Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
Pentagon Chief & Top U.S. General Testify On Capitol Hill; Trump; Iran Wants To "Desperately" Meet To End War; Trump Hits Canada With New 50 Percent Tariffs On Range Of Goods; Preliminary Hearing For Singer D4vd In Death Of Teen Girl; Probe Launched Into Whether Epstein Was A Foreign Agent. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired July 21, 2026 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:28]
MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: The U.S. Defense Secretary to face questions on Capitol Hill.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
Waging war costs money. The top two U.S. military men are set to be on Capitol Hill today asking for more money. Donald Trump's Defense Secretary
Pete Hegseth and the U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine will testify to U.S. senators who have a lot of questions about the war with
Iran.
Lawmakers want to know how U.S. stockpiles and missiles and bombs are doing, and they want to know why U.S. servicemen and women are dying in
that fight. And they want to know how much longer the Pentagon thinks this conflict will last.
Joining us now, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt.
What's the key question you're asking today, hoping to get answered in those hearings?
BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT (RET.), FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTASNT SECRETARY FOR THE MIDDLE EAST: Well, I think more importantly is the key questions that
are going to be asked by the Senate, and that is primarily where is the strategy? Why are American soldiers at risk? What's the end state? What
does victory look like?
FOSTER: Yeah, in terms of strategy, if they're asking for money, this is the opportunity, isn't it, for Congress to really grill them on that,
because there's been a -- a lot of questions about the broad strategy and whether or not it's changing too often, so it's not a strategy at all.
KIMMITT: Well, I think that's right. At least it's not a strategy that has been explained to the United States Congress. This military operation, as
the administration calls it, has been going on for months. And I think if they're going to be asking for an extraordinary amount of money, which is
really the only chain that the United States Congress has on the executive branch, if they're going to allocate that amount of money, they're going to
want to have some answers.
They believe that the Pentagon has been holding back on information, unwilling to work with the United States Congress, unwilling to explain
where they're going. So as you say, if they want the money, they're going to have to explain things.
FOSTER: Let's just hear a comment from a few moments ago that was the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee explaining why she is
concerned about the Pentagon's request for more than $80 billion.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): This president says we can afford -- can't afford healthcare. We can't afford childcare. We can't afford housing. But
somehow, we can always afford another war. No price tag on that.
Families in Washington state are skipping doctor's visits so they can afford groceries. Trump wants to Congress to cut him a blank check for a
war that no one supports.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: I'm just wondering, you know, she's making a clear point there, isn't it -- isn't she? Because this is ahead of the midterms where the
general public are much more concerned about cost of living right now, and then they see this money being spent abroad. That's a frustration for them.
But In terms of what the money is going to be used for, they've been very vague about that as well, haven't they? You know, is it because stockpiles
are dangerously low, for example?
KIMMITT: Yeah, I think, first of all, it would be helpful for everybody to not necessarily dismiss what the Democrats are saying or asking, but it's
clear that they are going to be asking the questions and perhaps creating the facts that will put them in the best possible light. I don't think that
they are really worth listening to, except for understanding that they represent a number of constituents that are asking these questions.
But when Patty Murray gives those kind of stark choices between war and the need to stop the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon and Americans that
ostensibly are not able to get medical care, which is a bit of a -- a bit of rhetoric, I don't think there's anything to learn from that. I think
it's more important to listen to the Republicans, those that are supposed to be supporting this administration. I think that's where you're really
going to get a good barometer of where things stand.
FOSTER: Yeah, and how the president's party feels about that. Can I just ask you about transparency as well, concerns about that, because the death
and casualty numbers are higher than many people expected in terms of U.S. military.
[15:05:08]
What's frustrating many people is only finding out about them now as well. You know, what's the general protocol on releasing that information? And
what do you think about the time that it's taking to get it?
KIMMITT: Well, I would say that the standard protocol is after casualty notification is done to family and loved ones, it will be a bit of time
before that information is released to the American public.
But I keep hearing that false argument because there seems to be a belief in the media that every time that there is any kind of military action that
goes the wrong way, that the White House is going to rush to the microphone. But the fact remains is that President Biden, President Obama,
and President Trump in his first term use thousands and thousands of drone strikes to kill terrorists around the world. And that was never revealed.
So there has to be some sort of balance.
I would agree with you that there has been a bit of a delay, but there hasn't been any cover up, nor has there been any absence of information.
It's just taking a little longer than many would think is necessary.
FOSTER: OK, thank you so much for your context on that. Retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, I hope to speak to you a bit later on in
the show as well as we as those hearings get underway.
