Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine Testify on Capitol Hill; Comey to Surrender at Federal Court in Virginia Today. Aired 12:30-1p ET
Aired April 29, 2026 - 12:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:31:44]
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Live look at Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth testifying in front of Congress for the first time since the start of the Iran War. And he set the tone early in his opening remarks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of Congressional Democrats and some Republicans, two months in -- I remind you, two months in to a conflict. Lest I remind you and my generation understands how long we were in Iraq, how long we were in Afghanistan, how long we were in Vietnam.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: And I want to play another exchange that just happened between the secretary and Democratic Congressman, Ro Khanna.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RO KHANNA, (D-CA): You're saying it's a got you question to ask what it's going to be in terms of the increase --
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: Why won't you ask what it cost you to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb?
KHANNA: I give you that, sir, but let me --
HEGSETH: What would it cost? What would you pay to ensure Iran doesn't get a nuclear bomb?
KHANNA: But can you -- do you --
HEGSETH: What would pay?
KHANNA: I reclaim my time. Do you not know? You had no one do the analysis of what the increased cost of gas and food on the American people are going to be?
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: What is the cost of Iran holding that Strait at issue with nuclear weapons?
(CROSSTALK)
KHANNA: Let me give you the number. It's $631 billion which means it's an increase of $5,000 a year for American households. Now, let me give you this point. You're saying that your operation is preventing a nuclear Iran. Will you acknowledge that there is an economic cost to the American people for doing what you believe is necessary to make Iran de-nuclear? Will you acknowledge the economic cost?
HEGSETH: We have an incredible economic team that's managing this better than --
KHANNA: Yeah. But --
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: -- what the previous administration did to our economy.
(CROSSTALK)
KHANNA: But, do you acknowledge that that -- do you acknowledge there is a cost?
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: What the previous administration did with inflation.
(CROSSTALK)
KHANNA: You don't even know what the -- you know what is upsetting? I reclaim my time.
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: What the previous administration did with COVID? And you are going to lecture this administration about the economy?
KHANNA: You know what is upsetting to me?
HEGSETH: Incredible.
KHANNA: You didn't even do the analysis on how much it is costing the American people. It's one thing if you said, OK, cost the American people $5,000, but we think it's worth it. That's what we've done in World War II and other wars. Here's what it costs, you got to pay for it. You don't even know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: My panel is back. Jamie, it's an interesting exchange there, particularly the secretary saying what will it cost if, you know, Americans should mean what may want -- you have to pay this more amount at the grocery store, at the gas station to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The question is, do Americans want to do that.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. So there's all kinds of pain here and one of them is economic pain, just not -- you know, not just in the United States, but around the world. But can we just go back a minute to his blaming Democratic lawmakers and saying that they are the biggest adversary.
I think it's fair to say Iran is the adversary here. And the problem that they're facing is there is no clear end in sight right now and the Strait of Hormuz did not open naturally. It is closed. The Iranians may be divided. They may be fractured, but they apparently have a tremendous capacity for pain. They think that time is on their side and it takes two to stop a war, and the other guys have a vote.
[12:35:00]
RAJU: Yeah, and we had not heard really, you know, in the run-up to the war, there was not a big drumbeat running up to war. There was not a public sales pitch about why we need to do this, why, how much it will cost the American public. And this is the first time they're testifying in public since the war began, which is also very remarkable here.
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: No, absolutely. I mean, Hegseth is just incredibly combative and defensive right now, partly I would say that he recognizes, you know, who's watching him, which is the president of the United States, and he loves that type of attitude and rhetoric.
It's the same thing we've seen with Hegseth in all of these Pentagon briefings for the last two months now. This is the thing, I want to specify what he was saying about timeline.
RAJU: I'm going to actually break in right now because we're -- he's actually -- we're going to listen to an exchange he's having right now with a Democratic congressman.
REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN, (D-PA): So I will move on, sir, and I'm going to reclaim my time.
General George, let's talk about a guy who's a patriot, somebody who every single person here in this dais and down there in that audience and out there in this world has huge admiration for. Why did he get fired?
HEGSETH: Well, as with any moves we make with general officers, first of all, I thank them for their service and ultimately --
HOULAHAN: My impression is you thanked him by a text or a phone call. You didn't even do it to his face.
HEGSETH: Out of respect for these officers, we never talk about the nature of their removal, but every one of them, including myself, knows that they serve at the pleasure of the president.
HOULAHAN: So, why did you fire him?
HEGSETH: Ultimately, out of respect to these officers, we don't reveal it. However, I will note, it's very difficult to change the culture of a department that has been destroyed by the wrong perspectives with the officers that were there..
