WATCH: In SASC Hearing, Kelly Challenges Hegseth on Munitions Burn Rate, “No Quarter” Comment, and Massive Defense Budget Proposal

"So, we fired years' worth of munitions… But, Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck."

This week, during a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing on the annual defense budget, Arizona Senator and Navy combat veteran Mark Kelly (D-AZ) pressed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on how this administration justifies burning through America's critical munitions stockpiles in a war that is not achieving its objectives while driving up costs for Americans.

Kelly also gave Hegseth a chance to clarify his "no quarter" comment from March and questioned the Department of Defense's staggering $1.5 trillion budget request.

Kelly pressed Hegseth on the cost of the ongoing Iran operation: "The questions we should be asking and answering are: What does this cost us and what does it achieve for the American people? Many of these strikes use our best weapons, and we're using a lot of them, and a lot of interceptors. […] We can't make these munitions overnight and it's clear from your budget requests that you know that."

Hegseth acknowledged to Kelly it would take years to replenish America's stockpiles.

Kelly continued, "But, Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Iranian regime is in place. The nuclear material still in their hands. Americans are being crushed by higher costs. And it's not clear to them, at all, what the goal of this war is."

Kelly also confronted Hegseth directly over his recent "no quarter" comment, demanding clarity on whether the Secretary of Defense understands the term's meaning under the laws of war: "I saw your hearing yesterday, and I'm going to give you one more chance to address a question here. It's my understanding that the definition of no quarter is 'that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees will be executed.' Is that your understanding of the definition?"

When Hegseth declined to clarify, Kelly was direct: "The things you say matter. Your response here right now makes it clear to the American people exactly why you are not right for this job."

Sen. Kelly questions Secretary Hegseth during a SASC hearing.

Click here to download a video of Kelly's remarks. See the transcript below:

Round 1

Sen. Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here, Secretary Hegseth. Safe to say that our weapons, like SM-3's, Tomahawks, Patriot missiles, have capabilities that are unmatched. That's why they cost a lot. Take a long time to produce. Your budget requests $31.8 billion to expand production capacity for critical missile stockpiles. Is that correct, 31.8?

Secretary Pete Hegseth: I'm looking at $53 billion for munitions acceleration over 14 critical munitions, of which the ones you listed are a part.

Kelly: Okay, 53.

Hegseth: Yes, sir.

Kelly: More than $20 billion more. So, we've been working together to grow the industrial base, because we're all worried about how our stockpiles would hold up in a conflict against China. Since the start of this war, you've made it a point to highlight the number of strikes the U.S. military is carrying out, citing that more than 13,000 targets had been struck as of April 8th. On March 2nd, you said, and this is a quote, 'This was a massive, overwhelming attack across all domains of warfare, striking more than a thousand targets in the first 24 hours.' On March 10th, you said, 'Yet again our most intense day of strikes inside of Iran'. On April 6th, you said, and this is another quote, 'The largest volume of strikes since day one of this operation'. Your department has released video after video of things blowing up. None of us doubt the strength of the U.S. military and their ability to do hard things. I understand that better than anybody. The questions we should be asking and answering are what does this cost us and what does it achieve for the American people? Many of these strikes use our best weapons, and we're using a lot of them, and a lot of interceptors. Open-source reporting has estimated that the military has used an outrageous number of Patriots. I'm not going to say the numbers, but a lot of Patriots, a lot of THAAD rounds, JASSM-ERs, Tomahawks. Very expensive. Exquisite. We can't make these munitions overnight and it's clear from your budget requests that you know that. Can you tell us how many years, specifically, is it going to take to replace these systems?

Hegseth: Senator, thank you for the question. I would defer to the comptroller on the amount because I think it's a lot higher than 53. If you look at long range fires, JASSMs, LRASMs, Tomahawks, we're looking at $238 [billion]. About $40 billion for hypersonic. So, I actually think it's closer to $330 billion in munitions.

Kelly: Okay, how many years to replenish. That's the question.

Hegseth: I think that's exactly the right question to ask, senator, because the timeframe we were existing under was unacceptable. What this budget does, I mean, months and years.

Kelly: Years.

Hegseth: Fast. I mean, we're building new plants in real time.

Kelly: So just to replace what we have expended?

Hegseth: I said months.

Kelly: And then you said years.

Hegseth: But, it depends on the weapon system. But 2 to 3, 4x of what we have today. So yes, we're dealing with the reality under the previous administration of what they sent to Ukraine and what they allocated elsewhere-

Kelly: Ok, I got it. So, we fired years worth of munitions. And it is clear that these are being expended to try to achieve some objectives. That was the plan. But, Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Iranian regime is in place. The nuclear material still in their hands. Americans are being crushed by higher costs. And it's not clear to them, at all what the goal of this war is.

