The Daily - Hegseth in the Hot Seat

Episode Date: May 1, 2026

Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, went before Congress to answer for a war in Iran that has reached a stalemate and a management style that has caused controversy at the Pentagon. Eric Schmitt, a national security correspondent, takes us inside Mr. Hegseth’s testimony. Guest: Eric Schmitt, a national security correspondent for The New York Times in Washington. Background reading:  Read takeaways from Mr. Hegseth’s second day of testimony on the Iran war. Photo: Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From New York Times, I'm Michael Babarro. This is the daily. In back-to-back hearings that ended on Thursday, Pete Hegzeth went before Congress for the first time in a year to answer for a war in Iran that's reached a stalemate and a management style that has caused controversy after controversy at the Pentagon. Today, my colleague, Eric Schmidt, takes us. Inside his testimony, it's Friday, May 1st. Eric, always a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Thank you, Michael.

Let me start by asking, as a reporter who covers the military and the Pentagon and the war in Iran, how were you thinking about this hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee as it was about to begin on Thursday morning? What in your mind were the stakes of Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, giving this testimony at this particular moment? So the stakes really couldn't have been larger, Michael. Once a year, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff come up to Congress and testify. Basically, they're asking for money. They want to get their budget approved.

And this year's budget is a biggie. It's almost $1.5 trillion. Wow. The largest budget request ever, some $500. million dollars more than this year's budget. And this is to do everything from replenish munition stockpiles, to rebuild the Navy, to construct a new anti-missile system called Golden Dome. So this is all kind of part and parcel of this budget request. But remember, it's been a year since he's had to testify before Congress, and there's been so many things that have happened in

that year. The military has seized the leader of Venezuelan, brought him to the United States. He's fired dozens of generals and admirals, many of them women and minorities that he didn't think cut muster in his Pentagon. And it's also landing. It's a very important time because obviously we're two months into the Iran War. Of course, he's also kicked reporters out of the Pentagon, so he doesn't really have real news conferences anymore. So there has been very little public accountability for a wide range of kind of operational and programmatic and budget issues that he has done. They've been very controversial, and he just hasn't really had to answer this. And this would be the first time where he's going to have to face pointed questions from congressional Democrats and some Republicans who've questioned what he's doing.

Right. So on its face, this is a perfunctory budget hearing, and the budget request is huge, but, you know, it's annual. But you're saying what this is really about is that for the first time, the Secretary of Defense, arguably the most controversial Secretary of Defense in our lifetime, is going to be changed. challenged and held accountable under oath for all the things that he has done since pretty much he was confirmed to the job. That's right. Okay, well, with that in mind, take us into this hearing room on Thursday morning and set that scene. We are meeting today to review the Pentagon's FY27 budget request. So, Hankseth is seated facing this array of senators. Well, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Reid, senators.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of President Trump's historic, as you said, Mr. Chairman, $1.5 trillion fiscal year 2027 budget for the Department of War. And he starts by making his case for why they should be giving him in the Department of Defense such a large budget. The president's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing both the deferment of longstanding problems as well as positioning our forces for the current and future fights. But then he turns and he starts to address the big issue in the room, of course, which is the Iran war. President Trump has the courage, has had, unlike other presidents, to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon and that their nuclear blackmail never succeeds. And he also talks about what is really the adversary here. The biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless naysayers and defeatist words of congressional Democrats.

and some Republicans. Basically calling congressional Democrats and some Republicans defeatist for criticizing the military's campaign and President Trump's overall effort in Iran after just two short months. Defeatists from the cheap seats who two months in seek to undermine the incredible efforts that have been undertaken and the historic nature of taking on a 47-year threat with the courage no other president has had. Right. and says that they are a greater enemy in this moment than Iran itself.

That's right. Basically, the adversary here is at home, and why can't you see Democrats and even some negative Republicans? Why can't you see what a great job the military has done? And this is the only president bold enough to take on such a threat. Right. And this essentially serves as a prebuttal to any tough questions he's going to get about this war in this hearing.

That's right. But the tough questions from Republicans never really come. Their statements are more of tremendous support for this budget that's long overdue. This $1.5 trillion request is chock full of important programs and initiatives that are absolutely necessary. They can't believe what a terrific secretary, Hexeth is, and how great a job he's been doing over these last several months. I want to turn now to Operation Epic Fury. It's been a smashing military success. They praised his conduct in the war in Iran. They praised the operation that snatched President Maduro from Venezuela. You're the best that we've had since I've been in Washington, what you've done to restore readiness.

