast as humanly possible. It's been too slow in the past. It needs to be faster. The reforms we're undertaking will do that.
BALDWIN: Do you commit to releasing the findings of that investigation publicly, yes or no?
MATTINGLY: I will work with Admiral Cooper to make sure it's handled properly. Yes, Senator.
BALDWIN: Thank you. Secretary Hegseth, I traveled to Washington -- Walter Reed Military Hospital and met with soldiers who were injured in that attack. They told me, confirmed what other soldiers have said publicly, that most of these soldiers injured in the attack did not receive proper medical care in Kuwait, in Germany, or during their initial days back in the U.S. The U.S. military has been fighting wars in the Middle East for 25 years. Why was proper medical care not immediately available to these injured soldiers? And why were they not immediately screened for traumatic brain injuries?
BALDWIN: I'm not taking issue with the characterization of individual soldiers, but I would argue that every effort was made to provide every level of medical care possible, understanding how CENTCOM operates.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Senator's time has expired. And there is a vote on. Senator Capito.
[17:35:02]
SEN. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO (R-WV): Thank you Madam Chair, thank you all for being here. Thank you for your service. I want to begin because the last time that I saw you, Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, was at the Pentagon when you honored Andrew Wolf who was attacked in here in D.C. in November and then the honor that you have given to Sarah Beckstrom and her family who lost her life that day as well.
I think that -- I know that you've been in constant contact with Andrew and his family and you also know that the great faith that they have in the Lord above is what's really brought them to the point where they are now so let's keep them all in his prayer. I am interested in Senator Baldwin's question because I do have a soldier from West Virginia who is making a very similar complaint so whatever follow-up we can do I would like to do that.
I'd also like to recognize the three most recent service member that we lost because we talk about them as service members and soldiers but we haven't -- I haven't heard him say their name and they're so young. First Lieutenant Tyler James Feehan, Private Isabella Gonzales and Sergeant Michael Swinton. You will be I guess greeting their families and unfortunately their caskets as they come forward tomorrow.
So my question is we've heard a lot about why we shouldn't be voting for this supplemental or questions as to is that really necessary or what. I guess my question General Caine is what's the consequence of not passing this supplemental? Where do you see that hitting us most deeply?
GEN. DAN CAINE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Yes ma'am. It will manifest itself in a few different places. Most significantly it'll be in military personnel related matters. We'll figure out how to pay soldiers and sailors but that that would be a strain. Operations and maintenance costs and then the ability for the department to take some of this capital and wisely invest it in future combat capability and things like A.I., UAS, counter UAS, hypersonics and space.
CAPITO: So not only would it hit us today but it could hit us tomorrow as well.
CAINE: Yes ma'am I actually view this as forward-looking as we look at the future picture and the various risks that we're facing. The supplemental and the budget frankly help to ensure that we are properly arming the joint force for the myriad of potential contingencies that we face in the future.
CAPITO: Thank you. So as we look at one of the I think best successes under your all's leadership at the Department of War has been the fulfillment of the recruit recruitment in every branch. I remember last year I think or maybe the year before only the Marines could brag that they had made their records and now I think that many -- the other branches are you're far exceeding what has previously done.
So that tells me that American young men and women want to serve their country. They want to be safe. They want to do the right thing. So how does not funding them and if they think that their salaries may be short or we're going to have a continuing resolution or we're going to shut down the government. How can this chill what has been one of the greatest successes, I think, in terms of not just today's force but the force of the future and Mr. Secretary I'll ask you to answer that question.
HEGSETH: Well, you know, in a brass tack sense this $1.5 trillion budget in its totality sees a 7 percent pay raise for junior enlisted --
CAPITO: Right.
HEGSETH: -- 6 percent for your NCOs and junior officers and 5 percent for senior officers. So it's significant reflection of the value we place on top of the other increases that that Congress has provided them. If we were to have to -- and we're going to do right by the troops. We're going to make sure they get paid but it's going to put strains on training and readiness and all the other aspects of O&M over time which makes its way down to the unit level.
