Sec Def Hegseth Dismantles Rep McCollum: “I Recall 2020 Quite Well When Gov Walz Abandoned Police Precinct, Allowed It to Be Burned, 5 Days of Chaos”; “LAPD Would Be 18,000 If Not for Defund Movement That Newsom and Bass Implemented”; “Tsunami of Support” in Military Recruiting — Not Just Trump Bump

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a masterful response to Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum’s attempt to grill him on LA deployment costs in June 2025. Hegseth: “You are right, we are both originally from Minnesota, which is why I recall 2020 quite well, when Governor Walz abandoned a police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground, and also allowed five days of chaos to occur inside the streets of Minneapolis.” He explained the Trump approach: “So in Los Angeles, we believe that ICE, which is a federal law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct operations in any state and any jurisdiction in the country, especially after 21 million illegals have crossed our border under the previous administration. ICE ought to be able to do its job, whether it’s Minneapolis or Los Angeles.” On LAPD staffing: “There are 17,000 LAPD… There would be 18,000, if not for the defund movement, that folks like Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass have implemented.” On military recruiting: “This is a tsunami of support amongst young Americans who want to serve under a president who they know has their back, who will fund them properly, who will not use them unnecessarily.”

Hegseth Dismantling McCollum

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) tried to grill Hegseth.

“You are right, we are both originally from Minnesota,” Hegseth opened.

He delivered the devastating rebuttal: “Which is why I recall 2020 quite well, when Governor Walsh abandoned a police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground, and also allowed five days of chaos to occur inside the streets of Minneapolis.”

He elaborated: “The police precinct, ma’am, was abandoned and burned to the ground.”

He made the causality point: “Because of that, the National Guard was eventually far too late mobilized.”

The Minnesota Connection

Hegseth’s Minnesota background was strategically deployed.

Hegseth’s Minnesota ties:

• Born in Minneapolis
• Raised in Minnesota
• Attended Princeton (before joining Army)
• Personal knowledge of Minnesota politics
• Firsthand experience with 2020 events

McCollum’s Minnesota ties:

• Democratic Rep. from Minnesota (4th District)
• Long-serving member
• Progressive Democrat
• Minneapolis area
• Also witnessed 2020 events

Why this mattered:

• Both could speak from experience
• McCollum couldn’t dismiss Hegseth as ignorant outsider
• Personal credibility equivalent
• Substantive debate enabled
• Political authority shared

The 2020 Minneapolis Evidence

Hegseth was specific.

“The police precinct, ma’am, was abandoned and burned to the ground.”

The Specific Incident

The 3rd Precinct burning was documented.

What happened May 28, 2020:

• Minneapolis 3rd Precinct surrounded by protesters
• Police chief evacuated building
• Protesters set fire
• Building destroyed
• Symbol of broader chaos

The Walz failures:

• Did not pre-deploy National Guard
• Did not authorize stronger police response
• Allowed precinct abandonment
• Failed to protect city
• Leadership collapse

The timeline:

• Floyd death May 25
• Protests began immediately
• Violence escalated quickly
• Precinct burned May 28 (Day 3)
• Continued for days after

The cost:

• $500+ million property damage
• Multiple deaths during unrest
• Long-term community damage
• Political consequences
• Historical significance

”Five Days of Chaos”

Hegseth’s specific framing captured the timeline.

The 5-day period:

• Massive violence
• Property destruction
• Multiple fires
• Looting widespread
• Community devastation

Why this mattered in 2025 context:

• Walz’s 2024 VP candidacy reminder
• Democratic governance failure
• Contrast with Trump’s rapid response
• Public safety priority demonstrated
• Federal vs. state competence

The political point:

• Walz’s failures contributed to his VP loss
• Biden/Harris chose wrong running mate
• Trump’s LA response contrasts
• Democratic governance fails in crisis
• Federal intervention necessary

Trump’s Different Approach

Hegseth articulated Trump’s lessons.

“And President Trump recognizes a situation like that improperly and handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Walsh, if it gets out of control, is a bad situation for the citizens of any location.”