So, I've got about a minute, and I want to go to another topic. I saw your hearing yesterday, and I'm going to give you one more chance to address a question here. It's my understanding that the definition of no quarter is 'that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees will be executed.' Is that your understanding of the definition?

Hegseth: The only entity that would kill detainees or target civilians is the Iranians, and they're the ones being crushed. So, Iranian military and their military capability. I disagree completely with the articulation.

Kelly: The question is do you understand the definition that I just read you? Because that's the definition from your Department's Law of War manual. Is that your understanding? And I'm going to just get to the point here.

Hegseth: We fight to win and we follow the law, Senator.

Kelly: Okay so your quote was, 'We will keep pushing, keeping advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.' And yesterday you did not clarify whether you stand by this statement. So, I'm going to give you another opportunity to clarify if that is what you meant. Do you stand by that statement you made on March 13th?

Hegseth: We have untied the hands of our warfighters. We fight to win and we follow the law.

Kelly: Okay, so you're not clarifying, so you stand by that statement. So, you're the Secretary of Defense. The things you say matter. And your response here right now makes it clear to the American people exactly why you are not right for this job.

Hegseth: It makes it clear to our enemies, Senator.

Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Round 2

Kelly: Mr. Secretary, so $1.5 trillion. 1.5 [trillion] is a very round number. If you're putting together a budget, you'd come up with, 'these are the problems we're trying to solve. This is the capability we need. These are the systems we have to buy.' And at the end of the day, it would spit out a number. And it's probably not $1.5 trillion. So, to me, it feels like that number was just kind of pulled out of thin air. I took a look recently and it seems that the defense budget of the rest of the world; I'm talking China, Russia, India, every Asian country, every European country, South America. Everybody else is in the neighborhood, it looked like $1.7 [trillion] to $1.8 [trillion]. So, your request is approaching all defense spending from everybody else, with the exception of us. That is a huge amount of money. When I got here, you know, just five years ago, it was almost half of that. Through budget reconciliation, you've received a bunch of money to buy things. Some of the weapons systems to resupply what we need. I'm just trying to understand, where is all this money going to go? And if you've figured out ahead of time, what do you want to spend this on? And by the way, there are systems the president wants. He saw last summer how effective Iron Dome and David Sling were. And because of that, the president decided we're going to build our own version. We're going to call it Golden Dome because the president likes the color gold. We've seen that. Seen it in the Oval Office. We're going to call it Golden Dome, and it might cost somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion. I've heard those estimates. By the way, on that problem, I know a little bit about intercepting stuff in space. It's really hard. And the physics on this favors the offense. There's some things in that program that I think is really important that we do and try to figure it out. But space-based interceptors to hit multiple targets. And by the way, it's important how you size the system. So, I'm trying to understand, Mr. Secretary, what kind of detail did you guys did you work out like a detailed plan? And at the end of the day, it came out. Oh, it just happens to come out to be $1.5 trillion.

Hegseth: Senator, the exact amount is actually $1.535 trillion and it was a product of a highly rigorous process throughout our department, from COCOMM commanders to the services, with our comptroller, with our deputy Secretary, with the Chairman and myself to ensure the budget reflects the realities of the world we live in and the capabilities we're going to need, and that's why there's $65 billion for shipbuilding. $120 billion for the defense industrial base, $331 billion for munitions, $44 billion for quality of life, $71 billion on our nuclear dib. You name it, we're investing in it. And the biggest reason for it is the underinvestment of the Biden administration. I mean, what they spent on defense, the continuing resolutions and others, undercut the buildup that the President Trump had created. So, yes, we're doing a lot of deferred maintenance here around the world and in our department. And this budget reflects it. And it's a commitment, a generational commitment to the security of the American people. And if the rest of the world won't spend on their defense, that's their fault. The American Department of War will invest properly to defend the people. Ans that's what this budget stands for.

Kelly: I have always been supportive of defense spending in my entire time here. And after 25 years in the Navy, I want to make sure our folks have what they need. I think you should go back and take a look and see if there are places where we are making investments that we actually don't need. There are some systems out there. We're constantly looking and trying to balance. Do we want, you know, F-47, which I've been supportive of. B-21 also supportive. And then we want to make all these other investments in really inexpensive, low cost munitions, because we suddenly realize that the expensive stuff, even through B-21, we can't really maybe not get close enough, but the whole idea behind B-21 and F-47 is we can penetrate further into the A2/AD bubble. So, there's some conflict there. So, I'm just encouraging you to go back and see if there are some systems where we can bring that number, the overall number down. Because as I look at what the Department is trying to field some of this stuff in my judgment, and, I know others might have another opinion, some of this stuff we either don't need or it's not going to work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.