Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) said Pete Hegseth during a House Armed Services Committee hearing regarding the legality of Operation Epic Fury [1].
The confrontation highlights a growing tension between the executive branch and Congress over the War Powers Resolution. If the operation is deemed illegal, it could trigger a constitutional crisis regarding the authority to commit U.S. troops to foreign conflicts without a formal declaration of war.
During the hearing at the U.S. Capitol, McCollum focused on whether the military action violated existing legal frameworks [1]. She specifically cited the War Powers Resolution as the basis for her inquiry into the operation's authorization [1].
Financial costs were a primary point of contention during the testimony. McCollum said she had concerns about the reported $25 billion cost associated with Operation Epic Fury [1]. She asked for a detailed accounting of how those funds were allocated, and the long-term fiscal impact of the mission [1].
Beyond the legal and financial questions, the congresswoman demanded a concrete strategy for the end of the engagement. McCollum said she urged the development of a "Plan B" to ensure a structured and safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region [1].
Hegseth faced a series of questions regarding the strategic necessity of the operation and the timeline for its conclusion [1]. The exchange underscored the divide over how the U.S. should manage military interventions in contested regions — particularly when those actions lack explicit congressional approval [1].
McCollum said that the lack of a clear exit strategy and the high cost of the operation necessitated immediate oversight [1].
“McCollum urged the development of a 'Plan B' to ensure a structured and safe withdrawal of US troops.”
This clash reflects a fundamental struggle over the 'power of the purse' and the constitutional authority to wage war. By invoking the War Powers Resolution and highlighting the $25 billion expenditure, Rep. McCollum is attempting to reassert congressional oversight over executive military decisions. The demand for a withdrawal plan suggests that lawmakers are concerned about 'mission creep,' where a limited operation evolves into a prolonged and costly conflict without a defined end state.
