Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Congress Questions Pete Hegseth Over Iran War; James Comey Indicted. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired April 29, 2026 - 11:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:32:58]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, let's get to more breaking news today.

Former FBI Director James Comey is expected to turn himself in at any moment at this federal courthouse in Virginia on new charges for a social media post. Last May, the outspoken critic of President Trump took this photo of seashells he says he found on the beach.

They spelled out 8647, 47 referring to Donald Trump as the 47th president, and the 86 commonly meaning to remove or delete. Prosecutors say that was a clear threat, and Comey is now responding.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let's go.

But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country. This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, Comey removed the picture the same day he posted it. He called it a political message, saying he didn't -- quote -- "realize some folks associate those numbers with violence" and that he opposes violence of any kind.

The Justice Department first brought charges against Comey last September, accusing him of lying to Congress about leaks through the press. That case was dismissed. And those charges came five days after the president publicly called on his attorney general at the time, Pam Bondi, to prosecute his political enemies, including Comey. The president fired Bondi earlier this month.

So let's go to CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez.

Evan, what are you learning? What's the latest? EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, we're

expecting the former FBI director to show up there at the federal court in Alexandria. This is the district in which he lives.

But those charges, as you pointed out, those charges are filed in North Carolina, which is the location of where the seashells were found, that he says were found on the beach, and that he took a photograph of.

Now, the two charges that he's facing are very serious. One of them is making a willful violent threat against the president of the United States. The other one is using interstate communications, which is the Instagram post that he used to post a photograph.

[11:35:07]

And so that's what the basis for these two charges are. The question for the U.S. government is going to be whether they can prove that he had intent to make a threat against the president of the United States. He doesn't say -- or he says that he found these shells on the beach. So it's not like he arranged it in this formation himself.

And he has said that he didn't really know that the 8647 is a reference to violence. He says 86 to him and to a lot of people, frankly, talking to people, they think 86 simply means to remove. And so the question of whether this was a violent threat is going to be a central question for this case.

So we expect that Comey will appear before a magistrate in Alexandria this afternoon. And then, at some point, he will actually have to show up in North Carolina to face those charges.

As you pointed out, the Justice Department is saying that they have been investigating this, these seashells, since last May, when that post was made, that it took this long for them to bring these charges because they were doing investigative work, and it has nothing to do with the fact that the deputy attorney general, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, is in this job -- is in an acting capacity.

And, obviously, we know he wants to keep this job permanently, Pamela.

BROWN: Right.

And just help us better understand the self-surrendering here, compared to the first time around when Comey was indicted on different issues.

PEREZ: Right.

BROWN: Help us understand that.

PEREZ: Well, one of the things that happened here was the grand jury issued an arrest warrant. And so that really raised the question of whether the FBI or the U.S. Marshals were going to arrest him at his home or wherever his -- he was located. And, in the end, what happened in the overnight hours and early this morning is that there was a negotiation with his attorneys for him to self-surrender at the federal courthouse. If you remember, last time, when he appeared in Alexandria, they went and picked him up.

So, look, one of the things that we know that President Trump has cared about is that his perceived political enemies be treated the same or perhaps even worse than he was treated or he believes he was treated when he was prosecuted during the previous administration.

And so there was a lot of discussion behind the scenes here at the Justice Department and across the street at the FBI as to whether there is -- should be a perp walk or whether there should be a formal arrest at his home or where he was picked up.

So it appears, in the end, what happened here was a negotiation whereby Comey can self-surrender. Given the fact that obviously he's a former FBI director, he did show up for the previous case that was filed against him, there is no indication that he's a flight risk.

BROWN: All right, Evan Perez, thanks so much.

We will be right back.

PEREZ: Thanks, Pamela.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:42:29]

BROWN: All right, let's listen in to this hearing. You see the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, answering questions from lawmakers right now. Let's listen.

GEN. DAN CAINE, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: ... all rallying around the need to scale, along with the new entrants that are out there who are coming and bringing products to the joint force.

A key is capacity...

(CROSSTALK)

REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-AL): The gentleman's time has expired.

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Norcross.

REP. DONALD NORCROSS (D-NJ): Thank you, Chairman.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Secretary, it's well-known that our defense industrial base and maritime industrial base has declined greatly over time. It's the shipyards. It's many of the things that you already spoke about.

In my community, we used to have three shipyards, 40,000 workers. We have lost that critical job skills earned and 40,000 people who know how to do it. And, quite frankly, most of it went overseas because it was cheaper.

Well, cheaper doesn't buy the security we need for our industrial base. I championed a provision in the '24 NDAA entitled Enhanced Domestic Content Requirement for Major Acquisition Programs. It had to do with our industrial base making things here in America long before this administration came in.

The goal was to strengthen our supply chains and have that critical oversight push for greater investments, much of what you're doing now on these major defense acquisition programs. So, we passed that in a bipartisan manner because we knew that this was critical and things can happen.

