Senate committee grills Hegseth on protests and the Middle East
1 of 3 | Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth denied ordering troops to shoot Los Angeles protesters during a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
June 18 (UPI) -- Some members of the Senate Armed Forces Committee and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sparred over Los Angeles troop deployments and the Israel-Iran war during a hearing on Wednesday morning.
Hegseth appeared before the committee to answer questions about the proposed $961.6 billion Fiscal Year 2026 defense budget, but the questioning quickly turned to current events.
Sen. Elise Slotkin, D-Mich., said Hegseth deployed 4,700 military personnel to Los Angeles and asked if he had "authorized uniformed military to detain or arrest protesters" there.
"You're not a protester if you are throwing concrete at law enforcement officers," Hegseth responded.
Slotkin agreed "100%," and said, "Throw them in jail," before adding, "What you're doing is something different."
She again asked if Hegseth gave an order for 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to "detain or arrest" protesters in Los Angeles.
Hegseth said his orders to the troops in Los Angeles are a matter of public record and they are there to protect law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents while they try to do their jobs.
"If necessary, in their own self-defense, they could temporarily detain or hand over to ICE, but there's no arresting going on," Hegseth said.
"You know this better than anyone," he told Slotkin and accused her of "playing political games."
Slotkin also asked Hegseth if he had "given the order ... to be able to shoot at unarmed protesters in any way."
Hegseth asked what basis Slotkin had to ask the question and what evidence she had to suggest such an order ever had been given.
Slotkin cited a book written by former Defense Secretary Mark Esper in which Esper said he rejected a similar order by President Donald Trump in 2020.
"Senator, I'd be careful what you read in books and believing it, except the Bible," Hegseth responded.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., chastised Hegseth for the troop deployments in Los Angeles and for discussing pending military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen in Signal chats.
"I wonder when you will actually focus on our nation's warfighting mission," Duckworth said. "We know that California is just a deliberate, systematic, political and dangerous campaign led by you."
When Duckworth asked if Hegseth plans to remove troops from Los Angeles, he said he will respect a federal appellate court's decision allowing the deployments and not a district court judge's decision against them.
Democratic Party Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire asked Hegseth if Trump had ordered him to create options for military strikes in the Middle East.
Hegseth declined to answer Shaheen's question.
"If I had or had not, I wouldn't disclose that in this forum, senator," Hegseth told Shaheen.
Hegseth and Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., also exchanged barbs as the senator asked if he would fire a staffer who is accused of making anti-Semitic comments.
Rosen cited comments attributed to Defense Department press secretary Kingsley Wilson.
"Since I don't believe the characterization of many officials in the news media, I would need to see precisely what's being characterized," Hegseth responded.
Hegseth said Wilson "does a fantastic job" and accused Rosen of engaging in hyperbole.
Rosen then accused Hegseth of not being "serious" about "rooting out [and] fighting anti-Semitism within the ranks of the Department of Defense."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP senators back up Trump on Israel-Iran conflict as MAGA base splits on issue
Senate Republicans largely lined up behind President Donald Trump's handling of the conflict between Iran and Israel and said they trusted Trump's judgment on whether the United States ought to involve itself. Trump said again Wednesday that he has not decided whether the U.S. should get more involved in the He signaled to reporters that he would decide at the last moment, stating he'd make the decision 'one second before.' The issue of getting more involved in the conflict has divided Trump's MAGA base, with some pointing to his campaign promise to keep America out of foreign wars. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a defense hawk who said he spoke to Trump last night, endorsed the use of force if diplomatic efforts fail. "Either you want them to have a nuclear weapon, or you don't," Graham said. "And if you don't, if diplomacy fails, you use force." MORE: Israel and Iran are waging an existential battle. What does it mean for the US?: ANALYSIS Most Republicans said that they agreed with Trump that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. "I think this is something on which the entire world can agree: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, or the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead, period," Sen. John Kennedy said. "American foreign policy is always a balance between ... between values and interests. The value here is obvious to everyone. Iran cannot have a bomb. It's just unthinkable, and I support the president unconditionally on that," Kennedy said. Sen. Mike Rounds said there is evidence that Iran was getting closer to building a nuclear weapon. "If Israel has a plan which is appropriate to take care of the problem, then we don't need to be there, but we should never take or eliminate options that are available to the president in exercising his authority as the commander-in-chief," Rounds said. Sen. Kevin Cramer said he would support Trump's decision if he decided to enter the conflict, but would also support a decision to instead "assist Israel in getting