Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
U.S.-Israel War with Iran; Strait of Hormuz Effectively Choked as Oil Prices Rise; UAE to Quit OPEC and OPEC+ This Week; SCOTUS Tosses Louisiana's Congressional Map; King Charles III to Visit 9/11 Memorial Today; Hegseth and Caine Face Questions on Defense Budget. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired April 29, 2026 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD with Becky Anderson.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Well, welcome back. This is the second hour of the show from our Middle East programming HQ here in Abu
Dhabi. I'm Becky Anderson.
The U.S. Defense Secretary and Joint Chiefs chair are in the hot seat in Congress for the first time since the start of the war with Iran. Hegseth
and Dan Caine will face questions from a House committee on the White House budget request, seeking $1.5 trillion in defense spending.
We're going to hear some of their testimony after it starts.
This coming after U.S. president Donald Trump referenced what he calls U.S. success in the war as he hosted Britain's King Charles at what was a lavish
state dinner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're doing a little Middle East work right now, two of you might know. And we're doing very well. We have militarily
defeated that particular opponent.
And we're never going to let that opponent ever -- Charles agrees with me even more than I do. We're never going to let that opponent have a nuclear
weapon. They know that and they've known it right now very powerfully.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, in the meantime, sources say that Pakistani mediators are expecting what would be a revised Iranian peace plan after president Trump
indicated he'd rejected an earlier version.
Well, the president today seemingly trolling Iran's leaders with this post on his social media website, saying Iran "can't get its act together,"
along with the words, "no more Mr. nice guy," as his AI-generated image holds a machine gun amid scenes of destruction.
While the world waits on negotiations, the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed with oil prices rising again even after the UAE
announced that it is leaving OPEC. We're CNN covering this story from all angles. Nic Robertson tracking diplomatic developments from Islamabad. Anna
Cooban is following key business impacts from London.
Nic, let's just start with you. Let's cut to the chase here.
Where do we stand on any new peace proposal and talks at this point?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: The next couple of days, that's the best indication. Pakistan's prime minister addressing the
cabinet today publicly. And I think this is perhaps either just a lie, their fears about what's happening and the potential slowness of the
process here.
Pakistan, of course, playing this key role as mediator but also perhaps a nudge to Iran saying that, when the foreign minister, who was here over the
weekend on this big diplomatic mission around the region, went to Russia as well, he said that the foreign minister said he would call him.
You know, the prime minister isn't giving us a timeline on that or his cabinet a timeline for that matter. But it's very clear president Trump
doesn't have that patience. That's no surprise to anyone. It's not clear if that's going to move the timeline up.
You know, a lot of concern being expressed both by the administration and in other places about, you know, how long it takes and how isolated the
supreme leader is in Iran, what that may do to the process and whether that's tactical.
Is Iran stringing this out?
All those questions come into play, which play into, again, to president Trump's wanting to get this done and done quickly.
ANDERSON: Let me bring in Anna.
Nic, I'm going to come back to you.
But Anna, Strait of Hormuz effectively choked off, closed to all intents and purposes, there are some vessels getting through.
[10:05:00]
But nothing like what was moving through that critical waterway eight weeks ago. We've seen oil prices rise again. We also have seen what was
significant use in the past 24 hours. The UAE pulling out of the oil cartel, OPEC.
What do you make of what you're seeing?
ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's you know, on any other day we're not having this conflict, I think you
would imagine that oil prices would be falling because what the UAE has effectively done is said, I don't want to be part of a cartel anymore.
I want to have more of a latitude to decide to pump out more oil, to increase global supply.
And so you would imagine you'd see oil prices fall. But that's not what's happening, because that is a longer term consequence of this. Right now it
doesn't really matter how much more you can be pumping out or producing if you can't get it out of the Strait of Hormuz onto the global market.
And that is at front and center right now for investors. We've seen reporting from "The Wall Street Journal" saying that Trump has instructed
aides to extend this blockade on ships going to and from Iranian ports.
And you're right there to talk about how there is just a trickle, a handful of ships getting through. We have data from Lloyd's List Intelligence
saying that, on any given ordinary month you have around 3,000 vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz.
Last month, you had 154. And that really is at the forefront of minds of investors right now, more so than what is happening with OPEC.
ANDERSON: I want to talk about this decision by the UAE and bring Nic back in on this.
I just spoke with Tariq al Otaiba on the UAE's move, Nic, and I think Anna's absolutely right. On any other day, you know, we would have probably
seen the markets the oil price move off, move lower off the back of this.
OPEC has been around for some 60 years. It's a cartel. It's a price-fixing group, ultimately, led by Saudi Arabia and has given Saudi Arabia, you
know, huge influence on the global scene over those last six decades.
I talked to Tareq Alotaiba about the UAE's move and the UAE's relationship with the kingdom. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAREQ ALOTAIBA, FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE, BELFER CENTER, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Yes, so again, it's no secret, since before the union of the
Emirates, there's been on-and-off disagreements with neighbors.
But the Gulf states have proven to be very resilient in terms of resolving those disagreements and coming back to a state that works. Clearly, there's
a disagreement in direction now in strategy.
