Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday that the Trump administration does not plan to and does not believe it needs to seek congressional approval should it decide to resume military operations in Iran, further sidelining Congress at a time when a growing number of Republicans are becoming hesitant about continued U.S. military operations.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who has been working on an Authorization for Use of Military Force to set parameters for the operation in Iran, said that the War Powers Act makes clear that the administration must terminate hostilities within 60 days without congressional approval, a timeline that expired on April 28. She said it did not appear, despite the administration’s assertions, that the hostilities in the Gulf had actually ended.

“Our view is that, should the president make the decision to recommence, that we would have all the authorities necessary to do so,” Hegseth responded. 

Hegseth and other top military leaders testified to both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees on Tuesday.

During the hearing, which took place a day before President Donald Trump is set to depart for China to meet with President Xi Jinping, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) emphasized that Beijing is “propping up Russia and Iran” and that it would have a significant capability to pressure Iran into changing course if it were to cease purchasing oil from Iran.

Graham also continued to voice concerns about Pakistan’s role as a mediator in the U.S.-Iran talks, citing a report from the day prior about Pakistan hosting Iranian military aircraft on its military bases. Both Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to comment on those reports.

“That tells me we should be looking maybe for somebody else to mediate” between the U.S. and Iran. “No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere,” Graham told the military officials. “I appreciate all you’ve done, I’m very supportive of it, but when it comes to Pakistan and China, enough already.”

Jules Hurst III, the acting Pentagon comptroller, said that the cost of the war thus far, including munitions used in the war, is around $29 billion, a sum that Democrats countered seemed low. 

Hurst acknowledged that estimate didn’t include the potentially sizable costs for rebuilding U.S. installations damaged or destroyed in Iranian counterattacks. He said that the costs of such rebuilding would be dependent on the U.S.’ posture and needs going forward and potential contributions from host countries.

He indicated it could also increase further depending on costs for repairing or replacing damaged aircraft.

Hegseth and Caine insisted that the U.S. maintains sufficient munitions stockpiles to carry out any missions that are required, though Caine said that he appreciated efforts by Congress to provide funding for more munitions production.

Hegseth also asserted that the war had been massively successful in achieving the U.S.’ goals, and that the U.S. has the capabilities for a range of scenarios including resuming the war, to ensure that it will end on the U.S.’ terms.

“There are lots of different discussions with our negotiating team, they’re happening … different drafts, different perspectives. It’s a very dynamic situation where a negotiated settlement could be the outcome here, where Iran does not have nuclear capabilities,” Hegseth said. He sidestepped questions about the specific terms of the ceasefire agreement.

Pressed on whether Iran’s support for terrorism and ballistic missile program are part of negotiations, Hegseth said that the negotiations are not his responsibility but “we have world-class negotiators” and “the core of it is the nuclear weapons issue” but “those other factors are always a factor.”

Asked by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, whether the U.S. had anticipated the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Caine declined to discuss the specific advice he provided to the administration but said that the military had considered the full range of potential consequences.

“It seems to me that there’s been a different plan almost daily [for] dealing with this problem,” Collins said.

Caine said that the issue of the Strait of Hormuz is a complex one, as Iran uses small boats and low-cost drones to attack larger vessels, but urged Iran to “think wisely about their next moves” and open the waterway voluntarily.

Hegseth emphasized the effectiveness of the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, insisting that “the economic pressure that creates on them greatly outstrips the pressure on us. … Nothing’s going in that we don’t allow to go in. And trust me, when we look at what Iran’s thinking about that — they know they can’t break it.”

He repeatedly dodged questions about specific plans for reopening the strait and securing trade moving through it in the short-term. He said that there are “certainly” military means by which the strait could be re-opened, but said that a diplomatic deal is the “preferred long-term approach.”

On both sides of the aisle, in both hearings, senior lawmakers raised questions about the administration’s decision to split off more than $300 billion of the proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget request into a proposed partisan reconciliation package, rather than trying to pass it through regular order. That request was also finalized prior to the war in Iran.

Lawmakers warned that reconciliation packages would not be a sustainable path to growing and maintaining U.S. defense capabilities in the long term, and that a third reconciliation package might not be feasible at all this year.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Tuesday that the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran was still in effect, despite numerous ceasefire violations by both sides in recent days.

“No, the ceasefire is not over,” Hegseth said during a press briefing at the Pentagon alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine. “Ultimately, this is a separate and distinct project,” Hegseth said of the new U.S. mission to escort commercial shipping vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, “and we expected there would be some churn at the beginning, which happened, and we said we would defend and defend aggressively, and we absolutely have.” 

“Iran knows that, and ultimately, the president is going to make a decision whether anything were to escalate into a violation of a ceasefire. But certainly, we would urge Iran to be prudent in the actions that they take, to keep that underneath this threshold,” the defense secretary continued.

President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that U.S. forces would ensure the Strait of Hormuz is reopened to commercial traffic by escorting vessels and deflecting missile and drone attacks from Iran. Referring to the operation as “Project Freedom,” Trump warned on Monday that Iran would be “blown off the face of the earth” if the regime attempted to interfere. 

Hegseth continued, “This is about the straits. This is about freedom of navigation. This is about international waterways. This is about free flow of commerce, all the things that happened before and that only Iran is contesting. So right now, the ceasefire certainly holds, but we’re going to be watching very, very closely.”

Caine said similarly that even though Iran has fired on commercial vessels nine times, seized two container ships and attacked U.S. forces more than 10 times since the ceasefire began, that is all “below the threshold of restarting major combat operations.”

Hegseth was pressed by reporters whether Trump was considering seeking congressional authorization to continue military operations in Iran, as many lawmakers believe the president has run out the 60-day clock for a war launched without congressional approval. 

