'It's the incompetence!': Hegseth roasted by Democrats in congressional hearing

So today, you probably saw, maybe you saw all of it. Maybe you saw some of it. I watched all of it. Today, the Secretary of Defense testified to Congress for the first time since his boss started a war with no stated purpose, no strategy, and no clear endgame 58 days ago. And during that testimony, in front of the House Armed Services Committee, Pete Hegseth reminded all of us that during this time of war, we have the most unqualified, the most unprepared and the most clownish person ever to serve in that role. Do you think we're winning? Militarily on the battlefield, it's been an astounding military success. But are we winning the war? Absolutely. Okay. So do you call Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz winning? Well, I would say the blockade that we hold that doesn't allow anything to come in or out of Iranian ports. Okay. So always. So we've blockaded their blockade. So they blockaded us and then we blockaded their blockade. That's like saying, tag, you're it. I mean, what? I mean, good on Congressman Moulton for keeping a straight face during that exchange, of course. But it didn't stop there. There's much more. And before I play this next one, remember for months now, months, Hegseth and the entire Trump administration have justified the need for the war with Iran by saying that Iran was dangerously close to developing a nuclear weapon. That's been their mantra. Now, today, Hegseth couldn't seem to keep that story straight. Their nuclear facilities have been obliterated underground. They're buried and watching 24-7. So we know where any nuclear material might be. We're claiming my time for a quick second here. 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. I mean, the look on Adam Smith's face says it all. OK, so with that logic, bombing is not about destroying the facilities. It's about making them give up their ambitions through bombing. How does that work exactly? And then there's what he had to say about the cost of the war. Today, we, of course, and you all probably experienced this, saw gas prices hit a new high. For the year, they're now at an average of $4.23 a gallon. And that is impacting every single person who drives a car, everyone. In normal times, which we are certainly not in, not suggesting that, today's testimony by the Secretary of Defense would have been an opportunity to at least try to convey that the administration is on it, that there's a plan they're working on. Pete Hegseth wasn't exactly up to that task either. In fact, Hegseth didn't know if his $25 billion price tag for the war so far even included the cost to rebuild the U.S. bases that Iran destroyed, nor the cost of replenishing the munitions that are now reportedly in very short supply. And he also couldn't say how much this war was costing the American people. Will you acknowledge the economic cost? We have an incredible economic team that's managing this better than what the previous administration did to our economy, what the previous administration did for the inflation, You know what the, you know what's upsetting? I reclaim my time. What the previous administration did with COVID? And you're going to lecture this administration about the economy? You know what is upsetting? Incredible. You didn't even do the analysis on how much it's costing the American people. You don't even know what the average American is paying. You don't know what we paid in terms of the missiles that hit the Iranian school. You don't know what we're paying in terms of gas. You don't know what we're paying in terms of food. Your 25 billion number is totally off. It's the incompetence. It's the incompetence, which Pete Hegseth had a little chuckle for. And watching all that, it's really no wonder that Donald Trump just hit the lowest approval rating he has had so far this term. A new poll from Reuters episode shows a whopping 64% of Americans don't approve of how he is running the country. 61% of Americans now say they do not approve of this war. 69% of Americans do not approve of Trump's handling of the cost of living. People aren't happy with the Trump administration, to put it mildly, especially because during a time of so much pain across the country, the president is focused on things that help absolutely no one, like building a ballroom and trying to get Jimmy Kimmel taken off the air. What do you make of the request for a ballroom right now? I really don't think it's important right now. Do you think the ballroom should be the focus of the president right now? No, sir. I think that's the last thing that we should be worrying about. There's a lot of things we need to work on before we're doing a ballroom. The president's talking about a ballroom and Jimmy Kimmel. He shouldn't be doing it. I mean, he's a comedian. It's just a joke. I wouldn't get offended, you know, about that video at all. I think he likes to take away free speech when he doesn't agree with what is said. $4.19 a gallon. I mean, what do you guys make of that? I think it's crazy. It's insane. You know, you have to choose whether you drive or eat. And I know our president has said, like, different things about, oh, it's fine, it'll be fine. But, you know, it's not fine. Maybe we ought to get our priorities straight. Now, a president with this level of unpopularity is simply not penable for a political party anytime, and certainly not six months out from the midterm elections. But rather than change policies in an attempt to become more popular with voters, you know, building support among the people you're trying to get