I -- you know, when you're saying we're focused on training and readiness and lethality but we have to cut back on training because Congress can't get the money we need to the department, that's discouraging at every single level. And when young men, men and women join this war department we want them moving immediately into the training pipeline at the highest possible level with the best possible equipment and they've seen that thus far and that's led to historic recruiting momentum. We need to keep that momentum.
CAPITO: Yes and I would say that it could have the reverse effect if this is troubled waters here and lack of confidence which we see on the other side of the aisle there and questions that I think wouldn't be asked if it were not of a political nature. We're going to chill our recruiting efforts here for our young people as they look forward to serving their country and becoming that Patriot they want to be.
HEGSETH: You're right or return to the valley under the Biden administration where not only did they not meet the goals but they had to lower the goals and then didn't meet the lowered goals and then now we're -- we don't have the readiness we need as a force.
[17:40:04]
CAPITO: Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Thank you Secretary Agricultures. I'll get to you another time. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Murphy.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Thank you all for being here today. Secretary Hegseth, the American people either didn't want this war from the start or were deeply skeptical of this war because they have seen this country make the same mistake over and over again in wars in the Middle East and that is to create either unrealistic or open-ended objectives. You said in March that the United States was "On plan to defeat, destroy, and disable all of Iran's meaningful military capabilities at a pace that would that -- we have -- the world has never seen before."
Obviously as we've discussed here today that objective has not been achieved and is not going to be achieved. Iran is adept, more adept than even at the start of the war at hiding their capabilities or repairing after damage we have done. There's an open report that when it comes to their missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz 30 of 33 are still operational.
HEGSETH: I wouldn't believe all the open reports Senator.
MURPHY: But I've also heard you say in this hearing that the objectives now seem to be more limited than they were at the outset of the war that this is about reopening the Strait and this is about dismantling their nuclear capability. And the President of course has said himself that he thinks Iran has a right to a missile program. So my question is pretty simple. Is it correct that it is no longer a war objective to destroy all of their military capacities? This is what the President has said. Have our goals been simplified to reopening the Strait and to getting into a negotiation over a nuclear program? Now I don't think you have a realistic plan to do either of those things but I think it's important for us to know what we're funding. Are the objectives much more limited today than they were when you made that statement in March?
HEGSETH: So I think the objectives have been consistent and clear from the beginning. And I would compare -- I would contrast it to North Korea where a conventional buildup was used to hide a nuclear capability that eventually evolved to a point where it couldn't be contested. And what Iran continued to do even after Midnight Hammer was try to build that conventional capability to dare anyone to stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons.
So getting after their conventional capabilities, missile launchers, defense industrial base, their Navy was all part of it ensuring they can't blackmail us into pursuing a nuclear capability. Laser focused on Iran will never have a nuclear capability. That's the promise the President has made and that he will keep in every way.
MURPHY: I think it's important that it is still a war objective either through military action or through a diplomatic agreement to destroy and disable all of Iran's meaningful military capacities including their missile program.
HEGSETH: As far as all when we talked about that from the podium for at the outset of this week we're talking about their defense industrial base and if you look at the metrics of their ability to make more that it's been overwhelmingly destroyed. Not everything but overwhelmingly. Now do they have missiles in underground bunkers because they're a terror state? Sure they do and we've acknowledged that from the beginning. But their capacity is less today than it's ever been.
MURPHY: They obviously they obviously have significant capacity to effectively disrupt the entirety of the Middle East and oil flows out of the Middle East and that's not going to change. Let me ask you one more question. This is a request for supplemental funding because you don't have the funding in your base budget to do what you need to do which makes questions about the base budget relevant.
There's been a lot of attention Mr. Secretary on the modernization of a luxury jet that was gifted to the president by the government of Qatar. Reports suggest that maybe as much as $1 billion in your base funding an extraordinary amount of money has been used for an upgrade and the plane is back in the shop for a second upgrade. As far as I can tell never before has an administration not made public the amount of money for an upgrade or a construction contract on a presidential airplane. Obviously we don't need or want to disclose the details of that upgrade but never before have you withheld from Congress and the public the total amount of money.