“Our view is … that ultimately, with the ceasefire, the [60-day] clock stops. If it were to restart, that would be the president’s decision. That option is always there, and Iran knows that, and that’s why their choices on freedom are important,” Hegseth said. “The president retains the opportunity and the capabilities — more capabilities than we have at the start of this — to restart major combat operations if necessary.”

Asked about alleged assertions by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad Director David Barnea that Israel would not abide by or participate in the ceasefires in Iran or Lebanon, Hegseth rejected claims that Israel was forcing the American president’s hand. 

“I will say those questions are based on the false premise that somehow President Trump is being pulled in by Prime Minister Netanyahu to any of these actions,” Hegseth told reporters. “President Trump has led at every step of this based on his view of American interests and America First, and we’re grateful that Israelis have been very capable partners at many steps of this.”

“They may have some objectives at times that are slightly different than ours, but there’s only one hand on the wheel ultimately directing this, whether it’s Project Freedom or previously Operation Epic Fury, and it’s President Trump,’ he continued. “So we’re grateful for their input, their insights, the existential nature of the threat they face from an Iranian bomb, the capabilities that they can bring to that, but ultimately the coordination will happen with the leadership of President Trump.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not give advance notice to senior Republican senators before announcing on Wednesday that he was firing Navy Secretary John Phelan and had already tapped his replacement, causing surprise and confusion on Capitol Hill.

“I found out about it the way everybody else did,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told Jewish Insider of the Pentagon’s announcement on social media of Phelan’s dismissal.

Reached for comment, the Pentagon referred JI to Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell’s statement on X — the first public announcement of the news.

“Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan is departing the administration, effective immediately. On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy,” Parnell said on X. “We wish him well in his future endeavors.”

After taking part in White House meetings earlier Wednesday, Phelan was on Capitol Hill in the afternoon for a pair of pre-scheduled meetings, the first with Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the second immediately after with Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the committee’s ranking member. Phelan’s departure was posted to the Pentagon’s social media pages minutes after Phelan walked out of Reed’s office, a source familiar with the matter told JI. 

A GOP senator on the committee who spoke to Reed and Wicker after the Pentagon announced Phelan’s immediate dismissal told JI that the topic of Phelan’s future in his role did not come up in either meeting, and that none of the three men was expecting such a move. 

“This was a total surprise to Senate Republican leadership, to the two leaders of the Armed Services Committee and, clearly, to the secretary of the Navy himself,” the senator said. 

Senators on the committee privately expressed concern to JI over Phelan’s firing, which comes amid as the U.S. is maintaining a naval blockade of Iranian ports and has begun boarding Iranian-linked tankers around the world, with three U.S. aircraft carriers on station or en route to the Middle East.

“I mean, I’m sure there are going to be some questions asked about the reasons, etc.,” Thune told JI. “But hopefully the authorizing committee will get a briefing and be informed about some of these decisions.”

Prior to his role at the Defense Department, Phelan ran an investment firm and was a major fundraiser for President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Phelan and other administration officials had reportedly been clashing over how best to grow the U.S. shipbuilding industry, a longtime challenge, though Phelan has heralded his own close relationship with Trump. 

Hegseth’s term has also been marked by ongoing friction with other senior officials in the department, including Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, and the firings of multiple top officials. Hegseth fired Army chief of staff Gen. Randy George earlier in April.

Phelan is being replaced by Under Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao, a former House and Senate candidate in Virginia.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned on Thursday that U.S. forces are “maximally postured” to resume military operations in Iran, and specifically target energy infrastructure, should the country’s current leaders not agree to a negotiated settlement to end the war.

Hegseth made the comments during a press briefing at the Pentagon on Thursday morning alongside Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine and Admiral Brad Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command. The defense secretary spoke directly to Iranian leadership in his opening remarks, cautioning that while President Donald Trump would “rather not have to” resume operations and go after Iran’s energy industry, the U.S. was prepared to do so if negotiations failed.

“There is an alternative, as our negotiators have said. You, Iran, can choose a prosperous future, a golden bridge, and we hope that you do for the people of Iran. In the meantime, and for as long as it takes, we will maintain this successful blockade,” Hegseth said. “But if Iran chooses poorly, then they will have a blockade and bombs dropping on infrastructure, power and energy.”

Hegseth said that CENTCOM was continuing “to implement an ironclad blockade” and ensuring “that our forces are maximally postured to restart combat operations should this new Iranian regime choose poorly and not agree to a deal. That is what we urge this morning, that this new Iranian regime choose wisely.”

“To the KH [Kataib Hezbollah] leadership and IRGC leadership: We’re watching you. Our capabilities are not the same, our military and yours,” Hegseth said. “Remember, this is not a fair fight, and we know what military assets you are moving and where you are moving them to. While you are digging out — and this is exactly what you’re doing, digging out of bombed out and devastated facilities — we are only getting stronger.”

Caine clarified during his remarks that the U.S. is not blockading the Strait of Hormuz in its entirety; rather, “the U.S. action is a blockade of Iran’s ports and coastline.”

“Let me be clear, this blockade applies to all ships regardless of nationality heading into or from Iranian ports,” Caine said. “Enforcement will occur inside Iran’s territorial seas and in international waters.”

In his message to Iranian leaders, Hegseth emphasized the work U.S. military and intelligence forces have done since the start of the ceasefire to ensure their readiness in the event of diplomatic efforts failing. 

“You have no defense industry, no ability to replenish your offensive or defensive capabilities. You only have what you have. You know that and we know that. You can move things around but you can’t actually rebuild. You can dig out for now but you can’t reconstitute,” Hegseth said to the Iranians. “But we can. We are reloading with more power than ever before, and better intelligence, even more importantly better intelligence, than ever before.” 

