Hegseth wavers on Russia sanctions, says US should not use ‘every tool' to end Ukraine invasion
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth resisted senators' efforts to secure his support for a bipartisan bill that would sanction Russia for its war on Ukraine, telling an Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday that the US should not use 'every tool at our disposal' to pressure Moscow to stop its assault.
Asked by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) whether Washington 'should use every tool it has at its disposal, including additional sanctions, to pressure Russia to come to the table to negotiate a just and lasting peace for the war in Ukraine,' Hegseth demurred.
'Senator, every tool at our disposal? No,' he said. 'We have a lot of tools in a lot of places.'
'We should be pursuing a cease-fire and a negotiated resolution to the war in Ukraine at any cost,' Coons responded. ''Peace through strength' means actually using our strength, continuing to support Ukraine, and securing a lasting peace. [Vladimir] Putin will only stop when we stop him.'
4 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified Wednesday at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.
REUTERS
Prior to questioning Hegseth, Coons had talked up Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal's (D-Conn.) pending bill to further sanction Russia for its continued resistance to peace in Ukraine.
The legislation, backed by 80 senators, would impose sanctions on key Russian officials and economic sectors — and, critically, penalize foreign nations that do business with Moscow.
Graham later followed up, urging Hegseth and the administration 'to use that tool to get the attention of China and India.'
'China buys — and India buys — 70% of Russia's oil … If they stop buying cheap Russian oil tomorrow, would that grind Putin's war machine to a halt?' Graham asked, later adding: 'We have an ability, through legislation, to get China and India's attention [and say] that if you keep buying cheap Russian oil to empower Putin to kill Ukrainian children, you're going to lose access to our markets.
'We're not going to evict every Russian from Ukraine, I'm a practical guy,' Graham added. 'But we got to end this war so we don't entice China to take Taiwan, and we don't encourage Iran to think we're just all talk [about] stopping their nuclear ambitions.'
4 Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) questions Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth during a Senate Committee on Appropriations subcommittee hearing to examine proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 2026 for the Department of Defense.
AP
On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House was quietly pushing Graham to water down the bill by allowing waivers to exempt certain people and entities from sanctions and to 'remove the mandatory nature' of the legislation.
A White House official told the outlet that the Constitution 'vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations.'
'Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy,' they added.
Hegseth did admit Wednesday that Russia is the 'aggressor' in Ukraine and that Chinese President Xi Jinping wants Moscow to 'win' the conflict.
However, the secretary declined to answer Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) question about 'which side' he wanted to win the war.
'As we've said time and time again, this president is committed to peace in that conflict,' Hegseth said. 'Ultimately, peace serves our national interests, and we think the interests of both parties, even if that outcome will not be preferable to many in this room and many in our country.'
4 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (R) greets Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine before testifying during a hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 11.
Getty Images
McConnell pushed further, noting that the Russians 'don't seem to be too interested' in peace talks.
The former Senate GOP leader also alleged that NATO partners increasing their defense spending at Trump's behest are now wondering 'whether we're in the midst of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory.'
'I think victory is defined by the people that have to live there, the Ukrainians,' he said. 'And I don't think they're going to ever conclude that victory means basically adopting the Russian views on all this. '
Hegseth responded that 'no one's adopting views,' but added that the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act does not include funding of weapons for Ukraine because 'the budget reflects the reality that Europe needs to step up more for the defense of its own continent, and President Trump deserves the credit for that.'
4 Ranking member Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) speaks with subcommittee Chairman Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during a hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 11, 2025.
Getty Images
McConnell agreed, noting that he had 'the same complaints' about the Biden administration not pushing hard enough for Europe to fund Ukraine's defense.
Still, the Kentuckian insisted that by not standing foursquare behind the Kyiv government, 'it seems to me pretty obvious that America's reputation is on the line.'