The way I like to explain it is Saudi Arabia's approach is very monarchical. So it's risk-averse and it likes to preserve the status quo
and wait out the problems. And that strategy works in the long run.
The Emiratis' strategy is more entrepreneurial. If something doesn't work, they like to do something new and take more risks. And that also works for
the Emirates. I'm sure eventually there's going to be a balance that comes between both states.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: There are clear divisions between the UAE and Saudi Arabia, not least in how we get through this current situation. The Saudis very much
part of this effort behind the scenes to broker some deal in Islamabad, you know, pushing for de-escalation here. Perhaps that's, you know, less of a
story here in the UAE.
But two very different models, sort of, you know, revealing themselves here.
What are the consequences of this?
Let's call it a rift, shall we?
ROBERTSON: Yes. Look, we've seen the rift and it's got its traces when the UAE and Saudi Arabia were fighting initially the Houthis in Yemen. And
then, of course, then supporting different groups inside of Yemen; similarly, in Sudan.
And this is another expression of that, the timing of the announcement coming right, as crown prince Mohammed bin Salman was invited, was greeting
the leaders of the GCC, arriving in Jeddah yesterday for a meeting.
The timing, I think, for many people is not by accident. The messaging here really speaks to those tensions that have been growing and both countries
seem to want to go in different directions here.
You know, Saudi Arabia is supporting Pakistan in its mediation efforts. The UAE, over the past few weeks, pulled its more than $3 billion loan to
Pakistan at short notice. When Pakistan began this mediation process, Saudi Arabia stepped in to kind of fill that void, put more money into the
Pakistani coffers.
So even at that level, you see a difference. And that's widely interpreted here and through other things the UAE does and says, that the UAE is not as
supportive.
[10:10:04]
In fact, not supportive at all. The perception would here -- here would be of a -- of getting a deal between the United States and Iran. You know,
people express this, as you know, the UAE aligning itself here more closely, an extension of the Abraham Accords, aligning itself with Israel
and the United States.
It would probably please president Trump to see the OPEC cartel broken up. This is something he doesn't want to have to negotiate against, a powerful
oil bloc. So this is a step toward the United States where Saudi Arabia is aligning itself with its more regional partners here.
We're talking about Pakistan. We're talking about Egypt. We're talking about Turkiye. So the net effect, this is where the net effect goes to,
that you have these two powerful, rich, influential powers in the Gulf.
Neighbors with a deepening tension and pulling in different directions. And part of it -- or sped up by a consequence of this war. And how both see
different or want at the moment different paths to a peaceful, to an eventual outcome.
ANDERSON: Yes. I think it's fair to say that this entire region, of course, you know, wants to see beyond this conflict and ultimately wants an
end to it. How we get there and what a deal looks like at this point is where we are seeing that tension.
To both of you, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
Let's do more on this. This is, of course, a region that's been riven by conflict over the past couple of months.
So what happens next?
Joined now by retired Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson. She has nearly 40 years of experience in U.S. military and security roles, among them serving as
former Director of National Intelligence in U.S. Central Command. She joins us from Anaheim, California.
Also with us is CNN Politics senior reporter Stephen Collinson, good friend of the show. He joins us live today from Washington.
Good to have you both. Thank you.
Lt. Gen. Gibson, let me start with you. The U.S. now about two months into the war with Iran. This is the first time today that lawmakers will have
the chance to question some key decisionmakers in this conflict. We're talking about Dan Caine and Pete Hegseth.
What are you going to be listening out for?
LT. GEN. KAREN GIBSON (RET.), FORMER INTEL DIRECTOR, U.S. CENTCOM: Yes. So it's a fascinating -- it'll be a fascinating hearing, ostensibly to go over
line-by-line requests for the defense budget.
But really, as you've noted, the first opportunity for Congress to publicly grill them on the war itself, on the administration's strategy and even
perhaps on the secretary's management and leadership at the Pentagon.
I think they'll come in for some hard questioning. Obviously, they always do. But the war in particular is one that will draw a lot of attention.
What are the war aims?
What kind of progress has been made toward those?
What are the termination criteria?
What's the escalation risk and what are the knockon implications for readiness to fight in other areas?
There may also be some questions about the war's legality. Congress, per our Constitution, is supposed to declare war, although that actually hasn't
happened since the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
And then there again, I think, will be a lot of questions about military readiness and what this does and what needs to be rebuilt, which is very
tied to the budget.
ANDERSON: Stephen, we're at 60 days, give or take. For our international audience, give us a sense of the politics here.
What message do you believe Pete Hegseth will be looking to project to this congressional committee?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think that Hegseth's argument will be that this has been a huge success. The U.S. has
debilitated Iran's capacity to pose a threat to its neighbors, its missile program, its nuclear program.
I think that will be something that Democrats will really drill down with and try to debunk.
There's a very interesting report this morning in "The Wall Street Journal," which says that the president is preparing his cabinet for a long
blockade of Iran. That is something I think that's really going to get to the politics of this.
