The following is a lightly edited transcript of the November 6 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.
Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
Donald Trump’s war on Iran played a major role in the GOP’s massive electoral drubbing this week, and as a result, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is in serious trouble. Donald Trump just defended him, but then in a strange aside seemed to suggest he’s vulnerable. Meanwhile, Republicans and Trump allies really have their knives out for Hegseth, and the campaign to remove him appears serious. He even faces an impeachment vote next week.
But we want to get into what the Democratic Congress can really do about Hegseth’s disastrous reign. So we’re talking to Congressman Adam Smith of Washington State, the incoming chair of the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for coming on.
Adam Smith: Well, thanks for having me, Greg. It’s always a pleasure.
Sargent: So, on Hegseth’s tenuous position, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl spoke to the president and reported Thursday that Trump said, “I have every intention to keep him.”
But Trump said people unhappy with Hegseth aren’t contacting him, saying, “I get these calls about him. I don’t understand why.”
And Trump even admitted it would be easier to confirm a new defense secretary before Dems control the Senate next year.
Congressman, this is how Trump turns on people, with talk like this. You’ve been around the Pentagon a long time. How do you read it?
Smith: I think it’s 50-50 that Trump does get rid of Hegseth for the reasons you stated. And also because the Iran war has been a complete disaster. Trump needs a fall guy. And we all know Trump’s not going to take personal responsibility for it.
So Hegseth would be convenient, and deservedly so. Hegseth was a cheerleader for this and a lot of the disastrous decisions that have been made going into it, Hegseth has been right in the middle of. So I think that’s a distinct possibility.
The other thing to weigh here is that on Wednesday the motion by Congressman Massie is ripe for a vote. And by every estimation, it will pass and he will be impeached. And off that goes to the Senate. Then the Senate is legally required to spend all of their time dealing with that until it’s done with.
Sargent: That’s going to be quite a scene. And MS NOW reports that Trump has been asking allies what they think about Hegseth, and some of them are pushing for a replacement. One official says, “There’s a lot of people who want his scalp, and they smell blood in the water.”
This looks real to me, Congressman. What are you hearing from inside the Pentagon? Is there consternation?
Smith: Yeah, well, we don’t hear a lot from inside the Pentagon. I can tell you, from inside the military more broadly, yes. There are people who have been concerned with the way Pete Hegseth has been running the department. And it comes down to politicization of it, first of all.
And second of all, it’s become so much about personality. Look, there is a professionalism within the military. And that’s not that there aren’t people who serve in the military who don’t have strong political views one way or the other. There certainly are. But they’ve always put those aside in favor of the job, the mission, and working together.
Pete Hegseth has not done that. I mean, he’s had those two, you know, ridiculous forums where he brought every flag officer together to give a pep rally of sorts, in which he seems to be obsessed with physical appearance more than with actual results.
We’ve had the firings that, from what we’ve heard, in many instances people have no idea why they happened. Hegseth is the first secretary of defense ever to directly involve himself in mid-level promotion decisions, you know, to go in and cross off names.
So all of that, I think, has had a very negative effect on morale within the Pentagon. And look, none of this is to say that there aren’t some people, I’m sure, in the military who love Hegseth and love what he does. But dissatisfaction within the Pentagon about his leadership is high, from what we have heard, or what we’ve been told.
Sargent: I’m sure it is. I’m sure there would be a lot of people who’d like to see him go.
The Iran war has cost $47 billion so far. Trump is still talking about a major attack. Have you been briefed on what the attack is? Senator Murphy says it’s “insane.” Is he right?
Smith: Yeah, I mean, look, they haven’t briefed us consistently on this from the very start. They have been doing attacks in the last few days, last few weeks.
What isn’t widely understood is, for months now, we have been engaged in a major military operation to secure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Now, yeah, we’re up close to, like, 80 percent of traffic of what was there before the war. But it’s costing us an enormous amount of money to protect those ships coming through, and to bomb potential missile launchers and missiles that Iran’s trying to build. So it’s become very, very expensive.
Sargent: Can you talk a little bit more about that? Because it seems like there’s a vulnerable pressure point here for Democrats going forward. How much are we talking about? How much is being spent just to escort these ships out of the strait?