I think there are two really important questions here. One, will you make public the amount of money that you are spending to upgrade this plane? And two, can you commit to this Congress and this committee that the President isn't going to take this plane with him when he leaves office. The only thing more insulting to the taxpayers of spending money on a jet they don't need would be for the President to take it with him to take it out of our military inventory when he leaves office.
HEGSETH: See the Air Force has done an incredible job making that a capable jet that ultimately -- but its capabilities are and investment are classified and shouldn't be talked about --
[17:45:06]
MURPHY: That's not what I'm asking.
HEGSETH: -- considering the security of the President of the United States.
MURPHY: Will you disclose the amount of money that publicly?
HEGSETH: I would imagine as part of the regular budget process that's something that we would look at.
MURPHY: And will you commit that the President will not take this jet?
HEGSETH: Well, you have to look at the classification level of certain things that are not devolved for reasons of national security.
MURPHY: Will you commit that the President will not take this jet with him out of federal inventory when he leaves office?
HEGSETH: That's not a decision for necessarily me to make and ultimately we're grateful to have it in the fleet for the Air Force to protect the President of the United States.
MURPHY: That's a deeply unsatisfactory answer to the American public.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Peters. Senator Peters.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Folks, welcome to the hearing today.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I apologize. Is Senator Ossoff still here? I'm sorry I didn't -- I went out of order. Senator Ossoff.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll yield my time to Senator Ossoff.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you all for your testimony. And General Caine, let me just begin by expressing on behalf of all Georgians our immense gratitude and admiration for the service members who are making tremendous sacrifices and conducting themselves with extraordinary selflessness and professionalism on behalf of the United States and our state's unified condolences and grief for the families of the four killed in action and our hope for a swift recovery for the nearly 100 wounded over the last two weeks and thank you to you for your service to the nation. Mr. Hegseth, you're requesting roughly $68 billion for the department through this supplemental, correct?
HEGSETH: Sixty-seven, yes.
OSSOFF: And yesterday, your department stated publicly, "U.S. forces struck Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites, and air defense systems to degrade Iran's ability to continue attacking commercial vessels." That was a press release from your department. Is that a broadly accurate characterization of ongoing operations?
HEGSETH: That sounds broadly accurate, yes.
OSSOFF: On day 14 of this conflict, Mr. Secretary, day 14, nearly five months ago, you stated that Iran's military had been, "destroyed" and, "made combat ineffective." That was on day 14 of the war. Was that an accurate statement?
HEGSETH: They didn't have a navy any longer. It's completely sunk. Their missiles were buried underneath a lot of their underground facilities and their defense industrial base has been almost completely destroyed. So as far as a military assessment of Iran's capabilities, it doesn't -- it didn't mean by any stretch of the imagination absolute zero.
OSSOFF: Mr. Secretary, you stated that on day 14 of this conflict, in the second week of the conflict, you stated that Iran's military had been, "destroyed" and, "made combat ineffective." Was that an accurate statement? Yes or no?
HEGSETH: Iran's ability to challenge the United States of America at the level at which we're capable of --
OSSOFF: That's not what I asked you, Mr. Secretary. You said on day 14, Iran's military had been, "destroyed" and, "made combat ineffective." Yes or no? Was that an accurate statement?
HEGSETH: What the American military has done to the Iranian military has done to --
OSSOFF: Will you answer the question?
HEGSETH: -- the Iranian military is a historic military defeat.
OSSOFF: Will you answer the question under oath?
HEGSETH: And they're ineffective in that context.
OSSOFF: Three weeks later, you declared victory. That was now nearly four months ago. Three weeks after you had already said Iran's military was destroyed and combat ineffective, you said, "Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory." You said Iran's military had been rendered, "combat ineffective for years to come." And you stated we had, "achieved every single objective." Were those accurate statements?
HEGSETH: It certainly was on behalf of the men and women in uniform, a historic military victory over Iran.
OSSOFF: Had Iran's military been rendered, "combat ineffective for years to come?" That was a statement that you made four months ago.
HEGSETH: They had 160 naval vessels in the Blue Water Navy and they're gone.