to vote for you, it appears the Republican plan, and they're not new to this plan, I should just note, is to make the country less democratic so that the opinions of the voters matter less, so that fewer people have their voices heard. And today, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court made that plan a whole lot easier because today in a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, the court gutted a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, making it easier for Republicans to gerrymander congressional maps in ways that could disenfranchise Black voters. And I just want to take a moment to tell the story of the map at the center of the case, Louisiana's congressional map, because I think it really helped show just the impact of today's ruling, what this is really all about. The 2020 census found that about one-third of the population of Louisiana was black. But when the largely white Republican majority in the Louisiana state legislature used that data to make new congressional maps, guess what? They drew five majority white districts and just one majority black district. So even though black voters made up one-third of the population in the state, they were likely only able to elect one-sixth of its representatives. Now, black voters in Louisiana stood over that map. They should have. And they won. A federal court ordered Louisiana to draw a new map with two majority black districts. But then a group of white voters countersued, saying that the new map, one that gave the state's one-third black population one-third of the congressional seats, was actually discriminatory against them. And today, conservatives on the Supreme Court agreed with that logic, deciding against history and legal precedent that the map was an illegal gerrymander. But of course, like all Supreme Court cases, this decision was not just about the case before the court. It was not just about Louisiana at all. Now, because of this ruling, if voters want to sue arguing that their congressional map discriminates against them because of their race, they have to prove not just that the impact of the map is discriminatory, but that the people who drew the map intended to discriminate against them because of their race. So in the case of Louisiana, that would mean you couldn't just show how the map clearly diluted the power of black voters, one third of the state, giving them one less representative than they should have, you would have to somehow prove that the lawmakers who drew that map did it with racist intent. And that is nearly impossible to do. And I say that not because it sounds hard in the abstract, but because, well, we have been here before. Today in her dissent, Justice Kagan explained why relying on intent has never been enough and how situations just like what Republicans did with their maps in Louisiana are why Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to begin with. Here's part of what she said. In the wake of the Civil War, Congress enacted and the states ratified the 15th Amendment to ensure the enfranchisement of Black Americans. But in the century that followed, the 15th Amendment proved little more than a parchment promise. Violence and intimidation were ever-present ways to deny Black citizens their right to vote. But often force was not needed because state laws could well enough accomplish that goal, Especially in the South, states soon put in place a host of facially race-neutral devices to systematically disenfranchise African-American citizens. Poll taxes, literacy tests, good character exams, property qualifications, convoluted registration processes. By the way, we're seeing that again today. All these and more. When combined with administrative discretion, effectively suppress the black vote. Without much affecting the white one. Louisiana's post-Reconstruction rules, to cite the most pertinent example, took less than a decade to drive the number of Black registered voters from 130,000 to just over 1,300. That's why Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. Supposedly rates-neutral tricks like Louisiana getting rid of a Black district through partisan gerrymandering. Those are the exact kind of tricks lawmakers had in mind when they passed the VRA into law and when it's been renewed over and over again. And the law worked. It increased Black representation in our government immediately, made our country more of a true democracy. But the Supreme Court's ruling today could undo so much of that progress. This is the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats in Congress in the American South today. You can see the map right on your screen, obviously. Red Republican, blue Democrats. Where Black voters predominantly vote for Democrats, and where Democrats have 24 of those House seats. The New York Times predicts that Democrats could eventually, over time, lose around half of those seats. because of today's Supreme Court ruling. And as dark as that is I think it also a call to action The Voting Rights Act wasn just passed by Congress because it was the right thing to do Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr had spent years years laying the groundwork for the law, getting arrested for registering voters, getting beaten and even killed for having the audacity to demand what the 15th Amendment was supposed to guarantee them. As Justice Kagan put it in her dissent today, it was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. That's what we're talking about right now. So tonight, I couldn't think of anyone I wanted to hear from more. I wanted to talk to more. And you may have seen some of what he had to already say about this. Then the pastor who now preaches at the same pulpit once held by Martin Luther King Jr. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia. He's, of course, also the senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church. It's great to see you. I saw we've already said on this today, which is incredibly powerful. For people watching tonight wondering, and I think a lot of people are wondering, Maybe they're coming home from work. They're tuning in. Broadly, what the impact of this is and in practical terms, too, what do you tell them? Well, thank you so much. I am thinking about Martin Luther King Jr. tonight. Ebenezer is the spiritual home of voting rights and John Lewis, who was my parishioner. We should be very clear that what happened today was an assault against the crown achievement of the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act, without which I literally would not be sitting here talking to you as the United States senator from Georgia. And the Supreme Court did the democracy a terrible disservice today. I think what you said earlier in your remarks is spot on. These efforts to effectively disenfranchise black voters has always, even during the darkest days of the Jim Crow era, claimed to be race neutral. You had the 15th Amendment. By the time we got the Voting Rights Act, black people theoretically had a right to vote for 100 years when the 15th Amendment was passed. but through literacy tests, through grandfather clauses, through poll taxes. They effectively disenfranchise black voters. This is just a 21st century version. This is Jim Crow in new clothes. This Supreme Court is an activist court. They did us a terrible disservice several years ago in the Shelby versus Holder decision. and Justice Roberts opined back then that, you know, this is not necessary. Well, what have we seen since then? Since that decision, the racial voter turnout gap has increased all over the country. And I think it's important for me to stress that, Jen, because, you know, I'm sitting here and people say, you got the first black senator from Georgia. You've had a black president. Here is the reality. The racial turnout gap since Shelby versus Holden 2013 has widened all over the country and in the South, in the states that required preclearance because of a history of discrimination, that gap has grown twice as far, has grown twice as fast. We're all entitled to our own opinion. We're not entitled to our own facts. And the numbers and the facts bear it out. Today was one more assault. Shelby says, you know, we'll make it. Well, you know, you can you can engage in and disenfranchisement practices, which has decreased or increased the gap and voter turnout. Well, today's decision says that even when non-white voters show up in robust numbers, we're giving you permission to play with the lines, because it's all gerrymandering is, to play with the lines so that even as they show up, they will not have the kind of representation that their voice suggests that they ought to have. And the proof is in the pudding. They are busy right now, supercharging, redistricting. There are people in my state, even though early voting has already begun. So I'm saying we ought to we ought to do something about that. We ought to redraw the maps. The bottom line is Donald Trump is doing a terrible job as president. His policies are unpopular. They're making his policies are making it expensive for people to afford their lives. in my state. Gas is up. Energy is up. Tariffs on everything. And they want to hold on to power no matter what. And it doesn't matter to me. Their intent may not be explicitly racial. This is about politicians trying to hold on to their power. So they will disenfranchise Black voters. They'll disenfranchise students. They will do whatever is necessary to hold on to power. I've seen it in my own races for the Senate. I know you have. And I remember them ending early voting the weekend before your election. I remember them banning bringing water to people. I had to take them to court so that people could vote the first weekend of the runoff election. And state officials in Georgia said, oh, it's just a plain letter of the law. You just can't vote that weekend. And so they said our hands are tied. So I untied their hands. I sued them. and we won. And instead of celebrating that their hands were untied, they appealed, they showed their hands. So it took a lawsuit to appeals just so students who were home for the Thanksgiving break, for example, could vote in my own runoff. 77,000 people voted that weekend. I won by about 100,000 votes. This is how voter suppression works. You undermine the strength of ordinary voters a little bit here, a little bit there, a little bit here. And that's how you move the outcome of elections. Donald Trump is desperate and the Trump court just made it easier for him to hold on to power no matter what. Here's how we've got to respond. We've got to show up in massive numbers. And ultimately, and I offer this to my Republican colleagues, Ultimately, what we ought to do is we ought to ban gerrymandering. We ought to ban partisan gerrymandering. It is a disservice to our country that there are so few competitive congressional districts in our country. All the folks who are watching me now, even if you don't agree with my politics, all of us, Americans on both sides of the aisle, are tired of the dysfunction in our Congress and the fact that you can't get anything done. Well, partisan gerrymandering is a big part of why we're there. It is the reason why Mike Johnson won't even put a