Meanwhile, President Trump threatening to hit the Pickaxe Mountain area, excuse me, of Iran pretty soon and says there's not a thing they can do
about it. But he's also suggesting the U.S. hasn't confirmed Iran is storing advanced centrifuges or highly enriched uranium there, saying we
don't have it on record. Mr. Trump made the remarks alongside Lebanese President Joseph Aoun at the White House, and a reporter asked President
Trump if his plan to keep bombing Iran until its surrenders continues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You don't know what the dialogue is behind the scenes that they want to meet desperately to try and
end it because they're getting decimated. You don't get that when you listen to your fake station.
But you don't know. You don't know anything.
REPORTER: So talks are still possible?
TRUMP: You know something that I don't know? Do you know something I don't know?
REPORTER: Well, tell us. I will tell you, they want to desperately meet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Well, let's get to Kevin Liptak, who is standing by for us, because every day this war seems to be getting more intense again.
Tell us about Pickaxe Mountain.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. It's this facility south of Tehran, and it's causing some anxiety among officials. And what
we've learned today is that Israeli intelligence that has been passed along to the United States suggests that Iran may have moved some of its advanced
centrifuges to this facility, as well as some of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
And the reason that that I think it's concerning is because this facility is heavily fortified. You know, it's 300, 400 feet underground, buried
under very solid rock. And there is concern that American munitions at this point wouldn't be able to reach it.
But President Trump nonetheless today saying that the U.S. would go after it, quote, "pretty soon". You know, we have seen satellite footage from
this facility in recent weeks showing actions around some of the entrances. And I think you have heard fears from American officials that ever since
the, quote, Twelve-Day War, which is when the United States went after those other nuclear facilities in Iran, that the country may have moved
some of its nuclear-related facilities and consolidated them at Pickaxe Mountain.
So, as the president says that he may go after it soon, he is expanding in some ways the target list for his operation inside of Iran.
Another new potential target that the president raised today was the Houthis in Yemen when he was asked about their new blockade of Saudi
shipping in the Red Sea, an entirely new front in this conflict, the president saying that if he sees something happening there that he would,
quote, take care of it.
And so, you see how the president is sort of expanding the target list for the United States, while at the same time taking a very dim view of a
diplomatic ending to the war, saying that even though the Iranians desperately wanted to talk, that unless they were willing to have
meaningful conversations, that he wasn't interested. And I think taken altogether, it does provide a somewhat muddled picture of how the president
sees all of this ending.
He doesn't see the diplomacy working at the moment. The target list for the United States is expanding. But at the same time, he's claiming that if the
U.S. left Iran tomorrow, that it would, quote, "be a big success", you know, not mentioning their ability to target vessels in the Strait of
Hormuz or to kill American service people who are arrayed across the Middle East.
[15:10:12]
And so if you are listening to the president today, no clear picture of what the endgame in all of this looks like, even though the costs for
Americans seem to be rising.
FOSTER: Absolutely. Pete Hegseth taking his seat in Congress there ahead of those hearings. A lot of pressure on him, right, because Congress do
want to know what this money, this huge amount of money, is going to be used for, and they want a clear sense of strategy. And that's going to be
dictated, of course, by the White House.
So presumably, Pete Hegseth has had a big conversation with President Trump about what he can and can't say today.
LIPTAK: Yeah. Yeah.
And I think the reason that this is the stakes are so high is because these members of Congress have been trying to get answers to that, even absent
these public hearings for weeks and weeks now. And it has not been forthcoming at all, including when it comes to the, you know, more than $80
billion that the White House has been requesting for this conflict.
They want a more line by line precision budget of what that money is going to be used for. And they have not gotten that at all, which is why I think
the questioning is going to be quite intensive, both from Republicans and from Democrats, because they feel as if the White House is blowing off the
congressional responsibilities to ensure that that money is being used for areas that they have approved. And this will be, I think, a moment for Pete
Hegseth to try and explain a little bit more of how he envisions all of that money being used.
You know, there has been, months since Hegseth has appeared before Congress, and it will be an important moment. I think if you're listening
to him, you may be able to detect. if the U.S. and if the White House views this conflict as something limited in scope for something that perhaps they
will not need to go to Congress for additional resources if what's being asked for now is passed, or if they see this as something of a more
prolonged conflict for which they will have to keep going back and asking for money and asking for more resources.
And I think in that distinction, we perhaps will get a better picture of where the U.S. sees this going, in a way that President Trump, at least for
now, seems unwilling to describe, at least in public. And so, it will be a critical moment for him and a contentious moment for him as well. And it
will be interesting to see whether he responds in kind to some of that contention, which has been sort of the mode that many Trump cabinet
officials take when these hearings turn quite sour.