(CROSSTALK)
HOULAHAN: So you say General George destroyed a culture?
HEGSETH: There are many -- we've gotten rid of many general officers in this administration because we need new leadership.
(CROSSTALK)
HOULAHAN: You have no answer, sir. You have no way of explaining why you fired one of the most decorated and remarkable men who's ever served in this nation.
HEGSETH: We needed new leadership. That's my answer.
HOULAHAN: And so your answer is a very immature way of responding to my request. My next question has to do with my remaining time about the fact that there apparently are orders that you've recently given to the Navy to detail officers to command billets in special operations where they, the people who you're detailing, have already received bad performance reviews. They've received negative fitness reports.
Is there a truth to that statement, sir?
HEGSETH: I'm not aware of what you're referring to.
HOULAHAN: Have you ever ordered the Navy to add officers who never screened for special operations major command to the promotion list for flag officer?
HEGSETH: I'm not aware of what you're referring to.
HOULAHAN: All right. I'll take that for a no. Thank you. I yield.
REP. MIKE ROGERS, (R-MI) CHAIRMAN OF ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Gentle lady yields back. For everybody, situational awareness is my plan at one o'clock or approximately one o'clock to recess for about 10 minutes to give the witnesses a chance to stretch their legs and visit the restroom if necessary. But with that, we will now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gimenez.
REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ, (R-FL) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Secretary, are you aware that Iran either through our intelligence or they themselves said they had about 500 kilograms of enriched uranium up to about 60 percent?
HEGSETH: We're aware of what they have or what they believe they have and what we know they have, but all of that is classified.
GIMENEZ: Fair enough. And if indeed they had 500 kilograms of enriched uranium, how long would it take to take it to weapons grade?
HEGSETH: Quickly enough that it's a serious national security problem for the United States of America and should be dealt with.
(CROSSTALK)
GIMENEZ: If I said days or a few weeks, would that be inaccurate?
HEGSETH: You might be somewhere in the ballpark.
GIMENEZ: OK. Thank you. Actually, you can just get that from ChatGPT. It'll give it to you. OK. So it's not that classified. All right.
Would you say that our primary mission in this war is to deny Iran the capability to develop a nuclear weapon?
HEGSETH: Yes.
GIMENEZ: And would you say that a regime that's capable of killing 35,000 of its own people within a two-day period, are they capable, if they had the delivery systems, to carry out their threat to destroy Israel and also to harm the United States of America?
HEGSETH: Any regime willing to kill 35,000, and we think it might be more, 45,000 of their own citizens in cold blood, would most certainly be willing to use the most dangerous weapon in the world, especially as history teaches us, when a nation says they will do something, you ought to listen.
And when they chant death to America or death to Israel, if they got that nuclear weapon, history tells us they might use it.
GIMENEZ: Well, Hitler said he was going to kill the Jewish, and he was going to try to eliminate the Jewish population and Jews from the face of the world. Nobody really believed him, but he really tried to do that. So when somebody tells me for 47 years that they want to kill us, I think I'm going to take them at their word.
And so, would you also agree that, now, another goal of ours is to make sure that Iran never blockades the Strait of Hormuz, never has control of the Strait of Hormuz? Would that be an objective of ours?
[12:40:00]
HEGSETH: What they're doing right now is effectively piracy. It's terrorism. It's threatening international shipping. And our blockade is signaling to the world that we actually control that Strait. And I would ask this committee, what would this effort look like if Iran had nuclear weapons?
Imagine if Iran had nuclear capabilities, what they would do to wield over any advantage they have from proxies to funding international terrorism. GIMENEZ: Mr. Secretary, also, not only would they do that, but imagine if we had not become energy independent. Under the previous administration, they were hampering our ability to be energy independent under the guise of, you know, the Green New Deal, which is insanity, by the way. I'm going to go back a little bit in history.
We were bombed -- Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7th, 1941. Do you know how long it took for the United States to have its first major victory in World War II in the Pacific Theater?
HEGSETH: Number of years?
GIMENEZ: No, it was actually six months. It was the Battle of Midway, all right? It was a turning point of World War II. Could you imagine, if we had had the same Democrats asking then secretary of war, all right, gee, it's been two months, OK, and we haven't won this war yet back then. We didn't even win a major battle for six months.
Your job, the job of the military, what you've done in the first two months is extraordinary. And so, again, a couple of final questions. Do you know how much money we spent on Ukraine, helping Ukraine?
HEGSETH: Under the previous administration?
GIMENEZ: No, right now, up to now.
HEGSETH: Upwards of $300 billion, $350 billion?
