Highlights from Pete Hegseth's testimony

Understood, Secretary. --and then those were fortified with bunkers and other fortifications with theater air defenses. Was our concern that something--

I'm going to pause you there. I'm going to chance-- Absolutely. No, no, you're disparaging me that I don't care of the passing of our troops.

I'm asking you whether you think they're liars or not. That's what I asked you. You are disparaging me that I don't care about the passing of our troops.

Nope. I asked your thoughts are liars, Secretary. That's disparaging and smearing in every way. Nobody cares more about the fate of our troops. Nobody cares about the health of our troops. Nobody wants to bring them all home more than I. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Secretary, I understand. But he controls the time. He controls the time. You can't control your answer. And the gentleman's record--

If we're allowed to answer, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Secretary, my question was clear whether you thought they were liars or not. You don't seem to want to answer it. We can move on. The other part of what your spokesman said, and you just reiterated here, was that-- and I'm quoting your spokesman-- every possible measure has been taken to safeguard our troops. End quote. You mean to tell us, and I'll give you a chance to clarify. There is not a single additional thing you could have done to protect those troops who are now wounded, six of whom are dead. I'm telling you that, as a department, we did every conceivable thing at my level and every echelon down to ensure the maximum force protection for our troops. We live in a dangerous world and a dangerous place against a determined enemy that can't have a nuclear weapon. And that requires sacrifice and risk. And it tragically-- in this case, it meant six Americans lost their lives and others were wounded. And we all know that. And we all know that's part of the cost. But it does not mean we didn't care. And it doesn't mean we didn't care.

I didn't ask you that. It doesn't mean we didn't do everything possible, which we did. But let's be clear about what was done. There were T-walls there, essentially. There was no overhead protection. The known threat in that environment-- and I think we all here understand it-- is overhead drone strike. There was no protection for overhead drone strikes. So I'm struggling to understand how your answer and your spokesman's answer is that every possible measure was taken. We can move on. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Caine, I want to ask you something on a different topic. Folks at home know you're the senior military officer in our Armed Services. They may not have as much of an understanding of your role and the chain of command. You're outside the operational chain of command. But you are the president's and the secretary's senior military advisor. So I want to ask a very basic thing, what you would expect our commanders in the field, our troops to do, should the enemy lay down their weapons and try to surrender, what would you expect commanders in the field to do? Well, sir, I think I'll go back to something I said earlier with deep respect for your question, but I think you're trying to take me to a partisan place here, and I can't let you do that. General, as always, I respect your--

No, sir. I avoid it. I'm not trying to put you in a partisan. No, no. And I know that but our officers and enlisted service members always follow lawful orders. There's a checklist for them to do that. And I just I'll stay in the middle.

Understood, General. Secretary, let me give you a chance. And you've been asked about this earlier. You said it in, I think, your press conference essentially, and I'll quote you here. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies. That's the end of the quote. Is your guidance that you expect our troops in harm's way if there's a foreign enemy surrendering, laying down their arms, they're supposed to provide no quarter and kill them? You denied it, but you were indeed trying to take the chairman to a partisan place. That was General Milley. That was the previous administration which played politics. We don't play that.

It's a simple question. I'm asking you what you meant. We fight to win, and we ensure the rules of engagement are such that our troops have every authority possible. I'll give you another chance. In saying that, are you trying to tell commanders that that's what you expect? You're in the chain of command. It's a simple question. I understand that my commanders know exactly what the guidance is with each and every mission, and they know every tool-- Secretary, in refusing to answer it, I think you speak volumes. I think that's a dangerous thing. We all know the expectations. We know the law of war. We know what is lawful. I'd expect our commanders to understand that as well. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Chairman, I recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Head wounds, heavy bleeding, and then just shrapnel all over. So folks are bleeding from their abdomen, bleeding from arms, bleeding from legs. Secretary Hegseth, do you know who said that? I'm not sure I do. It was one of our soldiers describing the devastating Iranian drone strike at Port Shuaiba March 1 in Kuwait. As you know, six of our soldiers killed, over 30 wounded. Secretary, do you know the range of the Shahed-136 one-way attack drone, approximately? It depends on the variant, but it's got serious distance.