And it will be interesting to watch Republican members, who normally give the administration a fairly easy ride, to see whether they are concerned
about the political impact of a prolonged blockade. It doesn't look like this now is going to go quickly.
Remember when the administration was taking 4-6 weeks?
That busted timeline, I think, will question the credibility of what Pete Hegseth has to say on this.
[10:15:00]
But if this is a prolonged blockade that goes into July, August, that might be something that the president is prepared to bear in terms of high gas
prices, rising prices for other commodities for Americans, massive damage to the farming industry because they can't get fertilizer.
A lot of those Republicans, who are already looking at a really difficult midterm election and perhaps risk losing their jobs, they are not going to
be happy about something that lasts into the mid- or late summer. So that could be a sign in this hearing, one of the first signs, I think, of
concern about the political issue, which you asked about.
ANDERSON: Yes. And I note as this hearing begins -- and we will get to it as we hear from Pete Hegseth -- the oil prices are as follows: $104.75 or
there or thereabouts on WTI crude oil. That's the U.S. index. And the global benchmark Brent oil trading at around $116.75.
Those are significant numbers.
Lt. Gen. Gibson, this hearing focusing on the White House's suggested defense budget for next year, which is a huge increase in spending to some
$1.5 trillion overall. I just wonder what your reaction is to that number.
GIBSON: Yes. So I think, you know, there are experts who will have some positive things to say about it, as well as some concerns about the fiscal
sustainability and what it does in terms of the national debt.
You know, clearly, I think the war has exposed some genuine need to spend on additional Patriot interceptors, on theater high-altitude air defense
interceptors, long-range precision-strike munitions and a need to invest more heavily in the Navy and its ships and shipbuilding and in the Air
Force.
But there will be questions again about the broad range of things that this requests and whether there's strategically disciplined. To what extent does
it address China as a pacing threat?
Is it executable?
Is it fiscally sustainable?
And in terms of executability, if U.S. shipyards are already behind schedule in terms of building additional capabilities, then is there a
point to adding this much money to that until they are ready to execute additional orders?
Long lead-time items can't scale overnight, so there will be a lot of digging that will go on into the finer points of the budget, not
necessarily at this hearing per se, because this hearing is a very unique opportunity to grill them both on the progress of the war.
But there will be a lot of scrutiny of the budget that goes on with committee staffers and in some followon sessions.
ANDERSON: Stand by, both of you. I don't want you to go anywhere. It is a busy news day and I have got some news just coming in to CNN, which I want
to do with our next guest.
The U.S. Supreme Court has just released its latest opinions and they include a case involving voting rights and a redrawn congressional map in
the state of Louisiana. The justices threw out the state's map.
David Schultz is with us from Minnesota. He's a professor at Hamline University and an expert in U.S. constitutional law.
The court ruling that the 2024 map, which created a second majority Black district, was, and I quote here, an "unconstitutional racial gerrymander."
Can you just explain what we're seeing here?
And based on your read of the majority opinion, why?
PROF. DAVID SCHULTZ, U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT, HAMLINE UNIVERSITY: OK. The reason why is that the court has said in the past that the use of
race is subject to strict scrutiny, which means, except in some very, very narrow circumstances, considerations of race are not permitted.
However, the court did say that compliance with the Voting Rights Act could constitute a compelling governmental interest.
But here, what the court said is that, in the case of Louisiana, it did not withstand strict scrutiny because it said here that the use of race was
intentionally discriminatory and not required to create the second Black majority district.
This is a significant decision. It's a decision that continues in the path that we've seen for the last several years under the Roberts court, of a
gradually weakening of the Voting Rights Act in terms of undermining the creation of what we call majority minority seats. And this has potentially
a significant impact for the 2026 elections
ANDERSON: Now that's fascinating.
In her dissent, Justice Kagan writes, "This really lifts up the Voting Rights Act," saying, quote, "it ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing
this nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality."
[10:20:09]
She goes on to say, "I dissent then from this latest chapter and the majority is now completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act."
Your thoughts on what we've just heard?
SCHULTZ: I think there's a lot of accuracy to that statement there. Again, if we look at the whole purpose of the Voting Rights Act adopted in 1965,
it was really to address historic patterns in both representation and voting rights, discrimination against persons of color.
And the act had a tremendous impact, in fact, perhaps the most significant piece of voting rights legislation in American history in terms of
enfranchising and improving representation for persons of color.
But again, in the last few years, we've seen the court become ever more skeptical, both in the area of voting rights in terms of racial
considerations.
But in general, this kind of dovetails or goes along with the Roberts court in cases such as affirmative action and in other areas where it is
increasingly saying that that any considerations of race are just not permissible.
So Kagan's comment fits into this in terms of she's looking at it saying that, from her perspective, the Roberts court is backsliding on protections
against racial discrimination and undermining the very purpose of the Voting Rights Act and the success that it's had over what nearly, what,
over 60-year period, 70-year period, almost.
ANDERSON: You noted the influence this could have on the 2028 U.S. election.
Can you just explain a little further?
