Pete Hegseth pushing new defense budget? Ryan Schmelz explains

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Everybody does want to rule the world. I'm John Mounts
filling in for JT. Defense Secretary Pete Hesath is continuing
to push the Trump administration for a defense budget that's
getting some pushback by the defense Hawks. We're joined now
by Ryan Schmels from DC. Ryan, what is why is
this budget so controversial?

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Well, so, the first part is, I think you know
that the trumpministration only released a skinny budget, so they
haven't exactly given them specific details Congress about, you know,
what the extensive pieces of what they want to spend
the money on. So that that's kind of been a
bit a big issue for a number of lawmakers. You know,

(00:40):
the the administration, like the right administration, was laid on
its budget request and so we're still kind of waiting
to see what exactly a plan to spend money on
and how they plan on spending is eight hundred and
fifty billion. Now, the overall spending number eight hundred fifty
billion is just not enough for defense hawks. They want this.
You know, Pete exit has said he wanted to have
a one trillion dollars defense budget the first time ever

(01:02):
in the military's history. Well, you know, their mas for
this is a little bit different than what the Senate wants.
The math for the Trumins fistion is, we have the
eight hundred fifty billion from the just Basic budget, but
then you also have the one hundred and fifty billion
from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and that will
get them to one trillion dollars. Whereas defence officers saying no, no, no,

(01:23):
that needs to be a part of the actual budget
for the next fiscal year. You can't just say eight
hundred fifty billion plus another supplement that we're attacking on
separately from that.

Speaker 1 (01:33):
And right now, with the possibility of America getting em
World in a situation in Iran, that's not going to
be cheap either. So I imagine that kind of figures
into the calculus as to what our next move is
going to be, because we got to have the money
to fund our action over there.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
Yeah yeah, I mean, well, it depends on what the
action is going to be, right you know. The idea
is that right now we already have troops in the
Middle East in different sections of it. You know, we've
sent some warships into the area to be in a
p TX it called the defensive position. But I don't
really see us right now, you know, exactly saying oh, heck, yeah,
we're going to get in to go to war with

(02:08):
the ron. I think that the extent that we're hearing
the United States could have some type of involvement would
be this idea of you know, potentially giving Israel certain
weapons that are able to hit certain refineries that are
impenetrable with Israel's current military arsenal. So essentially they call
this the bunker busters, and they're saying that the United

(02:31):
States has, you know, the capabilities to destroy this nuclear
refinery that's underneath this bunker, but Israel obviously doesn't have
those capabilities, so they would need the United States to
either step in and do it for them, or just
at least supply them the bomb.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
Well, as I understand, not only do they need the bomb,
but they also need the means of delivering it, because
it requires specific aircraft to deliver it, aircraft that, by
the way, would have to be deployed from here, refueled
several times in flight as it travels over there. So
I mean, all of this is not cheap, and all
of it of course dropping the bucket compared to eight
hundred and fifty billion dollars, but it's still it's still

(03:12):
it kind of showcases, I guess America's military might and
then justifies the cost of that might.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
Yeah, of course, and we don't know how much that
would that would specifically cost to do all that in
one you know how, especially if it's on under a
short period of time, because that's the thing where you know,
the the America First and the the what what is
America's involvement type of argument is happening right now because
you know, it seems like if they have a clear,
uh indication of where this thing is, this could be

(03:39):
a quick, you know, twenty four hour forty eight hour
process and then the United States goes back to minding
its own business. But you know, it's kind of like, oh, wow,
you really, if this thing is legitimate, you really do
have an opportunity to take out Aron's nuclear capabilities and
what's what's the eye it is totally going to do
after that. So that's that's kind of the debate that's
happening on Capitol Hill, and it's a tough position for

(04:01):
President Trump to be in because you know, there are
people who you question what America First is and you
know he's got to you know, balance that. No, we're
not a pro war nation. We're trying to avoid conflict.
But at the same time, as President Trump has said,
America first and peace through strength piece, their strength isn't

(04:23):
a thing if Iran has a nuclear weapon.

Speaker 1 (04:26):
Well, and even though we're talking peace through strength and peace,
I think if we're going to get involved, most Americas,
and I know Donald Trump is not going to want
this to be like Vietnam. They're not going to want
us to get in world in the long term battle
and lose. If we're going to go in, we're going
to be in it to win it. Ryan, thank you
so much for joining us this morning on Alabama's Morning News.