Sen. King CONFRONTS Hegseth Over Abandoning Ukraine And NATO Allies

追加: 2026-05-11

[00:00:01]Okay, so let me get this straight.

[00:00:03]The administration is asking for the biggest defense budget in American history.

[00:00:07]1.5 trillion dollars more than we spent at the peak of World War II and they're trying to push a quarter of it through a process that explicitly cuts Democrats out of oversight. Meanwhile, 400 million dollars that Congress already approved for Ukraine sat at the Pentagon for months, months. The only reason it finally got released, Mitch McConnell wrote in an op-ed. That's the system now. So, this past week, independent Senator Angus King sat across from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in a Senate Armed Services hearing and basically asked, "What is going on here? Why are you splitting this budget? Why is there nothing for Ukraine? Where's the 400 million Congress already approved?" And Hegseth's answers are uh something else.

[00:00:54]Watch this clip. Pay attention to how King calls it a slush fund right to Hegseth's face.

[00:01:00]If you're not subscribed yet, hit that button now so you don't miss the breakdown. Let's roll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've had a lot of discussion about Iran. I'd like to talk about several other aspects of the budget. The first is the way the budget's been constructed. Um ever since I've been here until last year, we've had bipartisan budgets and bipartisan National Defense Authorization Acts and uh 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.

[00:01:41]Uh Mr. Secretary, why not what all those items, the housing or Golden Dome, whatever, why aren't they in the in the regular budget? Why do we suddenly have a two-part budget where the this committee and the Congress generally has oversight and and and input to a process where a quarter of the budget is is essentially a slush fund.

[00:02:05]Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. I wouldn't characterize a quarter of it as a as a slush fund, but I recognize that we see it as a in totality as a $1.5 trillion budget.

[00:02:14]>> But why the separation? Why the two pieces? Multiple vehicle As you know, there are multiple dynamics that play into why there are multiple vehicles, but we are fully committed with working to the committee to ensure that the right vehicles are utilized to get precisely this amount, 1.5 trillion.

[00:02:29]>> 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.

[00:02:37]We've never In my knowledge, we've never used this reconciliation process for a defense budget before. What's What's What's going on? Why not 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.

[00:02:59]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 uh basically abdicating a quarter of our responsibility in terms of this budget.

[00:03:15]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. That's correct. There's no USAI funding in this budget.

[00:03:29]>> And there was 400 400 billion 400 million that was appropriated last year by a bipartisan bicameral act of Congress.

[00:03:38]What's become of that money? My understanding is not a dollar of it has been dispersed.

[00:03:46]It was released very recently, and and again, we got these funds, I believe, in March. Uh and it takes time for funds to flow through the department, uh, but it's going to get put to work very shortly. We're going to work with the EUCOM commander to make sure we use these funds in the most appropriate way possible.

[00:03:59]>> I didn't want Senator Sullivan to be the only one with an exhibit. Uh, this indicates what's happened to our support for Ukraine over a period of years. The orange bars are US support. Uh, the blue bars are Europe. As you see, Europe is 99% in the year 2026. Same thing with humanitarian and other aid aid uh, to Ukraine. And yet this is, uh, I believe an existential struggle for, uh, the future of democracy where we had an aggressive country invade a neighboring country without any justification whatsoever.

[00:04:33]And by the way, that invading country is the major winner so far of the war in Iran. Uh, they've gotten The estimates are 40 to 80 billion dollars of additional revenues from oil and the relief of sanctions as a result of the war in Iran.

[00:04:49]Uh, Secretary Hagel said, "Why are we abandoning Ukraine?"

[00:04:53]Senator, if if you would hold that chart back up, >> Yep. I I think that's a beautiful chart.

[00:04:59]I think that's exactly what we want.

[00:05:01]We want Europe stepping up and funding and shouldering the burden. They are rich countries worth 20 trillion versus economy of 2 trillion.

[00:05:09]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.

[00:05:19]If it's If it's that important to Europe, which I understand why it is in 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.

[00:05:30]>> 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?

[00:05:36]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.

[00:05:44]>> stepped up, but I think the American people should understand that we've stepped back, in fact, stepped 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.

[00:05:58]So far, it hasn't happened. Uh I'm out of time. I want to talk about DTOs, who designates, but we'll take that up later. Thank you, >> Thank you, Senator. All right. So, let's talk about what you just watched.