bill on the floor right now that would pass. It's already passed the Senate. It would pass the House. Why? Because a few extreme members in his caucus have frightened him to death. He's afraid of losing his speakership. And why does that exist? Because of extreme partisan gerrymandering. I have a bill. I have an amendment that I offered that would shut that down. And so far, I've had no Republican takers. Not a single one. Let me ask you, I rewatched your speech, or I should say what you said from the pulpit in your church at Ebenezer Baptist Church the weekend after the election today. I think it was the weekend after. And it struck me because what was on your shoulders was meeting where people were feeling and also giving them hope about what is forward. What are you going to say when you go speak to your parishioners, people in your congregation this weekend? The greatest tool in my spiritual arsenal is hope. And look, we will lose a battle here and there. We'll win some, we'll lose some. Here is the war that we can't afford to lose. And that is the battle between hope and despair. And so the Trump administration is doing a lot of things. They're putting these tariffs on everything, which is raising the cost for everyday goods, which disproportionately hurts middle class people, poor people. He is dividing us in every way that he can think of. He supercharged this redistricting war that we're in the middle of. And Democrats right now have no choice. They've got to engage. Can't unilaterally disarm. and we'll win some of those things, we'll lose some. We cannot allow those who are trying to weaponize despair to win. We have to hold on to hope. John Lewis was my parishioner. He had no reason to think that he would win, crossing that Edmund Pettus Bridge with brute force under the color of law on the other side of that bridge, but he just kept walking. And so I say to folks who want an America that's big enough for all of our children to keep walking. He walked across that bridge, built the bridge in the process. And decades later, I crossed that bridge into the United States Senate. Hold on to hope no matter what. Fight for our democracy. It's worth it. Keep walking. I will be tuning in for some hope from you this Sunday. I know others will too. Thank you for being here. I really was looking forward to talking to you about all this today. Thank you. My next guest had a very simple message for his Republican opponents today. we are not going to let them prevail. This is really a continuation of the conversation I've just been having with Senator Warnock because I'm going to speak with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries next. He's standing by. We're going to talk about all of this, what this means for control of the House, how he's going to fight back. That comes next. Today, just as the Supreme Court released its decision to gut the Voting Rights Act, lawmakers in Florida were debating a new proposal to rig that state's maps in favor of Republicans. This is gerrymandering, illegal map making designed to favor one party over another. The real reason this is happening is because, yes, Florida is trying to rig these maps to keep Trump's Republican Party in power. How do I know this? I have two eyes. I have two ears and I have a brain. This is a blatant illegal partisan gerrymander This map is illegal This illegal map Have I mentioned this is illegal Maybe I should mention it again This is illegal This is about relinquishing our power and giving it to the president Because when you can't persuade the people, when you can't inspire the voters, when you can't defend your record, when you can't ignore the Epstein files, you change the map. Democrats spoke out against the bill all afternoon. I played you a bunch of it there. And when the time came to vote in the statehouse, one member even disrupted the vote by shouting through a pink bullhorn. You can see it on your screen there. But despite all of those objections, the bill passed through both the statehouse and state senate, where there's a Republican majorities, and will soon be signed into law by Governor DeSantis. And there may be more Republican redistricting efforts on the way. In response to the Supreme Court's new ruling, several Republican-controlled states are now considering holding special sessions to redraw their maps ahead of the midterms. Just days ago, it appeared Democrats successfully managed to hold Republicans to a stalemate in the redistricting wars. Maybe they have. But with these latest developments out of Florida in the Supreme Court, it's clear the fight is not over. Here's Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries responding to the ruling earlier today. they've tried to do everything that they can to eliminate and erase our journey our struggle our march in this country toward a more perfect union and now we're at a point where affirmative action is gone diversity is gone equity gone inclusion gone racial tolerance gone The Voting Rights Act, largely gone. But guess what, extremists? We're still here. And we're not going anywhere. We will not let their scheme to rig the midterm election and beyond be successful. Joining me now is House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. OK, so I think when we all saw the ruling come down today, I mean, it shook a lot of us to the core, probably shook you. Not that it was necessarily unexpected, but it threw into question so much of what many people have fought for for decades over the course of time. And I think for a lot of people just on the technicalities of it, they made them freak out like it's going