'Will we defend democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?' McConnell asked. 'That's the international concern that I have about this, and I think a number of my fellow members share that view.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
26 minutes ago
Democrats slam military parade as Trump's multimillion-dollar 'birthday party'
Congressional Democrats and at least one high-profile Republican are slamming the multimillion-dollar cost of the Army 's 250th anniversary parade on Saturday that President Donald Trump has long sought to celebrate the military. Trump has said the cost -- projected to be as much as $45 million for the Army alone, not counting security and other expenses -- will be "peanuts compared to the value of doing it." However, his critics argue the money could be better spent elsewhere. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," Sen. Tammy Duckworth said on X. "But it isn't. Trump is throwing himself a $30 million birthday parade just to stroke his own ego." The Army said it has accounted for spending between $25 million and $45 million on the parade, which will include 6,700 troops and dozens of tanks, military fighting vehicles and aircraft staged on or near the National Mall. "Money should be put in medical defense research instead of wasted on some pomp and circumstance for the president," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday. "This is not consistent with what the men and women in uniform deserve." Saturday's parade also falls on Trump's 79th birthday, and when it ends near the White House, the Army's Golden Knights parachute team will present him with an American flag, after which he'll administer the constitutional oath to Army enlistees. "We all like to enjoy a nice birthday party," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., posted on X. "But most of us don't celebrate with a $45 million taxpayer-funded military parade. "Save taxpayer money. Have a birthday cake and blow out a few candles," he said. "Don't shut down the capital and roll out 60-ton tanks through the streets." "I wouldn't have done it," Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said. "We were always different than, you know, the images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that." Some Democrats echoed that criticism. "It's outrageous," Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., said. "This is something that would happen in North Korea, not the United States of America. Donald Trump thinks he's a king. He's not. He was elected as president of the United States, and he should act as such." Army spokesman Steve Warren defended the parade, saying, "It is a lot of money, but I think that amount of money is dwarfed by 250 years of service and sacrifice that American soldiers have given this country. "We're looking at this as an opportunity to really strengthen the connection between America and her Army," he added. "So, yeah, it's a lot of money, but it pales in comparison to what we're selling." The White House this week also requested a flyover by the Air Force Thunderbirds. When asked Thursday what he hopes the public will remember about the parade, Trump said, "How great our country is, very simple, and how strong our military is." "We have the strongest military in the world," he added. The White House has not responded to requests for a total cost estimate that would include money spent on security and other arrangements. Several Republicans say they're skipping the parade due to prior commitments, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said she would attend and defended the display. "Washington D.C. is the safest it's ever been!!" she wrote. "I wish our great military men and women could just stay here. I am so excited for the parade celebrating the 250th anniversary of our United States Army!!" Protests of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown are planned across the country to counterprogram the parade, with the flagship "No Kings" protest occurring in Philadelphia. Nine small protests are also expected in Washington, according to the Secret Service and local officials. Trump has warned protesters will be met with "heavy force." On Friday, he disputed the characterization of him as a king. "I don't feel like a king. I have to go through hell to get stuff approved," he said, adding, "No, no, we're not a king. We're not a king at all."
Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
White House looks to freeze more agency funds — and expand executive power
The Trump administration is working on a new effort to both weaken Congress' grip on the federal budget and freeze billions of dollars in spending at several government agencies, people familiar with the strategy told POLITICO's E&E News. The strategy: order agencies to freeze the spending now — then ask Congress' approval, using a maneuver that allows the cuts to become permanent if lawmakers fail to act. The move would ax billions of dollars beyond the $9.4 billion in White House-requested cuts, known as 'rescissions,' that the House approved Thursday. The Office of Management and Budget late last week directed several agencies to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to agency emails and two people familiar with the plan. The architect of the freeze directive, OMB Director Russ Vought, has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — first reported by E&E News — appears designed to test those boundaries. The agencies targeted by the newest freeze include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services. E&E News granted anonymity to the two people familiar with the strategy so they could speak freely without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration. OMB's targets include NSF research and education programs that operate using funding leftover from 2024. Also on the list are tens of millions of dollars for national park operations as well as more than $100 million in science spending at NASA, which includes climate research. While the president has some measure of control over how federal agencies spend their money, the power of the purse lies primarily with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Put another way: Lawmakers set the budget. Vought is trying to turn that principle on its head. The order to freeze some funding at more than a dozen agencies comes in advance of a budget spending 'deferrals' package that the White House plans to send Congress. Spending deferrals allow the executive branch to temporarily prevent authorized dollars from going out the door — but only if lawmakers sign off on the move. Freezing the spending before making that request seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, said Joseph Carlile, former associate director at OMB in the Biden administration. 