the job done." "Iran's made that really crystal clear. They pledged to wipe out the United States of America. I prefer not to let them get here," Cramer said. "I prefer preemptive prevention of war rather than having to end one after it gets to our soil, right?" MORE: Israel-Iran live updates Cramer said Trump has been handling the crisis "brilliantly"and applauded Trump's suggestion that he may or may not get involved. "I think that's pretty honest, right? I may or I may not. I think that that the element of of surprise, if you will, is maintained by an answer that doesn't tell you what he's going to do," he said. "It'd be crazy for the president to give a warning, if you will, of what he may do." Both Republicans and Democrats said they would like Congress to have a role in determining whether the U.S. gets involved in the conflict, but Republicans were much less forceful. "I would love to see Congress have a role, but we certainly don't have time in the midst of what we all see going on for Congress to sit and cogitate for six or eight months," Kennedy said. Democrats, on the other hand, said Trump should get Congress' approval before taking any military action. MORE: Trump on his 'unconditional surrender' demand to Iran: 'I've had it' "At some point, the president must come to Congress if there is to be active, kinetic military involvement that constitutes war. That's the Constitution, Sen. Richard Blumenthal said. "And I believe that the president has to face accountability at some point, for the use of military force in combat, in a war. And the question is, when that point is." Other Democrats said the U.S. should be trying to de-escalate the conflict rather than inflame it. "We don't need to escalate in Iran. That doesn't make anyone in the Middle East safer, and it certainly doesn't make the United States any safer right now, Sen. Elizabeth Warren said. "The role of the United States should be to help de-escalate, to push for negotiations, not to try to set more things afire."
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Live updates: Israel-Iran conflict, ballistic missile attacks, Trump weighs US involvement
Update: Date: 6 min ago Title: As the Iran-Israel conflict continues, Trump reviews US options. Here's what you should know Content: Iran and Israel continue to trade strikes as President Donald Trump's decision on whether the US would get involved looms large. Trump has reviewed attack plans for Iran but is holding off to see if Tehran steps back from its nuclear program, a person familiar with the matter told CNN. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Trump for 'standing by our side' as Israel pushes ahead with its fight against Iran. The US on Wednesday evacuated some embassy personnel and family members from Israel on a US military aircraft, three sources told CNN. The US Embassy in Israel said in its latest security alert Thursday local time that it has 'no announcement about assisting private U.S. citizens to depart at this time.' This came hours after US Ambassador Mike Huckabee said on X that the embassy was 'working on evacuation flights & cruise ship departures.' Here are the key headlines from Wednesday: CNN's Alejandra Jaramillo, Mohammed Tawfeeq, Jeremy Diamond, Tamar Michaelis, Gianluca Mezzofiore, Catherine Nicholls, Michael Rios, Jennifer Hansler, Oren Liebermann, Kylie Atwood and Hira Humayun contributed reporting. Update: Date: 1 min ago Title: Israeli envoy to US says Iran's ability to produce ballistic weapons must also be eliminated Content: Israel's ambassador to the US said Wednesday that Israel must eliminate not only Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons, but also its ability to produce ballistic missiles. 'They come cruising out of the sky and create incredible damage,' Yechiel Leiter told CNN's Kaitlan Collins, referring to Iran's missiles. 'That production capacity has to be eliminated as well.' 'They cannot have the weapons that can destroy Israel, which they claim and which they want to do every day,' he added. Asked about Israel's ability to destroy Iran's Fordow nuclear enrichment site, buried deep under a mountain near the city of Qom, Leiter said 'it might require multiple strikes, it might require something else or it might require one of our surprises,' without going into details. 'We have a few tricks up our sleeves,' he said, when asked about Israel's response if the US were not to get involved in the conflict. 'If we have to pursue this and prosecute this by ourselves, we're going to know what to do. We're not going to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,' he told Collins. Update: Date: 7 min ago Title: Trump has reviewed attack plans but is holding off to see if Iran steps back from nuclear program, source says Content: US President Donald Trump has reviewed attack plans for Iran but is holding off to see if Tehran steps back from its nuclear program, a person familiar with the matter told CNN. The plans were among an array of options the president's military advisers discussed with him in the Situation Room this week, though officials stressed no decision has been made, as Trump said publicly on Wednesday. 'I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final — I like to make the final decision one second before it's due, you know, because things change. I mean, especially with war, things change with war. It can go from one extreme to the other,' he told CNN's Kaitlan Collins in the Oval Office. 'As President Trump said himself today, all options remain on the table,' a White House official said Wednesday. CNN reported Tuesday that Trump was growing increasingly receptive to using US military assets to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. On Wednesday, CNN reported that discussions were underway among his top officials over how the US could do so without becoming embroiled in a full-scale war.
CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump keeps everyone guessing on whether he'll go to war in Iran — perhaps including himself
He might do it. But he might not. And you've got no idea whether he will. Then again, neither does he. Donald Trump's riffing ahead of the most wrenching national security decision in either of his presidencies is nothing like the complex war-gaming and careful tilling of public opinion that most commanders in chief require before they send Americans off to fight. Trump's vague soliloquies and ambiguous comments, on camera and online, seem glib and even negligent given the grave potential consequences of a US attack on Iran's nuclear sites. But it's how he rolls. He wants to keep friends and foes guessing. He's shown that he believes unpredictability and volatility — factors that most presidents seek to avoid in national security crises — offer him a key advantage. Trump loves to be the center of attention with the world hanging on his every word. His equivocating creates space for him to postpone the moment of decision and to avoid locking in definitive courses of action he can't reverse. His fans say it's genius. But there's not much evidence that strategy transfers from a real estate magnate's boardroom to complex geopolitical showdowns and global peacemaking. Iran's ayatollahs, Israel, US allies, members of Congress, pundits, reporters and Americans watching at home can never be certain what Trump might do next. And no modern president has ever managed the run-up to a possible war as though he is sketching a series of cliffhangers to compel viewers to watch the next episode. Trump is no JFK calmly averting nuclear war with high-pressure diplomatic chess during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Trump's critics have dreaded the moment when he'd face the kind of international crisis he largely avoided during his first term. And his style has serious drawbacks. His administration has yet to take the American people into its confidence and explain why it has suddenly changed its view that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Now, Trump says it's weeks away from one. There's no sign the administration intends to seek authorization from Congress for a possible new act of war against Iran — as the Constitution requires. And it's refusing to say whether it's gamed out how an attack on Iran's nuclear plant at Fordow could reverberate through a treacherous region and whether it has any kind of exit strategy. This would be troubling in isolation. But following Washington's disastrous history of plunging into quagmires caused by paltry planning for the day after shock-and-awe beginnings, it's tempting fate. And Trump's serial dishonesty and scorched-earth leadership style mean millions of Americans will need a lot more than his word to trust any decision to wage military action. The president's plans might be a mystery. But his calculation is a simple one. He must decide whether US interests are served by joining Israel's assault on Iran to try to destroy the Islamic Republic's nuclear program with unique bunker-busting capabilities that only the United States possesses. It's a tough call because of the potential consequences: Iranian attacks on US bases in the Middle East, potential terrorist attacks on US targets, and a shockwave that could destabilize the world if the regime in Tehran collapses. The latest developments are ominous. A third US aircraft carrier group is moving toward the Middle East. A fierce war of words between Trump and Iran's clerical leaders is heating up. And the president is huddling in daily Situation Room meetings with his top national security aides. CNN reported on Wednesday that the president is preoccupied with finding a way to strike key targets of Iran's nuclear program without being dragged into a full-scale war. Sources familiar with the matter said he wants to avoid the kind of open-ended conflict like those in Iraq and Afghanistan that he's vowed to avoid and that he used as a catalyst for his rise among MAGA voters skeptical of war. These revelations might offer Americans some comfort since they suggest that the president is weighing the implications of his decisions with greater diligence than his offhand patter suggests. There's some logic to his position. No one expects Trump to put US troops on the ground — they could be a sitting target in Iran or in any post-war failed state insurgency, as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump's first-term assassination raid that killed Iranian intelligence chief Qasem Soleimani didn't unleash fury against US targets that many analysts expected. And US bases in the region are heavily defended against missile attacks. There's also some question about how much Iran's degraded military can now throw at the US and Israel. But US foreign policy of the last 25 years is haunted by false assumptions about the behavior of adversaries when they are attacked. As Trump said himself last month in Saudi Arabia, US officials were often meddling in societies they didn't understand. So, it's fair to ask whether Trump has any idea what he's getting into. A watching world is no wiser after the president's public appearances Wednesday. 