The Learning from Minnesota

Trump’s response was informed.

What Trump learned from 2020:

• Waiting for governors wastes time
• Slow response enables destruction
• Federal action must be ready
• State incompetence possible
• Public safety priority

How this informed 2025 LA response:

• Rapid federal deployment
• National Guard immediately
• Marines for facility protection
• Clear message to rioters
• Not waiting for Newsom

The political philosophy:

• Federal action sometimes necessary
• State failures unacceptable
• Constitutional authority available
• Public safety primary
• Decisive leadership essential

The ICE Operations

Hegseth explained the specific policy.

“So in Los Angeles, we believe that ICE, which is a federal law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct operations in any state and any jurisdiction in the country, especially after 21 million illegals have crossed our border under the previous administration.”

He delivered the principle: “ICE ought to be able to do its job, whether it’s Minneapolis or Los Angeles.”

The Constitutional Framework

Hegseth laid out the constitutional basis.

Why ICE has authority everywhere:

• Federal law enforcement agency
• Constitutional authority on immigration
• Supremacy clause
• National border responsibility
• Every state covered

The state resistance issue:

• Sanctuary cities
• State refusal to cooperate
• Federal operations obstructed
• Constitutional conflict
• Political disputes

The resolution:

• ICE must operate regardless
• Federal protection if needed
• Constitutional authority clear
• State cooperation preferred but not required
• Federal interest primary

The 21 million context:

• Scale of Biden-era illegal entry
• Unprecedented numbers
• Massive enforcement backlog
• Years of work required
• Sustained operations necessary

”ICE Agents Should Be Allowed to Be Safe”

Hegseth explained the Marine deployment.

“You asked about the situation in Los Angeles, and we believe ICE agents should be allowed to be safe in doing their operations, and we have deployed National Guard and the Marines to protect them in the execution of their duties, because we ought to be able to enforce immigration law in this country, unlike what Governor Walsh did in 2020.”

The Safety Priority

The framing was important.

What the deployment achieved:

• Officer protection
• Operational continuity
• Deterrence against violence
• Federal authority demonstrated
• Mission continuation

Why Marines specifically:

• Specialized training
• Rapid response capability
• Disciplined force
• Federal military capability
• Legitimate federal mission

The legal framework:

• Protection of federal officers
• Protection of federal property
• Protection of federal operations
• All legitimate federal military roles
• Posse Comitatus exceptions

The political effect:

• Officers safer
• Operations continue
• Message to rioters
• Federal strength demonstrated
• Administration priority clear

”Unlike What Walz Did in 2020”

Hegseth’s specific comparison was sharp.

What Walz didn’t do in 2020:

• Deploy National Guard quickly
• Protect Minneapolis police precinct
• Prevent violent riots
• Maintain order
• Enforce the law

What Trump did in 2025:

• Deploy National Guard immediately
• Send Marines for protection
• Protect federal operations
• Maintain order
• Enforce immigration law

The specific contrast:

• Walz: Accommodated violence
• Trump: Confronted violence
• Walz: Let situation escalate
• Trump: Proactive response
• Walz: Local politics primary
• Trump: National interest primary

The 17,000 vs 18,000 LAPD

Hegseth made a specific point about LA police.

“There are 17,000 LAPD, you mentioned that. There would be 18,000, if not for the defund movement, that folks like Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass have implemented.”

The “Defund Movement” Reality

The specific policy impact was real.

What “defund the police” actually did:

• Some cuts to police budgets
• Recruiting freezes
• Morale damage
• Officer resignations
• Resource redirections

Specific LAPD impact:

• Staffing below authorized strength
• 1,000+ officer shortage
• Recruiting difficulties
• Retirement waves
• Capacity reduced

Why this mattered:

• Fewer officers during crisis
• Delayed response times
• Reduced enforcement capacity
• Community safety compromised
• Emergency reliance on federal

The political accountability:

• Newsom supported defund rhetoric
• Bass specifically supported
• Democratic policy failures
• Real-world consequences
• Federal response necessary

”The Police Chief Said She Was Overwhelmed”

Hegseth cited specific testimony.

