Murphy Demands Answers from Hegseth on Objectives for Iran War & Taxpayer Dollars Spent on Trump's Luxury Jet

WASHINGTON-U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, on Tuesday questioned Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about President Trump's objectives in his disastrous war with Iran during a hearing on the administration's request for nearly $70 billion in supplemental funding to enable more of their devastating military missteps abroad. Murphy also pushed Hegseth to provide the American people with answers about how much taxpayer money has been spent to retrofit a luxury jet that Qatar gifted to Trump. Murphy pressed Hegseth not to permit Trump's corrupt plans to take the taxpayer-funded plane with him for personal use once he leaves office.

"The American people either didn't want this war or were deeply skeptical of this war because they have seen this country make the same mistake over and over again in wars in the Middle East, and that is to create either unrealistic or open-ended objectives," Murphy said.

Pointing to contradictions in Hegseth's testimony, Murphy demanded answers on whether the Trump administration has abandoned its stated objective to destroy Iran's military capabilities: "You said in March that the United States was 'on plan to defeat, destroy, and disable all of Iran's meaningful military capabilities at a pace that the world has never seen before.' Obviously, as we've discussed here today, that objective has not been achieved and is not going to be achieved. Iran is adept, more adept than even at the start of the war, at hiding their capabilities or repairing after damage we have done. There's an open report that when it comes to their missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, 30 of 33 are still operational. But I've also heard you say in this hearing that the objectives now seem to be more limited than they were at the outset of the war. That this is about reopening the Strait and this is about dismantling [Iran's] nuclear capability. So, my question is pretty simple: Is it correct that it is no longer a war objective to destroy all of their military capacities?

As the Pentagon requests an additional $67 billion in funding, Murphy described the continued lack of transparency from the administration about what American taxpayers have already been charged to retrofit the luxury jet that Qatar gifted to Trump: "Reports suggest that maybe as much as $1 billion in your base funding - an extraordinary amount of money - has been used for an upgrade, and the plane is back in the shop for a second upgrade. As far as I can tell, never before has an administration not made public the amount of money for an upgrade or a construction contract on a presidential airplane. Obviously, we don't need or want to disclose the details of that upgrade. But never before have you withheld from Congress and the public the total amount of money."

Murphy pushed Hegseth to disclose the cost to taxpayers and commit that Trump won't take the plane with him when he leaves office: "The only thing more insulting to the taxpayers than spending money on a jet they don't need, would be for the president to take it with him, to take it out of our military inventory, when he leaves office."

Hegseth: "See, the Air Force has done an incredible job making that a capable jet. But its capabilities and investment are classified and shouldn't be talked about."

Murphy: "That's not what I'm asking. Will you disclose the amount of money publicly?"

Hegseth: "I would imagine, as part of the regular budget process, that's something that we would look at."

Murphy: "And will you commit that the president will not take…"

Hegseth: "But you have to look at the classification level of certain things that are not devolved for reasons of national security."

Murphy: "Will you commit that the president will not take this jet with him out of federal inventory when he leaves office?"

Hegseth: "That's not a decision for necessarily me to make. And ultimately, we're grateful to have it in the fleet for the Air Force to protect the president of the United States."

Murphy: "That's a deeply unsatisfactory answer to the American public."

A full transcript of Murphy's remarks is available below.

Murphy: Thank you all for being here today, Secretary Hegseth. The American people either didn't want this war or were deeply skeptical of this war because they have seen this country make the same mistake over and over again in wars in the Middle East, and that is to create either unrealistic or open-ended objectives. You said in March that the United States was "on plan to defeat, destroy, and disable all of Iran's meaningful military capabilities at a pace that the world has never seen before." Obviously, as we've discussed here today, that objective has not been achieved and is not going to be achieved. Iran is adept, more adept than even at the start of the war, at hiding their capabilities or repairing after damage we have done. There's an open report that when it comes to their missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, 30 of 33 are still operational.

Hegseth: I wouldn't believe all the open reports, Senator.

Murphy: But I've also heard you say in this hearing that the objectives now seem to be more limited than they were at the outset of the war. That this is about reopening the Strait and this is about dismantling [Iran's] nuclear capability. And the president, of course, has said himself that he thinks Iran has a right to a missile program.

So, my question is pretty simple: Is it correct that it is no longer a war objective to destroy all of their military capacities? This is what the president has said. Have our goals been simplified to reopening the Strait and to getting into a negotiation over a nuclear program. Now, I don't think you have a realistic plan to do either of those things, but I think it's important for us to know what we're funding. Are the objectives much more limited today than they were when you made that statement in March?

Hegseth: So, I think the objectives have been consistent and clear from the beginning. And I would compare it to North Korea, where a conventional buildup was used to hide a nuclear capability that eventually evolved to a point where it couldn't be contested. And what Iran continued to do, even after Midnight Hammer, was try to build that conventional capability to dare anyone to stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons.

So, getting after their conventional capabilities, missile launchers, defense industrial base, their navy was all part of it. Ensuring they can't blackmail us into pursuing a nuclear capability, laser-focused on Iran will never have a nuclear capability - that's the promise the president has made, and that he will keep.

Murphy: Is it still a war objective, either through military action or through a diplomatic agreement to destroy and disable all of Iran's meaningful military capacities, including their missile program?

Hegseth: As far as all: when we talked about that from the podium at the outset of this, we were talking about their defense industrial base. And if you look at the metrics of their ability to make more, that it's been overwhelmingly destroyed. Not everything, but overwhelmingly. Now, do they have missiles in underground bunkers because they're a terror state? Sure, they do, and we've acknowledged that from the beginning. But their capacity is less today than it's ever been…

Murphy: They obviously, they obviously have significant capacity to effectively disrupt the entirety of the Middle East and oil flows out of the Middle East, and that's not going to change.

Let me ask you one more question. This is a request for supplemental funding because you don't have the funding in your base budget to do what you need to do, which makes questions about the base budget relevant.

There's been a lot of attention, Mr. Secretary, on the modernization of a luxury jet that was gifted to the president by the government of Qatar. Reports suggest that maybe as much as $1 billion in your base funding - an extraordinary amount of money - has been used for an upgrade, and the plane is back in the shop for a second upgrade.

As far as I can tell, never before has an administration not made public the amount of money for an upgrade or a construction contract on a presidential airplane. Obviously, we don't need or want to disclose the details of that upgrade. But never before have you withheld from Congress and the public the total amount of money.

I think there are two really important questions here. One, will you make public the amount of money that you are spending to upgrade this plane? And two, can you commit to this Congress and this committee that the president isn't going to take this plane with him when he leaves office? The only thing more insulting to the taxpayers than spending money on a jet they don't need, would be for the president to take it with him, to take it out of our military inventory, when he leaves office.

Hegseth: See, the Air Force has done an incredible job making that a capable jet. But its capabilities and investment are classified and shouldn't be talked about.

Murphy: That's not what I'm asking. Will you disclose the amount of money publicly?

Hegseth: I would imagine, as part of the regular budget process, that's something that we would look at.

Murphy: And will you commit that the president will not take -

Hegseth: But you have to look at the classification level of certain things that are not devolved for reasons of national security.

Murphy: Will you commit that the president will not take this jet with him out of federal inventory when he leaves office?

Hegseth: That's not a decision for necessarily me to make. And ultimately, we're grateful to have it in the fleet for the Air Force to protect the president of the United States.

Murphy: That's a deeply unsatisfactory answer to the American public.