SCHULTZ: Well, first, I think it's going to have an impact on the 2026 elections already -- because we have our midterm elections here -- is that
we know that the variety of states -- Texas, California, Virginia, perhaps Florida -- have been gerrymandering.
Redrawing their district seats, district congressional lines to try to give an advantage to Republicans or Democrats, given the fact that the margins
are so tight in the House. And really the partisan control of the House is up for grabs.
This could affect the outcome, at least in Louisiana and maybe in other states in terms of how they draw their lines in the next few months,
especially affecting then potentially the elections in 2026, clearly getting down the line to 2028.
It'll affect the congressional elections there and the presidential. But I think the more immediate impact is right now with that Congress, House of
Representatives just so close, that shift of one or two seats like here could make the difference in terms of whether Democrats or Republicans
control.
ANDERSON: Good to have you, David. Thank you very much indeed.
We are going to take a very short break, folks. As I said, it is very busy and we are still keeping an eye on Dan Caine and Pete Hegseth on the Hill
in front of that committee, speaking to defense budgets. Going to do more on that.
Coming up, the $1.5 trillion question is what's at stake. U.S. Defense Secretary facing a grilling on Capitol Hill this hour about that giant
military budget request. More after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:25:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: King Charles and Queen Camilla getting ready to travel to New York City today. They plan to visit the 9/11 Memorial as part of their
historic U.S. trip. The New York leg follows the king's address to Congress on Tuesday, marking only the second time a British monarch has spoken
before the chamber.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES III, KING OF THE U.K.: American leadership helped rebuild a shattered continent, playing a decisive role as a defender of freedom in
Europe. We and I shall never forget that, nor least, not least as freedom is again under attack following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, this was -- CNN's royal correspondent Max Foster following the royal visit for us.
And, Max, this was a trip or is a trip to celebrate or at least mark the 250 years of U.S. independence, full of pomp and ceremony speeches, suppers
over the past, what, 48 hours.
But humor thrown in?
Just walk us through the key takeaways from the visit today.
MAX FOSTER, CNN LONDON CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was interesting. I think yesterday, King Charles, you know, it was a punchy piece of writing and
delivery. I think he almost emerged as a defender of the transatlantic alliance. I mean, he was talking about how the British legal system helped
create the American legal system.
But perhaps we're going in our own separate ways at the moment and really giving warnings about that. He joked about it at times as well. If I play
you this moment, caught a few people's attention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES III: You recently commented, Mr. President, that, if it were not for the United States, European countries would be speaking German.
Dare I say that, if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking French?
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: President Macron today, responding to that, simply saying that would be chic.
But I think, you know, as a serious point behind that, whilst he was there representing the U.K., he ended up representing all of Europe and saying
that the European-U.S. alliance is vital for world security; don't let that go.
ANDERSON: So what can we expect from today's leg in New York?
FOSTER: Well, New York will be busier and it will be involve more people. But it'll start on a very serious note at the 9/11 Memorial and paying
respect to all the people that that died there and meeting some local officials, including Mayor Mamdani there as well.
I think, you know, he spoke to Afghanistan in his speech yesterday, which was interesting because president Trump --
You know, there were members of Parliament, as you know, Becky, in the U.K., who didn't want this trip to go ahead, one of the main reasons for
that was that president Trump said that British troops held back in Afghanistan after 9/11 and that caused a huge amount of offense.
And, the king was very clear to talk about how Britain supported America in Afghanistan. And today, I think there are optics of that. We're shoulder to
shoulder with America in that moment after 9/11, really emphasizing how Britain has always supported the United States.
And there will also be a cultural event later on showing how much British culture has played into New York culture. But he'll also head up to Harlem,
where he's going to meet community groups.
And I think there are possibilities, Becky, for walkabouts in New York, depending on the security after Saturday night. But I think we're going to
get a sense of how Americans feel about the couple and actually how that speech went down yesterday.
ANDERSON: Yes. Good. All right, Max, thank you for that.
Max is in D.C., where the time is just before 10:30. It is just before 6:30 here from our Middle East broadcasting headquarters. I'm Becky Anderson.
You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD.
Still to come, America's top military official sat in the hot seat this hour, facing lawmakers in Congress for the first time since the start of
the Iran war. More on that after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:30:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON (voice-over): Welcome back. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD with me, Becky Anderson. Here are your headlines.
Despite speculation, the United Arab Emirates says it is not considering leaving any other major groups after exiting OPEC.
But a UAE official tells CNN the country is, quote, "revising the relevance and utility of its role and contribution across the board."
Sources say Pakistani mediators are expecting a revised Iranian peace plan after U.S. president Donald Trump indicated he'd reject an earlier version.
Those sources say negotiations are going slowly because of the difficulty in communicating with supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei, whose location is
being kept secret.
Britain's King Charles and Queen Camilla are traveling to New York today. They plan to visit the 9/11 Memorial as part of their historic U.S. trip.
The New York leg follows the king's address to Congress on Tuesday, marking only the second time a British monarch has spoken before the chamber.