You've seen that from the attorneys general. You've seen it from various other cabinet secretaries. It would, I think, behoove Pete Hegseth not to
do that because he is in this. important position at a moment of war and at a moment when some of these members of Congress have some real serious
questions about what the strategy will be. So let's see, I guess, what he says, but clearly, very, very high stakes.
FOSTER: Appreciate it, Kevin.
You talk about the atmosphere in these hearings. We've got Pete Hegseth currently speaking, trying to give it his opening statement. It's been
already interrupted multiple times by protesters. We're going to keep across his statement and follow the questions, obviously, that he's
receiving and see how he receives them. You know, in recent times, when we have these hearings, the accusation has been there's a lot of theater, not
enough substance.
But as Kevin was saying there, a very high-stakes appearance for the U.S. defense secretary today, the war secretary, as he describes himself as he
tries to plead for tens of billions more money for a war, for which many people are quite confused. You know, they want to understand the strategy
and what that money is going to be used for.
President Trump's new 50 percent tariffs on Canada, meanwhile, fueling fears of a new, bitter trade war between the two North American neighbors.
The American administration says it's made the move in response to what it calls Canada's discriminatory trade policies against American-made goods.
U.S. officials say it's not in retaliation for the thick wildfire smoke blowing into the northern United States and Canada.
After speaking with President Trump today, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters Ottawa and Washington plan to step up trade talks. He
says any potential solution, though, must make sense for Canada.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: We will look at all options in terms of how we would respond if they do come into effect. That's part of what
we'll be discussing with premiers. Also, in parallel, as I just said, that I'd spoken with the president. We agree to intensify discussions. We'll
begin that right away.
And this is -- this is part of the negotiation.
[15:15:00]
So the first objective is to get a comprehensive agreement, that benefits, obviously, of both countries that's consistent with CUSMA, CUSMA as it is
and CUSMA as it will be, and we'll work towards that. But in parallel, when I say we will do whatever it takes and keep all options, obviously, it's a
comprehensive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Let's go to David Goldman.
Few people understand international economics, as well as Carney, do they? But just take us to the basis for these tariffs, because there have been
two other attempts at tariffs on international partners for America, and they've both been -- they've just fallen at the court. So what tactic is
the White House using this time?
DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Well, the White House has decided that it's going to use something called Section 338. Now, this is,
of course, from the 1930 Tariff Act. I know you and I remember that well.
But the thing is that this gives the president the power to charge tariffs up to 50 percent. So this is really kind of a trial balloon, Max, because
this has not been used before for this kind of authority. And right now, we're looking at tariffs on a lot of different items, things like furniture
and alcohol, machinery, hockey sticks, those come from Canada.
But if you look at what this all adds up to, it doesn't actually amount to much. It's around 5 percent of all Canadian exports to the United States.
That only makes up about 0.6 percent of U.S. imports.
So this is not all that serious. Despite the fact that we're looking at $20 billion worth of goods, this is a $31 trillion economy, so it doesn't add
up to all that much, which is why folks think that this is a trial balloon.
Another reason why this is coming is because the current tariffs expire at the end of this week. Remember, after the Supreme Court told President
Trump, you are not allowed to use emergency powers to levy tariffs anymore. They put on these 150-day temporary tariffs that had about 10 percent
tariffs for most countries. Those go away, and now we need to replace it with something.
It'll be replaced with these Canadian tariffs on August 19th, and there are more tariffs coming, perhaps as soon as the end of the week. All of this is
new territory, and we're going to see if it works.
FOSTER: Okay, David, we'll see. Thank you very much.
GOLDMAN: We'll see. Thanks, Max.
FOSTER: A hearing's underway in California for the singer D4vd. Still to come, he's accused of killing and dismembering a 14-year-old girl. We're
live in Los Angeles with the latest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:21:03]
FOSTER: A preliminary hearing underway in Los Angeles for the singer D4vd. He's facing several charges in the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas-
Hernandez. Her body was found severely decomposed and dismembered in D4vd's abandoned car. He's pleaded not guilty to all charges, including first-
degree murder.
Kyung Lah joins us now from Los Angeles.
Kyung, so many horrifying details to this case.
KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, we're getting a lot of grisly details. This is the first day of this preliminary hearing,
and cameras are not allowed in the courtroom. They are on a lunch break right now, so I'm just starting to get these updates.
And this prelim is expected to take all week. It is a first-degree murder with special circumstances case. So what does that mean? That is involving
continuous sexual abuse of a child under age 14 and mutilating human remains.
So far in court this morning in Los Angeles, prosecutors have played police body cam footage, and that shows officers questioning the singer and the
defendant, David Allen Burke, Anthony Burke, who is known as D4vd, to his fans. And that video was taken on February 2025, a welfare check at his
residence, and Celeste Rivas-Hernandez was reported missing.