“As you expose yourself with your movement to our watchful eye, we are locked and loaded on your critical dual-use infrastructure, on your remaining power generation and on your energy industry,” he continued. “We would rather not have to do it, but we are ready to go at the command of our president.”

Nearly all Senate Democrats wrote to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Wednesday to raise “grave concern” about a strike on a girl’s school that killed at least 168 people in the opening phase of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

Reports indicate that the U.S. is likely responsible for the strike on the school — which was reportedly located adjacent to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility — though President Donald Trump has offered varying explanations, including suggesting that Iran could have hit the school itself, potentially using sensitive and highly restricted U.S. munitions.

“The United States and Israel must abide by U.S. and international law, including the law of armed conflict,” the letter, signed by every Senate Democrat except Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), reads. “There must be a swift investigation into the strikes on this school and any other potential U.S. military actions causing civilian harm, and the findings must be released to the public as soon as possible, along with any measures to pursue accountability.”

The administration has said it is investigating the strike, without commenting further.

The Democratic lawmakers also criticized strikes by the U.S. and Israel on hospitals, cultural sites, civilian infrastructure and Iranian cities including Tehran.

“Massive civilian casualty incidents like the attack in Minab are not only detrimental to the Iranian people, who have already suffered so much at the hands of its own government, but they also undermine U.S. national security interests,” the letter continues. “These concerns are compounded by the reported use of artificial intelligence tools to select and prioritize targets in Iran.”

The Democrats further called out Hegseth for rhetoric emphasizing the “death and destruction” from the operation and saying the military would impose “no stupid rules of engagement.”

The lawmakers said Hegseth’s rhetoric and the conduct it supports “only serves to endanger civilians, including American citizens, in the region and around the globe,” may run afoul of the Geneva Conventions and is part of a “broader pattern of policies abandoning the Defense Department’s commitment to minimizing civilian harm in U.S. military operations.”

The letter poses a series of questions to Hegseth about the strike on the girl’s school and procedures in place to prevent civilian harm and war crimes in the Iran war.

A chorus of senior Trump administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sought to offer a decisive rebuttal on Tuesday to what they deemed to be a false narrative, which had spread like wildfire a day before. 

They were all responding to the political tumult and online furor that erupted after Rubio briefed congressional leaders about the U.S. military operation in Iran on Monday afternoon. 

A narrative quickly formed — based in large part on a viral post on X from the White House clipping an excerpt of Rubio’s comments — that Trump decided to strike Iran because Israel was already planning an attack, which would then prompt Iranian retaliation, thus putting American troops at risk. 

“The president made the very wise decision — we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio told reporters. 

The White House shared that sound bite in a post on X that was viewed more than 13 million times in less than a day. Rubio’s Monday messaging about Israel was echoed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) after he and other congressional leaders received Rubio’s briefing. 

The question that was then posed dozens of times by reporters to policymakers: Had Israel forced America’s hand and dragged the U.S. into war? 

Never mind that Rubio also said in those same remarks the U.S. was not “forced” to strike because of an impending Israeli action. “No matter what, ultimately, this operation needed to happen,” Rubio said. The White House shared that sound bite on X Tuesday morning, drawing 500,000 views, a fraction of the visibility of the earlier post. “No, Marco Rubio Didn’t Claim That Israel Dragged Trump into War with Iran,” was the headline Leavitt posted on X. But the damage had already been done.

Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the same question in a Monday night interview. “You don’t have to drag him into anything,” Netanyahu said of Trump. “He does what he thinks is right for America.” 

Another reporter then posed the question to Trump directly on Tuesday during an Oval Office meeting between the president and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

“No,” Trump said decisively. “I might have forced their hand.” Hegseth then chimed in on X boosting Trump’s message: “This is 100% correct.” 

Rubio similarly refuted a reporter who said the U.S. needed to get involved because Israel was going to strike Iran.

“Your statement is false,” he said Tuesday during another visit to Capitol Hill for all-member briefings in the House and Senate. “Somebody asked me the question yesterday, did we go in because of Israel … I told you this had to happen anyway. The president made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made.”

The question, he said, was “a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation. Not the question of the intent.” 

Some questions remain unanswered. Trump told reporters alongside Merz that Iran was going to attack first, but it was not clear whom he expected Iran to attack, the Israelis or the Americans. A White House spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” Trump said. “Based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first, and I didn’t want that to happen. So if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we’ve had a very, very powerful impact.” 

Even as the White House refuted the narrative that Israel had pulled the U.S. into war and put American servicemembers at risk, Democratic lawmakers and right-wing podcasters turned it into an online rallying cry. 

“So Netanyahu now decides when we go to war? So much for America First,” Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) said in a post on X on Monday. Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor to President Barack Obama, argued Trump could not bring himself to say no to Netanyahu: “Donald Trump is so weak that he couldn’t tell Bibi Netanyahu no, so now we are at war,” he said in response to the Rubio clip. 

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), who was in Monday’s briefing by Rubio, afterward described the strikes as “dictated by Israel’s goals and timelines” and said he opposed them. 

On the right, Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire sharply criticized Rubio. “So he’s flat out telling us that we’re in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said,” Walsh wrote. 

The conservative pundit Megyn Kelly said that the American servicemembers who have so far died in the campaign did not give their lives for the United States. “No one should have to die for a foreign country. I don’t think those four service members died for the United States. I think they died for Iran or for Israel,” she said on Monday. 

Now progressive Jewish groups are attacking the White House, saying that pinning the war on Israel feeds into antisemitic conspiracy theories.