to put make it harder to win the House. I know today, I mean, I referenced earlier The New York Times said that this could result in half of the in a dozen seats lost to Democrats in the South over the course of time. That's not immediate. Mark Elias said today could be more like two seats at risk leading up to November. As you're thinking about the nitty gritty of this, you have a lot of skin in the game here. You could be the House Speaker soon enough. How many seats do you think this could impact leading up to November? Well, it was a totally despicable decision in terms of gutting Section 2 in the Voting Rights Act, which up until this point had been the preeminent piece of civil rights legislation in American history as part of our march toward a more perfect union and achieving a multiracial democracy. And there was a lot of sacrifice. A lot of people bled. People died to actually get to a point where you had an unfettered right to vote that was free of racial discrimination and intimidation. And the Supreme Court majority, of course, has just ushered that back in, in part because they are doing everything they can, it appears, to artificially give Donald Trump a Republican majority in the Congress and in the Senate, which, of course, he's at risk of losing because his presidency has been a disaster and the Republicans have been nothing but sycophants and rubber stamps for Donald Trump's extreme agenda. we're going to make sure that there's a free and fair election in November. And this voting rights decision by the Supreme Court has come late enough in the process that I agree entirely with Mark Elias that at the end of the day, at best, it may give the Republicans an additional seat or two in advance of November of 2026. And then we got to battle it out in connection with 2028. So I want to get there in just one second. I just want to ask you, too, about the Florida, because Florida just passed, of course, this redistricting effort today. That could garner them a couple of additional seats in Florida. You kind of threatened maximum warfare. I think it was last week you said that. Just in that specific case, what does that look like? I know there's a question of, like, who has standing to file a lawsuit. What's the next steps there to even fight that particular effort? Well, they're going to be Florida voters who are going to file a lawsuit as soon as DeSantis signs. this gerrymandering scheme into law because the Florida voters in 2010 enacted the Fair Districts Amendment that explicitly prohibits partisan gerrymandering and explicitly prohibits communities of interest, towns and villages and cities and counties from being broken up, particularly to benefit one party, which was done in this instance, the Republican Party, and to target Democratic incumbents who were elected by the people of Florida. And so this map is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. And we're going to pursue every litigation avenue and state court that is available to the voters. At the same period of time, as was done in Texas, this DeSantis dummy mander is going to create additional opportunities for Democrats to defeat Republican incumbents. while fighting hard to hold on to our Democratic incumbents who were put into harm's way. They're not getting an additional four seats out of Florida in the same way that Texas Republicans are not getting an additional five seats out of Texas, particularly in this midterm election where everything continues to break in our way because Republicans have been a complete and total disaster. And we're continuing to center the people as it relates to our commitment to making their life more affordable and driving down the high cost of living. And they've miscalculated. I mean, this could be the case in Florida, too, even as they've even some Republicans there have expressed that concern. So let's talk about because it's not that you that you and many people want to be want you to be the House Speaker. It's also you want to stay House Speaker. And we're talking about a lot more seats at risk leading up to 2028. There are a lot of things on the table that could be fighting back. I mean, of course, there would be fighting passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. But Trump is not going to be in office. He's not going to sign that. There is additional redistricting efforts that could be undertaken, but some of those could impact. I mean, majority minority districts potentially. How do you think about the balance of those things? What are the tools that you are willing to deploy in this maximum warfare effort? Well, the Congressional Black Caucus will continue to lead in this effort and will partner with them, with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian and Pacific American Caucus. But here's an important thing to understand. When you've seen these caucuses grow over time, the growth has largely come in districts that aren't majority minority. In fact, many Asian American, Latino and African American Congress members right now represent swing districts that we've repeatedly flipped. With respect to the CBC, right now there are 56 members of the Congressional Black Caucus in the House, four in the Senate. But of those 56, only 11 represent majority black districts, only 11. And you have at least 15 or 20 who are representing districts that are about 15 percent or less African-American population and community. So we have the ability, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, to get elected in communities that are diverse all across the country and to put the American people first, regardless