D4vd told those officers on that video that he met Celeste through an online chat and only met her one time in person, giving law enforcement the
sense that he didn't know her. He claimed he didn't know she was underage. An LAPD detective also testified this morning to detail how police were
called to the Tesla registered to D4vd where the dismembered body was found in September, and the photos of that cadaver bag were shown in court.
So the person inside that bag was just a child. The victim here is 14-year- old Celeste Rivas-Hernandez. Prosecutors have laid out in court documents that D4vd made contact with Celeste when she was just 11 years old.
Prosecutors say a sexual relationship began between the two when she was 13, and she was reported missing, as I said, three times during this time.
CNN recovered photographic and video evidence of the pair together during this time, multiple times. Prosecutors say Celeste threatened to expose
their relationship, and that, they allege, was a possible motive. D4vd was arrested last April, Max, and he has pled not guilty to these charges --
Max.
FOSTER: Yes, so he's pleading not guilty to all the charges or particular charges. How's the defense handling this?
LAH: The defense is handling it as he didn't do this, that what we're hearing this morning is that he was cooperative with law enforcement on
that body camera video, that they are trying to frame it as he simply didn't know.
We don't know what the case is going to look like further on. But what this is, what's happening over these next days is do they have enough to move
forward to a full trial that will be determined by the judge? Max?
FOSTER: Kung Lah, I really appreciate your update on that.
Now, survivors of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are urging two top Republican senators to vote against Todd Blanche's nomination to become the
permanent U.S. attorney general. They wrote a letter to Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, accusing Blanche of showing no remorse over the
government's release of sensitive information about survivors.
Meanwhile, House Democrats are launching an investigation into whether Epstein acted as a foreign agent. The top Democrat on the House Judiciary
Committee says Epstein never registered as a foreign agent, but newly released documents show he acted aggressively on behalf of multiple foreign
governments.
Let's go straight to Annie Grayer in Washington.
So, who is he supposed to have been an agent for, Annie?
[15:30:01]
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Raskin says that after looking through the Epstein files released by the Department of Justice and looking
at the documents that the House Oversight Committee has released, that he has found substantial evidence that Epstein was an unregistered foreign
agent interacting with countries like Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. And he has now sent letters to the Department of Justice, the
Department of State, and the Office of National Intelligence, asking them for more documents because he thinks that there's still a lot more to
uncover here that the publicly released documents doesn't show.
Now, Raskin is also asking the Department of Justice to put in writing whether they've ever investigated this issue of whether Epstein ever acted
as an unregistered foreign agent. And it's -- Raskin is making these requests as a Democrat in the House when Democrats don't have control of
the House right now, meaning they don't control committees. They don't have subpoena power.
So it's unlikely that the Trump administration is going to cooperate with this voluntary request. But Raskin launching this investigation today and
sending out these letters gives us a preview of what Democrats might probe if they reclaim the House majority back in November. We know that the issue
of Jeffrey Epstein is something that is not going to go away in Congress, particularly if Democrats regain control, because also, the House Oversight
Committee Democrats believe that there's still a lot to investigate there, and that's the committee that's brought in 18 individuals so far, including
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, a number of key people in Epstein's orbit. And Democrats say that there's
still a lot left to uncover.
So this new investigation from Congressman Jamie Raskin is just the latest in what we should expect to be a lot of activity on this issue on Capitol
Hill.
FOSTER: OK. Annie Grayer in Washington -- thank you.
Well, still to come, we will go back to that Capitol Hill hearing for that crucial question-and-answer session between the top military men in the
U.S. and some pretty skeptical senators.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:30:33]
FOSTER: Let's take you back to D.C., then. Our top story, the high-stakes question and answer session happening right now on Capitol Hill. The U.S.
Defense Secretary and the country's top general are testifying to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
They're asking Congress for more than $80 billion that they say they need to keep waging the war in Iran. But lawmakers are pretty skeptical. They
want more details about exactly how the money will be spent. And they really want to know when the military thinks the war in the Gulf will end.
Also appearing there, as you can see, the Agriculture Secretary talking about a separate bid for money from the committee.
Now, the Pentagon reports that at least 18 U.S. troops have been killed during the Iran war and nearly 100 injured.
Last hour, my colleague Isa Soares spoke with U.S. House Democrat Don Beyer. He's a fierce critic of President Trump's policies in Iran and says
that the U.S. cannot bomb its way out of this war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DON BEYER, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT: As near as we can tell, there is no endgame. They originally thought they could bomb Iran to smithereens, and
they would just roll over. That's not happening. It's not going to happen. So far, they just seem to be floundering. What they really need to do is
get the 10-day ceasefire and then come back to the negotiating table and find an enduring peace, because we're not going to bomb our way out of
this.
