Adam Smith STUNS Hegseth: ‘Are You Planning to Invade Greenland or Panama?’

WASHINGTON — A House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday quickly shifted from a routine budget review to a pointed examination of the Pentagon’s credibility, budget priorities and strategic planning, as Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the panel’s former Democratic chairman, sharply questioned Defense Secretary Pete Hegsth on issues ranging from border funding to military contingency plans involving foreign territory.

The exchange began with Mr. Smith revisiting a warning he has issued repeatedly: that Congress cannot continue to pair rising federal spending with soaring national debt. He noted that the House had just approved a budget adding nearly $3 trillion to the deficit. “If we really want to spend money on defense or anywhere else,” he said, “we’ve got to be willing to pay for it.”

The comments set the stage for his broader critique — that lawmakers cannot decry excessive government spending in domestic programs while simultaneously advancing expensive defense initiatives without corresponding revenue.

Mr. Smith then turned to the administration’s continued declarations that the southern border is secure. Mr. Hegsth defended the claim, citing what he described as a 99 percent reduction in unlawful crossings. Yet he also acknowledged the Pentagon’s decision to divert $1 billion from military construction projects, including funds for troop barracks, to support border operations, as well as plans to deploy an additional 4,000 service members to the region.

“If the border is secure,” Mr. Smith asked, “why are we stripping money from the military and sending thousands more troops there?”

Mr. Hegsth responded that the border was secure but required “manpower-intensive” operations early on. He described the reallocation of funds as a reflection of conditions the administration inherited and said future budgets would restore and expand construction funding. But Mr. Smith pointedly noted that no formal budget proposal for the next fiscal year had yet been submitted, making such assurances uncertain.

The hearing soon shifted toward acquisition reform — a longstanding concern in Congress, where lawmakers across the political spectrum have criticized the Pentagon and defense contractors for delays, overspending and cumbersome bureaucratic processes. Mr. Smith pressed Mr. Hegsth on how he intended to accelerate procurement and restrain what he described as excessive contractor influence over requirements.

“Gold-plating,” Mr. Hegsth said, referring to the pursuit of overly ambitious or costly specifications, “is a real problem across the department.” He argued that in many cases, pursuing a “99 percent solution” delayed delivery of an “85 percent solution” that would meet the military’s needs two years sooner. The secretary emphasized the need for cultural change within the Pentagon and described efforts to bring in leaders with private-sector experience to encourage innovation, including greater use of virtual design tools and open-architecture systems.

But Mr. Smith cautioned that reform required more than new terminology. The deeper challenge, he suggested, was a structural ecosystem in which contractors sometimes push requirements not for strategic necessity but for profit. The comment drew a rare partial acknowledgment from Mr. Hegsth, who conceded that while many companies “want to do right,” others do not.

It was Mr. Smith’s next line of questioning, however, that produced the most striking exchange of the hearing.

Citing recent comments from Mr. Hegsth about China’s growing influence in Panama and the strategic importance of the Arctic, Mr. Smith asked whether the Pentagon maintained contingency plans to seize Panama or Greenland by force. “Is it the policy of the Department of Defense,” he asked, “that we need to be prepared to take Greenland and Panama by force if necessary?”

Mr. Hegsth did not directly answer whether such plans exist but reiterated that the Pentagon develops plans “for any particular contingency” and that maintaining a broad spectrum of planning scenarios is central to its mission. He emphasized that planning does not equate to policy intent.

The exchange highlighted an increasingly common tension in congressional oversight hearings: the difference between contingency planning — an essential component of military preparedness — and political interpretations of those plans, particularly under a president who has at times publicly floated unconventional ideas involving U.S. territorial ambitions.

Mr. Smith seized on that point, arguing that Americans had not elected President Trump “because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,” a reference to a widely publicized episode during Mr. Trump’s first term when he expressed interest in purchasing the island from Denmark.

The underlying concern threaded through Mr. Smith’s remarks was broader than the specific planning scenarios he raised. It touched on what he characterized as a drift toward treating far-fetched contingencies as legitimate strategic options, particularly when tied to presidential rhetoric. As he concluded his questioning, he warned that the Pentagon must remain grounded in practical security needs rather than political impulses.

The hearing illuminated deeper debates likely to continue as Congress weighs defense spending for the coming year: how to reconcile soaring budgets with fiscal constraints, how to reform acquisition without sacrificing capability, and how to ensure that military planning remains anchored in policy rather than politics. For Mr. Smith, the path forward requires discipline on all fronts. “The American people,” he said, “expect seriousness — not scenarios that belong in fiction.”