ANDERSON: Well, Kevin Warsh is one step closer to becoming the next chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve. The Senate Banking Committee has just
voted to advance his nomination. The full Senate will now vote on it but we don't yet know when that will happen. Jerome Powell's four-year term
expires on May the 15th.
Well, back to our top story this hour, which is on Capitol Hill. U.S. Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, and the Joint Chiefs chairman, Dan Caine,
both testifying before the House Armed Services Committee today.
Hegseth began delivering opening remarks to lawmakers just moments ago. It is their first public appearance before Congress since the war with Iran
began more than two months ago. Back with us, our CNN Politics senior reporter Stephen Collinson and retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson.
Good to have you both back.
Stephen, Hegseth has bristled before when being asked questions during Pentagon briefings.
What do we expect to see from him today when responding to lawmakers' questions/grilling?
(LAUGHTER)
COLLINSON: I think it's going to get very contentious. Hegseth just started off his speech to the committee. And he said that the Iran war had
been an incredible success. And the biggest threat to it continuing to succeed was what he called the reckless opposition of Democrats and some
Republicans.
So I think that will set the tone when the Defense Secretary gets all sorts of questions, not just about the strategy of the war going forward but
incidents like that missile strike on an Iranian school, which the Pentagon has not been completely forthcoming about in the eyes of many Democrats.
So always these hearings are notable for grandstanding. Lawmakers try to get there themselves some publicity.
[10:35:00]
Hegseth, of course, will be testifying in the knowledge that he has one real client in this, in his eyes, I should think, at least, the president
of the United States. And his job relies on the president and he has been the most loyal and forceful advocate of this war alongside president Trump.
So you're not going to see any quarter given by Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary.
ANDERSON: But there are a lot of very serious questions about where this war is going. And again, look out for some of the Republican House members.
While they are unlikely to come out and criticize the president for starting the war, there is real worry, I think, about how the United States
gets out of this.
ANDERSON: Lt. Gen. Gibson, I want to get your experience and expertise here. Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs chairman, has just started his opening
remarks.
What do you expect we might hear from him?
And what is your read on where things stand right now with Iran?
GIBSON: Certainly. So I think I would also second what Stephen said. You know, when the secretary speaks, these are political statements by a
politically appointed person.
But when a chairman speaks, you should get an apolitical, objective, fact- and-experience-based assessment of how the campaign is going. And I think there's no doubt that the U.S. military has executed all missions
associated with this campaign with tremendous professionalism, competence and bravery.
But success on the battlefield doesn't automatically equate to strategic victory. And I think that's the real challenge here. And so he may be asked
how these battlefield successes tie to a broader strategy.
What concerns did he raise at the beginning?
Did he agree with this campaign?
What kind of misgivings might he have or have raised?
They'll probably try to put him in a tight spot as well. But really, most of the very tough questioning will be devoted to the secretary himself.
ANDERSON: Yes.
Stephen, they will likely both take questions about this massive $1.5 trillion defense proposal. We spoke just before the break about this. The
lieutenant general suggesting, you know, that there is -- there will be some very good arguments, likely, for this significant increase in the
defense budget.
How much pushback are you hearing on Capitol Hill, even within the president's own party, when you look at a number like this?
COLLINSON: Yes. And it's worth remembering that the president can ask for what he wants in terms of budgets for defense and everything else. But it
comes down to what they can get through the Congress.
And you have many Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate who have their own views on exactly how much the military should have and,
indeed, on what it would spend.
I think one urgent matter for the Congress is the fact that they're going to have to backfill a lot of the hardware and technology, missiles, drones,
et cetera, that have been used in this conflict and that are being pulled from other areas of operation, notably in the Pacific and even from some
NATO allies in the Baltic states.
So that is going to be something, I think, that will really concern a lot of these members, not just the expansive requests from the Pentagon for new
systems but actually trying to replenish what the United States has been using at a big rate so far. That's going to be a key question.
I think it will be interesting to hear what they say about Navy procurement. This new line of massive warships that Donald Trump has
demanded, a multibillion-dollar program. A lot of people in Congress are very skeptical that that is something, especially in the light of this war,
that the Navy needs or should be spending its limited cash on.
Because for operational reasons, is that really what the armed forces need?
Or is that some kind of cosmetic show of power that the president wants?
That program, I think, is going to be the subject of real infighting, not just right now but that's a multi-year project that will span probably
several administrations. And that will be something to look out for.
ANDERSON: Lt. Gen. Gibson, I mean, let's just, just pause for a moment on the number. There's an awful lot of zeros in that number. This would be the
largest defense budget in modern history. It is forward-looking, of course. It's for 2027.
Do you see that as necessary or having some merit, given the current threat environment?
[10:40:08]
GIBSON: Those are great questions. Of course, I have not had the opportunity to dig through the budget line by line. I think I would
characterize it as strategically understandable. You know, there are genuine shortages of munitions, ships, missile defenses and counter-drone
capabilities.
Operationally, difficult; it needs to be more than just an amalgamation of war needs from this current conflict. And it needs to be tied to a strategy
and prioritized.
And we've mentioned in the previous segment that some of these long lead- time items might not be -- it might not be the time for those in this budget. Fiscally, it's controversial.