ISA SOARES, CNN HOST: Now, they're asking for -- asking Congress to approve, from what I understand, $87 billion in terms of supplemental
funding package related to the conflict. That's on top of what I understand, Congressman. They've already spent roughly $40 billion.
Should Congress approve this request, what conditions really need to be attached to this funding?
BEYER: Isa, I'm going to vote no on the request. I seriously doubt that the 90 billion will pass either or both houses. Just because the only way
we can get Donald Trump to stop the war is not to refund it. Once the war is over and there's peace, then I think there's a very good case to be made
that we need to resupply all of our stocks of arms and bombs, because we've used up so many.
But right now, to authorize this extra $90 billion is basically to give Trump a blank check from the war.
SOARES: Just to clarify, Congressman, you don't think this will pass?
BEYER: I don't think so. I think there are -- as we've seen, both houses have passed war resolutions demanding that Trump stop. I think that's a
good sign of where they'll be on the $90 billion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Let's go back to General Mark Kimmitt, then, on that.
We're waiting to hear from Pete Hegseth, General. But if this committee says no to the money, that would be an extraordinary situation, wouldn't
it? And it would pretty much end the war.
KIMMITT: Well, I think because it's extraordinary, I think it's unlikely. There's a lot of performative acting going on right now, as you could hear,
for example, for the Democrat that just spoke. But at the end of the day, they're very much counting the votes in the background so that they will be
able to get this bill through with maybe one or two votes to spare.
But the majority and the minority whips in both the House and the Senate are going to allow some of those that have to get reelected that are in
tight races to do party line votes so in fact they're probably saying, look, I really support this but I can't vote on this otherwise, I'll be
voted out of office. The Republican will excoriate me if I try to do that.
So, in fact, as you listen to Secretary of Defense Hegseth, there's a little bit of performative strategy going on there as well so i think we're
seeing a little bit of kabuki here going on. There are going to be some tough questions, but I think at the end of the day, they're going to get
the money they need.
FOSTER: General, thank you so much.
Well, the Defense Secretary is speaking now. He's facing questions from Senator Collins. So let's listen to that performance.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME), CHAIRWOMAN, APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Secretary Rollins, as we heard from the previous panel, our country has many
outstanding recovery needs from disasters and other related -- weather- related events over the past two years.
[15:35:06]
As this chart shows, and this is a chart from your department, many have unmet weather-related agricultural losses. In Maine, many of our producers
are struggling amid a combination of market volatility and disaster conditions last year, which included excessive rainfall in the spring,
followed by a severe drought. They need relief.
Yet the administration's supplemental request does not include funding to address these recovery needs. It does have $1.1 billion to help Florida
agricultural producers rebound from a severe freeze this past winter, but nothing for prior disasters in other states. Can you explain USDA's
thinking behind focusing your request just on the 2026 freeze rather than on the 2025 disaster declarations that you made?
BROOKE ROLLINS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE: Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. Obviously, the discussions that went on over at OMB and with our
teams continue, but what I will say is we are obviously 100 percent in support of any sort of disaster relief program for our farmers, whether
it's hurricane, tornado, drought, freeze, et cetera. So, look forward to working with you on that and specifically understanding the larger context
here that there's a lot of farmers, a lot of producers who are really hurting, not just in Florida and not just from the freeze.
So, it's important that we work together to solve for that.
COLLINS: Thank you.
Senator Murray.
SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA), VICE CHAIRWOMAN, APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Thank you, Chair Collins. Secretary Hegseth, your department received $150
billion last year in the Republicans' Big Beautiful Bill. It also received a record $839 billion for fiscal year 2026, more money than you asked for
last year.
Combined, that is a trillion-dollar budget for the year, and as I already mentioned, your department has yet to spend half of the reconciliation
funds. Despite that, you are here today asking for tens of billions of dollars more for things that you've already asked for in your FY27 request
or that have nothing to do with Iran. This administration has tried to sell this as an emergency request, but it may be better understood as an attempt
to skirt the normal appropriations process.
Here are just a few of the things requested in this Iran supplemental. $800 million for the National Guard to patrol D.C. even longer, over $1 billion
for the Army to patrol the southern border, which is DHS's job. $900 million to support the administration's illegal boat strikes in the
Caribbean. Over $18 billion for munitions, which you've already requested in your FY27 budget request, and $1.7 billion to pay for your decision to
recruit more people than the services need, which was not contemplated by the FY26 funding bill Congress recently passed.