OSSOFF: You need to answer questions, Mr. Secretary. You said four months ago --
HEGSETH: Their air force is completely combat ineffective. And they don't have a defense industrial base.
OSSOFF: Excuse me, Mr. Secretary.
HEGSETH: So describe to me a country that doesn't have an air force, a navy, or a defense industrial base and I will describe to you --
OSSOFF: Mr. Secretary.
HEGSETH: -- a company that -- a country that does not have an effective military. It can lob missiles.
OSSOFF: Mr. Secretary, you stated -- Mr. Secretary, you stated four months ago that Iran's military had been rendered, "combat ineffective for years to come." Has Iran's military been, for the last four months, combat ineffective?
HEGSETH: It's been set back not just years but likely decades considering it can't build at the level it did before and not even close. It doesn't mean it doesn't have capabilities.
OSSOFF: You stated we had, quote -- Mr. Secretary, you stated we had "achieved every single objective." Was that an accurate statement four months ago?
[17:50:02]
HEGSETH: The main objective of this was to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Their main sights were obliterated. We're watching over them and we're holding them at issue. If they don't give them up at the table, there's other ways we can take them away.
OSSOFF: Early in the conflict on Day 3, Mr. Secretary, early in the conflict, Day 3, you said one of those core objectives was to, "destroy the missile threat," and as you restated on Day 5, to "obliterate Iran's missiles and drones." Those were clearly and repeatedly stated core objectives of the campaign, which four months ago you declared had been completed victoriously with every single objective achieved. Were those objectives achieved four months ago?
HEGSETH: No one ever stated that every single missile was gone. Ultimately, combat ineffective means they're not able to dig them out of their UGFs and shoot at us. It doesn't mean they don't have underground facilities where they put missiles in them and hold onto them because they're the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. So we never expected they would stop having capabilities to shoot. The question is at scale against an opponent like the United States of America, which went toe-to-toe with them and Iran couldn't and cannot do it.
OSSOFF: You stated on March 8th, Day 9 of the war, on "60 Minutes," you assured the American people of Iranian surrender. Does that remain your prediction?
HEGSETH: Ultimately, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon to threaten the United States of America. That has been the objective and it remains so.
OSSOFF: So just to review, you will not answer whether your statement made on the 14th day of the war that Iran's military had been, "destroyed and made combat ineffective" was a truthful statement to the American people as you sit here and ask for tens of billions more for the conflict.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Senator's time has expired.
HEGSETH: It's been a historic and effective military campaign against the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
OSSOFF: You won't answer the question?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Peters is recognized.
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses here today. I want to begin by first echoing my colleagues' comments that we've heard throughout the hearing here and join them in mourning the loss of American service members who were killed in action these last few days. My thoughts are with their families, with a service member who remains missing, and with all those injured during the strikes. I will continue to pray for their families.
Secretary Hegseth, over the course of the war with Iran, I have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding the administration's lack of a winning strategy and repeated contradictions about the state of the war. It frankly doesn't help that you and your President continues to mislead the American people. You and the President have repeatedly said that the war, as we've heard over and over again, is almost over or already won.
In fact, the President alone has said the war is almost over more than 30 times. On March 1st, the President said we'll be done in four or five weeks. On March 9th, he said the war was very complete. On April 8th, he declared total and complete victory, 100 percent, no question about it. On the same day, you declared Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield, a capital-V military victory by any measure.
And yet today, July 21st, we have soldiers whose remains are sadly going to be returned to their deeply grieving families tomorrow. Clearly, the war is not over yet. After months of conflict, our strategy to win remains unclear. I have long said the United States has the strongest military in history in the world, and I have no doubt that our brave service members can execute any mission and prevail in any battle.
But without a clear winning strategy, we're at risk of being in another forever war that will put our service members in continued harm's way and continue to cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Secretary Hegseth, despite your failure to win this war, you are back now before Congress asking for almost $70 billion in additional funding. You're asking the American people for a blank check, because once again, the Trump administration's efforts have been an utter and complete failure to win this war to this point.
