Jill Tokuda SLAMS Pete Hegseth: Trump Over the Constitution?

追加: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]Explain that one to me. I am asking you a question now. You seem to really like Joe Biden. You've brought his name up more than many other topics today.

[00:00:09]Answer the question. Who are you beholden to, Mr. Secretary, the president or the Constitution?

[00:00:15]>> [laughter] >> Well, I'm very proud very proudly serve as president. I very proudly swear an oath to the Constitution.

[00:00:22]>> Los Angeles. He couldn't answer that either. So, I think our answer is very clear. Obviously, you have taken a load of loyalty only to the president and not the people of this country.

[00:00:31]Representative Jill Tokuda asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth one simple question. Who are you beholden to, the president or the Constitution? Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth refused to answer. Then she asked about nearly 200 children killed by an artificial intelligence targeting system. He had no real answer for that either. Stay right here. Versailles Treaty's armed enemies.

[00:00:53]Secretary Hegseth, do you think American voters are enemies of the United States?

[00:00:57]Simple yes or no will suffice.

[00:01:00]Um, I think legal voters I think everybody who's legal should vote. Yes.

[00:01:05]So, American voters are not enemies of the United States. Yes.

[00:01:09]You're agreeing with me. I think America's legal citizens should vote.

[00:01:12]Yes. How many armed enemies of the United States have attempted to interfere in the last election?

[00:01:19]Um, Can you recall any time when armed enemies of the United States attempted to fear in the last election or the 2020 election?

[00:01:27]We just had the King of England here.

[00:01:29]That It's a while ago, but >> Well, 250 years ago. Okay, very good.

[00:01:34]All right. Well, Secretary Hegseth, if President Trump ordered you to deploy troops to polling places during the midterm elections this fall, which would violate the law I just cited, would you implement his order? Yes or no?

[00:01:47]What you're trying to insinuate is that the president would give unlawful orders and we would somehow deploy troops as a result and the evidence of our department is that we've worked alongside law enforcement very effectively for 15 months.

[00:01:58]Los Angeles would have been on fire for the summer had we not come across our I I hope you disagree with that, but this is not a hypothetical situation that I'm inferring on your president in January of this year told the New York Times that he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in key states after the 2020 election.

[00:02:14]Last I heard from you, the last time we had any kind of armed enemies at any type of voting places was 250 years ago.

[00:02:21]We're talking 2020. So, if the president, again I'm asking you, orders you to break election law, violate the Constitution and the law, would you follow the orders of the president? Yes or no?

[00:02:32]The president You like to insinuate that the president issued illegal orders.

[00:02:35]>> question. Who would you follow, the president or the Constitution?

[00:02:39]>> that in 2024 troops were Joe Biden, by the way. Joe Biden were deployed to polling locations in 15 states. 2024, Joe Biden, troops deployed to polling locations in 15 states.

[00:02:50]Explain that one to me. I am asking you a question now. You seem to really like Joe Biden. You've brought his name up more than many other topics today.

[00:03:00]Answer the question. Who are you beholden to, Mr. Secretary, the president or the Constitution?

[00:03:06]>> [laughter] >> Well, I'm very proud very proudly serve as president. I very proudly swear an >> Angeles. He couldn't answer that either.

[00:03:12]So, I think our answer is very clear.

[00:03:13]Obviously, you have taken a load of loyalty only to the president and not the people of this country. Let's move on now and let's talk about AI. The Marvin Smart System, which appears to be the program on record being used in Iran, does the targeting work we know of about 2,000 people killed in It's called the Maven system, not the Marvin system.

[00:03:33]>> Excuse me. Thank you so much for that correction. It does it in a fraction of the time. The intention was to compress the kill chain and the result was an attack that killed almost 200 children.

[00:03:42]Would you agree that tragic actions like this prove that when we trade time and humans for safety, people die?

[00:03:55]Uh, the Maven system is a very effective tool.

[00:03:59]Uh, and inside that we use we have very prescriptive processes by which we ensure uh, as much precision as humanly possible in very complex battlefield environments.

[00:04:10]>> we took every absolute effort to make sure that innocent civilians did not die in this attack. I know that there is no country on planet Earth that takes more measures to ensure that civilian harm or civilian casualties are minimized than the United States of America and this war department and that is a fact in >> Okay, and yet uh, Mr. Secretary, you eliminated the department's civilian harm reduction staff.

[00:04:32]You eliminated for a country that doesn't takes great efforts makes great efforts to make sure human casualties are reduced or eliminated, don't you think that that goes actually counter to what you just said?

[00:04:45]Would these children not still be alive if you had not eliminated all of these staff working within CENTCOM?

[00:04:52]Um, we didn't eliminate them. We made sure that they those things that they normally accomplish are at the field level, which they are. And all of these processes are in place at every level.

[00:05:02]>> clearly has failed, whether it's our implementation of AI, whether it's understanding our human dependence on AI? Would you not agree something failed because almost 200 children died in Iran as a result of our bombing?

[00:05:16]Uh, you're you're insinuating something where an investigation is not complete.

[00:05:19]Generally, his time has expired. You're not recognized. Let us break this down carefully because Representative Jill Tokuda asked some of the most direct and most uncomfortable questions of this entire hearing. And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's refusal to answer them tells you everything you need to know.