GIMENEZ: You're probably right, about $300 billion. And yet, I don't hear anything about, gee, how much money have we spent on Ukraine from the other side. The difference between them and me is this.
I support the United States and their efforts to help Ukraine against a dictatorial, aggressive power like Russia, which is our second greatest adversary. But I also support our efforts to make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon. And so, you'll always have my support.
And I'm pretty consistent in that. I also support our efforts in what we did in Venezuela. We still have to go a little bit further, because remnants of that regime are still there. And we need to provide freedom for the people of Venezuela.
And also, one thing, for me, I guess what I'm looking for in this war with Iran is to make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, that we have established an inspection protocol to make sure they never get a nuclear weapon, and that we control the Strait, and they never can control the Strait.
ROGERS: The gentleman's time has expired.
GIMENEZ: Thank you and I yield back.
ROGERS: Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crow.
REP. JASON CROW, (D-CO): Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want to go in a little bit different direction. Timothy Parlatore served as your private attorney, correct?
HEGSETH: Correct.
CROW: And Mr. Parlatore also served as private attorney for President Trump's campaign, correct?
HEGSETH: I'm not privy to every professional position that he's held.
CROW: Well, I'll help you out. He did. And you appointed Mr. Parlatore as your senior adviser, correct?
HEGSETH: He does reserve duty on behalf of the Navy.
(CROSSTALK)
CROW: His title is senior adviser. You gave him that title, correct?
HEGSETH: And I would count him as very much an adviser of mine.
CROW: Yep. He travels with you, correct?
HEGSETH: Tim Parlatore has been a long-term friend. He's a great patriot. He has traveled with me. He serves the country.
(CROSSTALK)
CROW: He travels with you. That's not what I asked. I reclaim my time.
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: He's an excellent military lawyer.
CROW: He travels with you, doesn't he? Correct? There's public Instagram that shows this. Just say yes.
HEGSETH: Yes, of course.
CROW: OK. He sits in meetings with you and advises you, doesn't he?
HEGSETH: He sits in some meetings on occasion.
CROW: Yeah. Well, he maintains a desk in an office in the Pentagon, does he not?
HEGSETH: I'd have to check.
CROW: You don't know?
HEGSETH: It's a big Pentagon.
CROW: You directly commissioned Mr. Parlatore in the Naval Reserve as a Navy Commander in March 2025, did you not?
HEGSETH: I was very proud to do so. CROW: And when you did, because he's a Navy Reserve Officer, he didn't have to go through the PPO process, the White House Presidential Personnel Office, right? He wasn't vetted by a White House PPO.
HEGSETH: Uniformed service members don't get vetted by the PPO.
CROW: The answer is yes. He didn't have to be vetted by White House PPO. He didn't go through the Senate confirmation process either, did he? The answer is no.
HEGSETH: I don't know what you're getting to, but Tim is a fantastic man.
CROW: I'll tell you what I'm getting to. The answer is no, right?
HEGSETH: He does great work.
CROW: OK. He didn't maintain a security clearance when you appointed him as special adviser, is that right?
HEGSETH: I'd have to check.
CROW: You don't know?
HEGSETH: I mean, anybody that has access to sensitive material is going to have the appropriate clearance.
[12:45:00]
CROW: OK, so when you appointed him as special adviser, he had a security clearance?
HEGSETH: I don't -- you're trying to piece together a timeline. I can't give you exactly --
(CROSSTALK)
CROW: No, I'm asking a simple question. One of your special, most sensitive advisers, did he have a security clearance?
HEGSETH: No, you're playing a got you game like you do on TV and everywhere else. You're trying to thread together details that are connected about something else.
(CROSSTALK)
CROW: Clearly, you're concerned about my line of questioning, aren't you, Mr. Secretary? Because you know where it's going, don't you? I think you do.
So, does Mr. Parlatore represent foreign governments? He has a private law practice, does he not?
HEGSETH: From what I understand of his law practice, he does a lot of great work for service members in the military and other. CROW: He maintains a private law practice. Does he represent foreign governments or foreign persons in that private law practice?
HEGSETH: I don't know.
CROW: You don't know? Somebody who's sitting in in your meetings, a special adviser, you don't know? Does he represent any senior officers who are currently under consideration for promotion by you or your office?
HEGSETH: The only person that makes determinations about senior officers is me.
CROW: Answer the question. Does he represent senior officers who are under consideration for promotion by you?
HEGSETH: No. I'm the one that makes decisions about choosing --
(CROSSTALK)
CROW: Does he represent them, Mr. Secretary? Does he represent them?
HEGSETH: He doesn't represent anyone. He's a legal adviser and always has been.