Now, you've already submitted a reprogramming request on this that our subcommittee is considering now, which really underscores the point I made
in my opening remarks that the problem is not a lack of money, but poor planning. So, I'll be blunt. The truth is your request does not make a lot
of sense.
So, let me ask you a simple question. Why exactly are billions of dollars more for the National Guard and this administration's illegal strikes in
the Caribbean urgently needed for the Iran War?
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, Senator, I wouldn't, of course, agree with your characterization, but why this kind of spending is needed
is because of the gross negligence and neglect of the Biden administration inside our department. Ran it like a bureaucracy, abandoned our strength
posture around the world, so we're having to re-establish deterrence. Just, you mentioned the N-strength numbers, and I will acknowledge that we are
ahead of schedule on N-strength in recruiting.
8,000 in the Navy, 6,000 in the Army, 4,000 in the Air Force, because under President Trump, there's been record and historic over 30-year recruiting
records inside our department since he won the election because the American people didn't want to sign up for what Joe Biden was providing our
military.
MURRAY: Well, let me explain --
HEGSETH: -- And they want to sign up for what President Trump is doing in his leadership, and so those are good problems to have that we need to fund
and a reflection of momentum, and this budget will allow us to continue the kind of momentum that gets us ahead.
MURRAY: My point is that a lot of this request does not feel like an emergency and let me move on.
Secretary Hegseth, like most Americans, I've had a lot of trouble following this administration's contradictory statements about the war.
[15:40:00]
On April 8th, you said, and I quote, their missile program is functionally destroyed, launchers, production facilities, and existing stockpiles
depleted and decimated and almost completely ineffective. Mr. Secretary, Iran has been firing at U.S. military bases in the region and its ships for
the last week. How is it possible if their capabilities were, quote, functionally destroyed three months earlier, as you claimed, for them to be
doing this now?
HEGSETH: Well, Senator, Iran is at the weakest point militarily it has ever been in in the past decade, certainly maybe in 47 years, as they've
gathered effectively a terror army. And that terror army was built to try to create conventional capabilities to defend against a pursuit of nuclear
weapons, which meant thousands of ballistics missiles, many of which we have destroyed, others of which they have put inside facilities and hidden
in underground facilities. That's what terror regimes would do.
So I acknowledge they still have capabilities, no doubt. But the amount of damage that we've done to them over the course of these series of
operations has put them in the worst place they've ever been.
MURRAY: OK, well, let me move on. On May 5th, you claimed that Iran doesn't control the Strait. And you said that there was a, quote, powerful
red, white and blue dome over the Strait.
If that was true, how did Iran shrink ship traffic in the Strait to a trickle again last week?
HEGSETH: Well, we pushed almost, I believe, between 400 and 500 million barrels of oil under the nose of Iran over the course of Project Freedom,
which went underground, which I acknowledged after we did so covertly because it was more effective to do so quietly than to do so publicly. So
we've been in control of moving traffic through there for quite some time. But will they retain the ability to recklessly shoot at commercial
shipping?
And that's what happened. We had a ceasefire and then they shot at commercial shipping.
MURRAY: Well, you also said at the same press conference, and I'm going to quote you, you urged Iran to, quote, let innocent ships pass freely. These
international waters belong to all nations, not to Iran to tax, toll or control. Last week, President Trump said the U.S. would charge a 20 percent
toll to each ship to pass through the state. So based on your opposition to tolls, did you talk to the president out of that idea or did someone else?
HEGSETH: No, Iran's not charging tolls and they're shooting at ships right now.
MURRAY: But Trump said that he wanted to charge a 20 percent toll.
HEGSETH: We have a blockade right now of all Iranian ships and Iranian ports, and it's effective.
MURRAY: My time is up.
COLLINS: Senator Murkowski.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you all for being here. Challenging, challenging times.
I think we all recognize that. Secretary Hegseth, I want to ask just specific to Iran authorization. The administration has made the case that
the action in Iran falls under the president's Article 2 authorities.
And we can have disagreement, reasonable people can disagree about the boundaries of the presidential war powers and have for a long period of
time. But I look at the war powers resolution and it's not ambiguous. It requires the president to terminate hostilities within 60 days, absent
congressional authorization.
So hostilities began February 28th. May 1st, Congress was informed that hostilities had ended. But yet, despite the fact that hostilities had
ended, we were still seeing sailors being fired upon.
Still activity. Then in June, MOU is signed to preserve the ceasefire while negotiations continue. That MOU has now collapsed. And we are seeing the
resumed attacks in the Straits of Hormuz.
On July 10, the administration sends Congress a new war powers notification, effectively starting -- restarting, excuse me, the 60- day
clock again. So I'm concerned about this sequence because you have a situation where the claim essentially allows the president to extinguish
the war powers clock just at the moment that it becomes legally inconvenient through declaration of temporary ceasefire.