of race, and will retain that ability, notwithstanding what Republicans may try to do. Now, the Deep South has a history of intense racial discrimination, and we're going to have to deal with that in a variety of different ways, including by recognizing the fact that this Supreme Court still is going to have to contend with the 14th Amendment and intentional discrimination claims that we can still bring. That's the reason why the governor of Alabama today, the Republican conservative governor, said our hands are tied in Alabama. There's nothing that we can do to try to impact the two congressional districts that are represented by African-Americans in the state of Alabama because they are prohibited by the 14th Amendment from changing their map. But this fight is going to continue because they've decided that the only way to win is to disenfranchise voters and make it harder to participate. Leader Jeffries, thank you for being here. I really appreciate it. Thank you. OK, coming up, Congressman Pat Ryan absolutely eviscerated Pete Hegsteth on Capitol Hill today, catching him in what might be the most disgusting lie he's told since the war with Iran began. I'm going to show you that remarkable exchange and talk to Pat Ryan himself in just a moment. We'll be right back. Donald Trump's war against Iran reaches the 60-day mark this Friday. And that's significant because it means by law, not that they care that much about that, but by law, the Trump administration has to wrap up the conflict unless it receives explicit authorization from Congress to continue military operations. I mean, eight weeks into the Iran war, and it wasn't until this morning that Pete Hegseth finally appeared before Congress to testify. It was his chance to reassure Americans that he understood the weight of this conflict. But that is certainly not what happened. And in a hearing that had a lot of alarming moments, the most damning one came when Hegseth was asked about the six Army Reserve soldiers who were killed by an Iranian drone striking Kuwait on the first day of the war. It remains the deadliest attack on U.S. forces since the Iran War began. Six troops were killed. Dozens were wounded. And at the time, this was how Hegseth explained what happened. You have air defenses and a lot's coming in and you hit most of it. And we absolutely do. We have incredible air defenders Every once in a while you might have one unfortunately we call it a squirter that makes its way through And in that particular case it happened to hit a tactical operations center that was fortified but these are powerful weapons It appears that was a lie. Survivors of the attack told CBS News that area was not fortified. In fact, this particular unit was left dangerously exposed, as they described it. one soldier raised serious questions about why he and other troops were moved to this command post in Kuwait, which U.S. intelligence showed was on an Iranian target list. And in the interview I'm about to show you, CBS hid that soldier's identity because he was speaking out without the military's permission. We moved closer to Iran, to a deeply unsafe area that was a known target. So what was the reason that you were told for why you needed to be there? I don't think there was a good reason ever articulated. This horrific tragedy and that disgusting response from Pete Hegseth, all of it came to a head today when Democratic Congressman Pat Ryan of New York, a combat veteran and Bronze Star recipient, got his five minutes with Hegseth. 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 Shweba. 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 was always made available. They did not. now congressman ryan was just getting started and and things only got more heated and tense from there 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. 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 of the conflict we put in maximum defensive posture we could it's a direct con we moved 70 they said in this in this directing i can i speak or are you just going to monologue falsehoods all over the place it's not a falsehood we moved 7500 troops reclaiming my time based on the intel stop based on the end stop reclaiming my time because you yell doesn't make you right just because you yell doesn't make you right my time on behalf of these survivors. You just said what they said is a falsehood. Exit appeared to be performing grossly for an audience of one, as usual, knowing Donald Trump was likely watching. But to everyone else, he just looked like a liar and a fool. Congressman Pat Ryan is standing by and he joins me next. Just for good measure, here is Congressman Pat Ryan one more time confronting Pete Hegseth today. Are you saying that these soldiers, our soldiers who survived this horrific attack are lying? what i'm saying is before the commencement of of the conflict we put in maximum defensive posture we could that's a direct con we moved 70 they said in this in this directing can i speak or are you just going to monologue falsehoods all over the place it's not a falsehood we moved 7 500 troops reclaiming my time based on the intel stop based on the end stop Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Pat Ryan of New York. Congressman, we just played a huge chunk of the exchange you had with Secretary Hegseth for the audience in case they hadn't seen it. And what was clear is you were incredibly fired up. You've served yourself. I just it seemed like we knew what was going through your head as you were watching him say basically contradict the account from survivors of the Kuwait attack. But what was going through