CROW: But he has clients, does he not?
HEGSETH: He's a legal adviser to me on reserve duty and he always has been and he does a fantastic job.
CROW: Is it true that Mr. Parlatore was removed --
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: (inaudible).
CROW: I reclaim my time. Is it true that Mr. Parlatore was removed from an investigation by the White House last year?
HEGSETH: I don't know what you're referring to, but not that I'm aware of.
CROW: You're not aware of it? Was it true that you were also removed from that same investigation? The answer is yes.
HEGSETH: No, not that I'm aware of.
CROW: You're not aware of it? That's interesting. Well, is it true that Mr. Parlatore disparaged President Trump?
HEGSETH: I don't know what you're referring to, but no.
CROW: Is it true that Mr. Parlatore was accused by President Trump and his lawyers of lying?
HEGSETH: What you're accused of is acute line of questioning that's going nowhere.
CROW: Well, it's going somewhere, which is why you're not answering the question. Was it true that he was accused of lying by the president's legal team?
HEGSETH: I'm not familiar to -- you'd have to give me the context of that article.
(CROSSTALK)
CROW: Well, it's right here. You want to look at the statement from President Trump's legal team?
HEGSETH: Anybody can blow up a quote and claim it says something and that's what you're doing in a little stunt --
(CROSSTALK)
CROW: Secretary Hegseth, what I'm really concerned about is you purport to have unfaltering loyalty to President Trump, and yet you are continuously --
HEGSETH: Oh, you care a lot about President Trump, don't you?
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: This is a huge waste of your five minutes --
(CROSSTALK)
CROW: You are going behind his back and appointing people. I reclaim my time.
HEGSETH: A huge, acute waste of your five minutes that led to nowhere.
CROW: I reclaim my time. You are repeatedly going behind the president's back.
(CROSSTALK)
ROGERS: Gentlemen of Colorado's time. Go ahead, Mr. Crow.
CROW: You are repeatedly going behind President Trump's back, appointing people who he has accused of lying, who the White House has accused of lying --
ROGERS: Gentlemen's time has expired.
CROW: And you are not being honest with President Trump.
ROGERS: The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from South Carolina, Ms. Mace.
REP. NANCY MACE, (R-SC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I request unanimous consent to enter a number of documents into the record.
The first of which is a statement from --
ROGERS: Without objection.
MACE: The first of which is a statement from Cory Mills, First Sergeant, stating his forms and accounts of his military service are falsified. The second document is a picture of Cory Mills wearing a bronze star from 2019 before he ever got a bronze star. The third document is a document that conveys a bronze star medal and his life- saving care to the wounded.
And according to the soldiers who were there, they said it never happened, according to the men who were there. The next document is a transcript of a conversation I had with Brigadier General Arnold Gordon-Bray, who confirmed that he did not review, did not read, did not physically sign the form, DD [ph], I guess, 638, Form 638, that Mills submitted for a bronze star. And to be candid, he said, quote, "I didn't look at it."
I asked to review the email that he sent to Mills' staff about authorizing his signature for a form he did not review, and he said that he would not share it with me. That's a future subpoena. I would like to enter into record a picture of Cory Mills who says this is the second time he got blown up, but what he wouldn't tell people that the blood on the pant leg in this photo is the blood of Sergeant Ray (ph). It is not Cory Mills' blood.
In the same series of photos he shares when he said he was "blown up," are images of a Humvee that exploded with severe damage. That is not his Humvee. His Humvee purportedly was 50 yards away and suffered no damage and was not blown up. This is a copy of Cory Mills' marriage certificate with a 9/11 imam at a 9/11 mosque, entered for the record and redacted, with family members' names redacted and protected.
This is a picture of Cory Mills with a purported Russian hooker in Afghanistan, which she, of course, denies. And then last but not least, I would like to request --
RAJU: All right, we're going to keep monitoring this hearing.
[12:50:00]
That was Congresswoman Nancy Mace, part of a long-running personal feud she has with another Republican Congressman on that committee, Congressman Cory Mills, who she has threatened to try to force a vote to expel him from the House. He has threatened to do that in exchange, so we'll keep monitoring that.
But let's take a step back and talk about the big picture here, which is Iran. I mean, this is the first time we've heard from the Secretary in a public hearing like this since the war began. But one thing that's pretty clear, there's no end game here. It's not clear when this war will actually end, has been a question time and time again throughout this hearing, and there's no clarity there. JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: There's no clarity, and the cost is probably the biggest way that members of Congress can exercise now their acceptance or rejection of this policy, because they are going to have to fund it. So for the first time, we're also hearing more specific bottom line on that, but I'm just struck by, as we enter almost a third month here, President Trump at the very beginnings said a couple days, a weekend, he's won the war.