Smith: I don’t know exactly, because they won’t report it. And that’s the lack of transparency we’re talking about, and the lack of information that Hegseth just isn’t providing to us. But you see the dollars and the figures adding up, and it is definitely having a huge impact on how the Pentagon pays for everything else.
And also, where does it end? Iran does not appear to be interested in giving up anytime soon. So how long can we keep this up? And this isn’t even talking about all the bases that we’ve had damaged and destroyed in the Middle East, which are not calculated in that $47 billion, by the way.
Sargent: Do you think that there’s a massive cost here that’s being buried?
Smith: Yeah, no question. I mean, the equipment that has been destroyed and the bases that have been destroyed have not been calculated into that cost. That’s just what we’ve spent.
Sargent: Democrats are going to have to get that information, right?
Smith: Yeah, that’s going to be one of our big pushes, is to get some transparency and get some information provided.
Sargent: So how are Democrats going to stop this war? Is there a coming point at which they’ll need money and can be defunded there?
Smith: There’s no easy way to do it, because Trump keeps robbing every account he can rob to keep funding it and keep moving it forward. What we will do is we will vote resoundingly to end the war. We will vote to cut off all funds that go to the war. But remember, he will still be president. He will still have veto power.
I think the war can be stopped if we can persuade a number of Republicans. We could conceivably get a two-thirds majority to do this. And maybe Trump finally wakes up and starts caring about what people think instead of just doing things on a whim. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.
But the other part of this is, we have to end the war, but to end the war, we have to admit something that we’re not going to want to admit. We lost. Iran will be in a stronger position when this war is over than they were when it started. And we will be in a weaker position. And that’s just baked into the cake at this point.
There’s no fixing that. And historically, we stayed in Vietnam too long, we stayed in Afghanistan too long. And part of the reason was, well, we don’t want to admit that we lost.
Sargent: Trump certainly doesn’t. So just for clarification, you think that Democrats in both houses next year will pass a measure which cuts off funding, in the sense that it forbids funding for the Iran war?
Smith: Absolutely. I think it’ll be one of the first things we do, and strongest things that we should do.
Sargent: And then I think there is a case to be made for then trying to get some Republican support to override the inevitable veto. But this will be a bill, if I understand you correctly, which forbids the use of any funding for this war.
Smith: Yeah. That would be the plan. And obviously, look, the legal language and the loopholes and the ways that Trump can sort of jump out of it, those will all continue to be challenges. But yeah, the war has been a disaster. It needs to end.
But a lot of the damage has been done. It’s not like we end the war and everything goes back to normal. Another thing that we need to really push is diplomacy. I mean, right now, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran are talking. Because this, it’s horrible for us. It’s horrible for much of the country. But it’s really horrible for the people in the Middle East who are having to endure this constant and spreading war.
Sargent: I think there’s a scenario you can envision that looks a little something like this. Maybe you pass this thing out of both houses. You even get a couple of Republicans, I don’t know, in the House, maybe, although all that’s left is the really hardcore people at this point on the Republican side.
But you pass it and it cuts off funding, Trump vetoes. Maybe you go to Republicans and say, why don’t you guys go to the president and tell him that you’re going to vote for this thing unless he exits it quietly, or give him a way out, give him an off-ramp, right? Is there a scenario like that? I mean, you’re a veteran of this stuff.
Smith: That should be happening right now. There should be some kind of a negotiation happening. This is not going to be easy for us to get out of.
Sargent: So I want to ask you about a few things that need to be investigated. The Pentagon hasn’t released the investigation into the U.S. bombing of the girls’ school in Iran, which killed dozens and dozens of kids. What’s the Armed Services Committee going to do next year to get that?
Smith: Yeah, we will continue to put pressure on them to release it. We’ve been doing that in a bipartisan way, and thus far they have rejected doing that, which is a huge challenge.
Sargent: Subpoenas?
Smith: Yeah, potentially. But yeah, we can subpoena them, we can hold them in contempt. The report should be released. I mean, it’s been nine months now.
