태미 덕월트 상원의원은 헤게스 장관이 군사 자원을 잘못 관리하고 있다고 날카롭게 비판하며, 후티족에 대한 10억 달러 규모의 임무 실패와 군대를 위협하는 보안 침해를 강조합니다.
그녀는 미국 도시를 감시하기보다는 국가 안보에 군사적 초점을 맞춰야 한다고 강조하며 국내 정치적 목적으로 군을 오용하는 것에 대해 경고합니다.
Senator Tammy Duckworth sharply criticizes Secretary Hegseth for mismanaging military resources, highlighting failures in a $1 billion mission against the Houthis and a security breach endangering troops.
She warns against the misuse of the military for domestic political purposes, emphasizing the need for military focus on national security rather than policing American cities.
태미 덕월트(Tammy Duckworth)는 일리노이주를 대표하는 미국 상원의원입니다.
그녀는 이라크 전쟁 참전 용사이자 퍼플 하트 수상자이며, 미국 재향군인부 차관보를 역임한 바 있습니다.
특히 그녀는 의회에 선출된 최초의 태국계 미국인 여성이며, 태국에서 태어난 최초의 국회의원이자 하원에 선출된 최초의 장애인 여성입니다.
태미 덕월트 상원의원은 헬리콥터가 격추되어 두 다리를 잃은 이라크 전쟁 참전 용사, 퍼플 하트 수상자, 그리고 일리노이주의 선구적인 상원의원으로 유명합니다.
그는 참전 용사 문제, 가족 친화적인 정책(유급 휴가 및 공항 간호실과 같은), 그리고 장애 권리를 옹호하는 것으로 유명합니다.
특히, 재임 중 출산한 최초의 상원의원이 되어 그녀의 아기를 상원에 데려온 것으로 유명합니다.
군사 작전 실패:
헤게스는 후티(해군이 없는 적)에 대한 10억 달러 규모의 임무에서 실패하여 6천만 달러 규모의 F-18 호넷 2대와 2억 달러 규모의 리퍼 드론 7대를 잃었고, 홍해에서 상업용 선박을 복구하는 데는 실패했습니다.
국내 군사 오용:
트럼프의 지시에 따라 외국의 적들 대신 국내 치안을 위해 현역 군인과 주방위군을 배치했으며, 700명의 병력이 현실적인 전투 훈련보다는 ICE 관리 업무에 투입되어 정치적 목적을 위한 실질적인 군사 준비 태세를 희생시켰습니다.
태미 덕월트는 국내 정치적 이익을 위해 군대를 무기화하려는 조직적인 시도를 폭로했습니다.
이 시도는 핵심 임무에서 자원을 미국 도시의 부당한 치안으로 전환하고 정치인들을 대상으로 홍보 스턴트를 수행하여 군 국내 치안에 대한 헌법 원칙을 약화시켰습니다.
상징적 우선순위 대 미션 포커스:
헤게스는 전쟁 임무보다 남부 연합군 장군들의 기지 이름을 변경하는 것을 우선시했는데, 이는 포트 러커가 29명의 미국인 생명을 구한 명예 훈장 수상자 마이크 노바셀의 이름을 변경한 것과 대조적으로, 군사 리더십에서 잘못된 가치관을 보여주었습니다.
국가 안보에 미치는 영향:
국방부가 정치적 내러티브를 무기화하고 국방부 자원을 국내 작전으로 전환함에 따라 군대가 외국의 위협으로부터 방어하는 실제 임무에 집중하지 못하게 되어 국가 안보가 약화되고 있습니다.
더 자세한 내용:
군사 임무 실패와 재정적 손실:
국방부 장관은 후티호를 상대로 한 10억 달러 규모의 임무로 인해 홍해를 통한 미 국기 상업용 선박의 운송이 복구되지 않아 F-18 호넷 2대와 리퍼 드론 7대가 손실되어 총 상당한 재정적 손실을 입었다고 인정했습니다.
취임 이후 장관의 실패는 보안되지 않은 채널을 통해 기밀 작전 정보를 전송하고, 군인의 생명을 위험에 빠뜨리며, 사람들이 고위직에서 복무하는 것을 방해하는 적대적인 지휘 환경을 조성하는 등 엄청난 일이었습니다.