Lo and behold, here we are. There was a reporting requirement in that that calls on you, the secretary of defense, to establish an information repository, issue rules, create a fallback process to govern the Department of Defense. We wanted to better understand much of what is being done here, but is not being reported back to us.

I sent to your office on January 8, followed up on February 4. We're years overdue on this report that will give us insight onto how we're addressing it. We hear what you're saying, but can you commit that we will get that report to us in the next 30 days?

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Unless Jay has additional details, I will make sure we look into it. Whatever we can get to you as rapidly as possible, we will. We will also check with the new Navy leadership and make sure they're complying as rapidly as possible with every aspect that could apply to shipbuilding.

[11:45:05]

That's been our focus on the Navy side.

NORCROSS: It's not just shipbuilding, major acquisition programs across the board. This is incredibly important. And they are ignoring this. And 30 days is being generous, certainly.

Second issue is, you talk about championing the American worker and how important this is. Yet, in a memo on April 9, you terminated all the collective bargaining agreements across the DOD, taking away from hundreds of thousands of workers at DOD their collective bargaining rights that they voted for.

There was nothing to indicate there were any issues with any of the bargaining agreements, yet you decided to take away from them. Over the last few years, we have increased the wages for those war fighters. It's incredibly important, this year up to 7 percent.

Yet, on the other side of this, you talk about supercharging the defense industrial base. We are in this. How do you go and say, yes, we support the war fighters? They can't do their job unless we are building things that they can use, yet no evidence to prove that these collective bargaining agreements were a problem anywhere across the Department of Defense under Democrat and Republican administrations.

How do you kind of square that circle that you care about this, yet you take away their voice on the job?

HEGSETH: Well, certainly, sir, the great workers that -- whether they're contractors or DOD civilians, that do the important work for us, the great ones are going to stay. And we have invested in more in merit bonuses for civilians than any administration previous.

So, if you're doing great work, you're going to stay and you're going to have even more opportunities. But with our ear to the ground in those shipyards and other factory floors, there were issues with collective bargaining which led to restrictions to the work force and our ability to move faster.

NORCROSS: If I may just point out, those were outside contractors.

HEGSETH: And, in that case, we made the decision to provide additional flexibility so that we can move faster.

NORCROSS: You didn't take it away from the shipyard workers. You took away from Department of Defense employers, where there hasn't been any issues.

Let's be clear. Those are independent contractors, and they have their collective bargaining groups. The ones that work for you.

HEGSETH: The ones that work for us should be at will, like anybody else, based on their performance. And if they're performing well, which I'm sure they are, as you have represented, they will have a job at the department.

NORCROSS: So where is the issue that you took away their collective bargaining rights? Why did you do it if it wasn't a problem?

HEGSETH: Well, I -- I stated up front, it has been a problem. There are plenty of cases, whether it's (AUDIO GAP) or inside our own department where collective bargaining had led to arrangements and agreements that minimize the efficiency and effectiveness of employees at the point of their impact.

That's what we were focusing on and that's why we made the change, which we very much stand behind.

NORCROSS: Well, I yield back.

ROGERS: Gentlemen yields back.

Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik.

REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Hegseth, I appreciate the department and the administration's focus on expansion and innovation in the defense industrial base. That's particularly important for emerging technologies.

For years on this committee, my office has led the effort to ban the procurement of Chinese communist drones, which pose a significant national security threat. And, last year, after years of work, this committee finally passed my Countering CCP Drones Act or Section 1709 of the NDAA, which was fully implemented in December.

How does the FY27 budget scale domestic production and deployment of drone systems to ensure the U.S. has the decisive advantage against our U.S. enemies?

HEGSETH: Well, thank you for the question. First of all, thank you for your work on that, critically important.

When you look under the hood of the ways in which China is trying to use critical elements of our defense industrial base and supply chain against us or capabilities in the future that could hamstring us with options for a future president, it's staggering.

So drones is one that not only have we recognized, but, thanks to your leadership and the leadership of others, we are supercharging in this budget, conservatively, $54 billion in drone and drone dominance and counter-UAS.

Jay just slid me a piece of paper. If you add it all up, it could be closer to $74 billion. We started the Defense Autonomous Working Group -- Autonomous Warfare Group, excuse me, to focus on this. But we're going to do even more.

We will shortly announce a sub-unified command autonomous warfare. Drones are so central to the future of warfare and where we get them from that we have to be able to both make the exquisite ones better than anybody else and also the attritable, swarm, and then the ability to defeat them ahead of our adversary, learning from battlefields like Ukraine and Epic Fury.

So, thank you for your leadership. It is front and center in this budget.

STEFANIK: I very much appreciate all that the department is doing under your leadership.

One of the concerns I have is, recent reporting indicates that while DJI, which is a communist Chinese drone company, is prohibited from receiving new FCC authorizations, there are still DJI products such as the DJI Avata 360, widely available in the U.S. through major retailers. These received FCC authorizations before my provision in the NDAA was fully implemented.

[11:50:03]

So, my question to you is, we need to close this loophole to protect our national security. Will you commit to working with this committee and my office to ensure that these products that pose a significant risk to our national security are no longer permitted, given the evident threat CCP drones pose to U.S. national security?