Sargent: There’s a strong case to be made to Republicans in Congress who have called for it: Well, OK, you want the report, you say you want the report. Well, join us in supporting a subpoena of it, right?
Smith: Yeah, we will try that, to be sure. Look, one of the things that’s going to be really hard for all of us to deal with is, we’ve taken back Congress, certainly, but Trump is still president.
The executive still has a lot of power. Trump ignores Congress. Trump ignores the courts. This is going to be a very, very difficult fight, and we’re going to have to consistently push to try to get some of the changes that we want.
Sargent: Well, that’s where defunding comes in, I think. My sense is that Democrats are going to have to get a little more comfortable than they are usually with using the defunding lever. Because this is a lawless president. If there’s ever a case for using that defunding pressure to force lawful behavior, this is it.
Smith: Sure, but we do have to be careful. You’re talking about defunding the Pentagon?
Sargent: No, more targeted. More targeted things. Like, I think the start would be for both houses to cut off all funding for the war, and then maybe start to slightly escalate.
Smith: Yeah, no, I think that’s probably a good place to start.
Sargent: Well, the U.S. continues to kill people in boat strikes in the Caribbean. The last one was on October 4. Well over 200 people have been killed at this point. Little to no evidence is being released that these are even drug smugglers.
You’ve criticized this, other Dems have criticized this. Now you’re going to have power. Is there going to be a deep and serious investigation here that gets to the bottom of how this bombing campaign came into existence? Who pushed it, who authorized it, who resisted, what’s the evidence, so forth?
Smith: Yes, we are going to attempt to do that. Absolutely.
Sargent: Can you talk a little bit about what that looks like? What do you try to establish in this?
Smith: Well, I mean, I think we want to establish the justification for it. And we’re going to want to bring in people who have made decisions around it, just like you described, and get some explanation. But crucially, Where is it going? What’s it trying to accomplish? What’s going to happen here going forward into the future?
Sargent: Right. And is defunding these strikes an option? I mean, let’s say they come back with—
Smith: Yes.
Sargent: OK, what would have to happen for that step to be taken?
Smith: The same thing, I think, as on the war in Iran. We have to pass, no fund is authorized for boat strikes in Latin America. And then we’d have to face the president’s veto.
And I mean, look, before we get into all of that, I think there is going to be a legitimate effort on our part to say, hey, can we do this the easy way? Can you change these policies that are manifestly unpopular? Can you stop the war, stop the boat strikes, and move in a different direction? While at the same time being prepared to use those stronger levers that you described.
Sargent: I do want to ask you a little bit more about these stronger levers. The administration’s going to defy your subpoenas. So you’re going to subpoena people to appear and discuss the boat strikes. You’re going to subpoena people to release or discuss the report on the bombing of the girls’ school.
Trump’s going to tell people not to testify. This is my speculation, but it seems reasonable to expect that there’s going to be intense obstruction. They’re going to throw subpoenas in the garbage.
There will have to be, in a general sense, a little more of a comfort level, I think, about using the defunding lever. I’m wondering if you could just kind of talk about whether you think Democrats have to get to that point a little bit.
Smith: Well, we do. I mean, as I said, we need defense money, and pass legislation that says, no funding shall go to these particular purposes. And we’ll have to have that fight. Look, it’s going to be an ugly fight between Congress and the executive branch for the next two years. There’s no question about that.
Sargent: How far do you think you’re going to get? Do you think you can get that report on the girls’ school released? Do you think you’re going to be able to stop the boat strikes? Will you stop the war?
Smith: Look, I really don’t know. I mean, and if I said I knew—anyone who says they know, it’s just—we are headed into uncharted territory here. The Trump presidency is absolutely unprecedented. He is completely unresponsive in a way that no other president has been, even after the shellacking that they took in the election.
I mean, you saw Clinton when he lost in the midterms in ‘94, he pivoted. You saw Bush even pivot after losing in 2006, certainly saw Obama pivot after we lost in 2010. What’s Trump going to do? It’s unprecedented. So we’ve got to try to figure out what he’s going to do. And, you know, so it’s going to be a major challenge.
Sargent: I do wonder whether the war can actually be defunded successfully here, or whether it’s going to actually have to come to that.