미국 도시에서 군대를 오용하고, 핵심 임무에서 자원을 철수하며, 실제 위협을 해결하는 대신 남부 연합군 장군들의 기지 이름을 변경하는 등 국내 정치적 이익을 위해 미군을 재활용하려는 체계적인 시도가 드러났습니다.
장관은 앨라배마주 포트 러커와 같은 기지의 이름을 변경하는 것을 우선시했다는 비판을 받았습니다. 이 기지는 미국의 전쟁 임무에 초점을 맞추기보다는 29명의 미국인 생명을 구한 영웅적인 인물인 마이크 노바셀의 이름을 따서 개명되었습니다.
리더십 실패 및 보안 위험:
미국 전역의 지역에서 국내 법 집행을 지원하기 위해 주 방위군이나 현역 군인을 포함한 예비군을 통합하려는 부서의 계획에 대한 의문이 제기되었습니다.
상원의원은 군대가 미국인에 대한 행동 비용을 지불하는 데 사용되고 있으며, 장관의 행동이 국가와 전쟁 임무를 위험에 빠뜨리고 있다는 우려를 표명하며, 부처가 핵심 책임에 집중해야 할 필요성을 강조했습니다.
군사 자원의 국내 정치적 오용:
트럼프 대통령은 첫날 미국 북부 사령부에 범죄 활동에 대응하기 위한 새로운 계획 요건을 추가하기 위해 통일 지휘 계획을 수정하라고 지시했으며, 일련의 후속 행정 명령은 국방부의 우선순위를 국내 법 집행을 지원하는 방향으로 전환하는 데 계속되었습니다. 여기에는 국가 안보 자산을 법과 질서에 사용하는 것도 포함됩니다.
국방부는 자격을 갖춘 경찰관을 양성했음에도 불구하고 국내 치안의 비군사적 임무에 자원과 관심을 돌리고 있으며, 고급 전투 훈련에 집중하는 대신 ICE의 행정 및 물류 업무를 수행하기 위해 병력을 배치하고 있습니다.
ICE와 협력하기 위해 다른 세 개 주에 700명의 병력을 추가로 배치하는 것은 군의 실제 업무에 방해가 되는 것으로 간주되며, 미국 지역을 순찰하는 대신 군대는 사격 임무를 위한 소집 연습을 하고 실시간 사격 기동 훈련을 실시해야 합니다.
국방부 리더십에 대한 덕워스 상원의원의 비판:
국방부 인력은 국방부에서 근무하도록 장려되고 있으며, 군대는 국내 치안에 집중하기 위해 외국 적들을 상대하는 것에서 철수하고 있습니다. 태미 덕워스 상원의원은 군대가 실제 업무로 돌아가 국방부 업무를 중단해야 한다고 주장하고 있습니다.
헤게스 장관에 대한 구체적인 혐의:
헤게스 장관의 리더십은 상업 운송을 복구하지 못하고 수억 달러의 미국 항공기 손실을 초래한 후티족에 대한 수십억 달러 규모의 군사 작전을 포함하여 잘못된 판단, 부주의, 그리고 책임 부족의 패턴으로 특징지어졌습니다.
덕월트상원의원은 또한 헤게스 장관이 아내에게 잘 보이기 위해 기밀 작전 세부 사항을 시그널 장관에게 보냈다고 비판하며, 헤게스 장관이 미군을 허영심에 겨워 무모하게 위험에 빠뜨린 것으로 간주했다고 주장했습니다.
또한 헤게스 장관의 군에서 도덕적 리더십의 중요성을 강조했습니다.
헤게스가 미국 행정부의 정치적 의제를 미국 도시 내에서 수행하기 위해 외국의 적들과 싸우기보다는 국내 치안을 위해 현역 군인과 주 방위군을 배치하라는 트럼프의 지시에서 직접적인 연관성을 얻어 미군을 국내 정치적 목적으로 악용하고 있다는 비난이 제기되고 있습니다.
헌법 및 준비 문제:
미국에는 법 집행 기관과 경찰이 있기 때문에 도시 거리에서 ICE 서류 작업을 수행하거나 건물 밖에 서서 보여줄 해병대원이 필요하지 않다는 경고가 주어졌습니다. 이는 헌법적 위험과 군대가 국내 경찰이 아니라는 원칙의 약화를 강조하는 것입니다.
이 논평은 군대가 고급 전투, 훈련, 시추, 전투 능력 강화에 대비하는 대신 국내 정치 장식품으로 변질되는 등 실제 군사 대비 태세가 희생되고 있다는 주장이 제기되면서 비판에서 긴급성으로 전환되고 있습니다.