“Shifting blame for American military decisions to Netanyahu is an abdication of responsibility and comes with the dangerous side effect of fueling antisemitic sentiment in the United States,” J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami said Tuesday.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America called Rubio’s language “unprecedented, dangerous and deeply irresponsible.”

“As Jewish Americans, we’re deeply concerned about the consequences of the White House effectively blaming Israel for its decision to launch a war against Iran, which has now spread to the entire Middle East,” JDCA said in a Tuesday statement. 

The Republican Jewish Coalition, meanwhile, spent Tuesday reposting messages from the White House, the Senate Republican Caucus and the Pentagon that Israel had not, in fact, dragged the U.S. into war. 

Rubio attempted to offer a final rebuttal of the narrative about Israel driving the war when he was back on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. He acknowledged how his comments the day before had spread — although he did not mention that the White House played a role in amplifying them.

“If you’re going to play the statements, you need to play the whole statement, and not clip it to reach a narrative,” said Rubio.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, in a Pentagon meeting with Qatari Defense Minister Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al Thani on Friday, signed a deal to open a Qatari Air Force facility at the U.S. Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. 

The deal is eliciting widespread shock and outrage from a broad ideological spectrum of political figures.

The latest deal follows the announcement of sweeping U.S. defensive guarantees to Qatar, similar to those the U.S. has made to its NATO allies, both signs of an increasingly close military alignment between the U.S. and Qatar — a key sponsor of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The base is set to host Qatari F-15 jets and pilots for joint training operations, in order to “enhance our combined training, increase lethality, interoperability,” Hegseth said. He also praised Qatar for helping to mediate the ceasefire agreement in Gaza.

The deal has elicited criticism from voices as wide-ranging as Trump ally and far-right influencer Laura Loomer and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin.

Loomer wrote a spree of X posts lambasting the deal, framing it as the vanguard of a Muslim Brotherhood invasion of Idaho and the United States, a threat to national security, a precursor to a potential terrorist attack and the harbinger of the downfall of Western civilization.

“Now that the GOP has decided to literally harbor Islamic terrorists on US soil, I don’t really care about fighting for Republicans as much as I did yesterday. I have lost hope for 2026 and 2028 to be totally honest,” Loomer said. “While we’re at it, why don’t we just give the CCP an air base and some gain of function labs on US soil? lol Might as well!”

“An economic bailout for Argentina. An air force base for Qatar. This guy is doing everything but putting America first,” Martin said, a sentiment echoed by the DNC’s vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta.

Other progressive activists have suggested a connection between the deal and Qatar’s gift of a luxury jumbo jet to serve as Air Force One.

“This is a dangerous precedent. The Qataris are state sponsors of terrorism masquerading as American allies,” Jonathan Schanzer, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Jewish Insider. “One can only hope that the Qataris are forced to mend their ways before such a deal comes into effect. Otherwise, this will be viewed across the Middle East as rewarding bad behavior.”

Amid the backlash, Hegseth shared an “important clarification” on X.

“The U.S. military has a long-standing partnership w/ Qatar, including today’s announced cooperation w/ F-15QA aircraft,” Hegseth said. “However, to be clear, Qatar will not have their own base in the United States — nor anything like a base. We control the existing base, like we do with all partners.”

Some are defending the deal, including Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), who called the agreement “fantastic news” that is “beneficial for training, enhances our partnership with America’s allies, and strengthens national security.” The Air Force facility will be located in Simpson’s Idaho district.

Former Pentagon advisor Dan Caldwell, an isolationist foreign policy voice who briefly served under Hegseth, called the “freak out around this … totally unwarranted,” adding, “this is actually a pretty common practice with countries that buy and operate a lot of U.S. military aircraft. Singapore has a similar facility and detachment for its F-15 training unit at this very same airbase.”

“No more beardos,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared during his lengthy speech to top military commanders in Quantico, Va., last week, announcing new, stricter grooming policies for U.S. servicemembers, which had been gradually loosened in recent years to allow more soldiers to maintain beards and other facial hair.

“The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done,” Hegseth continued. “Simply put, if you do not meet the male-level physical standards for combat positions, cannot pass a [physical training] test or don’t want to shave and look professional, it’s time for a new position or a new profession.”

The new rules, circulated in a memo to military members, would end most existing religious exemptions allowing troops to maintain beards, returning to pre-2010 standards — when the military first granted an exemption to a Sikh soldier to maintain a beard in uniform. The regulations would present a potential obstacle to Orthodox Jewish servicemen who maintain beards. The policy also prohibits sideburns below the ear openings, potentially impacting servicemen who wear peyot.

Religious facial hair waivers will be “generally not authorized” under the new policy, and will require “individualized reviews” with “documentation demonstrating the sincerity of the religious or sincerely held belief … sufficient to support a good faith determination by the approving authority,” according to the memo. They will only be authorized in “non-deployable roles with low risk of chemical attack or firefighting requirements.”

The policy cites the need for military personnel to be able to wear protective breathing equipment that may not seal safely in the presence of facial hair. Repeated non-complicance may lead to individuals being separated from the military.

“The military obviously has its need for discipline and uniform adherence,” Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the executive vice president of American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), told Jewish Insider. “At the same time, it has been, and we hope it will continue to be, cognizant that certain individuals, for them to serve and accommodation will be necessary, and as in the past, if everything else about that particular person adheres to military standards, then they should get the dispensation they need.”

“The military has shown an ability to balance its requirements with enabling Jewish personnel to serve with distinction. I hope they can do [so in] this case as well,” Shemtov added.

Rabbi A.D. Motzen, national director of government affairs at Agudath Israel of America, told JI that his group is also tracking the issue.