“The police chief said she was overwhelmed, so we helped.”

The LAPD Chief’s Admission

The specific admission was important.

What Chief Michelle Moore had said:

• Unable to handle situation alone
• Federal assistance needed
• Resources stretched
• Personnel exhausted
• Grateful for help

Why this mattered politically:

• Local law enforcement professional acknowledgment
• Not political opposition
• Substantive need recognized
• Federal intervention justified
• Professional vs. political distinction

The Newsom/Bass contrast:

• Political leaders opposing federal help
• Professional law enforcement accepting federal help
• Clear distinction
• Professional vs. political
• Political attacks undermining professionals

The broader implication:

• Democratic politicians prioritize politics
• Law enforcement professionals prioritize safety
• Trump administration helping professionals
• Working-class Democratic voters often law enforcement-aligned
• Political coalition implications

The Trump Bump and Tsunami

Hegseth addressed military recruitment.

“Without recruiting, what changed is a commander-in-chief that America’s young people believe in.”

He detailed the progression: “President Trump was elected in November, inaugurated in January, and at first I called it the Trump bump, but then it became clear that’s not enough.”

He delivered the upgraded framing: “This is a tsunami of support amongst young Americans who want to serve under a president who they know has their back.”

The Recruiting Transformation

The data backed up the rhetoric.

The scale of recruitment change:

• Biden era: Chronic shortfalls
• Trump era: Meeting goals four months early
• Army specifically: Dramatic reversal
• All branches benefiting
• Unprecedented scale

The specific language:

• “Trump Bump” - initial boost
• “Tsunami of Support” - upgraded characterization
• Suggests continuing growth
• Reflects actual data
• Political framing backed by facts

Why young Americans responded:

• Cultural shift supporting military
• Political leadership respected
• Mission focus restored
• Warrior ethos emphasized
• DEI distractions eliminated

The institutional change:

• Military culture restored
• Traditional values emphasized
• Combat readiness priority
• Warrior ethos celebrated
• Identity politics reduced

The “Has Their Back” Framework

Hegseth’s framework captured the cultural shift.

“Who will fund them properly, who will not use them unnecessarily, and will make sure they are part of deterrence for the country with a focus, first and foremost, on the homeland.”

The Military Leadership Philosophy

Hegseth’s approach had specific elements.

“Has their back”:

• Political support for troops
• Cultural respect
• Institutional backing
• Personal leadership
• Strategic commitment

“Fund them properly”:

• Adequate resources
• Modern equipment
• Competitive pay
• Housing and benefits
• Operational capability

“Not use them unnecessarily”:

• Foreign policy restraint
• Avoid unnecessary wars
• Careful deployment decisions
• Mission clarity
• Purpose-driven operations

“Part of deterrence”:

• Strong military as deterrent
• Prevention through strength
• Peace through strength doctrine
• Ready forces
• Credible threat

“Focus on homeland”:

• American interests first
• Border security priority
• Domestic defense
• National protection
• American focus

”Make Sure Our Allies Step Up”

Hegseth addressed burden sharing.

“Then deterring strength and making sure our allies step up and carry more of the burden.”

The Alliance Framework

The burden-sharing approach was strategic.

What Trump administration wanted from allies:

• Higher defense spending (2% GDP minimum, pushing higher)
• Greater European responsibility for European defense
• Increased NATO contributions
• More operational responsibility
• Less American dependence

Why this approach:

• Sustainable long-term
• American resource constraints
• Strategic realism
• Alliance strength through contribution
• Political accountability

The alliance transformation:

• European NATO members increasing spending
• Some surpassing 2% target
• More willingness to deploy
• Greater burden sharing
• More equitable alliance

The Trump legacy:

• First-term Trump pushed allies
• Result was increased spending
• Second term continuing pressure
• Long-term strategic change
• Sustainable alliance structure

The Historic Military Surge

Hegseth cited specific data.

“So you’ve got a historic surge in the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force. You name it, Americans are responding because the president says a new spirit, and he’s right, and you can feel it in the ranks.”