A whole raft of things that just show they believe the Pentagon is in the best hands possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hickset, you're doing a great job. Right. Their message is quite simply, you're great. The war in Iran is going pretty great. And that stands out, at least to me, because congressional Republicans have not avoided asking the rest of Trump's cabinet pretty tough questions. in hearings. I'm thinking about the pointed inquiries directed at Christy Nome, the Homeland Security Secretary, or former Attorney General Pam Bondi. In fact, those hearings led, in part, to their ouster by President Trump. But on arguably the most urgent topic of the second term, the war, its fallout, they really fall in line. They really do. You don't hear any criticism about the war in Iran or pretty much, anything else. Right, but that was not the story of Democrats on this committee, quite obviously. No, the Democrats came loaded for bear. Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck. They come after

Hegset and just saying, look, the United States has not met its goals here. Iran's hotline regime remains in place. The Iranians still have highly enriched uranium. They still have thousands of missiles and drones. And most important, the Strait of Hormuz is closed. They also are controlling the Strait of Hormuz and choking off the economy for the globe. Right. This illegal war is driving up costs, undermining readiness, and alienating our allies. And then there are a number of other Senate Democrats, including Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who say to Hague Seth, you are so out of touch.

I don't know if you fully appreciate how much the American people do not support this war. You have no idea how unpopular this war is with my constituents back home. First of all, this war is costing so much money. Over $25 billion already estimates a billion dollars a day. And they're feeling it every single day at the gas pump with higher prices for both fuel, for diesel, for gasoline for their cars. they're also feeling it with higher grocery costs, and they're exhausted. They are truly exhausted.

And that this is just a war with no seeming end, with no real upside to it, as far as her constituents can tell, and you don't seem to know what you're doing. Why do you continue to prosecute a war that the American people aren't behind? Hegset pushes back against these critics. And, Senator, when I talk to Americans,

and especially when I talk to the troops, they are grateful for a president who has the courage to take on this threat after 47 years of what Iran has done. Basically saying that there's really no price you can put on the security that President Trump's campaign against Iran is going to provide. So the question I would ask to you and to others is, what is the cost of a nuclear armed Iran? What is the cost to the American people if the world's most dangerous regime has a nuclear weapon? There's no price on that, that long-term security that has alluded president after president, President, Republicans and Democrats for decades is now within our grasp. That is what Heggseth is saying.

And yes, there may be some short-term economic costs, but the long-term security that it buys is immeasurable. This is a defined mission set that we have had great success in pursuing against a determined enemy who seeks nuclear weapons. And I'm proud of the opportunity to remind the American people because they believe in it as well, that they can't have it. You don't care whether the American people support this war. The American people are quite smart.

They understand and see through spin. They know that a regime that says death to America that seeks nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver us. I'm curious, Eric, what else stood out to you about how these Senate Democrats talk to Heggseth about the war in Iran? Well, the big issue for Democrats, and they kept asking about it, was how long will this war last? And will you ever come to us here on Capitol Hill for authorization? There's a big debate going on right now because as of Friday, day, there's a 60-day limit from the start of hostilities, under which time the president either has to withdraw American forces or come to Congress and seek authorization for this war.

We're right at the 60-day deadline. And Senator Tim Kane of Virginia in particular presses this point. Is the president intending to either seek congressional authorization for the war in Iran or send us the legally required certification that he needs an additional 30 days to remove U.S. forces from the war. And Hegseth kind of dodges the question. Ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that. However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses. But ultimately comes back with an answer.

I think that stuns a lot of the lawmakers and basically says, you know what, this doesn't really apply to us. And we don't need to comply with this because we're in the midst of a ceasefire. He's basically saying this 60-day clock that's in law has stopped. And so we don't really have to worry about that right now. Okay, well, I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow. And Kane, I think others are just amazed that somehow this novel legal interpretation is suddenly surfaced in the middle of this hearing.

But that's, you know, Secretary Higgseth said it, and he's sticking to it. I mean, is he right? I mean, is he right or is the skepticism for the Democrats? No, I think the legal scholars we talked to said, no, that's not correct. But obviously, this hasn't been tested in this particular format. So Friday is the deadline. We'll see what the White House decides to do. But that seems to be the legal basis that they're now resting on, that they don't have to meet this deadline, at least not yet. And so that was another point.

It just kind of shows in the Democrats view, kind of how cavalier the administration has entered into the this war. They thought this was going to be over so quickly. They don't even have to worry about this 60-day limit. We're never going to approach this because the Iranian regime will fall. Everything will work out just fine. And of course, that hasn't happened. And suddenly, here's one more unintended consequence that they're having to deal with. Which is that they're triggering the 60-day need for congressional war authorization. That's right. Exactly. Okay. Well, those were the questions Democrats asked, Hexeth, about Iran after the break, I want to talk about what happened when the Democrats on this committee confronted

Hegseh about Hegsef himself. We'll be right back. Eric, the Democrats on this committee also want to talk about Hegst's overall management of the Pentagon and all the controversies that have blossomed since he took over. That's right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts, brought up a broader question of whether or not Pentagon officials, military officials, are using insider information for their own personal financial gain.