Several hundred miles. Uh-huh. Do you know how far Port Shuaiba is from Iran? There's a reason why we took. It's extreme measures for its protection because we understood the proximity challenges. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. It's well under 100 miles. Before the war started, there was clear intelligence that Shuaiba was high on Iran's target list. Internal analysis had said the site was indefensible from aerial attack and should not be used. Yet you sent our soldiers from the 103rd sustainment command there anyway. Is that true or false? True or false? Straightforward question. Are you going to give me a chance to answer or just play gotcha? Did you send them there or not? I always-- we took proactive measures from the beginning to ensure force protection and defensive posture were maximized across the theater. Let's talk about what defenses they had. Prior to the attack, officers on the ground knew our troops were vulnerable. In fact, they requested additional force protection. Did they receive it? Wherever humanly possible, force protection and counter UAS always made available. They did not. In fact, when asked to describe the base's defense, one survivor who's come forward from the unit said, "I mean, I would put it in the none category; from a drone defense capability, none." So let's be clear, no counter drone capabilities, no counter rocket systems, no counter mortar or counter-artillery. Not even the basic overhead protection that you and I had 20 years ago in Iraq. And now six of our soldiers are dead. The next day, you downplayed the attack. You said it was a squirter that squeaked through fortified defenses. But since then, thankfully, brave survivors have come forward to set the record straight. One of our surviving soldiers told CBS, "painting a picture that one squeak through is a falsehood." Another said the unit was, "unprepared to provide any defense for itself." It was not a fortified position. Another survivor said, the building's protection was about as weak as one gets. Secretary Hegseth, that is obviously in direct contradiction to what you said from the Pentagon podium the next day. So are you saying that these soldiers, our soldiers who survived this horrific attack, are lying? What I'm saying is, before the commencement of the conflict, we put in maximum defensive posture we could. [OVERLAPPING SPEECH] In this directing-- I got to speak, or are you just going to monologue falsehoods all over the place?

It's not a falsehood. We moved 7,500 troops off--

Reclaiming my time --based on the intel.

Stop. Based on the intel. Stop. Reclaiming my time.

Because you yelled doesn't make you right. Just because you yell doesn't make you right. I'm reclaiming my time on behalf of these survivors. You just said what they said is a falsehood. There's a much larger picture. There's a much larger picture at play here that included integrated air defenses, bunkers, moving people off the X to ensure that they were not part of the target. We moved those troops and all across the theater, thousands of troops off the X off of their bases, because we knew what Iran was going to try to strike. And we knew there could be tragic moment. There could be a tragic moment where something could get through. Of course, that's the consequence of conflict. And we remember those six every single day. But don't play games with-- I'm not playing games. I want to finish with one more quote from a survivor of the attack. And I'll put this on the record, telling the truth is important, and we're not going to learn from these mistakes if we pretend these mistakes didn't happen. Secretary Hegseth, those soldiers told the truth. Those soldiers are braver than you are.

I commend those troops. They are asking for accountability. They deserve accountability. And I'm asking for the same starting with you. And as I said a year ago, you need to resign immediately.

I commend those soldiers. And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Hurst, drag you into the conversation here. We have not yet received from the Pentagon the costs of the war. So just for the record, we'd like to get that as soon as possible. Certainly the munitions expended, but also underreported is we've had a fair amount of equipment destroyed, including two C-130's with the rescue of downed airmen. So do you have either, A, cost estimate coming to us anytime soon, or B, a specific supplemental request? Thank you for that question. So approximately at this day, we're spending about $25 billion on Operation Epic Fury. Most of that is ammunitions. There's part of that it's obviously O&M and equipment replacement. We will formulate a supplemental through the White House that will come to Congress once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict. Sure. So you're saying the full cost at this point is $25 billion? Yeah, that's our estimate for the cost. OK, interesting. I'm glad you answered that question, because we've been asking for a hell of a long time, and no one has given us the number. So if you could get those details over to us, that would be great. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want to go in a little bit different direction. Timothy Parlatore served as your private attorney. Correct? Correct. And Mr. Parlatore also served as private attorney for President Trump's campaign. Correct? I'm not privy to every professional position that he's held. Well, I'll help you out. He did. And you appointed Mr. Parlatore as your senior advisor. Correct? He does reserve duty on behalf of the Navy. His title is senior advisor. You gave him that title. Correct? And I would count him as very much an advisor of mine. Yep, he travels with you. Correct? Tim Parlatore has been a long time friend. He's a great patriot.

He travels with you. That is not what I asked you. Reclaiming my time. He travels with you, doesn't? He travels with you, doesn't he? Correct? There's public Instagram that shows this. Just say yes.

Yes of course. OK, he sits in meetings with you and advises you, doesn't he? He sits in some meetings on occasion. Yeah, well, he maintains a desk in an office in the Pentagon, does he not? I'd have to check.

You don't know. I mean, it's a big Pentagon. You directly commissioned Mr. Parlatore in the Naval Reserve as a Navy commander in March 2025, did you not? I was very proud to do so. And when you did, because he's a Navy Reserve officer, he didn't have to go through the PPO process. The White House Presidential Personnel Office. He wasn't vetted by White House PPO. Uniformed service members don't get vetted by PPO. The answer is yes. He didn't have to be vetted by White House PPO. He didn't go through the Senate confirmation process either, did he? The answer is no. I don't know what you're getting to but Tim is a fantastic-- I'll tell you what I'm getting to. The answer is no. He does great work. OK, he didn't maintain a security clearance when you appointed him as special advisor. Is that right? I'd have to check.