'I mean, you don't know that I'm going to even do it. You don't know. I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do,' Trump told reporters who asked him about his plans for Iran as he unveiled two massive flagpoles at the White House. 'Nothing's finished until it's finished. You know, war is very complex. A lot of bad things can happen. A lot of turns are made.' Later, in the Oval Office, Trump told CNN's Kaitlan Collins that he hadn't made a final decision on what to do as he's besieged by pressure for action by Israelis and warnings from his own MAGA base to stay out of foreign wars. 'I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final — I like to make the final decision one second before it's due, you know, because things change.' Trump's lack of precision worries Democrats. 'It's obviously unclear where his head is at right now. I think he was pretty indecisive on the subject of Iran, which I can understand,' California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff said on 'The Situation Room.' 'This is a difficult call. But I don't think we got much guidance as to whether he is optimistic about talks with Iran leaning in towards a potential strike on Iran,' Schiff said, reacting to one of Trump's meandering press availabilities. 'It was pretty nebulous, the kind of usual stream-of-consciousness.' There's confusion about conflicting intelligence assessments in the US and Israel about Iran's nuclear progress. Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner is part of a group of senior lawmakers who are given access to the most sensitive classified information. But he's as much in the dark as anyone about what's next. 'I'm a member … of the Gang of Eight. We're supposed to know,' Warner told CNN's Kasie Hunt. 'I have no foggy idea what this administration's plans are or what the foreign policy is vis-a-vis Iran.' The question of the administration's contingency planning is also coming into focus. But don't expect any details. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was confronted by Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin during a hearing on Wednesday. Slotkin speaks from experience: She was a CIA officer who completed combat tours in Baghdad after the George W. Bush administration's disastrous lack of forethought for how to win peace in Iraq. 'Have you commissioned any day-after planning?' Slotkin asked. 'Any force protection, any use of ground troops, in Iran; any cost assessments, because I don't think we doubt what we can do as a country, and in the attack. It's the day after with Iraq and Afghanistan that so many of us have learned to be so deeply concerned about. Hegseth reacted with disdain. 'We have plans for everything, Senator,' he said. Trump showed similar hubris. 'I have a plan for everything, but we'll see what happens,' he told reporters on the Oval Office. The president also says he's open to diplomacy. But there's no sign of a James Baker-style peace shuttle. Far from offering his adversary a face-saving off-ramp. Trump is demanding total surrender at the outset. While this may match Israel's goals, it's a nonstarter for Iran's revolutionary corps of leaders in Tehran, who've founded their regime on more than 45 years of defying successive American presidents. Trump often seems to be operating in a parallel universe. He for instance insists Iranian leaders wanted to meet and 'to come to the White House.' Iran strongly denied any such aspirations. 'We are not begging for anything,' Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. 'As long as the aggression continues, as long as this brutality continues, we cannot think of engaging.' This points to one of the liabilities of Trump's diplomacy, which also helps explained his failed Ukraine peace drive. His administration shows little skill in creating openings and multilayered negotiating scenarios that can loosen entrenched positions. Trump makes maximalist demands. When interlocutors demur, the process grinds to a halt. So, for now, the country seems on a path to another venture in the Middle East, with uncertain consequences. But Trump had one more cliffhanger. 'Anything could happen,' he said, when asked if the regime in Iran could fall in a response which exemplifies his entire presidency.