And there will be a lot of folks who are asking, because of all those zeros, is this really what we're cutting health care for?
And then politically vulnerable.
ANDERSON: To both of you, stand by. The opening remarks have finished. And so these two gentlemen are taking questions now from lawmakers. Let's
listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
HEGSETH: Coming into this position, we fell in on a lot of the reforms you and this committee have been advocating for for a long time, looking for
somebody that was willing to run with them. And our department have run with those.
And that reconciliation bill last year was kind of the rocket fuel to initiate president Trump's priorities in this department. So we fell in on
a department that was focused on a lot of the wrong things, going in the wrong direction.
And with reconciliation, we were able to put, you know, 22 billion in shipbuilding. 22 billion into Golden Dome, 25 billion into munitions,
establish drone dominance, which we're continuing to do to this day and this next budget funds.
So getting in front of that budget cycle, which had been notoriously unpredictable out of -- coming out of the continuing resolution of FY '25,
to fund this and then a bill, a historic bill in FY '26, laid the groundwork for this historic budget to ensure that we're not coming at a
cold start here.
We came into this administration. Reconciliation was a beautiful tool. We were able to use that through that one big, beautiful bill to fund the
priorities of this department. We spent on -- 4 billion on barracks, started immediately getting after the quality of life of barracks because
of the austerity of the Biden administration.
We traded off of maintenance, traded off of quality of life to try to fund other things operationally. This budget stops that cycle and both invests
in sustainment and modernization, which is -- which is something that's critically important.
So without that reconciliation bill, I think, Mr. Chairman, we'd be in a very different place. So thank you for that.
REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-AL), CHAIR, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Great. Well, as you are aware, the expansion of the defense industrial base is the
principal focus of this year's NDAA.
So in addition to enacting this budget request that's been submitted, we want to work with you to enhance the department's statutory authorities to
improve the capacity of our DIB.
What additional changes in law, such as the additional multiyear block-buy authority, would you recommend that we pursue in this year's NDAA?
HEGSETH: Few aspects of the acquisition transition, transformation that's been undertaken by undersecretary Duffy in acquisitions and sustainment. So
there are some aspects of that we'd like to codify even more.
But you mentioned it. Multiyear procurement is incredibly important and one of the most important parts of this bill. When this committee and this
Congress funds those things, companies are already breaking ground on tens of billions of dollars of new plants.
You name the -- we've got 14 in our ammunition council that we're focusing on, certain ammunitions are 14 that are critical. You know, PAC-3s, SM-3s,
SM-6s, THAADs, Patriots, Tomahawks, AMRAAMs, JASMs, you name it, PrSMs, you name them.
We were building of it too slow and too low a level. Now the companies are going to pay for those factories and those production lines. And when
you're -- when Congress gives those 5-7 year demand signals, they'll then fund not just, hey, can we get 10 more per month but can we 2x, 3x, 4 the
production?
pay for it now. And the companies invest accordingly. So it's been a critical aspect of some of what we've done so far but we need more of those
5-7 year investments.
ROGERS: Great.
General Caine, what does the $1.5 trillion budget mean for the warfighter and our ability to project forces and secure our interests around the
globe?
GEN. DAN CAINE, CHAIRMAN, U.S. JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Chairman. you know, in my in my view, this represents a historic down payment on future
security if the budget is approved and ultimately deployed.
As we look at the character of warfare changing very, very fast, what's layered into this budget by our civilian leaders will allow us to start
getting ahead of where technology is evolving. And as I mentioned, the character of warfighting is changing pretty quickly.
[10:45:00]
Mass simultaneity, autonomy, undersea, space, cyber information, all of those ways that are now manifesting themselves on the battlefields around
the world require a higher end of capital investment.
And that's why we're grateful for the opportunity to have this budget make its way to the joint force. So it's an important down payment on the future
here, sir.
ROGERS: Great. Thank you.
CAINE: Thank you, sir.
ROGERS: With that, I yield to the ranking member for any questions he may have.
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA), RANKING MEMBER, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Thank you.
Mr. Hurst, drag you into the conversation here. We have not yet received from the Pentagon the costs of the war. so just for the record, we'd like
to get that as soon as possible.
Certainly the munitions expended, but also underreported is we've had a fair amount of equipment destroyed, including two C-130s with the rescue of
our downed airmen.
So do you have either a cost estimate coming to us anytime soon or be a specific supplemental request?
JULES HURST, ACTING COMPTROLLER, PENTAGON: Thank you for that question. So approximately at this day we're spending about $25 billion on Operation
Epic Fury. Most of that is munitions. There's part of that it's obviously O&M and equipment replacement.
We will formulate a supplemental through the White House that will come to Congress once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict.
SMITH: So you're saying the full cost at this point is $25 billion.
HURST: Yes, that's our estimate for the cost.
SMITH: OK, interesting, because we -- I'm glad you answered that question, because we've been asking for a hell of a long time and no one's given us
the number. So if you could get those details over to us, that, that would be great.
Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the nuclear aspect of Iran and the war. It is worth noting that every president prior to this one, including President
Trump in his first term, also prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without actually having to go to war in Iran.
So we need to keep that in mind. but also, since the war started, Iran's nuclear arsenal has not been weakened in any way. And at the moment in
negotiations, what Iran is saying, basically pay us to open up the strait. That's their position, which is completely untenable. I agree.
It's worth noting, of course, that the strait was opened before the war started and now we're negotiating to get back to status quo. And Iran's
most recent offer is to say we'll talk about nukes later.
So what is the plan to actually turn all of this lethal kinetic action into an improvement in the nuclear situation?
Because we haven't gotten there yet. Play it out for us.
How does that happen?
How does it actually lead to that result?
HEGSETH: Well, I would take issue with the premise of the question that nothing was done. Operation Midnight Hammer was a very effective --
SMITH: I didn't say nothing was done. I said in this war --
HEGSETH: ultimately --
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: well, this is -- this -- under this administration, unlike other administrations which cut bad deals and pallets of cash with no ability to
oversee whether Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear program.
So we're --
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: -- litigate JCPOA or the Iran deal. Our view, the president's view is that was a very bad deal.
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: It gave them a bunch of money upfront the future. The fund -- you talked about negotiated deals funded -- allowed them to fund their proxies
and spread Hamas and Hezbollah all around the region, build up nuclear capabilities.
SMITH: What are we going to do?
HEGSETH: President Trump has been clear-eyed, from the killing of Qasem Soleimani to the pulling out of the Iran deal to Midnight Hammer and now to
this effort to recognize that you have to stare down this kind of enemy who's hell bent on getting a nuclear weapon.
And get them to a point where they're at the table giving it up in a way that they never have it.
SMITH: So they haven't broken yet. OK, we haven't gotten there yet. For all of the --
HEGSETH: Their nuclear facilities have been obliterated. Underground, they're buried and watching --
SMITH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
HEGSETH: So we know where any nuclear material --
SMITH: Reclaiming my time. We're watching every second here.
We had to start this war, you just said, 60 days ago because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat.
Now you're saying that it was completely obliterated?
HEGSETH: They had not given up their nuclear ambitions and they had a conventional shield of thousands of --
SMITH: So Operation Midnight Hammer accomplished nothing of substance. It left us at exactly the same place we were before. So much so that we had to
start a war.
HEGSETH: Their facilities were bombed and obliterated, their ambitions continued and they're building a conventional shield --
SMITH: All right. Let me try again.
HEGSETH: It's the North Korea strategy. You know this very well. The North Korea strategy was use conventional missiles to prevent anybody from
challenging them so they could slow walk their way to a weapon. President Trump saw Iran at its weakest moment, took an action to ensure in a way
that only the United States of America could do with our Israeli partners to ensure --
SMITH: And yet, they still haven't given up their nuclear. All right.
HEGSETH: -- was brought to --
SMITH: All right. One other question. If I could get to it. So on Ukraine, a year plus ago, your advice, the president's advice was Ukraine had no
cards to play. They should go -- cut the best possible deal they could. Clearly that was wrong. What did you miss?
What did you miss about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine that you didn't see that Ukraine was going to be capable of doing what they've done
in the last 14 months?
[10:50:04]
HEGSETH: Well, we didn't miss and we're hearing this committee is that Joe Biden with no accountability gave hundreds of billions of dollars of our
weapons to Ukraine to an outcome that never would have happened if President Trump was president.
SMITH: So you're not going to answer the question.
HEGSETH: So he pulled out our -- you guys don't talk about that. Ultimately, President Trump believes there should be a peace deal between
Russia and Ukraine that --
SMITH: But you didn't expect Ukraine to be where they're at right now. I'm asking you just from a strategic standpoint what do you --
HEGSETH: I think the Ukrainians have shown great courage and I appreciate that Europe is now paying for the weapons -- any weapons that we provide.
SMITH: All right. I yield back. Thank you.
ROGERS: All right. Now I want to remind everybody, everybody wants to get their questions. So we are going to be sticking strictly to the five-minute
rule today.
So with that, I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
REP. JOE WILSON (R-SC): Thank you, Chairman Mike Rogers, for your leadership working with President Donald Trump.
As the grateful father of four sons who served overseas in Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan, I especially appreciate War Secretary Hegseth and Chief of
Staff Caine for your competence, service and success.
Military families have never been more appreciated than today. And our enemies of dictators now understand peace through strength. Dictators
historically are on the run.
With your leadership, President Trump has given Syria a chance, with President Al-Shawar (sic) replacing dictator Assad from Damascus, who now
lives in Moscow.
Dictator Maduro is correctly in a Manhattan jail, as you successfully revealed in Caracas that the war criminal Putin air defenses do not work.
The Chinese Communist Party radar failed and Cuban mercenaries were expendable.
The Cuban dictatorship is failing and the ultimate mass murderer. Dictator Khomeini is dead in Tehran -- Iran, joining the 3,500 people he murdered
this year.