You don't know. I mean, anybody that has access to sensitive material is going to have the appropriate clearance. OK, so when you appointed him as special advisor, he had a security clearance? You're trying to piece together a timeline-- No, I'm asking a simple question. One of your special, most sensitive advisors. Did he have security clearance? You're playing a gotcha game like you do on TV and everywhere else. You're trying to thread together details that are concerned about something else. Clearly you're concerned about my line of questioning, aren't you, Mr. Secretary? Because you know where it's going, don't you? I think you do. So does Mr. Parlatore represent foreign governments? He has a private law practice, does he not? From what I understand of his law practice, he does a lot of great work for service members in the military and other. He maintains a private law practice. Does he represent foreign governments or foreign persons in that private law practice?

I don't know. You don't know. Somebody who's sitting in your meetings, a special advisor, you don't know? Does he represent any senior officers who are currently under consideration for promotion by you or your office? The only person that makes determinations about senior officers is me. Answer the question. Does he represent senior officers who are under consideration for promotion by you? No, I'm the one that makes decisions about choosing--

Does he represent them, Mr. Secretary? Does he represent them? Doesn't represent anyone. He's a legal advisor and always has been.

But he has clients, does he not? He's a legal advisor to me on Reserve duty, and he always has been. And he does a fantastic job. Is it true that Mr. Parlatore was removed-- [OVERLAPPING SPEECH] I reclaim my time. Is it true that Mr. Parlatore was removed from an investigation by the White House last year? I don't know what you're referring to, but not that I'm aware of. You're not aware of it. Was it true that you were also removed from that same investigation? The answer is yes.

No, not that I'm aware of. You're not aware of it. That's interesting. Well, is it true that Mr. Parlatore disparaged President Trump? I don't know what you're referring to, but no. Is it true that Mr. Parlatore was accused by President Trump and his lawyers of lying? What you're accused of is a cute line of questioning that's going nowhere. Well, it's going somewhere, which is why you're not answering the question. Was it true that he was accused of lying by the president's legal team? I'm not familiar to-- you'd have to give me the-- Well, it's right here. You want to look at the statement from President Trump's legal tram. Anybody can blow up a quote and claim it says something, and that's what you're doing in a little stunt-- Secretary Hegseth, what I'm really concerned about is you purport to have unfaltering loyalty to President Trump, and yet you are continuously-- Oh, you care a lot about President Trump, don't you? This is a huge waste of your five minutes. A huge, huge waste of your five minutes that led no where. I reclaim my time. You are repeatedly going behind the President Trump-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentleman from Colorado's time. Go ahead, Mr. Crow. You are repeatedly going behind President Trump's back, appointing people who he has accused of lying, who the White House has accused of lying. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentleman's time has expired. And you are not being honest with President Trump. MR. CHAIRMAN: --lady from South Carolina, MS. Mace. Good evening. Day 61 of the war with Iran. And for the first time, we are hearing about the official cost of the fighting. $25 billion and counting, the Pentagon says. And the major questions tonight from members of both parties-- what has all that money gotten us and are we winning? Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth answering under oath today his first testimony since the war began. And he said America's biggest adversaries are not overseas, but right there in front of him on Capitol Hill. Congressional correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns was there and joins us now. Caitlin, big day. Good evening. Good evening to you, Tony. Well, under six hours of questioning, Pentagon officials revealed the price tag for the war, but no timeline to end it. As Secretary, Hegseth was grilled on the costs, the munitions shortage and the shifting justifications for the conflict.

Hegseth, you have nothing-- CAITLIN HUEY-BURNS: Greeted by protesters on Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth set the tone for today's fiery hearing in the opening minutes, calling war critics the enemy. The biggest challenge-- the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. CAITLIN HUEY-BURNS: Pentagon officials revealed that the war, now in its ninth week, has cost $25 billion. Democrats pressed them on what they have to show for it. It's been an astounding military success. But are we winning the war? Absolutely. OK, so do you call Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz winning? The president has got himself and America stuck in a quagmire of another war in the Middle East. Don't say I support the troops on one hand. And then a two-month mission is a quagmire. That's a false equivalency. Who are you cheering for here? Who are you pulling for? CAITLIN HUEY-BURNS: The Secretary was also grilled on the administration's justification for the war. Well, their nuclear facilities have been obliterated, underground, they're buried, and we're watching them 24/7. So we know where any nuclear material-- Reclaiming my time. We had to start this war-- you just said 60 days ago-- because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now you're saying that it was completely obliterated. They had not given up their nuclear ambitions. CAITLIN HUEY-BURNS: Hegseth was also asked about the Iranian drone strike that killed six US troops in Kuwait. Two lawmakers cited a CBS News exclusive investigation detailing security failures. One of our surviving soldiers told CBS, "painting a picture that one "squeaked through" is a falsehood." So are you saying that these soldiers-- our soldiers who survived this horrific attack-- are lying? What I'm saying is, before the commencement of the conflict, we put in maximum defensive posture we could. There is a direct conflict in what the said? We moved 70-- in this direction-- Now, if Republicans are concerned about the war, they showed no signs of it at today's hearing. But there was bipartisan pushback on Hegseth firing of top military officials, which he defended as a need for new leadership, Tony. Caitlin, thank you very