'There is a right, a legal way, for the administration to rescind things and I guess they're pursuing this because they don't have their stuff together or don't care about the law,' said Carlile, who also worked previously on budgetary oversight on the House Appropriations Committee for 13 years. 'This is consistent with an administration that believes that they have broader powers around budget and spending than any other administration has ever been able to find,' Carlile added. White House officials did not deny the new strategy when asked about it. Rather, they described it as a way to lock in spending cuts prescribed by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting outfit championed by Trump donor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Yet the White House has worked to keep the effort quiet, said one person in the administration with direct knowledge of the strategy. The person said the White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail. Vought has said repeatedly he disagrees with the impoundment act, a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Democrats and legal scholars have said Trump already has violated the law. 'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN in an interview on June 1. The separate $9.4 billion rescissions package that the House approved Thursday would permanently cut funding for NPR and PBS as well as foreign aid. Vought has said he expects to send more rescissions packages to Congress. Vought's multipronged strategy also is likely to include a 'pocket rescissions' strategy, by which the White House intentionally runs out the clock near the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. If the president introduces a recissions package then, Congress has a limited time to act — and if it does not do so, the funds slated for elimination are automatically canceled. The White House may use the pocket rescissions strategy if the $9.4 billion rescissions package does not pass both chambers of Congress, the administration person said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered on Labor Department spending. The deferrals package is a third strategy — and it comes ahead of an expected congressional fight on lifting the debt ceiling before the end of the summer. It would essentially pause or significantly slow funding intentionally, until it can be crafted into a separate pocket rescissions package that can run down the clock and be made permanent. Under the impoundment law, the White House can ask Congress to defer some of its budget spending authority 'to provide for contingencies' or 'to achieve savings' through efficiency gains. The White House is planning to argue that hitting the debt ceiling — a borrowing limit imposed and periodically raised by Congress — is such a contingency. The nation is expected to reach the debt ceiling by the end of August. The White House strategy is to delay or block funds now, then craft an additional rescissions package later in the year that would make such cuts permanent. 'OMB is hard at work making the DOGE cuts permanent using a wide range of tools we have at our disposal under the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] and within the President's authority— just like the first rescissions package that was sent up to the Hill this week,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a statement Monday. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.' The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the person with direct knowledge of the move. It could also be a 'trial balloon' to see whether the White House can unilaterally block future spending if Trump administration officials object, said another person at an agency that would be affected. The move appears to be a significant escalation of Vought's efforts to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought's strategy is to rely on Section 1013 of the act, which grants the president the authority to freeze spending if the administration explains its actions to lawmakers. The act originally allowed one chamber of Congress to reject presidential deferrals, a power that courts rejected. As a result, the law was amended in 1987 to limit how long presidents could delay spending and under what conditions. 'It does not appear that any measures to disapprove a deferral have been considered since these amendments were made,' the Congressional Research Service said in a February report on the impoundment law. Vought has long argued that impounding some congressionally appropriated funding is constitutional, and he has said he wants the Supreme Court to validate what would be a significant weakening of congressional oversight of the federal budget. The deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress would temporarily stop agencies from spending unobligated funds that remain at the end of the government's fiscal year on Sept. 30. The broad-based deferrals package is highly unusual and could be part of his strategy to take his fight for greater executive power to the Supreme Court, said Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and author of the book 'The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking.' 'It is a novel approach, but I think in the end, they really want this to go to the Supreme Court,' Joyce said. 'They think they know how the Supreme Court is going to rule and once the Supreme Court opens the door, you know, it's kind of high noon for the separation of powers, which is what they want.' Last week, OMB officials reached out to federal agencies to tell them to enact the spending freeze. Some agency officials were 'shocked' at the move, according to the administration official with direct knowledge of the plan. The head of the National Science Foundation's budget office didn't know what to make of the directive, according to an email obtained by E&E News. OMB is targeting the agency's research and education 'accounts for a deferral package,' NSF Budget Director Caitlyn Fife wrote last Friday in a note to top officials. 'I imagine you will all have questions, as do we,' she said. 'However we are immediately focused on pulling the funds back to ensure there are no further commitments or obligations.' An NSF official briefed on the spending freeze said offices relying on previous-year funding could see their 'programs gutted.' The official also predicted that if OMB's ploy succeeds, it will use deferrals to impound any congressionally directed spending the administration opposes. That means the deferrals package strategy is likely the start of a significant and questionable push to expand executive power, said Carlile, the former OMB associate director. He said the White House is essentially seeking to subvert the Constitution, which grants Congress spending authority, in such an extreme way that it threatens the nation's democratic structure. 'I think it upends a fundamental check and balance contemplated in our Constitution, and I don't understand how you subordinate Congress' power of the purse,' Carlile said. Federal spending decisions are 'a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions,' he added. 'And this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