Then it's reset, avoiding the congressional authorization that the constitution requires and the war powers intends. So we had an opportunity
in previous probations hearing for me to ask if you felt the administration had all the authority that it needed. You indicated at that time that no
additional authority was not needed.
Is the administration still taking that position about needing no authorization from Congress at this time?
HEGSETH: Senator, I know there's a long, long-standing legal debate on this particular topic, but we certainly as a department take the -- share
the position of the White House that we have all the authorities necessary at this moment.
[15:45:02]
MURKOWSKI: So let me just kind of do a follow on. In the Clinton administration, this is 1999, there was an operation that was launched,
Operation Allied Force, NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia. There was not a prior congressional authorization that was sought.
President Clinton notified Congress under the War Powers Resolution and then sent, subsequent to that, sent Congress an emergency supplemental
funding request. It was about $6 billion to cover the cost of Kosovo operations. Congress then passed a supplemental package that covered the
president's request plus additional military funding, but Congress never passed a standalone authorization for use of military force in Kosovo.
When the War Powers Clock was set to run out then in May of 1999, the Clinton Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion
holding that the supplemental appropriation itself, passed without any authorizing language, satisfied the War Powers Resolution requirement. So
is the department looking to that or intending to rely on that same reasoning that funding alone can substitute for explicit congressional
authorization?
HEGSETH: Senator, I would have to defer to our legal department and we'll get back to you with our views on that. But as of right now, we think
standalone, Article II authorities exist for us to conduct this operation on behalf of the defense of the American people that the president has
those authorities. And seeking this funding is important in pursuit of that and our $1.5 trillion budget. But I wouldn't connect the two without
consulting with our legal folks first.
MURKOWSKI: In my remaining time, let me turn to you, Secretary Rollins. I appreciate that you have acknowledged that fishermen are farmers of the
sea. I don't know whether you are aware whether any fishermen will be eligible for any of the supplemental funding.
They too have faced many of the same challenges that our farmers have with high fuel costs, the impact from tariffs, disasters that we have seen in
the 15 seconds remaining. Any help for our fishermen?
ROLLINS: Well, I remember having the conversation with you when we were going through the process and my commitment to you and to Senator Collins
and some of our others across the aisle was that it's time for USDA to recognize our fishermen as part of our farmers of the sea. That's never
happened before. We now have an office at USDA focused on fishermen.
And so I think as you all move forward the supplemental, the conversation, obviously up to you all what that looks like, but very supportive of
treating our fishermen similarly to the rest of our farmers. Thank you.
MURKOWSKI: Thank you, Madam Chair.
COLLINS: Thank you. Senator Durbin.
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): Thanks, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you to help me reconcile some numbers. It's my understanding that
this whole supplemental funding request is $87.6 billion and most of the funding, $67 billion, is for the Department of Defense. Yet we are told the
Department of Defense still has $75 billion in unobligated funding from last year's reconciliation package. Is that true?
HEGSETH: Roughly correct numbers, yes.
DURBIN: So you've left some change on the dresser before you prepared to come for this hearing. What's going to happen to that $75 billion?
HEGSETH: Well, that $75 billion, there's plans and designs on that, part of the rebuild of our military, which had to be undertaken. And so one Big
Beautiful Bill gave us specific avenues, but I'd have to get you the exact numbers of what that is left to be allocated.
DURBIN: Does it have to do with the war in Iran?
HEGSETH: No, this is rebuilding our military from what was not funded in the past under the Biden administration. So this is from 2026, One Big
Beautiful Bill, which helped move the President's priorities like Golden Dome for America, move away from all the woke priorities of what the Biden
administration was pursuing, give us a chance to start cutting these deals on munitions, all the things that the President wanted us to focus on,
shipbuilding, hypersonic. I mean, the Biden administration ignored hypersonic.
They just decided to pretend like that technology didn't exist and we shouldn't invest in it. They're our thing. I don't know what Lloyd Austin
did for four years.
I really don't. The amount of neglect, --
DURBIN: Sir, he has questions about what you're doing now.
HEGSETH: -- the amount of stale thinking and bureaucracy, it was staggering when we took over. So one Big Beautiful Bill gave us a chance to
get caught back up.
DURBIN: Let me interrupt your speech for a minute, Mr. Secretary. It's my turn to ask questions.
I've been listening patiently while you made your presentation. You estimated at one point that the cost of the war in Iran was $29 billion but
then added a caveat that there was a replacement of munitions, for example.
Do you have a new estimate about what the war has cost us so far in this, the fifth month of the first year of this war in Iran?