“If the new religious exemption procedures make it more difficult for soldiers or chaplains to maintain beards or sideburns that conform with their religious beliefs, it is a matter of concern for us,” Motzen said. “Agudath Israel has championed religious freedom in many settings including the military and has fought for those rights on the local, state and federal levels and in the courts. We have fought for the rights of Jews as well as members of other faiths such as Sikhs. We hope that this administration, which strongly supports religious freedom, will clarify the new guidelines and ensure that the same religious liberty principles will be applied to the new grooming guidelines.”

Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Brad Schneider (D-IL), the co-chairs of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, released a joint statement on the new policy with the chairs of the Congressional Asian American Pacific Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.

The statement calls Hegeth’s comments “appalling” and an “insult to the millions of Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Americans who have answered the call to serve.” The lawmakers said that any attempt to “eliminate or stigmatize beard accommodations … risks marginalizing communities that have long faced discriminatory grooming standards in the military.”

“Time and time again, these brave men and women have shown that they can practice their faith while serving honorably and effectively,” the statement continues. “Freedom of religion is a fundamental right that our nation’s servicemembers defend and have the right to exercise themselves. Religious accommodations for beards, which were permitted under the first Trump presidency and repeatedly upheld by the courts, must remain in place.”

The Democratic lawmakers said that the administration must offer further clarity on how they will uphold religious liberty for servicemembers.

The policy is also expected to impact servicemembers granted medical waivers to maintain beards due to a skin condition that disproportionately affects Black men.

Members of the House Armed Services Committee sparred on Tuesday at their annual meeting on the National Defense Authorization Act, the massive annual defense and national security policy legislation, over reportedly rogue actions by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Under Secretary Elbridge Colby to pause U.S. aid to Ukraine without White House knowledge or support.

In debate on an amendment by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) that sought to block Hegseth from halting Ukraine aid without Trump’s direct authorization, Democrats argued that Hegseth and Colby were subverting the command structure, while Republicans dismissed the concerns and insisted that Trump was in full control of the administration’s policy. The amendment failed along party lines.

“I’ve not been a fan of President [Donald] Trump’s Ukraine policy up until this week … but I do believe in the chain of command and the role of the commander in chief,” Moulton said. “Regardless of my disagreements with the president, we have one commander in chief. It’s not Bridge Colby or Pete Hegseth.”

“When the Department of Defense freelances with lethal aid, it sends mixed signals to our allies and emboldens our adversaries,” Moulton continued.

Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA), also calling out Colby and Hegseth directly, said, “decisions of this magnitude do not belong to a single cabinet official with a political agenda.”

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), the committee chairman, responded that “the president is in full control of America’s Ukraine policy. Yesterday’s announcement to accelerate weapon deliveries with NATO support made that crystal clear. Therefore, this amendment does nothing more than add red tape.”

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX) said the amendment is “nothing more than political theater,” “sticking the congressional nose where it does not belong” and “a waste of time.” He said that it’s up to Trump to fire Hegseth if he’s dissatisfied with him, but that the cabinet exists to delegate responsibilities.

The committee also voted down, on party lines, an amendment by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) that aimed to block the conversion of a Qatari jumbo jet into Air Force One as well as its transfer to Trump’s presidential library, as well as several amendments related to Hegseth’s transmission of Houthi attack plans on the unsecured messaging app Signal.

The committee approved several amendments relating to the Middle East in bipartisan amendment packages. The amendments request briefings and reports from the administration on potential risks to the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar, which was attacked by Iran last month, the potential for defense partnership with the new Syrian government, the U.S. weapons stockpile in Israel and its replenishment needs and potential integration of the U.S. defense industrial base with Israel.

Those amendments were led by Reps. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ), Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Joe Wilson (R-SC), respectively.

It also approved three amendments relating to antisemitism as part of amendment packages.

One, led by Jackson, would ban any funding for colleges and universities that have had antisemitic demonstrations and “failed to take action to mitigate and prevent” future ones, as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.

A second, led by Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD), would require a report on antisemitism training and efforts to combat antisemitism inside the Pentagon.

The third, by Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA) would request a report on “the threat posed by violent antisemitism as a component of transnational extremist movements,” including the spread of their ideologies and propaganda, the threat they pose to U.S. and the history of violence motivated by antisemitic ideologies.

The bill includes provisions establishing a new program pursuing defense applications of technologies like artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, quantum computing and automation with Israel and other partners; authorizing the U.S. to maintain its weapons stockpile in Israel and its counter-tunnelling cooperation program with Israel through 2028; and expanding an existing U.S.-Israel counter-drone and missile cooperative program to include other types of unmanned systems in addition to airborne threats.

It proposes $35 million for the emerging technology cooperation program, $50 million for anti-tunneling cooperation and $70 million for counter-unmanned systems cooperation, a $15 million boost.

The bill also requests a briefing on the findings that Western components have been used in Iranian attack drones, in spite of sanctions and export restrictions, and ways that the problem can be addressed.

The committee rejected an amendment from Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) that would have eliminated Ukraine aid in the bill by a voice vote, and voted 47-10 in favor of an amendment by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) that would boost Ukraine aid by $100 million, bringing the total to $400 million.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the NDAA was also released on Wednesday. That bill includes the same extension of counter-tunneling programs through 2028, but proposes increasing funding to $80 million. It proposes increasing funding for the existing counter-drone and missile program to $75 million, and also extends that program through 2028. It provides $15 million for emerging technology development with Israel.

The Senate bill also instructs the Defense Department to work to provide additional “training, equipment, logistics support, supplies, and services” to Jordan and Lebanon to protect their territorial security. 

Amid debate over withdrawing troops from Syria, the Senate bill would require the Defense Department to certify that withdrawing or reducing U.S. troop presence in Syria would not compromise U.S. priorities. It also instructs the Pentagon to “take appropriate measures to support the defenses” of camps in Syria holding ISIS prisoners and report to Congress on the subject.