So my question for you, sir, is how is your strategy different than what we've seen in the past? So far, we have not seen a strategy that's been successful. You mentioned nuclear material as the primary goal of the war. It still exists. We haven't dealt with that issue yet. You talk about the destruction of missiles, and yet the missiles that we saw hit recent targets are actually somehow more lethal, more deadly, more maneuverable than what we have seen in the past. So they're obviously improving their munitions.
The Strait of Hormuz is still closed, reminding everybody it was open before the war. Prices were lower for everybody until the war, and it still remains closed. And of course, tragically, people, service members, our warfighters who we care deeply about are still dying. So what's different, Mr. Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth?
[17:55:16]
HEGSETH: I think your characterization of this incredible effort as a failure is reckless, and I think it's irresponsible, and I think it smears the sacrifice of the troops that are out there making on behalf of the American people to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Shame on you and others who call this a quagmire and a failure, and then you want to turn around and say you support the warfighter. Either you do or you don't.
PETERS: Is the nuclear material still there, sir?
HEGSETH: I can get you a ticket out to CENTCOM and talk to what those Americans are doing, how committed they are to this effort, and how they want to ensure that Iran never threatens their families with a nuclear weapon. It is that -- that's the kind of intensity that our warfighters have about making sure that Iran isn't capable of doing that.
PETERS: Secretary Hegseth, if you listened to my comments, you told -- you -- would have heard me say how amazing our warfighters are.
HEGSETH: I heard failure. I heard exactly what you said.
PETERS: I will tell you on how I used the word failure because I used the word failure to their leaders. You, sir, are the failure. Not the men and women who are on that front line. Not the men and women who hold up their honor with distinction. But if there's a lack of a winning strategy, they're in harm's way. Their leaders have failed them. And that's what's happening. We have political leadership. You, you don't have a strategy. You don't have a long-term plan to actually win this war. Win the war.
The men and women are going to be able to do it, but they need to have leadership. When will you show leadership? When will you show leadership?
HEGSETH: Why don't you show some leadership and stand up for your fellow Democrats who won't fund the troops, who stand and play partisan politics while you don't give us the money. You want to stand up here and talk about the troops? You won't show any political courage to actually fund our department because you have Trump derangement syndrome and can't actually commit to anything meaningful. So I put this on you, Senator.
PETERS: Secretary Hegseth, you have trillions -- you have over a trillion dollars. You're asking for $1.5 trillion. It's not a question of money. It's a question of leadership and understanding what it takes to actually win.
HEGSETH: Political cowardice of Democrats who won't fund the troops.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator's time has expired.
This will conclude our hearing. I want to thank our witnesses for being present and the committee for what has certainly been a vigorous discussion. For any Senators who wish to submit additional questions for the record, those questions --
TAPPER: The Lead tonight, moments ago, a fiery hearing wrapping up where both Republicans and Democrats had some tough questions for Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan "Razin" Caine and the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. You just heard Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan calling Hegseth a failure. Hegseth said that the senator had Trump derangement syndrome.
Caine and Hegseth appeared in front of the Appropriations Committee. They're requesting 87 billion additional dollars, 67 billion of that is for the Department of Defense and the ongoing Iran war. Hegseth also revealed that the American taxpayer has already spent nearly $38 billion on the war so far, which Trump continues to call a conflict. Earlier today, Trump also reiterated his plans to destroy Iran's Pickaxe Mountain. That's an underground facility south of Tehran and where Israeli intelligence, we're told, believes Iran has moved part of its nuclear stockpile.
Take a listen to Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): 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.
KENNEDY: We need some hard answers and some straight talk. What will happen, Pete?
HEGSETH: Senator, I would agree with the chairman, but the likely outcome is they would try to impose their will on the waterways.
KENNEDY: 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 tradeoffs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, when it was her turn at the mic, pressed Secretary Hegseth on his request for tens of billions of dollars to fund the ongoing war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): You are asking for unlimited money for bombs when people can't feed their families. And I don't know how this administration intends to defend those decisions to the American people.
HEGSETH: Not unlimited bombs, Senator. I'm asking for the right bombs at the right time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:00:00]
TAPPER: The hearing started with General Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recognizing the U.S. service members killed in recent days, Secretary Hegseth did not --