국가 안보의 함의와 정치적 오용:
행정부는 국내 정치적 목적으로 군대를 이용해 국가 안보를 강화하기보다는 약화시켰다는 비난을 받고 있으며, 헤게스가 DHS를 운영하고자 했다면 지원할 수 있었지만 국방부를 이용해 정치적 내러티브를 쫓는 것은 용납할 수 없다는 주장이 제기되고 있습니다.
메시지는 군이 정치인을 위한 홍보 묘기가 아니라 국가를 방어하기 위해 존재한다는 것을 분명히 하고 있으며, 법 집행, 국가 안보, 정치 권력의 경계가 모호해지는 정치 환경에서 즉각적인 상황을 넘어서는 경고가 발령되고 있습니다.
덕월트의 경고는 군대가 국내 경찰이 아니라는 오랜 미국 원칙을 유지하는 것의 중요성을 강조하며, 이를 사용하는 것이 헌법적으로 중대한 위험을 초래한다는 점을 강조합니다.
군사 원칙에 대한 장기적인 위협:
국내 치안을 위해 군대를 배치하는 것은 군의 목적과 능력을 오용하는 것이며, 이는 국가 안보와 외부 위협에 대응할 준비가 되어 있지 않다는 주장이 제기되고 있습니다.
Military Mission Failures and Financial Losses
-
The Secretary of Defense has admitted that a $1 billion mission against the Houthis has not restored the transit of US flag commercial vessels through the Red Sea, resulting in the loss of two F-18 Hornets and seven Reaper drones, totaling a significant financial loss.
-
The Secretary’s failures since taking office have been staggering, including sending classified operational information over an unsecured channel, risking service member lives, and creating a hostile command environment that deters people from serving in senior roles.
-
A systematic attempt to repurpose the US military for domestic political gain has been exposed, including the misuse of the military in American cities, pulling resources away from core missions, and focusing on renaming bases for Confederate generals instead of addressing real threats.
-
The Secretary was criticized for prioritizing the renaming of bases, such as Fort Rucker, Alabama, which was renamed for Medal of Honor recipient Mike Novasel, a heroic figure who saved 29 American lives, rather than focusing on the nation’s war-fighting mission.
Leadership Failures and Security Risks
-
Questions were raised about the department’s plans to incorporate the use of reserve forces, including the National Guard or active duty troops, to support domestic law enforcement in locations across the United States.
-
The Senator expressed concern that the military is being used to pay for actions against Americans, and that the Secretary’s actions are endangering the country and the war-fighting mission, highlighting the need for the department to focus on its core responsibilities.
Domestic Political Misuse of Military Resources
-
President Trump directed the US Northern Command to revise its unified command plan to add new planning requirements to combat criminal activities on his first day, and a series of follow-up executive orders continued to redirect DoD priorities to supporting domestic law enforcement, including using national security assets for law and order.
-
The DoD is diverting resources and attention to the non-military mission of domestic policing, despite having qualified police officers trained for that mission, and troops are being deployed to do administrative and logistics work for ICE instead of focusing on high-end combat training.
-
The deployment of 700 more troops to three other states to work with ICE is considered a distraction from the military’s real job, and instead of patrolling American neighborhoods, troops should be rehearsing call for fire missions and conducting live fire maneuver exercises.
Senator Duckworth’s Critique of DoD Leadership
-
The DoD workforce is being encouraged to work for DHS, and troops are being pulled away from facing foreign enemies to focus on domestic policing, with Senator Tammy Duckworth arguing that the military should get back to its real job and stop being forced to do DHS work.
-
Senator Duckworth, a combat veteran and double amputee, delivered a meticulously documented indictment of the collapse of competence and integrity inside the Department of Defense under Secretary Hegseth, highlighting the consequences of reckless leadership and the importance of holding leaders accountable.
Specific Allegations Against Secretary Hegseth
-
Secretary Hegseth’s leadership has been marked by a pattern of misjudgment, carelessness, and a lack of accountability, including a billion-dollar military campaign against the Houthis that failed to restore commercial shipping and resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in US aircraft losses.
-
Senator Duckworth also criticized Secretary Hegseth for allegedly sending classified operational details over Signal to impress his wife, which she considered a reckless endangerment of US troops for vanity, and highlighted the importance of moral leadership in the military.