As previously reported by Jewish Insider, the bill also pushes to advance Middle East air defense integration.

The 21 members of the House Jewish Caucus — all Democrats — pressed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in a letter sent on Tuesday expressing concerns about Kingsley Wilson, the recently promoted Pentagon press secretary with a history of antisemitic and otherwise controversial comments.

“Recent public reporting has highlighted a series of deeply troubling and offensive statements made by Kingsley Wilson, now serving as Pentagon Press Secretary,” the letter reads. “These statements include promoting the antisemitic and racist ‘Great Replacement’ theory, praising far-right political movements using slogans tied to neo-Nazi groups, and repeating patently false statements commonly circulated in neo-Nazi circles about Leo Frank, a Jewish man who was lynched by an antisemitic mob in Georgia in 1915.”

The letter argues that the remarks are “not isolated or ambiguous and have long been associated with violence and hate” and “their presence boldly and unrepentantly plastered in the public record of a senior Department official raises serious questions about the Department’s commitment to opposing extremism and antisemitism.”

Hegseth, at a recent Senate hearing, defended Wilson and said her comments had been mischaracterized for political gain, but also said he’d need to see her comments in full to evaluate them.

The lawmakers asked Hegseth whether the remarks are acceptable for a senior Pentagon employee in a public-facing role, how the Pentagon evaluates whether public statements necessitate disciplinary action, any steps the administration has taken in the past in response to antisemitic comments from Pentagon employees and whether Hegseth personally finds the comments acceptable for a representative of the Defense Department.

“We look forward to promptly receiving your reply. In the meantime, we urge the Department to affirm its responsibility to uphold the highest ethical standards,” the lawmakers wrote. “That includes an unambiguous commitment to confronting and unequivocally condemning antisemitism — especially within its own ranks — and ensuring that individuals who promote hate are quickly and appropriately held accountable.”

The letter was led by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA) and co-signed by caucus co-chairs Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Brad Schneider (D-IL) and co-signed by Reps. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Eugene Vindman (D-VA), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Becca Balint (D-VT), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL).

Wilson’s record has also previously elicited concern from Republicans.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth offered a strident defense of Kingsley Wilson, the recently promoted Pentagon press secretary with a history of espousing antisemitic conspiracy theories, under questioning at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

Wilson, prior to her appointment, attacked the Anti-Defamation League for memorializing the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish man who was wrongly convicted for raping and murdering a child, and called the ADL “despicable.” Wilson insisted that Frank was guilty — a niche and discredited theory largely associated with neo-Nazis.

She also has frequently boosted the antisemitic “Great Replacement” theory, advocated for Christian nationalism, used a neo-Nazi linked slogan to praise the far-right Alternative for Germany party, compared the murder of Israeli babies by Hamas to abortion and opposed U.S. aid to Israel, among a host of other controversial comments.

“I’ve worked directly with her, she does a fantastic job, and any suggestion that I or her or others are party to antisemitism is a mischaracterization attempting to win political points,” Hegseth said in a heated exchange with Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), who co-chairs the Senate antisemitism task force.

“Senator, you’re attempting to win political points on the backs of mischaracterizing the statements of a member of my department and I’m not going to stand for that,” Hegseth continued.

“Your lack of an answer confirms what we’ve known all along: The Trump administration is not serious. You are not a serious person, you are not serious about rooting out and fighting antisemitism within the ranks of our DoD,” Rosen responded, as she and Hegseth attempted to shout over each other. “It’s despicable. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”

Some Senate Republicans, including the Armed Services Committee chairman, had expressed concern about Wilson prior to her promotion and said that they were probing the issue and expected the Pentagon to address it.

Rosen referenced some of those criticisms in her questioning of Hegseth.

Earlier in her questioning, before mentioning Wilson specifically, Rosen asked Hegseth if he agreed that antisemitic conspiracy theories should not have a role in the government or military and that individuals who promote neo-Nazi conspiracy theories should not be in positions of power.

“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 said initially, before affirming that he agreed.

Hegseth was also asked multiple times throughout the hearing about potential U.S. planning for a strike on Iran or to defend U.S. troops should Iran target them. He largely declined to speak publicly on the issue beyond saying that the Pentagon’s role was to plan for a range of potential scenarios. Hegseth will take more questions from senators in a classified setting in the afternoon.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed on Wednesday that the memorandum of understanding between the Trump administration and Qatar for the gift of a luxury jet worth $400 million to join the Air Force One fleet has not been completed and signed.

Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine were pressed repeatedly on the terms of the contract allowing for the U.S. to formally accept the Boeing 747 jumbo jet from Qatar while testifying before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee on the Pentagon’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget. The two largely declined to answer questions on the subject given the public setting, though the defense secretary acknowledged that the MOU was still being worked on.

“Any specifics about future aircraft that could be Air Force One can’t be discussed here, but there is a conversation about a memorandum of understanding. A memorandum of understanding remains to be signed,” Hegseth said in response to Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) asking if the U.S. was currently in possession of the jet.

Hegseth declined to answer Reed’s subsequent questions about the price of the contract to reconfigure the aircraft, saying he would provide it to the senator’s office but could not divulge that information in public. He offered the same response when Reed asked about the delivery time for the reconfiguration contract. 

Reed pointed out that the terms of the contract originally signed with Boeing to deliver the next Air Force One jets were public while criticizing the secrecy around this deal. 

“The Boeing information was public knowledge — the delivery date, the cost, the course overruns — but this is not, because this is not only a bad deal for the American public, it is just gratifying the presidency, that’s all it is,” Reed said.

