💥 The Jan. 6 Iceberg: Pete Hegseth FREEZES Under Oath as Murphy Exposes ‘Double Standard’ in Military Deployment

Secretary of Defense Stunned Into Silence When Asked to Defend National Guard’s Role on January 6th, Confirming Fears of Political Weaponization of the Military

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth faced a dramatic and career-defining confrontation during a Senate hearing when Senator Chris Murphy cornered him with a question about the January 6th Capitol attack. Hegseth, who had spent the duration of the hearing aggressively defending the deployment of the National Guard to protect ICE agents in Los Angeles, was rendered momentarily speechless and then completely derailed when asked to apply the same military principle to the defense of democracy itself.

The exchange exposed the chilling political double standard in the administration’s use of federal troops and further fueled concerns that Hegseth is prioritizing political loyalty over the constitutional role of the U.S. military.

.

.

.

The ‘Air Force One’ Trap: Spending Taxpayer Dollars on a Personal Gift

Before delivering the critical Jan. 6 question, Senator Murphy laid an elaborate trap concerning the administration’s handling of a plane gifted by Qatar, intended to serve as a temporary Air Force One replacement.

Murphy established two concerning facts:

The administration does not yet have a signed agreement with the government of Qatar regarding the gift of the plane.

Hegseth indicated the terms of the contract with the company retrofitting the plane would not be made public, a stark contrast to the $3.9 billion Boeing contract for the official Air Force One upgrades.

Murphy then introduced the final piece of the trap: the President’s statement that the plane “would be transferred to his presidential library at the end of his term”.

Murphy questioned the wisdom of this expenditure: “Why would we ask the American taxpayer to spend upwards of a billion dollars on a plane that would then only be used for a handful of months and then transferred directly to the president?”.

Hegseth’s defense was weak, citing classified capabilities and deferring all timelines and modification decisions to the Air Force. This sequence established a pattern of questionable spending and deference to the President’s personal wishes, setting the stage for the accountability test on military deployment.

The Jan. 6 Question: Total Meltdown Under Oath

Murphy then shifted the focus to the core issue of political double standards in the use of the military against protesters. He cited the President’s controversial pardons of individuals who violently attacked police officers on January 6th, juxtaposed against Hegseth’s aggressive deployment of the Guard and Marines in Los Angeles.

Murphy delivered the decisive question:

“The National Guard was deployed here on January 6th and that was a decision made by the Department of Defense… Do you support that decision? Do you believe that that was the right decision to deploy the National Guard to defend the capital on January 6th?”

Hegseth, who had been aggressive and quick to defend the LA deployment for the protection of ICE agents, completely froze.

His initial response was a panicked deflection: “All I know is it’s the right decision to be deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ICE agents who deserve to be defended in the execution of their jobs”.

When pressed repeatedly, Hegseth finally stammered a response that confirmed Murphy’s fears: “I support the decision that President Trump made and requesting the National Guard denied.”

Murphy immediately seized on the admission: “So you do not support the decision to send the National Guard here to defend the capital. I think that speaks to the worry that many Americans have that there is a double standard that you are not willing to defend against attacks made on our democracy by supporters of the president…”.

The Constitutional Abyss: Active Duty Deployment

The hearing concluded with Senator Ba pressing Hegseth on the specific constitutional or statutory authority used to deploy active-duty Marines (not just the National Guard) to California neighborhoods.

Hegseth again refused to cite the specific constitutional provision, claiming he would have to pull it up, but asserted the deployment was “completely constitutional for the president to use federal troops to defend federal law enforcement”.

When asked to cite the statutory authority for the active-duty Marines, Hegseth again dodged, citing the National Guard statute (Section 12406 of Title 10) but failing to provide the legal basis for the Marines, promising only to “follow up”.

Hegseth’s inability to articulate the fundamental legal basis for deploying active-duty troops domestically—combined with his implicit refusal to defend the Capitol against the President’s supporters—confirms the dangerous and unprecedented politicization of the Defense Department.