-
The accusation is made that Hegseth is misusing the US military for domestic political purposes, with a direct link drawn from Trump’s directives to the deployment of active duty troops and National Guard forces for domestic policing, rather than to fight foreign adversaries, in order to carry out the administration’s political agenda inside US cities.
Constitutional and Readiness Concerns
-
The warning is given that America has law enforcement and police, and therefore does not need Marines on city streets performing tasks such as ICE paperwork or standing outside buildings for show, highlighting a constitutional danger and the erosion of the principle that the military is not a domestic police force.
-
The commentary shifts from criticism to urgency as it is argued that real military readiness is being sacrificed, with troops being turned into domestic political ornaments instead of preparing for high-end conflict, training, drilling, and sharpening combat capabilities.
National Security Implications and Political Misuse
-
The administration is accused of weakening national security, rather than strengthening it, by using the military for domestic political purposes, and it is argued that if Hegseth wanted to run DHS, he could have applied for it, but using the Pentagon to chase political narratives is unacceptable.
-
The message is clear that the military exists to defend the country, not to perform PR stunts for politicians, and a warning is issued that goes beyond the immediate situation, drawing a red line in a political environment where the boundaries between law enforcement, national security, and political power are being blurred.
-
Duckworth’s warning emphasizes the importance of maintaining the long-standing American principle that the military is not a domestic police force, and that using it as such poses a significant constitutional danger.
Long-Term Threats to Military Principles
-
The argument is made that the deployment of troops for domestic policing is a misuse of the military’s purpose and capabilities, and that it undermines the country’s national security and the military’s readiness to respond to external threats.
-
The final point is made that the military’s role is to defend the country, and that using it for political purposes is a threat to the country’s values and principles, with significant implications for the future.
녹취록:
The Secretary of Defense has just responded last week and admitted that the $1 billion mission that he led against the Houthis, who do not have a navy, has not restored the transit of US flag commercial vessels through the Red Sea and in fact has resulted in the loss of two F-18 Hornets to the tune of $60 million a piece, as well as, I believe the last count was seven Reaper drones to the tune of another $200 million. You are blowing through money like my cadet fellow cadets and I did in our first liberty after basic camp. Luckily, I didn’t end up with a questionable tattoo.
Your failures, Mr. Secretary, since you’ve taken office have been staggering. You sent classified operational information over Signal to chest-thump in front of your wife, who by the way has no security clearance, risking service member lives in the process. You blew the billion-dollar fight against the Houthis, whom again, as my colleague says, have no navy, and yet you lost all of those aircraft. You’ve created such a hostile command environment that no one wants to serve as your chief of staff or work with you in other senior DoD leadership roles.
And here’s where the hearing takes a sharp turn, because Duckworth doesn’t just list failures. She exposes what she calls a systematic attempt to repurpose the US military for domestic political gain. And that’s the part almost no one is talking about. Watch this.
But what we should all be talking about more than all of this is that you have an unjustified, un-American misuse of the military in American cities, pulling resources and attention away from core missions to the detriment of the country, the warfighters, and yes, the warfighting that you claim to love. I don’t know if this is because you are too inexperienced and incompetent to understand the real threats facing our country, or if it’s because you are just an unqualified yes-man who can’t tell the president how to keep Americans safe.
You are focusing on renaming bases for Confederate generals. You said just now to Senator King that to a man and to a woman, we would rather be associated with the old Confederate names. Well, I am one of those women. I served at Fort Rucker, Alabama, a base that was named for a traitor who took arms against the United States of America and led troops to kill Americans. It was renamed for Mike Novasel, a Medal of Honor recipient who saved 29 American lives, including hovering backwards in a helicopter toward an enemy bunker to rescue a wounded American while taking fire himself.
I know a little something about what it takes to fly a helicopter when you’ve been hit by enemy fire. That was heroic. I’d rather be associated with Mike Novasel than a failed Confederate traitor. I don’t know whether you are inexperienced or too incompetent, but I wonder when you will actually focus on our nation’s warfighting mission.
We know that California is just a deliberate, systematic political endangerment campaign led by you. We should not be using our military to play cops against Americans. General Kaine, as chairman, a key part of your job is to coordinate military planning across the joint force. Is the department currently incorporating into any military plans expanding the use of reserve forces, including the National Guard or active duty troops, to support domestic law enforcement, including in other locations in the United States?
