WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced intense scrutiny from lawmakers during a congressional hearing Tuesday, where he was pressed for specifics regarding the deployment of troops to Los Angeles amid growing concerns over unprecedented spending and overlooked defense budgets. This marked the first significant confrontation between the newly confirmed Hegseth and Congress since his appointment.

Representatives from both parties expressed frustration over how the Trump administration is managing defense spending, particularly criticizing the absence of a comprehensive budget proposal. “Your leadership has been marked by chaos,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., highlighting bipartisan dissatisfaction with the administration’s financial priorities.

The hearings became contentious as lawmakers questioned the rationale behind dispatching National Guard members and Marines, particularly the estimated costs associated with these deployments. Hegseth defended the president’s decision, arguing it was necessary to safeguard federal agents during protests against immigration raids. The acting comptroller revealed that the operation could incur costs around $134 million, further fueling debates over military expenses.

Hegseth indicated that the administration might continue increasing the military’s domestic role, suggesting a shift under Trump’s presidency. “The National Guard and Reserves are becoming critical to securing our homeland,” he noted, hinting at a larger strategy that may shape how the U.S. employs military resources within its borders.

This hearing was just the first of three for Hegseth this week, and it represents a pivotal moment for both the Defense Department and Congress in establishing oversight and accountability. Lawmakers voiced particular concerns over Trump’s proposed defense budget, which has been projected to reach $1 trillion, a considerable leap from current levels.

Scrutiny was also placed on various military spending plans, including a significant allocation for the conversion of a Qatari jet into a potential Air Force One. Some representatives pointed out that extravagant expenditures could detract from more pressing military needs, including ongoing operations and personnel support.

During the session, Hegseth faced pointed questions about the deployment of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles, aimed at assisting over 4,100 National Guard troops. Representing Minnesota, Rep. Betty McCollum challenged him on the mission’s costs, repeating the urgency of financial transparency in military operations. Though Hegseth hesitated, the acting comptroller later clarified that the notable expenses would cover travel and living costs for the deployed personnel.

Hegseth justified the troop presence, stating it aims to deter potential violence, emphasizing the importance of demonstrating commitment in the face of protests. Meanwhile, questions lingered about the legality and the potential consequences of utilizing military forces domestically, an issue rooted in the long-standing Posse Comitatus Act.

Lawmakers also examined the implications of a recent drone attack in Ukraine that caught U.S. military officials off guard, revealing significant advancements in war tactics. Hegseth acknowledged the need for the Pentagon to strengthen its defenses against similar threats while also warning that financial support for Ukraine would likely diminish in the upcoming budget, a shift in approach that aligns with a broader strategy for negotiated peace.

The hearing underscored ongoing tension within the Defense Department regarding funding and operational priorities. While Hegseth’s focus has been largely on social reforms within the military, including the removal of certain diversity programs, the broader implications for national and international security remain crucial. Critics have noted a concerning ambiguity in the administration’s foreign policy approach, particularly as it relates to conflicts in Ukraine and tensions with Russia.

As the proceedings unfold, the outcomes of these hearings will likely shape not only military strategy but also the administration’s relationship with Congress moving forward.