[00:05:33]Representative Jill Tokuda started with something simple. She asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, do you think American voters are enemies of the United States? Simple question, yes or no? Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, I think legal voters I think everybody who is legal should vote. Representative Jill Tokuda pressed him. So, American voters are not enemies of the United States. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, yes, he agrees that legal citizens should vote. That answer took far longer than it should have. But Representative Jill Tokuda was using that question to set up something much more serious. She asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, can he recall any time when armed enemies of the United States attempted to interfere in the last election or the 2020 election? Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's response was to reference the King of England and events from 250 years ago. Representative Jill Tokuda said, very good and moved on because she was not asking about the Revolutionary War. She was asking about 2020. And then she asked the question that this entire setup was building toward.

[00:06:37]Representative Jill Tokuda looked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directly in the eye and asked if President Donald Trump ordered you to deploy troops to polling places during the midterm elections this fall, which would violate the law, would you implement that order?

[00:06:51]Yes or no? Now, let us be very clear about why this question matters so much.

[00:06:55]In January of this year, President Donald Trump told the New York Times that he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in key states after the 2020 election.

[00:07:07]That is not a hypothetical. That is a statement the sitting president of the United States made publicly about something he wishes he had done.

[00:07:17]So, Representative Jill Tokuda is not inventing a scenario. She is asking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, based on what the president himself has said, what would you do if he gave that order?

[00:07:29]Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth refused to answer directly. He said Representative Jill Tokuda was insinuating that the president would give unlawful orders. He brought up Los Angeles. He brought up law enforcement cooperation. Representative Jill Tokuda was not asking about Los Angeles. She asked the question again. If the president orders you to break election law, violate the Constitution, would you follow those orders? Yes or no? Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth again refused a direct answer. He said the president does not issue illegal orders.

[00:08:06]Representative Jill Tokuda then asked the most fundamental question possible.

[00:08:10]She said, who are you beholden to, Mr. Secretary, the president or the Constitution?

[00:08:17]Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth still would not give a direct answer. And Representative Jill Tokuda said what every person watching needed to hear.

[00:08:26]She said, if you cannot answer that question, then the answer is very clear.

[00:08:30]You have taken an oath of loyalty only to the people and not to the people of this country. Now, let us sit with that for a moment. The Secretary of Defense of the United States, asked directly whether he would follow the Constitution over the president, refused to say yes.

[00:08:45]That is not a small thing. Every member of the United States military, every government official, every cabinet secretary takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[00:08:57]Not the president, the Constitution. And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, given multiple opportunities in front of Congress on the record, would not clearly reaffirm that oath. Then Representative Jill Tokuda moved to the second major issue, artificial intelligence and civilian casualties.

[00:09:14]She asked about a targeting system called the Maven system, which appears to be the program being used in Iran to identify and process military targets.

[00:09:22]The Maven system uses artificial intelligence to compress what is called the kill chain, meaning the time between identifying a target and striking it.

[00:09:30]The intention is speed and precision.

[00:09:32]But Representative Jill Tokuda pointed out the result in one specific case, an attack that killed nearly 200 children.

[00:09:39]She asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directly, would he agree that this tragic outcome proves that when you trade time and human judgment for the speed of an automated system, people die? Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Maven system is a very effective tool and that the United States uses very prescriptive processes to ensure as much precision as humanly possible.

[00:10:02]Representative Jill Tokuda pushed back.

[00:10:04]She said, "So, you believe every absolute effort was made to make sure innocent civilians did not die in this attack?" Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, "No country on Earth takes more measures to minimize civilian casualties than the United States of America." And then Representative Jill Tokuda dropped the most important follow-up of her entire exchange. She said, "And yet, Mr. Secretary, you eliminated the department's civilian harm reduction staff. You eliminated it entirely."

[00:10:30]Think about what she is saying. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just claimed that the United States takes greater measures than any country on Earth to reduce civilian casualties. And in the same breath, he is sitting in front of a congresswoman who is pointing out that he eliminated the very team whose entire job was reducing civilian casualties.

[00:10:50]Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed back. He said they did not eliminate the staff. They moved those responsibilities to the field level. But Representative Jill Tokuda was not satisfied with that answer because the result speaks for itself. Nearly 200 children are dead.

[00:11:06]And she asked plainly, "Would those children still be alive if that civilian harm reduction staff had not been eliminated?" Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said an investigation is not yet complete and that she is insinuating something without evidence. But Representative Jill Tokuda's point stands. You cannot claim to be the world leader in protecting civilian lives while simultaneously eliminating the department dedicated to doing exactly that and then watch nearly 200 children die and call it a process question. That is not accountability. That is deflection. And then Representative Jill Tokuda's time expired. Here is what this exchange actually showed us. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether he would follow the Constitution over the president and he refused to say yes.

[00:11:52]Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked system that killed nearly 200 children represents a failure and he refused to say yes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether eliminating the civilian harm reduction staff contributed to those deaths and he refused to say yes. Three serious questions, three non-answers.

[00:12:11]Representative Jill Tokuda did her job in that room. She asked the questions the American people needed asked.

[00:12:18]Whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is doing his job is now a question the record and the American people will have to answer. Share this with someone who needs to understand what is happening in these hearing rooms. Leave your thoughts in the comments below and subscribe so you are here when we break down the next one.