your head? The brazenness of literally, these are surviving troops who, by the way, were so intimidated by Hags' sort of fear and intimidation campaign that they came forward, but they felt that they needed to be anonymized for their own protection. And I know a big part of that was they felt like him not taking this seriously. I mean, we have 50,000 more troops right now in the theater. And if we don't learn those lessons, that's putting them all at risk. And to see Hegseth just try to basically bully his way through that rather than taking accountability, it was pathetic. And so I was pissed. Not just personally, but you think about those soldiers we lost, the 30 wounded, their families. It's just so disrespectful. We've seen you speak at campaign events passionately. We've seen you speak on the floor of out of range of issues. It seems like Secretary Hegseth particularly gets under your skin and what he has to say. Tell us more about that. It is both personal, but it's personal because I really do think him being in this position of such grave responsibility and seriousness is just such an insult to the people that are serving, that are doing the right things, that are doing it in an apolitical way from a patriotic place of good faith. And then he comes in there today, for example, and in his opening remarks, deliberately chooses to say our greatest threat is not China or Russia or Iran, who we're at war with, by the way, it's Democrats and some Republicans, he said, who are whatever he said, whatever garbage BS he said. I mean, that just that in and of itself is both stunning and tells you everything you need to know about how he thinks about his job. It was I found it also stunning. And it was at the very beginning of the hearing at the tone and just thinking about how many secretaries of defense we've heard testify. It completely stood out to me as well. There were so many different moments during this hearing, which I think exposed a lot for the public about what's going on here. You and I have talked about this a fair amount. One of your Democratic colleagues, Congresswoman Houlihan, asked Hegseth to basically just give an order of magnitude of how much longer he thought it would take before the operation concluded. He said he wouldn't say how long he'd be committed to the mission. He just wouldn't give any sort of a timeline. Like, we're not going to telegraph that to the enemy. That is something I think every single person watching right now, every person in this country would love to have a sense of. These are men and women who are serving our resources and so many other impacts. What did you make of that refusal? Every day, every American is paying the price, some in blood and lives lost, all of us in the gas pump, at the grocery store and so on and so forth. And they've tried to do this bizarre, logical pretzel twist where they say, oh, remember how long it took in Iraq and Afghanistan and World War II, he talked about today. And then at the same time. But but these are different. These are different. And what we're trying to say is, no, we're actually concerned that you're setting us up for that same sort of year after year quagmire situation that I served and fought in and that we all learned in Iraq and Afghanistan was not what we wanted to do. So it's like cognitive dissonance at a level that can only be explained by this blind fealty to Trump. And Hexeth's whole performance today, and it was a performance, was an audience of one to keep his own job and not do his job, which is care for our troops and keep the American people safe. I wanted to play you a question that your Democratic colleague, you were sitting there, but for people who didn't see it, Congressman Moulton asked today on Hexeth's no quarter comments. And we've talked about this before. So I just wanted to play this and get your thoughts about how he responded. In a press conference, you said we will give them no quarter, no mercy. In order for no quarter or no survivors is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. You understand that's murder. Do you stand by that statement? The Department of War fights to win. And we ensure that our warfighters have the rules of engagement necessary to be as effective as humanly possible. You called Democratic members of Congress to be tried for sedition for reminding our troops to follow the law. But when you tell them to commit a war crime, you stand by yourself for insinuating the laws. You could kind of see the disgust on Congressman Moulton's face there. But what did you make of that moment? Again, a moment of deep hypocrisy. Hegseth himself in 2016 publicly reminded us that soldiers and military folks are required to follow lawful orders. But now that he's in this position, again, fealty to Trump comes first. And it is discussed, especially for those of us that served in uniform. He has brought an office we all held in such great regard, the secretary of defense, where you want a wise, sober, serious leader down to not even in a weekday Fox News host, a weekend Fox News host. And that's, again, what we saw on display today. Congressman Ryan, I think so many of you watching are so grateful for your service in that hearing room today, but also to this country. And it's so powerful seeing you question and hold people to account for putting the men and women in this country at risk. Thank you again for what you do and for being here today. Thanks. That does it for me tonight. You can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9 p.m. Eastern on MSNOW. And don't forget to follow the show on Blue Sky, Instagram, and TikTok.