HEGSETH: Congresswoman, yes, the department will commit to working with your staff and looking at that loophole, which we are aware of.

And I missed in my first response, of course, that $54 billion is American-made drone dominance.

STEFANIK: Absolutely, yes.

HEGSETH: That is exactly where they need to be. And that's what our focus is.

STEFANIK: Great.

Another emerging technology that's very important and has a strong tie to my district is quantum computing. China continues to invest heavily in quantum computing sensing and secure communications for military advantage.

I represent Rome Air Force Research Lab, which is a hub of research when it comes to quantum. Secretary Hegseth, how does the budget proposal position the U.S. to maintain leadership in operationally relevant quantum technologies?

HEGSETH: The country that dominates in quantum will dominate the future in C2, in comms, in every way that we fight.

And so this makes the maximal investment possible here at home to ensure that quantum compute and working across the interagency, by the way -- this is not just a DOW issue, this is an interagency issue -- to ensure that we have got the ability to scale and compute, outcompute adversaries who are racing for the same -- same code.

STEFANIK: General Caine, throughout my time in Congress, I have pushed for the department to optimize its approach to quantum and develop a strategic road map.

In your opinion, which quantum capability areas offer the most immediate benefit to the joint force?

BROWN: All right, you're listening to Republican Representative Elise Stefanik talk to the officials there, Dan Caine, as well as Pete Hegseth.

I want to go to this moment that happened a little bit earlier when you heard the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, respond to Democratic Representative Garamendi calling this war a quagmire. It was pretty fiery from Hegseth. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: If I may...

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA): Sure.

HEGSETH: Yes. I didn't get a chance. I didn't see a question in the statement from the congressman.

I hope you appreciate how reckless it is. When I said reckless, feckless, and defeatist of congressional Democrats at the beginning, that came after watching you say the same thing on CNN this morning, a quagmire. My generation served in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, years and

years of nebulous missions and utopian nation-building that led us to nothing. What we have right now -- the way you stain the troops when you tell them, two months in, two months in, Congressman -- you should know better. Shame on you, calling this a quagmire two months in.

The effort, what they have undertaken, what they have succeeded, the success on the battlefield that creates strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront and nuclear Iran, and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies, shame on you for that statement.

And statements like that are reckless to our troops. Don't say I support the troops on one hand and then a two-month mission is a quagmire. That's a false equivalation. Who are you cheering for here? Who are you pulling for?

Our troops are doing incredible work. They have done incredible things for the entirety of this mission and achieved incredible battlefield successes. And you sit there and go on TV for your clickbait about quagmires. It undermines the mission.

Your -- your hatred for President Trump blinds you to the truth of the success of this mission and the historic stakes that the president is addressing, which the American people support. Iran's been at war with us for 47 years.

You want to talk about a forever war? For two months, this president has stared them down. He's going to get a better deal than anyone ever has and ensure that Iran never has nuclear weapons. I know the American people support that mission, despite your loose talk and words like quagmire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right, so that was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Sabrina Singh, to bring you in, clearly, the Democratic congressman hit a nerve there with Hegseth, calling the war a quagmire.

SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Yes.

I think you're seeing what Congressman Garamendi and potentially what you will see others throughout the hearing, is, it's getting under Hegseth's skin. And they're clearly pushing the secretary on, when does this war end? You said we don't want endless wars. And yet here we are, we have blown past that four-to-six-week timeline that you initially said at the outset.

And here we are nearly 60 days in. So what's the plan? And, clearly, that bothered Pete Hegseth. And I think you're going to continue to see that and also congressional members raise the idea that gas prices continue to go up for Americans. So what is the department's plan to open that strait?

And I don't think we're seeing answers from the secretary, which is why you're seeing him get so upset and react back to those members.

BROWN: Yes. And he was talking about an interview that the congressman did this morning on CNN.

SINGH: Right.

BROWN: He's been, clearly, Zach Cohen, sensitive to media coverage about the war. He brings it up repeatedly.

[11:55:05]

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: He has been in a lot of ways, because he was put forward by the White House as being the face and the storyteller of this war.

And we have seen more press conferences from Pete Hegseth and General Caine than we have seen -- in probably the last two months than we have seen throughout his entire tenure as defense secretary. But that narrative hasn't really taken hold.

The narrative that Hegseth has tried to put forward and that the White House wants him to put forward has not really manifested itself in reality here. And I do want to note too that Congressman Garamendi was very specific in his question. He said that U.S. troops have performed with courage and have done what their country has asked of them.

But this is a theme we have seen from Hegseth over the course of his time as defense secretary, is that, when he faces criticism about his policies, he then sort of turns and characterizes it as somebody attacking the troops, which are not the same thing.

BROWN: Yes. I think that that's really important that you noted that, because, clearly, he was commending the troops.

All right, thank you both, Zach Cohen, Sabrina Singh.

Thank you all for joining us this very busy morning.

"INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Manu Raju starts after a quick break.