Hegseth takes fire from Republicans at heated Senate hearing
Republican senators came out firing during Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on armed forces.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) immediately pressed Hegseth over the Russia-Ukraine war, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) driving home the point later in the hearing; Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Senate appropriator, scolded the Pentagon's delays with budget information; and Sen. Lisa Murkowski closed out the hearing by questioning the administration's focus on Greenland in its Arctic strategy.
McConnell, one of three Republicans who opposed Hegseth's confirmation, gaveled in the hearing by calling out the Trump administration for what he views as a flat base-line defense budget. He then launched into strong warnings against the U.S. cozying up to Russia in its bid to end its war in Ukraine.
McConnell said Washington's allies are 'wondering whether we're in the middle of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory. I think victory is defined by the people who have to live there — the Ukrainians.'
The former Senate majority leader who now chairs the subcommittee, McConnell asked Hegseth which side he wanted to win the war. The Defense chief said the Trump administration wanted the killing to end but would not choose a side.
'America's reputation is on the line,' McConnell said. 'Will we defend Democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?'
Later in the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine Caine if Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to stop at Ukraine.
'I don't believe he is,' Caine replied. Hegseth, meanwhile, said it 'remains to be seen. Graham fired back, referring to his previous allusion to appeasement of Adolph Hitler: 'Well, he says he's not. This is the '30s all over. It doesn't remain to be seen.'
The line of questioning laid bare the ideological divide within the GOP as to how the U.S. should confront Russia, seen by defense hawks as a global threat that must be countered with military assistance to prop up Ukraine and assert U.S. force in the European theater.
But many in the Trump administration, including Hegseth, have taken a more ambivalent tone, arguing for an America First approach that could see American troops rotated out of bases in Europe and an end to the flow of military aid from Washington to Kyiv.
'We don't want a headline at the end of this conflict that says Russia wins and America loses,' McConnell told Hegseth.
The hearing had a far more adversarial tone compared to Hegseth's appearance before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee a day prior, in which the Pentagon chief emerged largely unscathed, particularly at the hands of GOP members.
Democratic and Republican senators grilled Hegseth over a sparsely outlined defense budget for next fiscal year, echoing rare bipartisan criticism during the House hearing.
Collins reprimanded the Pentagon for being 'unacceptably slow' in submitting a detailed Pentagon spending request for the fiscal year 2026. Congress is waiting on the information as the GOP struggles to agree on Trump's reconciliation package.
She also told Hegseth that Trump's budget request represented a reduction in buying power compared to the 2025 military budget, when inflation is taken into account, but suggested the Senate might correct that.
McConnell earlier was also critical of the administration's defense spending plan, pushing back at Hegseth's argument that the U.S. would be making the largest investment in the military in 20 years via Trump's reconciliation package.
McConnell said putting funneling defense dollars into that package while declining to increase military spending in the regular budget 'may well end up functioning as a shell game to avoid making the most significant annual investments that we spent years urging the Biden administration to make.'
There was also no shortage of criticism from the panel's Democrats.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), bashed the Pentagon for cutting military medical research while spending $45 million for a grand military parade marking the Army's 250th birthday, set for Saturday
'This is not consistent with what the men and women in uniform deserve,' Durbin said.
Others, including Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) berated Hegseth for the Trump administration's decision to send National Guard troops and active-duty Marines into Los Angeles this week, calling the actions a wildly out-of-proportion response to sometimes violent protests against Trump's escalating immigration crackdowns.
'Threatening to use our own troops on our own citizens at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American,' Murray said, noting that the actions were undermining the readiness of the U.S. military.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) pressed Hegseth to reveal the cost or timeline of refurbishing Trump's luxury jet from the Qatari government, meant to become Air Force One.
'You have signed a contract with a company to reconfigure the Qatari aircraft. What is the price of that contract?' Reed asked.
Hegseth replied that the information 'cannot be revealed in this setting,' prompting Reed to fire back.
