Furious Hegseth lashes out at journalist over ‘foolish’ question as shock report lays bare Army missile crisis
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth rebuked a reporter in Wisconsin for asking whether the Army’s long-range missile stocks had been largely exhausted during the Iran war, saying such information was operationally sensitive. The exchange matters because reports of depleted US munitions have raised concerns about Washington’s ability to deter or respond to a potential conflict in the Pacific, particularly with China.
The Washington Post reportedly said up to three-quarters of about 90 Precision Strike Missiles had been used, alongside more than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles and roughly a quarter of pre-war JASSM stocks. Analysts cited greater concern over Patriot and THAAD defensive interceptors, with an estimated 1,000 remaining to protect US bases and troops in Asia against China’s large ballistic-missile force; Hegseth disputed the concern, saying the US had sufficient supplies now and for future needs.
- Hegseth refused to discuss reported missile shortages.
- Reports allege major US munitions stocks were depleted.
- Officials insist America retains sufficient weapons supplies.
New here? Start with this
The US military relies on stocks of missiles for attacks at long range and for air defence. Precision Strike Missiles, Tomahawks and JASSMs can hit targets, while Patriot and THAAD interceptors are designed to stop incoming missiles.
Pete Hegseth is the US defence secretary, responsible for overseeing the armed forces. The Army is one branch of the US military, and its missile supplies form part of a wider stock held across the services.
Missile stocks matter because the US may need them in more than one region, including the Pacific, where it has security commitments and China has a large missile force. Using weapons in one conflict can prompt questions about how quickly stocks can be replaced and what would be available in a later crisis.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The public has a strong interest in knowing whether wartime use has reduced stocks needed to protect US forces and deter a future conflict, especially in the Pacific. Reporting credible estimates and asking officials to address them can support scrutiny of defence planning, readiness and decisions about replenishment.
The case against
Detailed figures on missile stocks and their use could reveal vulnerabilities to potential adversaries, so officials may reasonably limit what they confirm publicly. Hegseth’s assurance that supplies are sufficient reflects the view that readiness assessments should account for classified reserves, ongoing production and operational plans, while avoiding disclosures that could weaken deterrence.