But someone is profiting off Trump's war, insiders who know what's going on and who place bets on that inside information. On March 23rd, just... It was recently just a U.S. Special Forces soldier who was recently just a U.S. Special Forces soldier who, was arrested for using information that he gained as being a part of the operation to seize President Maduro Venezuela to make some $400,000 in the predictions market. It looks like insiders have been making out like bandits using secret information about the war. So that's kind of floating over all this. And there have been other reports of money being made by unseen people for other military operations, including the war in Iran.

Not a single person has been charged. And she's kind of trying to drill down with the secretary to say, is this something, you know, that you're paying attention to? Senator, I'm more than focused on doing my job and ensuring we execute properly, which thankfully under this... And Hexeth kind of looks at her, like, quizzically, saying, this isn't really my department. What I'm saying is we're focused on our mission

of executing for the American people. and what happens in markets is not, embedding markets is not something we're involved in. And she said, well, wait a minute, this is your Pentagon, right? Aren't you a little bit of concern that all this kind of classified operational information, they might be using it for their own personal gain? Even if the information may be coming from insiders in your office? Senator, it's not something we're involved in at all.

And of course, we take operational security at every level very seriously. In fact, no one's taking operational security more. seriously than us. Right, and I have to admit, I was a little bit confused about where she was heading there. Well, I think what she's driving at is a story in the media a couple weeks ago

about Hegset himself. The Financial Times reported that your broker tried to buy hundreds of shares in a Black Rock fund invested in defense companies just before the war began. Was he basically betting on defense contractors or putting investing money,

his own money into defense contractor that would obviously, you know, pay off for him. Right. Was he profiting from the war? Was he profiting from the war, exactly. That entire story is false, has been from the beginning and was made up out a whole cloth. And he adamantly rejected this. I'll give it to you as a big, fat, negative. Then let me ask you a second question.

Is your broker getting your personal sign off on any investment in individual stocks? Bigger, fatter, negative. He just seems to be completely outraged that she would suggest this kind of thing. But this is kind of one of these new things that's floating around. And, you know, whether you're a soldier or somebody on the inside in the Pentagon, you're suddenly, you can use some of this information in a way that would actually gain you a lot of money if you can hide your tracks well enough. And that's what she's getting at.

Are you worried about this as a potential problem? And just to clear us up, is there any evidence that we're aware of here at the times that Haxeth did see? seek to profit from a war he's overseeing as Secretary of defense? No, there's no evidence at all that we've seen or heard of. Got it. Important. Well, Eric, let me turn to how other Democrats questioned Hegseth's management of the Pentagon

domestically. Senator Slotkin, I think you were next. Thank you. One of the questions that most struck me came from Senator Alissa Slotkin, who wanted to understand what orders Hegseth would follow. when it comes to the military and elections. Right. Alyssa Slotkin, Democrat from Michigan, former Defense Department and CIA official,

and she basically is asking a question that's a lot of people's minds. The question I have for you, though, is future-looking, and it's our 20-26 elections. Given the recent deployment of U.S. National Guard troops to places like Los Angeles and Minneapolis and all the chaos that was called there, there are a lot of people worried that Trump administration in the Pentagon under Hegeseth would deploy troops,

either National Guard or active duty troops, to polling places in the elections in November. And we know that in 2020, he wrote an executive order that he didn't sign that said to the U.S. military, to the Secretary of Defense, you should go and seize ballots and voting machines. And Slotkin zeroes in on this because that would be illegal. If the president, who regrets not signing that executive order

to the then SEC DEF in 2020 asks you to seize ballots or voting machines in states during the 2026 election. Will you stand up for the Constitution and say no, or will you salute and do his bidding? And Hegseth gets this kind of smirk on his face and says, well, again, that's the most important thing. It's what's happening. It's yet another gotcha hypothetical, which is your specialty. You're trying to get me into a gotcha question. here. You're just playing to the cameras with that kind of thing. Tell the American people, will you deploy the uniform military to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines? Are you accusing me of performing because you're performing for cable news right now?

But Mr. Secretary, we have... It's a hypothetical. Right. And in fact, only after the chairman of the committee, a Republican encourages him after Slotkin's time is up to actually answer the question. You're right. Do you have a response to that portion of the question, Mr. Secretary. I've never been ordered to do anything illegal, and I won't. That goes without saying. Thank you for the answer. Right.