Smith: Yeah. No, look, the one thing I hope people understand is, the damage that Trump has done is not easy to unravel. Because even if you sort of dig down a little bit on what ending the war means, you know, we pull out, we pull back, what happens then? That’s why I think the diplomatic element, the peace negotiations, are such a crucial part of this. But it’s going to be a challenge.
Sargent: Do you think that if it actually comes to a defunding fight, like if everything you’ve tried has failed and you vote to cut off funding for the war, do you think the leadership will be supportive of that, the Democratic leadership in Congress?
Smith: Yes.
Sargent: Do you have, like, special assurance of that, or is it just speculation?
Smith: I think ending the war is one of our central pledges in this election.
Sargent: Yeah, it has to be done. It would be a catastrophe if Democrats punted on that, don’t you think?
Smith: Absolutely. Yeah. But again, the problems are complicated. You know, Trump has dragged us into a conflict that’s going to be problematic.
Sargent: Yes, it looks that way. You came out for impeachment of Donald Trump the other day. You want to just make your case?
Smith: Yeah, look, I mean, he’s out of control. He’s not a normal president. What he’s doing is not normal. He’s incredibly dangerous. He has defied over 250 different court rulings. He ignores Congress. He is corrupt beyond imagination, enriching himself, raffling off pardons, the whole Bitcoin stuff, his family.
So all of that is terrible. But the bottom line is, as long as he’s president, we can’t really trust that he’s not going to do even more incredibly damaging things. So that’s the big concern.
Now look, I’m mindful of the fact that a lot of our new members in the House are going to come from districts that don’t want impeachment. So we’re going to have to have this conversation about what’s best for our caucus. And I will follow our leadership. I’m not going to try to undermine them.
I think we need to try to have a cohesive—unity is an overstated way of putting it—but we’re going to have right around 260 members in the House. Getting some sort of cohesive agreement on where to go is a key part of this.
Sargent: I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes, Congressman. Let me just ask you, speaking about all these outer-tier members, these members from districts that Trump carried by eight, nine, 10 points, do you think at the end of the day they will be willing to support whatever it takes to end the war?
Smith: I don’t know. I don’t think they know. I mean, look, how to put this exactly? This election was primarily about, well, a couple different things. One, how terrible Trump is. His policies, certainly, but also just his general demeanor and attitude.
We had candidates all across the country who were just decent people, who said, enough of this nastiness. You know, let’s get back to working with our neighbors, trying to figure out how to make things work better.
And then there were Trump’s policies, the tariffs, the immigration crackdown, the war in Iran and huge feeling amongst the American people that life in America fundamentally isn’t fair. And so you could go out there on the stump and you could say, I’m a farmer, I’m a veteran, I’m a teacher, I understand our community, I’m with you, I’m going to help you, I’m going to help protect you. But what does that mean in terms of policy?
We’re $39 trillion in debt. Yeah, we need to get rid of the Medicaid cuts. We need to get rid of the Affordable Care Act cuts, a lot of other cuts. How’s it going to be paid for? Are people in favor of the tax increases that are going to be necessary to get us there? How are we going to accomplish those things, given the hole that has been dug? Certainly by Trump, but even before Trump, we just put ourselves in a weaker position that made the whole thing more difficult.
Sargent: Are there clawback options that you think should be exercised to try to fund the restoration of Medicaid and stuff?
Smith: Yeah. I think we should repeal the entire One Big Beautiful Bill, which means we should put taxes out there. But we have to, I believe, as Democrats, make the case that tax increases are not always bad. All right? If we can’t make that case, then we’re going to have a difficult time delivering on our promises in terms of how to help people.
Now, and part of that is all the billionaires and multimillionaires, all the money that has gone there instead of being available for the programs we need. But those things are going to be difficult. And like I said, I think the people who run for office, they’re great people and everything, but the actual legislative solutions are going to be a lot harder.
Sargent: It certainly is going to be extremely challenging and extremely tense stuff. Congressman Adam Smith, thank you so much for coming on with us. Great stuff. We really appreciate it.
Smith: Thanks, Greg. Thanks for the chance.