‘I’m actually quoting you’: Pete Hegseth called a Democrat’s question partisan. Then she revealed whose words they actually were

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced an awkward moment during a House Armed Forces Committee hearing. A Democrat asked him a question that he called partisan, but it turned out to be his own words from years ago. The incident has raised questions about his position on the war with Iran and sparked debate about accountability in leadership.

The hearing was held to talk about the 2027 budget request for the Department of Defense. Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine answered questions from lawmakers about the war. The topics included how much the war costs US taxpayers, the military’s rules of engagement, and how ceasefire talks are going. Lawmakers from both parties came prepared with tough questions about the ongoing conflict.

According to Mediaite, Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) asked one of the most important questions during the hearing. She asked Hegseth if he agreed with the statement, “The military won’t follow unlawful orders.” Hegseth replied, “I do, but understand what you’re insinuating at a partisan point.” His response suggested he believed the question was designed to attack him politically rather than seek genuine clarification.

Hegseth’s own words from 2016 came back to challenge him

Goodlander quickly told Hegseth that she was quoting his own words. “I’m not,” Goodlander said. “I’m actually quoting you directly, Mr. Hegseth, from April 12, 2016; and I appreciate that, on the record, you’ve clarified this important principle of American law.” The moment left Hegseth briefly surprised, showing he had underestimated how prepared Goodlander was for the hearing.

The quote from 2016 was made before Hegseth became Defense Secretary. Now it has become a point of debate in connection with the current war with Iran. Goodlander’s question pointed out problems with Hegseth’s position on the issue, leading to a heated debate among lawmakers. The exchange highlighted how past statements can come back to challenge public officials when their positions appear to shift over time.

The war with Iran has been a major issue of disagreement in Congress. Many lawmakers have questioned the Trump administration’s choice to attack the country. The Pentagon says the war has cost $25 billion so far, but the real cost is likely much higher. Some estimates suggest it could reach as high as $200 billion when all expenses are counted, reports Al Jazeera.

This isn’t the first time concerns have been raised about Hegseth’s controversial views on military conflicts. The war has also raised concerns about the military’s rules of engagement. Some lawmakers questioned Hegseth’s statement that US forces would allow “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” This phrase has historically meant killing enemy fighters even if they have surrendered, which is a war crime under international and humanitarian law. 

During the hearing, Hegseth faced tough questions from lawmakers on different parts of the war. The discussion covered everything from military strategy to the humanitarian impact of the conflict. Republicans on the committee mostly supported Hegseth and the war, arguing that the actions were necessary for national security.

Democrats were more critical, with many questioning the administration’s decision to launch attacks on Iran without proper congressional approval. Hegseth’s attempt to dismiss Goodlander’s question backfired and showed problems with his position on the matter.

The Defense Secretary struggled to explain how his views had evolved since 2016 or why he initially treated the question as a partisan attack. The Defense Secretary has faced similar embarrassing moments recently, including his courtroom setback over legal tactics.

The incident has become a talking point in Washington, with many political observers noting how it demonstrates the importance of consistent messaging from government officials. As the war with Iran continues, lawmakers on both sides are expected to keep pressing the administration for answers about the conflict’s direction and goals.