Time Magazine
31 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
U.S. Immigration Agency Using Drones Capable of Surveillance During L.A. Protests
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is using drones during the protests in Los Angeles, the department has confirmed, further fueling controversy surrounding the escalating law enforcement response to the demonstrations that broke out as immigration raids occurred throughout the city. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), an agency within DHS, confirmed on Thursday that it is providing 'aerial support' to law enforcement. "Air and Marine Operations (AMO) is providing aerial support to federal law enforcement partners conducting operations in the Greater Los Angeles area. AMO's efforts are focused on situational awareness and officer safety support as requested,' a CBP spokesperson told TIME via email. DHS shared footage of the protests shot with a drone on social media earlier in the week. 'WATCH: DHS drone footage of LA rioters,' the department wrote via an X post on June 10, which included video of cars burning and an apparent explosion accompanied by sinister music. 'California politicians must call off their rioting mob.' The protests in Los Angeles have been predominantly peaceful as they enter their seventh day, media on the ground has reported, though some have escalated as cars have been set on fire and projectiles have been thrown. Despite that, President Donald Trump has deployed thousands of National Guard members and is mobilizing hundreds of Marines to the area, against the wishes of state and local leaders. Local law enforcement has also used crowd control tactics such as rubber bullets and tear gas, and Mayor Karen Bass has declared a state of 'local emergency' and imposed an ongoing 8 p.m. to 6 p.m. curfew. Since the protests began on Friday, more than 160 people have been arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The majority of those arrests, according to the New York Times, occurred on Monday, and a majority of them were based on failure to disperse charges. CBP confirmed to 404 media that the drones used by the agency were two Predator drones after the media company reported that drones were spotted flying without call signs where the anti-ICE protests were occurring. Does DHS have the authority to use drones? Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed reports of the drones in a June 11 hearing with Congress. Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed asked Hegseth if he was prepared for DHS to use drones to 'to detain or arrest American citizens.' 'Every authorization we've provided the National Guard and the Marines in Los Angeles is under the authority of the President of the United States,' Hegseth answered. According to Alejandra Montoya-Boyer, senior director of the Center for Civil Rights & Technology at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, tech groups and civil rights groups alike are "surprised and deeply concerned' by the use of drones, but it is not "necessarily new.' 'CBP has a pretty expansive opportunity to be able to deploy drone technology and other technologies that are able to surveil and track anyone, whether they're crossing the border or in these spaces,' Montoya-Boyer tells TIME. She says 'this isn't necessarily the first time we're seeing this,' but noted that it could still be harmful and 'disproportionately impacting communities of color and immigrants right now.' She says people are often unaware of the extent of land that CBP has access to—100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S, a border zone that almost two-thirds of the U.S. population lives within. Montoya-Boyer says that the technology used by these drones was created to track border crossings, not to be used to track U.S. citizens at protests. 'The reality is, with the development of these types of technologies, and with appropriations by CBP and DHS, they can be used for domestic surveillance and as needed by an administration that isn't necessarily doing what's usual,' she says. Though the CBP has stated that the drones are focused on 'situational awareness' and 'officer safety,' Montoyta-Boyers says there 'is no reason for us to believe that it is just in the name of law and order' as 'there is an increase, an expansion of surveillance technologies in the name of immigration enforcement being deployed all across the country on the majority of people, whether they're immigrants or not She recommends those who decide to lawfully and peacefully protest to access both the ACLU 's and Electronic Frontier Foundation 's guides to what protestors' rights are. Have drones been used during previous U.S. protests? This is not the first time that drones have been used during U.S. protests in support of law enforcement efforts. Back in 2020, CBP utilized drones at the height of protests in the Black Lives Matter movement spurred by the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. At the time, however, CBP argued that its drones were not being used to 'surveil' protestors, but rather to provide 'assistance to state and locals so they could make sure that their cities and their towns were protected,' according to Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan in a 2020 interview with ABC News. "We were not providing any resources to surveil lawful peaceful protesters. That's not what we were doing," he said. 'We weren't taking any information on law-abiding protesters, but we were absolutely there to ensure the safety of folks there as well as to enforce, and make sure law and order remain.'