[15:50:01]
HEGSETH: Senator, the estimate we have as of today is $37.5 billion.
DURBIN: And is the current activity, which we've been told about the exchange of fire back and forth in Iran, an indication that that number is
going to go up in the months ahead?
HEGSETH: Some of that number captures additional O&M mill pay and other that would be anticipated through the fiscal year. So some of that
anticipates what costs would be going out in the future as well.
DURBIN: So the new number you've given me is what?
HEGSETH: $37.5 billion, Senator.
DURBIN: And that represents the cost of the war through what period of time?
HEGSETH: Through now for certain aspects of it, but also mill pay, O&M, other anticipated costs through September 30th, Senator.
DURBIN: General Caine, let me ask you a question. I joined a group of senators, some are here, Senator Rounds, Senator Coons, Senator Shaheen,
and met with President Zelenskyy in Turkey during the NATO summit. He was very explicit in terms of what he needed to win.
He feels the momentum in Ukraine is moving to his side, that he is putting a foot forward instead of back. Is that your feeling?
GEN. DAN CAINE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Sir, I think the pressure that Ukraine is putting on Russia is substantive at this point.
DURBIN: Do you acknowledge his request that we help them with air defenses as a high priority?
CAINE: Sir, I know he's made the request. Whether or not that moves forward is always a debate at our civilian leadership, but I'm aware of
that request.
DURBIN: Are you aware of the fact that we appropriated, and the president signed into law, $400 billion of supplemental funding for Ukraine,
including money for air defenses?
CAINE: I am, sir.
DURBIN: Are you also aware the administration has informed us that that money will not be available in many aspects until the next president is in
office?
CAINE: Sir, I'm not aware of that. My understanding was that that capital had been allocated, but I'll have to defer to my civilian leadership on
that.
DURBIN: I'm sorry to tell you the pay plan tells us to be prepared to spend that money in fiscal year 29. The new president, whoever it may be,
will make that decision. If you're talking about air defenses and the momentum on the side of Zelenskyy, what impact will it have if we cannot
fund this for three years?
CAINE: Sir, I want to highlight that the incredible work that the Ukraine industrial base is doing is they scale their own capabilities. It ranges
from their surface-to-air capabilities to their air-to-air capabilities. I'll note that recently we had the first air-to-air kill where a Ukrainian
F-16 shot down a Russian fighter.
So I think their ability to scale their layered defense has come a long way over the past couple years with the help and assistance of many.
DURBIN: General, thank you for your service to the country, and I'm sorry for our losses. I believe 17 servicemen have given their lives in Iran so
far, and hundreds have been injured. We should acknowledge that fact.
And let me also say, we're at a moment in history where we can win the war in Ukraine. That victory would be critically important for those people who
have fought for more than four years against the odds and proven they can put Putin back on his heels. But instead of finding the money that they
need now for air defenses, we're putting more money into this exchange with Iran, a war of choice which we never should have entered.
Thank you, General.
COLLINS: Senator Moran.
SEN. JERRY MORAN (R-KS): Chairwoman Collins, thank you very much. Let me first begin with just a statement to you, Secretary Rollins. Thank you for
your leadership.
Thank you for your --
FOSTER: So those hearings underway after this request from the Trump administration for more money for the Iran war.
Joining me now, retired Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, who was also listening to that.
An interesting thought there coming out from one of the senators, wasn't it, that Ukraine isn't getting the money it needs, the money's effectively
being channeled to the Iran war, when we should be focused on the Ukraine war? I mean, is that a broad view of the military too?
KIMMITT: Well, I think the advantage with putting the money into the Iran war is we don't necessarily have any allies that are supporting us in any
way in terms of either equipment or financial support. On the other hand, Europe has stepped up to supporting the Ukrainians, and yes, more money
would be helpful.
There's a question about whether it would turn the tide inside of the war, but it's certainly the case that more money flowing into the Ukrainians
would allow them to certainly defend better on the front lines. So while, again, no money coming from allies in the Iran war, a lot of money coming
in from allies in the Ukraine war.
FOSTER: Okay, Brigadier General, appreciate your analysis.
[15:55:01]
As that hearing gets underway, it will go on for much more time. As we were hearing from Kevin Liptak, they do quite often become quite contentious.
But so far, questions really about previous estimates on this war, what the war is currently costing, the defense secretary actually saying $37.5
billion is what's been spent so far and slightly into the future, but now they want nearly $90 billion more for the Iran.
So that's the situation on Capitol Hill right now. We'll continue to keep it covered for you.
That's it from me, Max Foster. That's WHAT WE KNOW. Do stay with CNN though for more updates and the rest of the news of the day coming up on CNN.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