No, General. It’s not really a yes-or-no question, Madam Senator. We plan all kinds of different things. I’m not aware of anything, but the reason I’m answering is that the tags may be looking at something that I’m not aware of.
What are you doing at your level? You’re not aware of that happening at your level? Because we know that on his first day, President Trump directed US Northern Command to revise its unified command plan to add new planning requirements to combat, and I quote, criminal activities. A series of follow-up executive orders continued to redirect DoD priorities to supporting domestic law enforcement, including one in April that tells DoD to use national security assets for law and order — in other words, to do law enforcement’s job.
You say you are force-focused on warfighting and warriors. These are your words. Yet you are diverting DoD resources and attention to the fundamentally non-military mission of domestic policing. Across our country, we have qualified police officers trained for that mission. They know those streets better than the Marines you deploy to Los Angeles who normally focus on the Indo-Pacific.
You recently approved 700 more troops in three other states to do administrative and logistics work for ICE. You say all of this is valuable training, but I would much rather have our troops do tough, realistic training relevant to high-end combat. Instead of typing spreadsheets for ICE, they should be conducting live-fire maneuver exercises. Instead of patrolling American neighborhoods and standing in front of federal buildings, they should be rehearsing call-for-fire missions. We have local police who can stand in front of those federal buildings.
And the list of distractions goes on. You are encouraging the DoD workforce to go work for DHS in increasing numbers. You’re pulling the military away from facing foreign enemies who literally say things like “death to America,” and you’re putting troops with weapons aimed at Americans. Mr. Secretary, let the military get back to its real job. Stop forcing them to do DHS’s work. And if you want to be the DHS Secretary, maybe you can apply for that job when you’re fired from this one due to your incompetence.
What Senator Tammy Duckworth delivered in this hearing wasn’t just a political jab. It was a fully, meticulously documented indictment of what she views as the collapse of competence and integrity inside the Department of Defense under Secretary Hegseth. And it’s important to understand why her voice lands differently. Duckworth isn’t just another senator with opinions. She’s a combat veteran, a helicopter pilot, and a double amputee who has personally lived the consequences of reckless leadership.
When she warns that someone is endangering troops, she speaks from the perspective of someone who has already paid the price. That’s what gives this moment so much gravity. Duckworth grounds everything in facts: money lost, missions mismanaged, aircraft destroyed, outcomes not achieved. She highlights that Hegseth’s billion-dollar military campaign against the Houthis, an adversary without a navy, failed to restore commercial shipping, failed operationally, and burned through hundreds of millions of dollars in US aircraft losses.
She frames it not as an isolated mistake, but as a pattern of misjudgment, carelessness, and a stunning lack of accountability. Then she moves to something even more alarming — the security breach. Hegseth allegedly sent classified operational details over Signal, not for mission-critical reasons, but to impress his wife. Duckworth calls it what it is: a reckless endangerment of US troops for vanity.
She contrasts Hegseth’s behavior with her own lived military experience. When he complained that bases shouldn’t have been renamed because troops preferred the old Confederate names, Duckworth made it personal. She served at Fort Rucker and said she’d rather serve under the legacy of a Medal of Honor recipient who saved lives than a Confederate officer who killed American troops. This is moral clarity — understanding that the symbols we honor reflect the values we claim to defend.
At the heart of Duckworth’s argument is her accusation that Hegseth is misusing the US military for domestic political purposes. She draws a straight line from Trump’s directives to the deployment of active duty troops and National Guard forces for domestic policing, not to fight foreign adversaries, but to carry out a political agenda inside US cities.
Her warning is blunt. America has law enforcement. America has police. America does not need Marines on city streets performing ICE paperwork or standing outside buildings for show. She highlights a constitutional danger — the erosion of the long-standing American principle that the military is not a domestic police force.
This is where her commentary shifts from criticism to urgency. She warns that real military readiness is being sacrificed. Instead of preparing for high-end conflict, training, drilling, and sharpening combat capabilities, troops are being turned into domestic political ornaments. She argues that the administration is weakening national security, not strengthening it.
Her message is clear. The military exists to defend the country, not to perform PR stunts for politicians. This moment wasn’t about theatrics. It was about drawing a red line. And in a political environment where the boundaries between law enforcement, national security, and political power are being blurred, Duckworth is issuing a warning that goes far beyond the room she was sitting in.