With your leadership, American morale has never been higher and hopes for freedom of the oppressed people of Iran, Cuba, Russia and China have never
been higher. And it's just an exciting time to be here with you. And Mr. Secretary, we continue to see the growing nuclear threat of our adversaries
as they expand their capabilities with the largest military buildup in peacetime in world history by the Chinese Communist Party.
How critical is it that we continue as at the Savannah River site in South Carolina to develop the plutonium pit processing so that we have
modernization?
HEGSETH: Well, Congressman, I appreciate that question on nuclear modernization. This budget funds $71 billion to modernize the triad in ways
that we had neglected to do. And our nuclear triad underwrites everything.
But I really appreciate your opening statement. I think something that obviously the media doesn't want to cover and doesn't want to talk about is
the historic record-breaking surge in recruiting in our ranks.
Thirty-year record in recruiting of Americans wanting to join our joint force, wanting to put the uniform on. We're meeting recruiting goals
halfway through the year. We couldn't meet our recruiting goals under the previous administration.
Under Joe Biden, Americans didn't want to join the military. We couldn't get it. Now we have to turn people away and push them to the next fiscal
year. That's why this budget grows our force by almost 50,000, ultimately. Additional troops into the force that we believe we can recruit. That's the
best vote of confidence I can imagine.
WILSON: Well, hey, even better -- hey, Mr. Secretary, you're really understating, leaving, leaving no airmen behind. What an inspiration on
Easter Day. God bless you all and what you've achieved.
With that in mind to General Caine, with your VMI military perspective, war criminal Putin is losing in Ukraine as his 30-day special mission is now
four years of as the secretary has identified courageous Ukrainian success led by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
I appreciate that NATO and the E.U. have unified for Ukraine as the U.S. ranked 17th per GDP in assistance for Ukraine.
Ukraine is front line stopping war criminal Putin from resurrecting the failed Soviet Union, rigging elections in Belarus, invading Ukraine,
keeping troops in Moldova and with the invites really invading and rigging elections in the Republic of Georgia.
As we're transitioning greater responsibility to our NATO allies, how do we ensure seamless integration to deterrence during this shift?
CAINE: Congressman, we're very fortunate to have great leaders out in the European theater right now.
General Grynkewich and his leadership team are committed to ensuring that that integration and transition takes place in a most combat capable and
effective way. Very entrepreneurial leaders out there across the components and with General Grynkewich and he's doing a great job out there as the
committee knows.
[10:55:00]
WILSON: And indeed, as we conclude, historically, President Trump, Mr. Secretary, General, you have united the Middle East nations unprecedented
to ally with the United States. You have united Latin America unprecedented to ally with the United States.
You've united the Indo-Pacific unprecedented to ally with the United States and united NATO and E.U. unprecedented to ally with the United States.
You're achieving peace and deterrence through strength.
I yield back.
ROGERS: The gentleman yields back. Chair now I recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
REP. JOE COURTNEY (D-CT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary and General Caine, this morning's Wall Street Journal's lead headline reads, quote, "Trump tells aides to prepare for an extended
blockade of Iran." It goes on to describe, again, the thinking behind the strategy but also talks about how prolonging the blockade is going to
continue to drive up energy costs all over the world.
Given the ever-changing messages from this administration on the war strategy and timeline, I really honestly don't expect you to confirm or
deny the journal's story. But one thing is clear. The number of transits across the Strait of Hormuz has dropped to the lowest level since the war
began.
And commodity markets have stopped listening to the happy talk. And crude oil prices this morning have risen to the highest level since the war in
Ukraine started in 2022.
AAA reported this morning that the average price of gas is $4.30 a gallon, up $0.30 in one week. Diesel's average is $5.45.
My friend, Mr. Garamendi, says, in California, it's closer to $8 a gallon. And fertilizer prices have also hammered farmers at exactly the same time
they're beginning planting all across the country.
Aside from the damage this war has done to American consumers, farmers and small businesses, I want to focus for a minute on the cost of the war and
our military readiness, particularly to other combatant commands.
Mr. Secretary, you put out a national defense strategy in January which listed the threat assessment facing our country. China was number one with
the second largest, most powerful military in the world, of course.
Russia's nuclear force clearly was number two in terms of the threat they posed to the homeland. North Korea, which has missiles that actually can
reach U.S. territory, was ranked number three.
And Iran was described as, quote -- and accurately, after Midnight Hammer, that Iran's regime is "weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in
decades."
Again, this was before February 28th when the decision was made to go into the military strikes on Iran.
ANDERSON: All right. So Pete Hegseth and Dan Caine taking questions from lawmakers on the Hill for the first time since the Iran war began. The
focus of this hearing slated to be a discussion of the administration's proposed 2027 defense budget, a cool $1.5 trillion.
A number of questions coming in. Perhaps the most important, Hegseth asked what had changed in terms of Iran's nuclear program over the last eight
weeks. He didn't directly address nor answer that question. It continues. We will continue to monitor.
That's it, though, from my team with me here on CONNECT THE WORLD from Abu Dhabi. Stay with CNN. "ONE WORLD" is up next.
[11:00:00]
END