It's clear now that on a variety of issues, Congress has effectively stood by and watched the other branch of government do their work without much oversight. It'll be interesting to me to see if this is the last such hearing we have, or there's going to be one in the Senate tomorrow, which will be interesting as well. But, is there going to be more congressional oversight? Because this is the beginning of, some of us remember how the Iraq war started. It didn't start as a 20-year war.
That's not how these things start, and I'm not suggesting this will be that long, but things always start in a shorter sense.
RAJU: Yeah.
ZELENY: And they spiral.
RAJU: And that exchange with Congressman Gimenez kind of explained that.
ZELENY: For sure.
RAJU: He was saying, oh, it's only been a couple months here, and the other headline out of this is that so far, it's cost $25 billion. The question is, how much more will that cost, and then will Congress act? As Jeff suggested, so far Congress has not acted at all as this war has continued.
All right. We're going to continue following that, and also Breaking News in Virginia, where former FBI Director, James Comey is expected to surrender at federal court soon as he faces a new indictment. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:56:41]
RAJU: You're looking at live pictures as we expect former FBI Director, James Comey to turn himself in soon. He faces a fresh indictment centered on a picture he posted on social media last May. The numbers 86 47, written in seashells.
The Justice Department says he was threatening the president's life. The case is hitting as President Trump has pushed a wide effort to investigate his own foes, including Comey. And we are just getting word that Comey is in the courthouse right now and he has just surrendered. There's just Breaking News happening right now. We have Laura Coates here who has been looking into this and trying to analyze all this. Does this have any teeth to it?
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: No.
(LAUGH)
COATES: Political violence is not a laughing matter, but this is a laughable case because it's going to be nearly impossible to prove specific intent that that statement, the term 86 alone, ambiguous at best, normally conveying the elimination of something, removal of something in a restaurant context, in a pop culture reference and otherwise, that that would be the equivalent of an actual explicit threat.
And the timing of this coming on the heels of the alleged attempted assassination that actually has made its way into a courtroom, trying to ride the coattails of an otherwise meritorious criminal complaint is really not a coincidence here. But I would hate to be the prosecutors in this courtroom with these shells as my main evidence, not even alleging he's the one to have arranged it and having him take it down the second he said that he realized there was a connection to violence.
RAJU: And there's just been this long list of people targeted by the Trump administration. Just look at it on your screen. So many people who are part of Trump's -- who've been publicly -- Trump has publicly called for a lot of them to be investigated or prosecuted, including James Comey. And that doesn't help his case.
COATES: Not at all. I mean, and especially the fact that this is somebody who can now also claim vindictive or such a prosecution based on the theory that this is just a department saying, find me the man, I'll show you the crime. That's exactly the reverse order of the pursuit of justice, not the reverse engineering of it.
RAJU: Yeah. And Todd Blanche has done a whole host of things in his short time as Acting Attorney General to seem to be getting in Trump's good graces. This being one of them.
GANGEL: Do you think he's auditioning for the permanent job? Just maybe --
RAJU: Just look on your screen, all those things that he's done.
GANGEL: The other thing is, let's not forget, you know, speaking of vindictive prosecution. President Trump has made no secret of the fact that how he feels about James Comey, that he wants him to get in jail. And you know, it's our understanding, and you can address this, that one of the reasons Pam Bondi was fired was because President Trump felt --
RAJU: Yeah.
(CROSSTALK) TREENE: She was not doing enough.
GANGEL: She was slow walking.
TREENE: No, absolutely.
RAJU: Is Trump happy about this? We haven't heard much from him.
TREENE: We haven't, but of course. I mean, you actually saw him essentially, directly call on Bondi over social media, which was meant to be a private message, but he put it on Truth Social. You know, why aren't you more aggressively going after, Pam, people like Comey or the Attorney General of New York, Letitia James.
And it was a reason why -- one of the key frustrations the president had with Bondi was that she wasn't more aggressive in some of these prosecutions. And it all stems back to the president still feeling on a deep, intrinsic level that he has been wronged and politically persecuted over the last several years. And yeah, and this is a sense of payback.
RAJU: Laura Coates --
ZELENY: Really quickly, though, I mean, bottom line, if this fails, I mean, how does Todd Blanche look like then? Is this going to be the first fail that comes up? We'll see.
RAJU: Yeah. We'll see.
All right. We'll see and We'll see if we see James Comey walk out of that courthouse. Thanks for joining "Inside Politics." "CNN News Central" starts right now.
[13:00:00]