[00:06:09]Because if you felt like Hegseth was dodging that question, yeah, you're not crazy.

[00:06:14]Here's the actual math. The administration is asking for 1.5 trillion in defense. They're splitting it.

[00:06:22]1.15 trillion through normal appropriations, 350 billion through reconciliation.

[00:06:30]A partisan process that needs only a simple majority. No filibuster, no bipartisan negotiation. And what King said is the part that should land.

[00:06:40]For time immemorial, his words, defense budgets have been bipartisan. The Senate Armed Services Committee is famously one of the most cross-aisle committees in Congress. So, pulling 25% of the budget into a partisan vehicle isn't a procedural choice. It's a fundamental change in how the Pentagon answers to Congress. King called it, {quote} "abdicating a quarter of our responsibility." And he's right. Now, here's where it gets worse, because buried in this budget, and King flagged this himself, is something nobody else is talking about. Zero dollars for Ukraine. Zero.

[00:07:17]The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, the program that's been arming Ukraine since 2016, has no funding in the fiscal 2027 request.

[00:07:26]Pentagon Comptroller Jules Hurst confirmed it on the record. {quote} "That's correct. There's no USAI funding in this budget." And Hegseth's defense, he looked at King's chart showing Europe carrying 99% of recent Ukraine aid, and said, quote, "I think that's a beautiful chart. Beautiful." Said Europe should fund it because they're quote, "rich countries with 20 trillion in combined wealth." Okay. Cool. Except Russia just made 40 to 80 billion dollars in oil revenue off the Iran war alone. Iran ships them drones, North Korea ships them ammunition.

[00:08:02]And the US response is, "Eh, let Europe handle it." Now let's talk about the 400 million because this part is genuinely insane.

[00:08:11]Last year a bipartisan bicameral active Congress appropriated 400 million for Ukraine. Signed into law. Done. Paid for. King asked Hurst what happened to that money. His answer? Quote, "My understanding is not a dollar of it has been dispersed. Not a dollar."

[00:08:30]For months, the Pentagon got the funds back in March and just sat on them. And here's how it finally moved. On April 29th, former Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell Mitch McConnell published a Washington Post op-ed naming Under Secretary Elbridge Colby's office for quote, "stonewalling Senate appropriators." The very next day, the day of the hearing, Hegseth announces the funds are released. Released as of yesterday. What a coincidence. It's like getting pulled over and only stopping because the cop in the next lane is yelling at you. That's not enforcement.

[00:09:04]That's vibes. And let's zoom out for a second because King said something during this exchange that nobody's clipping. He called the war in Ukraine quote, "an existential struggle for the future of democracy." That's not partisan rhetoric. That's a guy who sits on Senate Armed Services saying out loud what most senators know but won't say.

[00:09:26]Russia invaded a neighbor without justification. Iran funds them.

[00:09:30]North Korea arms them. And the US says, "Hmm. Sounds like Europe's problem." And Hegseth's response when King pressed him on whether the US has any interest in Ukraine at all, quote, "The threat is far closer to rich and capable countries in Europe, and they should step up to lead the charge." Translation, not our problem.

[00:09:52]Which would be defensible if the US hadn't spent the last 80 years building the entire post-war world order on the premise that this kind of aggression has to be answered. You don't get to be the leader of the free world part-time. And the deepest issue here, the one King kept circling back to, is the structure itself. He called the reconciliation budget, quote, "Son of OCO." OCO was Overseas Contingency Operations, the post-9/11 account that was supposed to be a temporary Afghanistan supplemental.

[00:10:24]It lasted 20 years. 20. Every budget watchdog called it what it was, a slush fund, a way to dump spending outside oversight. And of last year's 152 billion in reconciliation defense funds, 10 months later, only 26 billion has been put on contract, 17%.

[00:10:46]So, they want 350 billion more on top of money they haven't even spent.

[00:10:51]So, here's the line. The biggest defense budget in American history, a quarter of it cut out of bipartisan review, zero for Ukraine in the request.

[00:11:00]400 million that sat for months until McConnell screamed about it. And Angus King, an independent who votes both sides, looked Pete Hegseth in the eye and said, "You're fooling the American people about what the defense budget is."

[00:11:14]He's right. That's the whole thing. If this helped, hit like, subscribe, share it with someone who needs the full picture. I'll see you in the next one.