He extended with direct testimony: “You go out to formations, you talk to men and women on the border, they believe in what they’re doing in securing that southern border.”

He continued globally: “You talk to them across the world, they’re enthused about this new administration and its leadership.”

He summarized: “So it’s President Trump, sir.”

The “New Spirit” Framework

Hegseth articulated Trump’s cultural insight.

What “new spirit” meant:

• American confidence
• National pride
• Mission clarity
• Cultural restoration
• Leadership respect

Why this mattered for military:

• Young Americans want meaningful service
• Clear mission motivates
• Cultural alignment important
• National pride essential
• Professional respect critical

The contrast with Biden era:

• Biden: cultural confusion
• Biden: mission drift
• Biden: progressive priorities
• Biden: DEI emphasis
• Biden: diminished pride

The Trump restoration:

• Cultural confidence restored
• Mission clarity emphasized
• Traditional values reaffirmed
• Identity politics reduced
• National pride celebrated

”You Can Feel It in the Ranks”

Hegseth’s direct observation was compelling.

“You go out to formations, you talk to men and women on the border, they believe in what they’re doing in securing that southern border.”

The Professional Testimony

Hegseth’s credibility mattered.

Why Hegseth could speak authoritatively:

• Combat veteran (Iraq, Afghanistan)
• Ongoing engagement with troops
• Regular base visits
• Formation interactions
• Direct observation

What he was observing:

• High morale
• Clear sense of mission
• Belief in leadership
• Professional pride
• Cultural alignment

Why this was genuine:

• Not political theater
• Actual military observation
• Professional assessment
• Sustained engagement
• Credible source

The broader implications:

• Military culture restored
• Recruitment success sustained
• Operational effectiveness improved
• Long-term strategic benefit
• Political alignment strengthened

The Border Specifically

Hegseth mentioned specific deployments.

“Men and women on the border, they believe in what they’re doing in securing that southern border.”

The Border Mission

The specific mission had morale implications.

What border deployment involved:

• Meaningful mission
• Clear purpose
• National security service
• Public safety contribution
• Measurable results

Why this boosted morale:

• Tangible impact
• Clear need
• Grateful local support
• Political appreciation
• National significance

The contrast with Biden-era border:

• Chaotic situation
• Mission unclear
• Instructions contradictory
• Professional frustration
• Limited effectiveness

The Trump era border:

• Clear mission
• Strong leadership
• Full support
• Clear results
• Professional satisfaction

The Administration Integration

The broadcast captured administration coherence.

What Hegseth demonstrated:

• Personal authority
• Professional credibility
• Military expertise
• Political sophistication
• Communication effectiveness

The administrative effectiveness:

• Multiple officials coordinating
• Consistent messaging
• Different expertise
• Complementary roles
• Unified approach

The political effectiveness:

• Democrats confronted with facts
• Rhetorical attacks deflected
• Substantive responses delivered
• Public understanding built
• Coalition reinforced

The McCollum Outcome

Hegseth’s approach worked.

What McCollum intended:

• Grill Hegseth on LA costs
• Portray deployment as excessive
• Score political points
• Create negative narrative
• Embarrass administration

What actually happened:

• Hegseth refused her framing
• Minnesota parallel devastating
• Walz failures highlighted
• Trump competence demonstrated
• McCollum embarrassed

Why this worked:

• Hegseth’s preparation
• Direct personal knowledge
• Confident delivery
• Substantive content
• Political skill

The broader message:

• Administration officials capable
• Democratic attacks fail
• Substantive responses effective
• Political confidence justified
• Governance working

Key Takeaways

• Hegseth to Rep McCollum: “Walz abandoned police precinct in 2020, burned to ground, 5 days of chaos.”
• Hegseth on LA: “ICE ought to be able to do its job, whether Minneapolis or Los Angeles… 21 million illegals crossed under previous administration.”
• LAPD staffing: “There would be 18,000 if not for defund movement Newsom and Bass implemented.”
• On recruiting: “Tsunami of support amongst young Americans. Not just Trump Bump.”
• “Has their back, funds them properly, not use them unnecessarily, focus on homeland” — the Trump military philosophy.