Hegseth’s Defensive Firestorm: Secretary of Defense Snaps Over LA Deployment and ‘Disingenuous Attacks’ on Troop Welfare

Pete Hegseth Denies Unpreparedness After National Guard Photos Emerge, Clashes with Congressman Over Use of Military for Civilian Law Enforcement and Cost of Deployment

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth launched into a fierce, defensive exchange during a congressional hearing, visibly losing his composure after being pressed on the controversial deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles without the consultation of state officials. Hegseth passionately defended the administration’s actions and angrily dismissed questions about the basic welfare of the deployed troops as “disingenuous attacks.”

The confrontation underscored the deep partisan divide over the use of military assets for civilian law enforcement purposes, particularly targeting undocumented immigrants and protesters labeled as “thugs” and “rioters.”

The Welfare Clash: Sleeping on the Floor

The questioning began with Congressman Aguilar expressing “severe concern” over the deployment and referencing “photographs that have shown these troops sleeping on the floor and have not been provided fuel, food, or water by DoD.” Aguilar demanded to know the duration of the deployment and why the Department of Defense was “unprepared to provide them basic necessities.”

.

.

.

Hegseth’s response was immediate and emotionally charged, denying the accusation of neglect:

“The commanders and troops on the field are very well prepared, sir. They responded incredibly rapidly to a deteriorating situation… I know what it’s like to be immediately deployed into a situation like that. There are moments where you make do as best you can temporarily, but we are ensuring they’re housed, fed, water capabilities in real time from my office because I care that much about the California Guard and the Marines…”

Hegseth then directly attacked the premise of the question: “And that’s a disingenuous attack that misrepresents how much we care about our troops and what they’re doing to defend ICE agents. I’m not going to take the fact that we don’t care about the troops.”

He confirmed the deployment would last 60 days, stating the purpose was to ensure “those rioters, lutters, and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we’re not going anywhere.”

The Financial Drain and the Funding Controversy

The discussion swiftly moved to the cost of the deployment, estimated at $134 million—primarily covering TDY costs, travel, housing, and food.

When pressed on the source of this funding, an aide stated it was coming from “O and M accounts.” Hegseth then interrupted to vehemently deny the implication that the funds were being diverted from essential programs:

“The insinuation that we’re pulling money from housing and barracks in order to fund this is disingenuous and incorrect.”

However, later testimony from the aide suggested that funds pulled earlier in the year for border operations—totaling over a billion dollars—were “largely in FSRM” (Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization), confirming that money was, in fact, diverted from programs that affect the quality of life and infrastructure for service members and their families.

Legal Justification: The All-Three Defense

Congressman Aguilar then challenged the very legal basis for the deployment, citing 10 USC 12406 of the U.S. Code, which governs the use of the National Guard for civilian law enforcement. The statute cites three conditions for use:

Invasion by a foreign nation.

A rebellion or dangerous rebellion.

The President is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.

Aguilar asked which specific authority was triggered to justify the use of war fighters in a civilian city.

Hegseth, refusing to select a single legal basis, snapped again: “I don’t know. You just read it yourself and people can listen themselves, but it sounds like all three to me.”

He then doubled down on the political failure of state leadership: “The governor of California is unable to execute the laws of the United States… the governor of the California has failed to protect his people along with the mayor of Los Angeles.”

Hegseth concluded by asserting the President’s willingness to act where state leadership fails: “President Trump has said he will protect our agents and our guard and marines are proud to do.”

The intense exchange underscored the administration’s priority: using the military as a tool to execute a politically driven law and order agenda, regardless of the cost or the explicit objections raised by elected officials concerning the proper legal framework.