But he never ultimately says, no, I won't follow an order from the president to get involved through the military in the elections. No, he doesn't. Finally, there's a really important exchange about the very idea of dissent and the growing sense, which, Eric, you had mentioned. in the beginning of our conversation when it comes to how Hegset has treated the media, that this Secretary of Defense is not really open to dissent, not really interested in being challenged, whether that's from the news media or even from Congress. You're right.

And he is definitely in the camp of either with us or you're against us. There's no gray area in the middle here where we can agree to disagree on these kind of issues. You keep doubling down on this phrase. And this comes up in an exchange with Jackie Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada, who is asking Heg Seth why he uses a term. You compare journalists, you compare us, you compare so many to Pharisees. Pharisees in the New Testament who criticized Jesus of Nazareth for performing miracles. It's a problematic and historically weaponized term that cast Jewish communities

is hypocritical or morally corrupt. You doubled down again and said it. And she's just taken aback by this. How do you justify using this language as Secretary of Defense? Words a matter, it's a historically hurtful term. Senator, I feel like it's a pretty accurate term for folks who don't see the plank in their own eye and always want to see what's wrong with an operation as opposed to the historic success of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

So I stand by it. You stand by calling people Pharisees, sir, I cannot, I cannot stand for that. That is wrong. It is not respectful to people. And I expect anyone who is in leadership in our country to be respectful and use respectful terms and not be an anti-Semite. And it kind of circles back to the comments he made at the beginning of the hearing where he talks about critics of the Iran campaign as reckless naysayers and defeatists. And again, there seems to be no room for an intellectual argument over this kind of thing.

This concludes today's hearing. I'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony. For the information of members, questions for the record would be due to the committee within two business days of the conclusion of the hearing. We are adjourned. It's very striking as somebody, I've covered defense secretaries now for 35 years, combative ones like Donald Rumsfeld. But it was never cast in a sense of the media or the Congress is an outright enemy. If you're coming down on the wrong side of this administration or this Pentagon or challenging Secretary HECSeth personally, he's not going to back down. And in fact, you're now on his enemy's list, it seems. Right, and to even ask a certain kind of question to him is to be an enemy akin to Iran itself.

That seems to be the way he sees things. And it's all done with kind of, he looks at lawmakers who ask these questions very suspiciously, oftentimes with kind of a smile on his face like, ah, this game that we're in here. And there's very little deference that you normally see at these kind of hearings where they kind of bite their tongue and say, yes, Senator, yes, congressman, and move on. It's just, it's very confrontational, as we've seen with other members of the Trump cabinet. And there's a kind of irony to this, which you know very well, Eric, because we've talked to you about it from the moment that Hexseth was nominated for this job and through his confirmation hearings, Pete Hegsseth's appeal to President Trump. And in theory, to folks in the Pentagon when he was nominated, was his unusual willingness to criticize previous military. leaders, to say that past folks who occupied the same seat he now does had blown it,

that they had gotten America in bad wars, forever wars, that they had ruined the culture of the military, and now he has that job. And as hearings like this demonstrate, he is not willing to endure the kind of criticism that he's so forcefully delivered and that in large part, may be responsible for why he now has the job. Absolutely. In many ways, he captured President Trump's attention as a Fox News host for criticizing the very senior military leaders who he once served, is an officer in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Right. And basically saying, I am part of this generation of men and women who served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I know the mistakes that were made. I live them day in, day out. And I've come back to fix them. and to correct them. And with President Trump in Pramatta, we're well on our way of doing that.

But I think what the hearings this week showed was that at least in the secretary's telling, he can never be wrong. He can never be challenged the way he challenged civilian and uniform leaders in years past. And anyone who challenges that needs to be taken down.

Eric, Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to another day. On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to end a record 76-day shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. After weeks of fighting over a compromise bill, House Republicans endorsed legislation that will fund all of the agency, except for its immigration enforcement operations. Those operations will be funded through separate legislation.

The shutdown began as an act of protest by Democrats over the Trump administration's crack down on illegal immigration, which resulted in the death of two American citizens. And in a major blow to the Democratic Party leaders who backed her, Maine's governor, Janet Mills, has ended her primary campaign for U.S. Senate, conceding that she has been. She no longer has the money or the momentum to compete against a progressive newcomer, Graham Platner. Her exit paves the way for Platner to become the Democratic nominee against Republican Susan Collins in a race that Democrats must win to regain control of the Senate in this year's midterms. Today's episode was produced by Eric Kruppke, Shannon Lynn, and Mary Wilson.

It was edited by Rachel Quester and Chris Haxel. Contains music by Dan Powell and Marion Lazzano. Our theme music is by Wonderly. This episode was engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for the daily. I'm Michael Bobaro. See you on Sunday.