Amid Trump’s Russia U-Turn, Sen. King’s Blunt Question: ‘WHY ARE WE DUMPING UKRAINE?’ Resurfaces

Secretary Hegseth, why are we abandoning Ukraine? The first is the way the budget's been constructed. Ever since I've been here until last year, we've had bipartisan budgets and bipartisan National Defense Authorization Acts and passed by majorities. I voted for all of them. And all of a sudden, in this year, 25% of the budget is essentially out of the process and will be passed, presumably, through some kind of reconciliation, which is, by definition, a partisan exercise. Mr. Secretary, why not, what all those items of housing or Golden Dome, whatever, why aren't they in the regular budget? Why do we suddenly have a two-part budget where this committee and the Congress generally has oversight and input to a process where a quarter of the budget is essentially a slush fund? Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. I wouldn't characterize a quarter of it as a slush fund, but I recognize that we see it in totality as a $1.5 trillion budget. But why the separation? Why the two pieces? Multiple vehicles. As you know, there are multiple dynamics that play into why there are multiple vehicles, but we are fully committed with working with the committee to ensure that the right vehicles are utilized to get precisely this amount, $1.5 trillion. why should we you didn't answer my question why are there two pieces why why not for time immemorial we've done budgets here we've never to my knowledge we've never used this reconciliation process for a defense budget before what's what's what's going on my understanding of the reason for the vehicles is to ensure we actually get to 1.5 trillion which is the most important bottom line the most important bottom line is that top line of 1.5 trillion to fund what we need and we think this process is the most effective way to get there senator well what you're really saying is we don't want to deal with that pesky congress and their appropriation process i i think it's i think this is significant mr chairman that we're we're basically abdicating a quarter of our responsibility in terms of this budget let me move on um one of the factors of this budget that hasn't gotten any publicity is uh that there's zero funding for Ukraine, that's correct, isn't it Mr. Hurst? That's correct. There's no USAI funding in this budget. And there was $400 million that was appropriated last year by a bipartisan, bicameral act of Congress. What's become of that money? My understanding is not a dollar of it has been dispersed. It was released very recently. And again, we got these funds, I believe, in March. And it takes time for funds to flow through the department. But it's going to get put to work very shortly. We're going to work with the UCOM commander to make sure we use these funds in the most appropriate way possible. I didn't want Senator Sullivan to be the only one with an exhibit. This indicates what's happened to our support for Ukraine over a period of years. The orange bars are U.S. support. The blue bars are Europe. As you see, Europe is 99 percent in the year 2026. Same thing with humanitarian and other aid to Ukraine. And yet this is, I believe, an existential struggle for democracy, where we had an aggressive country invade a neighboring country without any justification whatsoever. And by the way, that invading country is the major winner so far of the war in Iran. They've gotten, the estimates are $40 to $80 billion of additional revenues from oil and the relief of sanctions as a result of the war in Iran. Secretary Hegseth, why are we abandoning Ukraine? Senator, if you would hold that chart back up, I think that's a beautiful chart. I think that's exactly what we want. We want Europe stepping up and funding and shouldering the burden. They are rich countries worth $20 trillion versus an economy of $2 trillion. Europe can step up, Europe can fund it, and they have through our Pearl Initiative and through our European Command. That's exactly what the American people want to see, is other countries stepping up and funding that if it's if it's that important to Europe which I understand why it is and the incursion of Russia and the bravery of the Ukrainians then European countries should pay for it and that's exactly what that chart says and that's the administration policy so we don't have any we don't have any interest in what happens in Ukraine is that what you're saying it's only the Europeans I'm saying the threat is far closer to rich and capable countries in Europe and they should step up to lead the charge and that's why that chart is a good thing to see they have stepped up but I think the American people should understand that we've stepped back in fact step back to the point of abandoning this is a war that never would have happened under President Trump and he supports ending it through a deal and he's pursued that so far it hasn't happened uh i'm out of time i want to talk about DTOs who designates but uh we'll take that up thank you Senator King uh Senator Schmitt thank you mr chairman and uh it's a proposal i'm following my friend from Missouri and Maine came into the union at the same time but we couldn't disagree more on this particular point we may have to separate here um i actually think it's interesting that Ukraine just came up because we've heard uh from my colleagues on the other side um discussion about the cost of what the ongoing american effort there was never a never a discussion about the 200 billion dollars we were sending to a foreign country that's not even in NATO never in fact when amendments were offered for independent audits of how that money was spent, there was bipartisan opposition to that kind of oversight. So I find it really rich now that there's a complaint that we're not spending money on Ukraine. And by the way, $30 billion for salaries for bureaucrats, pensions, and social safety net programs, and government operations to keep the state functioning during wartime. That's where American tax dollars were going, $30 billion for bureaucrats in Ukraine. And we just heard a speech for more money for Ukraine, yet the $1.5 trillion for this country is being balked at. I mean, I've seen Ukraine flags all over this capital for three years. At the same time, the same people call the President of the United States of this country a Nazi. So forgive me if I feel like we've lost our bearings a little bit. So I'm all for the America First agenda. I'm all for us realigning our priorities. I'm all for the national defense strategies that says our core strategic interests are the homeland, the Western Hemisphere, and the rising threat in China. And that means our European allies should step up. If Vladimir Putin is truly some existential threat and the next Hitler that's going to roll through Europe, you would think, by the way, he can't take Kiev. So you can't have it both ways. He hasn't made it to Kiev. But they would step up. And we better start demanding that, because if we want to meet the challenges of the 21st century and China, our priorities, our focus has to be somewhere else. It doesn't mean abandonment. It just means a true partnership with our European allies who for a very, very long time have not stepped up. I want to ask you, Mr. Secretary, in your first year, one of the things I think that's really gone towards this morale and recruitment boom that we've seen through your leadership and President Trump was finally taking on the sort of cultural Marxism that had taken hold from the highest levels of leadership from the president of the United States to your predecessor, this obsession with DEI. Could you just walk through maybe the worst example that you saw and the way that you addressed that and how it was affecting morale? Well, thank you, Senator. First of all, I want to fully associate myself with the first two and a half minutes of your comments, and I appreciate that perspective very much so. I would note $30 billion for bureaucrats in Ukraine is more than the bill that we've talked about today for a existential and critically important war to ensure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. That's worth noting. I haven't talked about it as much in these hearings because this is a budget hearing about $1.5 trillion that's historic and significant. But underwriting the change that we've seen in our department was a laser focus on getting back to basics. And the key word to that is merit. We had a department that was obsessed with gender, ideology, and race, diversity, equity, and inclusion. In fact, the mantra you would hear dripping from the lips of generals with a serious look on their face was, our diversity is our strength, which is the single dumbest phrase in military history of course our diversity is not our strength our unity is our strength our shared purpose the flag we wear and who we and the constitution we serve to defend and when you clear that debris away whether it's marxist ideologies or social engineering or political correctness or quotas based on gender and diversity you get the best of the best rising up regardless of gender, regardless of race, motivated by that environment where merit reigns, it's accountability, standards, lethality, readiness, training, all the debris wiped away. That is the secret sauce of the revival of the War Department and why Americans are attracted to serving in it and why those inside it, why morale is sky high. And any insinuation that it is not are coming from folks who haven't been in our units recently. Go visit the troops at every level and their morale is at record level.