Later in the hearing, Hegseth again confirmed to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) that the MOU was still not signed. The Connecticut senator then pressed the defense secretary on the need for the Qatari jet, noting that the extensive modifications and security enhancements may keep it from being usable before Boeing’s new fleet of Air Force Ones are ready in 2028. 

“It doesn’t stand to reason that you will be able to retrofit the plane from Qatar much sooner than 2028 so I’m trying to understand what the gap is that we’re trying to fill. If this contract ends up being a half a billion dollars and the gap only ends up being six months, that doesn’t sound like a wise investment for this committee to make,” Murphy said.

Hegseth replied by pointing to the repeated delays from Boeing in delivering on their new fleet. “I don’t know that’s a firm fixed date yet, unfortunately, that can be counted on,” Hegseth said.

A senior Air Force official testified at a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing last month that Boeing had told the service that it could potentially deliver the fleet by 2027 if certain requirements were lifted.

After Hegseth told Murphy it was his understanding that the plane would be transferred to Trump’s presidential library at the conclusion of his term, the Connecticut senator replied: “Why would we ask the American taxpayer to spend upwards of $1 billion on a plane that would then only be used for a handful of months and then transferred directly to the president?”

Hegseth emphasized the importance of the modifications to “ensure the safety and security of the president of the United States,” but did not address Murphy’s question directly. 

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) pressed Hegseth on whether the Department of Defense or the Qataris initiated conversations about the jet and how the transaction came to be. Hegseth said he would need to “go back and review” the details and did not go into specifics, to which Schatz asked, “I think it kind of matters who’s asking, doesn’t it?”

“I think this is illegal and unconstitutional and I won’t rant about that, but I actually think from the standpoint of our collective responsibilities it very much matters what the paper flow was. Who started these conversations? Did it come out of the White House, did it come out of the secretary of state or the president or the SEC Def [secretary of defense] or at a lower level or ambassadors?” Schatz asked. 

“We’re entitled to know, because we can agree or disagree about the propriety of this, but my basic request of you is that if we’re going to disagree, let’s disagree with the same set of facts. Let’s have the documentation on the Qatari aircraft,” he continued.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine declined to definitively say on Wednesday whether they believed Iran would use a nuclear weapon if it acquired one. 

As they testified before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Hegseth and Caine to provide their “professional military judgement” on whether they agreed with Israel’s assessment that Tehran would use a nuclear weapon against the Jewish state. 

“I think they would potentially do that,” Caine said. “I think they’d use it to pressure Israel. I don’t know whether they would use it.”

“I think Israel believes, and quite understandably, that it is an existential threat to their existence, and that in the hands of the wrong Iranian, a cleric or a radical, that they would seek to use it,” Hegseth said. 

Graham replied to Hegseth, “Well, is this a radical cleric that exists there today? If he’s not, who the hell would be? So I’m trying to get everybody to think, let’s don’t do what we did in the ‘30s. They’re going to use a nuclear weapon if they get it.”

The South Carolina senator began his questioning on the topic by asking Hegseth and Caine if each thought the world “miscalculated Hitler in the ‘20s and ’30s,” which both men responded to affirmatively. “We certainly did not understand the scope of the threat, yes,” Hegseth replied. 

“The guy wrote a book [saying that] I want to kill all the Jews and nobody believed him. … The danger of that is like 50 million people get killed. So let’s not do that now,” Graham said.

After asking Hegseth and Caine about the Iranian nuclear program, Graham pressed both about China’s intentions in Taiwan and Russia’s plans in Europe beyond Ukraine while encouraging them to take a tougher posture on U.S. adversaries. 

“Listen, I like what you’re doing. I just think we got to get this stuff right. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon because they’ll use it. They’re homicidal maniacs who are religious Nazis. China is an expansionist power who will take Taiwan if we don’t deter them. Russia will dismember Ukraine and keep going if we don’t stop them,” Graham told the two. 

Graham then turned to the issue of radical Islamic terrorism and asked if al-Qaida would use a nuclear weapon if it acquired one. “A nuclear weapon in the hands of al-Qaida would be a very bad thing,” Hegseth replied.

“Is there a whole lot of difference between a nuclear weapon in the hands of al-Qaida and the Ayatollah in Iran? I don’t think so. They just have a different religious reason to do it,” Graham said. 

At a Senate hearing, @LindseyGrahamSC asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine whether they believed Iran would use a nuclear weapon if it acquired one.

"I’m trying to get everybody to think, let’s don’t do what we did in the ‘30s.… pic.twitter.com/e6U7nIKwPS

— Jewish Insider (@J_Insider) June 11, 2025

Graham is set to introduce a resolution on Thursday affirming that the only acceptable outcome of U.S. nuclear talks with Iran would be the total dismantlement of its enrichment program.

Many Republicans on Capitol Hill have expressed concern that the Trump administration could agree to a deal with terms similar to former President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear agreement. 

For his part, Graham has expressed confidence that Trump would not allow for any enrichment, citing recent private conversations with the president.

Kingsley Wilson, a deputy press secretary at the Department of Defense who has come under fire from Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Jewish communal organizations for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, has been promoted to serve as the department’s press secretary, the Pentagon announced on Friday. 

“Kingsley’s leadership has been integral to the DoD’s success & we look forward to her continued service to President [Donald] Trump,” Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman and a senior advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posted on X on Friday. 

When Wilson was named deputy press secretary in March, she faced widespread condemnation for dozens of tweets viewed as antisemitic and racist. On two different occasions, she attacked the Anti-Defamation League for sharing its origin story — the organization was founded after the lynching of Leo Frank, an Atlanta Jew widely believed to have been wrongly convicted of raping and murdering a white child over a century ago. 

“Leo Frank raped and murdered a 13-year-old girl,” Wilson wrote in 2023 in response to a post from the ADL, and repeated the claim a year later. “He also tried to frame a black man for his crime. The ADL is despicable.” (The tweet has not been deleted.) 