'Why can't it be revealed? This is the appropriation committee of the United States Senate. We appropriate the money that you will spend,' Reed said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Johnson, heckled by Democrats, backs censure for Padilla
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Thursday said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) should be censured after he tried to approach and question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference in Los Angeles, prompting federal agents to forcibly remove him from the room and handcuff him. Video of the altercation — captured by reporters on the scene — sent shockwaves through the Capitol, with Democrats slamming the way law enforcement personnel handled Padilla, and Republicans condemning the senator's conduct at the media availability. Pressed on whether Padilla should face consequences, Johnson initially demurred — 'it's not my decision to make, I'm not in that chamber' — before endorsing censure for the California Democrat. 'I think that that behavior at a minimum rises to the level of a censure,' Johnson told reporters. 'I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole that that is not what we're going to do, that's not what we're going to act.' 'We're not gonna have branches fighting physically and having senators charging Cabinet secretaries,' he added. 'We got to do better and I hope that we will.' The comments came during a press availability in the Capitol after House Republicans narrowly passed a bill to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending for public broadcasting and foreign aid. Johnson staged the gaggle to discuss the legislation, but was swarmed with questions about the altercation in Los Angeles. 'I saw the same video, a very brief video, that I think many people did — I think the senator's actions, my view, is it was wildly inappropriate,' he said. 'You don't charge a sitting Cabinet secretary, and everybody can draw their own conclusions, you can see it's a heated debate here.' As he delivered those remarks, a long line of House Democrats — including many in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and from the California delegation — walked behind the Speaker and heckled him and he spoke. Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif), who represents the San Francisco bay area, shouted 'Mike, that's absurd.' Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) yelled 'why don't you stand up for Congress?' Another House Democrat exclaimed 'that's a lie.' Asked if he would respond to some of the comments, Johnson declined. 'I'm not gonna respond to that,' the Speaker said. 'I think the American people can draw their own conclusions. They saw a senator acting like a, wildly inappropriate, I'll leave it at that.' 'What I saw was agents asking him to quiet down so that the secretary could continue her press conference. He refused to do so. What were they supposed to do? They have to restrain someone who is engaging in that kind of behavior. They moved him out of the room,' Johnson later added. 'A sitting member of Congress should not act like that, it is beneath a member of Congress, it is beneath a U.S. senator. They are supposed to lead by example and that is not a good example.' Earlier on Thursday, Padilla interrupted a press conference Noem was holding in Los Angeles amid widespread protests against the Trump administration's deportation efforts and against Trump mobilizing the National Guard and Marines to protect agents. Multiple men forcibly removed him from the room and handcuffed him. 'I'm Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,' Padilla is heard saying as he struggled with officers holding him back. As he was aggressively moved out two double doors the senator can be heard saying 'Hands off!' 'Senator Padilla is currently in Los Angeles exercising his duty to perform Congressional oversight of the federal government's operations in Los Angeles and across California,' Padilla's office said in a statement immediately after the altercation. 'He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem's press conference. He tried to ask the Secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information.
22 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."
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill Backing RFK Jr., Elon Musk Priority
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Bernie Sanders is leading a new bill to address a key priority of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who serves as President Donald Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. Why It Matters Sanders, a Vermont independent, alongside Senator Angus King, a Maine independent, introduced the "End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act," which, if passed, would ban prescription drug advertising on TV, radio, print and digital platforms as well as social media. Critics say these ads contribute to the high price of healthcare while doing little to improve care in the United States, though proponents say the advertisements can improve patients' knowledge of healthcare. Most wealthy countries, with the U.S. and New Zealand being two notable exceptions, ban pharmaceutical drug advertisements. The bill also represents an issue where Sanders, viewed as perhaps the most progressive senator, has found common ground with Kennedy inside the Trump administration, though the secretary has not commented on this bill specifically. What to Know Sanders and King announced the legislation on Thursday, highlighting that the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $5 billion on TV ads in 2024 and that many of these drugs cost more in the U.S. than in other countries that do not allow drug companies to run ads on TV. "The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said, describing the fact that the U.S. stands mostly alone in allowing pharmaceutical ads as an "international embarrassment." vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C. vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, director of communications Anna Bahr confirmed to Newsweek his office has reached out to Republicans to join the bill. Bahr pointed to lobbying from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries as to why the U.S. has not joined other countries in bannign the ads. "Over the past 25 years, the drug companies have spent $8.5 billion on lobbying. Today, they have some 1,800 well-paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. – including former leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties," she said in a statement to Newsweek. "Unbelievably, that is more than three lobbyists for every member of Congress. During that same period, they have provided over $700 million in campaign contributions. And they are equal opportunity contributors. They contribute heavily to both Republican and Democratic candidates." Secretary Kennedy—as well as Elon Musk, who previously served in Trump's administration—have expressed support for ending pharmaceutical advertising. "Let's get President Trump back in the White House and me to DC so we can ban pharmaceutical advertising," Kennedy wrote in a post to X (formerly Twitter) on November 3, 2024. During his own presidential campaign, Kennedy said he would have issued an executive order ending the advertisements on his first day in office. Newsweek reached out to DHS for comment via the department's press contact form. Caleb Alexander, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Newsweek that while a potential ban's impact on drug prices remains uunclear, there would be benefits to ending these advertisements. Pharmaceutical advertisements can drive up "inappropriate demand" for prescription drugs in settings where they may not be needed, he said. "In terms of the potential benefits of banning [direct-to-consumer advertisements], the most immediate and likely is that it would temper demand for products in settings where they may not be needed," Alexander said. The U.S. has "evolved to believe" the benefits of the ads, such as empowering patients to identify health concerns, outweigh the risks, though much of the research on the topic indicates that the benefits may not be worth the drawbacks, he said. What People Are Saying Alexander told Newsweek: "Direct to consumer advertising has been a lightning rod for controversy, and it remains a curious and unique feature of the U.S. marketplace. While a ban on direct advertising may be welcomed by many, it's not going to fundamentally transform the marketplace for prescription drugs in the United States, simply because DTCA is highly concentrated among a small number of products. It may be a reasonable political and public health target, but I think that if you just look at the way the dollars flow, there's vastly more money spent on marketing drugs to prescribers." Senator Angus King wrote in a statement: "The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn't necessarily make patients healthier. The End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act would prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs to protect people. This bill is a great step to ensure that patients are getting the best information possible and from the right source: their providers and not biased advertisements." Elon Musk wrote to X in November 2024: "No advertising for pharma." What Happens Next It's unclear whether a majority of senators are also in support of the bill. So far, Democratic Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Peter Welch of Vermont, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Dick Durbin of Illinois have co-sponsored the bill, according to Sanders' office.