Wilson has also called Confederate General Robert E. Lee “one of the greatest Americans to ever live” and regularly promoted the antisemitic “Great Replacement Theory.” 

Her appointment in March drew bipartisan criticism. “Obviously I don’t agree with her comments. I trust the Pentagon will address this,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) told Jewish Insider at the time. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called for her firing. 

Spokespeople for the Pentagon and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday. 

Pete Hegseth, the veteran and Fox News personality turned President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be secretary of defense, testified at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday that his Christian faith dictates his commitment to supporting Israel and that he wants to see the U.S. ally kill “every last member of Hamas.”

The hearing provided few more specific details, however, on how the likely next secretary of defense plans to approach the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, which have seen U.S. troops under fire from and engaged in active strikes on Iranian proxies, or the prospect of more direct conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

After Hegseth was interrupted by several protesters affiliated with the radical group Code Pink, who called him a misogynist and a Christian Zionist while he delivered his opening statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asked Hegseth to share where he stands on the Jewish state.

“I’m not really sure why that is a bad thing,” Cotton said. “I’m a Christian, I’m a Zionist. Zionism is that the Jewish people deserve a homeland in the ancient holy land where they lived since the dawn of history. Do you consider yourself a Christian Zionist?”

“I am a Christian and I robustly support the State of Israel and its existential defense and the way America comes alongside them as their great ally,” Hegseth replied.

Cotton went on to ask if Hegseth supports Israel in its war to eliminate Hamas. Hegseth replied: “I do. I support Israel in destroying and killing every last member of Hamas.”

"I support Israel in destroying and killing every last member of Hamas.”

Watch more of @SenTomCotton's exchange with @PeteHegseth below and read our full story from @marcrod97 and @emilyfjacobs on his confirmation hearing to be secretary of defense here: https://t.co/b9cuVW4v4R pic.twitter.com/k8EHicax6j

— Jewish Insider (@J_Insider) January 15, 2025

Hegseth also said earlier in the hearing that, in order to properly counter China, the U.S. military will need to focus on “reorienting away from entanglement in the Middle East and reorienting the behemoth that is the Pentagon toward new priorities, specifically the Indo-Pacific.”

He said the Biden administration has failed to sufficiently execute on that goal, which successive administrations said was their priority. “We’re going to start by ensuring the institution understands that, as far as threats abroad, the CCP is front and center, and obviously defending our homeland as well,” Hegseth continued.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), as the hearing was ongoing, expressed confidence to reporters that Hegseth would be confirmed.

“He’s doing a great job,” Scott said. “He’s going to be confirmed as the next secretary of defense and he’s going to do a great job.”

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), once the most prominent Hegseth skeptic on the GOP side, said after the hearing that she was satisfied with his responses and plans to support him. Ernst’s announcement will likely help lock in the support of other Senate Republicans as well.

Hegseth had to navigate choppy political waters under questioning from Democrats on the panel, being pressed on allegations of alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct, financial mismanagement and general inexperience and lack of qualifications for the job. Democrats also challenged him on past comments opposing women in military service; his opposition to diversity programs; his support for pardons for convicted war criminals such as Clint Lorrance, a former Army lieutenant convicted of killing two Afghan civilians; and his claims that the Biden administration had politicized the military.

Several Republicans dedicated their questioning to pushing back on these accusations, leaving the hearing overall light on the specifics of Hegseth’s plans for the Department of Defense or strategic approach to the various conflicts the U.S. faces around the globe.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who focused her questioning on Hegseth’s past comments opposing women taking combat roles in the military, told reporters afterward that she was frustrated she had not been able to ask Hegseth about issues like Iran, Russia and China and other global threats, noting that he had not met privately with rank-and-file Senate Democrats.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) suggested in his opening statement that one of Hegseth’s strengths is his skill as a “top-shelf communicator,” and that Hegseth would be focused on “strategic-level priorities” while he should have “exceptional subordinates who will run the day-to-day affairs” of directing the U.S. military.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who focused his questioning on Hegseth’s qualifications and allegations of financial mismanagement at veterans’ charities he ran, told reporters, “I think he would be a good communicator, I support his service as spokesperson for the Pentagon, but not as the manager for 3.4 million Americans putting their lives on the line, who deserve someone who will make life-and-death decisions with the kind of experience and expertise that is necessary to protect our nation.”

Blumenthal also alleged that the FBI background check into Hegseth was insufficiently rigorous.

Hegseth also expressed strong opposition during the hearing to counter-extremism programs implemented during the Biden administration, driven by concerns about potential white supremacist and neo-Nazi radicalization and recruitment in military ranks.

The nominee described concerns about right-wing extremism in the armed forces as “a made-up boogeyman,” and accused “leftist leadership” of extremism.

The Anti-Defamation League had supported those programs — which Republicans have said over-played the nature of the threat and sowed division among service members.

Responding to the criticism of Hegseth for being unfaithful to his wife and abusing alcohol, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) accused his Democratic colleagues of hypocrisy, pointing out that senators on both sides of the aisle had been drunk at evening votes at the Capitol and had cheated on their wives. 

“I think it’s so hypocritical of senators, especially on the other side, to be talking about his qualifications, and yet your qualifications aren’t any better,” Mullin said. “You guys make sure you make a big show and point out the hypocrisy because a man’s made a mistake, and you want to sit there and say that he’s not qualified. Give me a joke. It is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself as this higher standard. You forget you got a big plank in your eye.”

Former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), who chairs the Republican Jewish Coalition, was one of two witnesses who introduced Hegseth at the hearing, alongside incoming National Security Advisor Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL).