Senator McConnell (00:00):
…of the Department of Defense for this coming fiscal year, and whether this budget flows from a strategy or instead defines and limits the strategy. This hearing will be the first public demonstration of what we hope to be a productive relationship between the subcommittee and the department. In the past, the relationship has functioned best when it's based on timely and forthcoming communication.
(00:36)
Last year, details from the department and the services about their growing requirements actually did inform the subcommittee's efforts to mark up a bill to provide the military with $18.8 billion in resources above President Biden's Last request. Unfortunately, we all know that didn't become law. Regrettably, the CR we're under right now was another missed opportunity that compounded the constraints facing the department. On this subcommittee, you'll found plenty of support for the department's efforts, for example, to improve air and missile defense systems, grow the pipeline for unmanned technologies, modernize our nuclear triad, and expand shipbuilding capacity. But lumping reconciliation spending in with full year appropriations risks conflating different objectives.
(01:47)
Chairman Wicker and his House counterpart pointed out already that even an important one-time investment in military modernization is not a substitute for steady growth in the annual budget top line. In fact, it may well end up functioning as a shell game to avoid making the most significant annual investments that we spent years urging the previous administration to make.
(02:21)
I struggled to understand, for example, why the administration would cut procurement funding in the base fiscal year '26 budget by 14.4 billion and move that funding into… All of which enjoys strong bipartisan support, while that would be moved into a simple majority reconciliation bill. The fiscal year '26 annual request seems to do just this for Virginia class submarines, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and B-21 bombers. Like with critical munitions, we should send the services and industry a sustained demand signal by incorporating them into annual appropriations.
(03:16)
If we're really serious about making the sustained long-term investments in our military, then let's do it more than just a one-time injection of funding. If the administration wants to request a trillion-dollar defense budget for fiscal year '26 and make a full year investment in urgent priorities and new programs, let's do it. In the meantime, let's not overstate the fiscal '26 request. The administration's requested base defense budget is lower than 15 of the last 20 annual requests, including President Biden's request for fiscal year '25. In fact, fiscal year '26 extends your predecessor's three to five straight base reduction requests that would fail to keep pace with inflation, let alone with the threat of China.
(04:19)
But say we do take reconciliation into account, even then, this is hardly the largest funding request for the Department of Defense. In constant dollars, the fiscal '26 Department of Defense budget request still falls short of the annual funding request for fiscal '08, fiscal year '09 and fiscal year '10, and fiscal year '11. As a share of GDP, even including reconciliation, the fiscal '26 request is still just around 3%. That's not just half the level of the Reagan buildup that secured peace through strength. It's even less than the 4.5% of GDP requested for defense under President Carter.
(05:13)
As we've discussed before, I think it's worth repeating. The cost of a war is a lot bigger than preventing a war. At the height of World War II, 37% of our gross domestic product was spent on defense, and Korea, 13%, Vietnam, 9%, the Reagan buildup, 6%. So we know looking strong actually works. It saves money, it saves lives. But what we're looking at this year is less than 4.5 of the GDP, which was the last defense request of President Carter. Why should we expect our allies to spend 5% when we're investing about half that?
(06:15)
The failure to spend more on defense is compounded by another dynamic. Every year, a greater share of the defense budget goes to cover costs other than modernizing and procuring new weapons and equipment for our fighting forces. Without additional resources, rising personnel and operations and maintenance costs risk crowding out new capabilities. How we will allocate taxpayer dollars is an expression of our political will. We can't expect our adversaries to take American hard power seriously if we don't put our money where our mouth is. But as I mentioned, we're also interested in your articulation of the strategy that informs or is it informed by the administration's budget? How does that strategy account for adversary alignment? How does it address not only the threat of conflict in the Indo-Pacific, but the reality of conflict and military threats to our interests in Europe and the Middle East?
(07:28)
Most of us on this panel believe that Russia's war in Ukraine, its alignment with the aims of other US adversaries and its eventual outcome are profoundly important to America's interests and offer more than just a glimpse into the future of warfare. I'd like to hear your views on this conflict. Who is the aggressor? What are the stakes for America in the West? What is the return on investment of our assistance to Ukraine? I don't see funding for Ukraine's security assistance Initiative in your budget request. Is the administration's view that terminating security assistance to Ukraine will make lasting peace more or less likely? What lessons is the US military learning from the conflict? How will the department or industry continue to learn if we cut off our partnership with the world's leading battlefield innovators? Why would Asian partners trust us if we abandon partners in Europe? What lessons are China, Iran, and North Korea learning, and how much more will they benefit if Russia prevails?
(08:53)
I'd like to hear your views on the impact of war in Europe on other theaters. The Asian and Pacific allies you just met with recently are under no delusions about how unchecked Russian aggression influences the calculus of President Xi. They understand that strategic alignment among adversaries is actually global. They're all communicating with each other. America must recognize in turn that the risk of simultaneous conflict on multiple fronts is real and growing. Your undersecretary for policy acknowledged this reality in his confirmation hearing this spring, but the capabilities America needs to prevail in such a conflict do not seem to be reflected in the requests we've received from OMB.
(09:52)
So there's a lot we need to cover today. We'll invite you to make opening statements in just a moment, but with that, I'd like to turn to Senator Coons.
Senator Coons (10:01):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you as well, Secretary Hegseth, Chairman Caine and Ms. MacDonnell for joining us here today. We are confronting a world more dangerous today than at any time since the Cold War, and our nation needs and deserves a strong and coordinated response to deter the threats we face to protect our freedoms and keep our citizens safe. The last several administrations correctly prioritized China, the People's Republic of China as the pacing threat to our nation's security. More recently, as the Chairman just said and as I strongly agree, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are increasingly aligned in ways that are making each of them more threatening to our national security. This is happening right now in Ukraine. Russia's aggression is buttressed by Iranian drones, North Korean soldiers and Chinese components, technology and funding.
(10:53)
Ukraine is though not just a preview of geopolitics. It's also the future of warfare, and the pervasive electronic warfare and drone swarms we see on the front lines are lessons from which we must learn. We need to address the urgency of this moment to unify our efforts, focus our precious time and money on what's important. Chairman McConnell and I are ready to do that with anyone interested in engaging in good faith, which is why it pains me to point out the obvious at this budget hearing, that in the face of these threats, the Department of Defense is more internally divided and beset by challenges of its own making than at any point in my memory. Let's start with the budget. Our Department of Defense and our troops are currently operating under a full-year continuing resolution for the very first time. The continuing resolution provides tens of billions of dollars less in purchasing power than under the previous administration. This does not deliver on peace through strength. No one on this subcommittee wanted this outcome. Mr. Secretary, we appealed to your office to timely and publicly oppose a CR as all previous secretaries had done, but you were silent. You never responded. That CR's cuts are forcing DOD to halt training and shrink exercises, and it fundamentally undermines readiness. DOD has made the CR worse by paying for DHS border activities with DOD funds meant for military quality of life, money to repair buildings, to relocate military families, to keep the Navy's fleet operationally ready. Shrinking budgets will not speed up our acquisition system, complete kill chains, or deepen our magazines. We are falling behind thanks to some poor choices.
(12:36)
It should go without saying that the People's Republic of China does not operate under a continuing resolution. The fiscal year 2026 request is no better. If you go to DOD's fiscal year 2026 page right now, this is what you'll see. This is what is currently publicly available, and the budget request was not much better. We were given this on Monday. More than a month after OMB's press release, we are still waiting for real budget details. This is officially the latest budget submission of the modern era. For anyone not versed in how this should go, at this stage, we would've received at least this, if not reams more.
(13:24)
This committee to do its job wants to work with you on the details of exactly which programs and exactly which deployments and exactly which end strength you are requesting, so that in a timely way, we can complete our work and avoid another disastrous continuing resolution. But the department has been AWOL, in the '26 debate as it was in the '25 debate. Bills are already being written, and the Department's inability to explain its budget is slowly making it less relevant to what it receives in fiscal year '26 in our appropriations process. What's clear is the base request is exactly the same funding level as the FY '25 CR that's created problems.
(14:08)
Mr. Secretary, you're requesting an increase instead through budget reconciliation, a partisan gamble that I believe shows poor judgment about how to handle our nation's security. DOD's ability to take care of our warfighters should not be contingent on whether Congress can pass a bill that also explodes the national debt, gives billionaires tax cuts, cuts access to healthcare, in short, is controversial and uncertain. I think it sends a bad message to the US defense industry about the uncertainty of appropriations for key systems at precisely the time we want certainty and we want more from them. Who wins in all this? Not the American people, our adversaries.
(14:49)
Mr. Secretary, I'm also concerned that far more of your time so far has been spent inside the building on cultural wars rather than outside the building deterring real ones. This administration began by firing a long list of qualified uniformed leaders without cause. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the chief of Naval Operations, the vice chief of the Air Force, the head of the National Security Agency, the US military representative to NATO, the director of the Defense Health Agency, the head of the Coast Guard, and all of the service judge advocates, general, continues to push out tens of thousands of civilians who should instead be repairing our ships, testing equipment, providing healthcare. It's rooting out fully qualified, combat proven service members solely because they're transgender to satisfy a petty animus, and it's censoring service academy libraries so that no future leader of our military can read Maya Angelou or Janet Jacobs' book on the Holocaust. Even Jackie Robinson's World War II service photo is not safe from culture warriors.
(15:53)
In January of this year, any patriotic American who met the qualifications could serve our nation, and the Marines at 29 Palms were training for the Indo-Pacific, not the streets of Los Angeles. We worried then about our enemies rather than each other, and we should return to that model. We also frankly need to get back to partnering with and supporting our allies. This administration has publicly and repeatedly threatened to seize the territory of NATO allies and retake the Panama Canal. The president paused aid to Ukraine, both intelligence partnership and military support, in the middle of their just war against one of our primary global enemies. And at times, rather than help and partner with our allies, we've levied massive tariffs against our partners.
(16:40)
The Department's fiscal '26 request compounds these mistakes by explicitly eliminating assistance to Ukraine and slashing security cooperation with allies around the world, sending exactly the wrong signal. Our global network of strong allies is our asymmetric advantage. The administration's budget request may try to abandon our allies, but this Congress should not. I'll also cite a predecessor in your role, Secretary Mattis, who testified to Congress that we need to complement strong investments in defense with comparable investments in diplomacy and development. In fact, I think he once said famously, "If we don't spend adequately on diplomacy and development, I will need more bullets because we will be in more wars." Yet DOGE has shredded our development work, shredding trust as well with partners and allies.
(17:33)
Last, I'm troubled by the chaos and poor judgment that had been on full display from the Pentagon Front office. Mr. Secretary, you should not have shared operational details of US military strikes on Signal with other executive branch officials or personal acquaintances. Mishandling important and sensitive military information in the middle of an operation by a secretary is unthinkable. You've also fired several top aides and you've been unable to hire a new chief of staff for months. Mr. Secretary, this cannot continue. Your responsibilities to our troops in our nation are far too important. We cannot win the fight for the future without allies nor deter China and Russia without a functional department of defense, and we on this committee simply cannot do our job without an adequate budget submission. I welcome partnership on these important priorities and I look forward to discussing why we haven't been able to achieve that so far and where to go from here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell (18:33):
Mr. Secretary General, go right ahead. We're anxious to hear from you.
Pete Hegseth (18:43):
Well, Chairman McConnell, Ranking Member Coons, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in full support of President Trump's proposed fiscal year 2026 budget for the Department of Defense. I'm honored to testify today alongside General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Bryn MacDonnell, who is performing the duties of DOD's comptroller and chief financial officer. We're also very proud to represent and serve our warriors and their families. Today, as they do every day, they're keeping America safe. They're defending the homeland, they're standing up to communist China. They're working hand in glove with our allies and partners and they are achieving peace through strength.
(19:26)
This morning, I'd like to start by thanking this committee and Congress for your bipartisan leadership to give our troops a big pay raise in 2025. This included an additional 10.5% raise for our junior enlisted service members, E-1 to E-4. Thank you also for improving other initiatives that will improve quality of life for our warriors and their families. With a focus on our troops and their loved ones, I've directed additional actions that will further improve their quality of life. These include making historic investments to improve living conditions in barracks and base housing, reforming the PCS process to reduce the cost and stress of these moves, and improving the quality of care provided to our defense healthcare system.
(20:13)
The best part of our job, of my job, is meeting and interacting with the troops and their families. I hear their concerns. I know how it feels to face these challenges. I've been there recently. Each of these initiatives responds to feedback I or we have received directly from the force. We will keep listening and keep looking for ways to improve their quality of life.
(20:39)
Under President Trump's leadership, this budget puts America first and gives our warriors what they need. The $961.6 billion budget request, which is over 1 trillion for national security total, will end four years of chronic underinvestment in our military by the Biden administration. Now, as is custom with first-year administration budget releases, additional time was necessary to implement presidential initiatives, so in the last four months, we have moved very quickly to reverse course after four years of weakness and mismanagement. We found nearly 30 billion in savings across the department. We killed wasteful programs, targeted bureaucratic excess, and redirected funding from Biden era priorities to President Trump's priorities. Working with the Department of Homeland Security, we increased border security to say the least. We reduced China's malign influence in our hemisphere, we defended freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. However, because of so much deferred maintenance, we still have a lot of work in front of us to achieve peace through strength. So to carry out the President's mission, we've set three priorities for the department, restore the warrior ethos, rebuild our military, and reestablish deterrence.
(22:09)
First, we're restoring the warrior ethos. President Trump charged me to focus relentlessly on war fighting lethality, meritocracy standards and readiness, and that's exactly what we're doing. We're refocusing on what's important, our warriors. We're sweeping away distractions and bloated bureaucracy. We set standards that are high, equal and unwavering. DEI is dead. We replaced it with a colorblind, gender-neutral, merit-based approach, and our force is responding incredibly positively to these changes. Because of President Trump, recruiting and retention is higher than it's been in decades. This budget provides a historic level of funding for military readiness, putting our warfighters and their needs first, and young Americans are responding and signing up in droves.
(23:03)
Second, we are rebuilding our military. 25 years ago, our military was challenged, yet we squandered that advantage as China carried out an unprecedented military buildup. President Trump is correcting those mistakes. We're reviving our defense industrial base, reforming our acquisitions process, and rapidly fielding emerging technologies and new weapons so that our warfighters can meet the challenges of an evolving threat field.
(23:29)
This budget invests 25 billion in Golden Dome for America, a down payment on President Trump's priority to defend our homeland. It also commits more than 62 billion in total to modernize and sustain our nuclear forces as we face rising nuclear dangers. The budget allocates 3.5 billion for the F-47, the world's first sixth-generation air superiority fighter. The budget will also revitalize our ship building industrial base with 6 billion in funding in FY '26 and 47 billion total in shipbuilding. The budget also significantly increases funds to buy next generation technology, including autonomous systems, long-range drones, long-range fires, and hypersonics. We will put these capabilities in the hands of our war fighters. These steps will keep us the strongest and most lethal force in the world.
(24:24)
Third, we're re-establishing deterrence. When an opponent sees our well-equipped and tough-as-nails warriors, they will decide that today is not the day to test American resolve. Credible deterrence starts at home. It starts with securing our borders. We will achieve 100% operational control of our border, and so far, border crossings are down 99.9% from the open border policies of the previous administration. The Indo-Pacific is our priority theater and China is our pacing threat. That's why I've traveled to the Indo-Pacific twice already to visit our forces and meet with our allies and partners. As we shift our focus toward the Indo-Pacific, president Trump looks to our allies and partners to be force multipliers alongside the United States. We are making progress in that endeavor on multiple theaters. We applaud those allies and partners who are stepping up, but also need more done more quickly to include with our partners in Europe. As the President has rightly pointed out, it is only fair that our allies and partners do their part. We can't want their security more than they do.
(25:41)
The Defense Department is executing a common sense agenda to achieve peace through strength. The threats we face are serious. Our investments to counter them must also be. That's what this budget does. It matches capabilities to threats. We long for peace so we must prepare for war. We are overcoming decades of neglect and decline. We must fortify our position as the world's most lethal fighting force, and that means acting fast. This committee is a critical partner in everything we do. Your leadership and oversight is essential. We look forward to accomplishing these goals to achieve peace through strength, support our warriors, protect our citizens, and do right by our taxpayers together. May God grant us the wisdom to see what is right and the courage to do it. Thank you.
General Caine (26:42):
Chair McConnell, Ranking Member Coons, Chair Collins, other ranking members of the committee, senators, thank you for having me today. I'm honored to join Secretary Hegseth and Ms. Bryn MacDonnell to appear before you today to testify in the President's Fiscal year 2026 budget. Today's hearing reflects our shared commitment to maximize efficiency and accountability of our taxpayers dollars, ensuring every expenditure increases the lethality and survivability of our joint force, and providing our warfighters with the advanced capabilities and cutting-edge technologies at scale required to dominate our adversaries.
(27:25)
I've got deep gratitude for the leaders in this room and your commitment to helping deliver the capability and capacity required of our 2.8 Million service members, civilians, and their families to deliver peace through strength. It's my responsibility as chairman to understand, advise, and integrate our joint force capabilities to confront the risks that we face worldwide. This demands a comprehensive understanding across every domain - land, sea, air, space, and cyber - across all the military services, every region of the globe and all time horizons. It also requires making hard informed decisions about where to recommend we prioritize our finite capital that you give us in order to determine and return the ROI on that capital.
(28:21)
The President's budget enables a Joint Force to defend our great nation from adversaries, Mr. Chairman, as you said, seeking to do us harm. We're relentless in our pursuit of innovation and technology that allows us to hopefully deter war at every opportunity, while ensuring that we're positioned to win should we be called upon to do so. This budget empowers the Joint Force to get after the secretary's three pillars, as he mentioned, restoring the warrior ethos, rebuilding our military and reestablishing deterrence. We intend to deliver that through ensuring that the joint force is properly armed,
General Caine (29:00):
… globally integrated and ready to go. As I mentioned, the President's budget invests in our war fighters. To win on the battlefields of the future, our forces must be properly armed now at scale with the right mix of capabilities, lethal, modern, reliable and survivable. Victory requires people and platforms that will allow us to overmatch the enemy, systems that will work under the most harshest conditions and technologies that will give our war fighters a lethal edge. The budget gives us the necessary tools to reinvigorate our national and defense industrial base. Our nation is full of incredible talent and we need every bit of it to support the war fighters demands. This budget also helps the joint force to become more globally integrated. We are relationship entrepreneurs in the joint force, not only working together with our military, but our allies and partners, the inter-agency and industry to deliver the capabilities that we've got to have.
(30:04)
Finally, the President's budget reflects our mandate to be ready always on the account, anticipating the next fight, not fighting the last fight in order to deliver for our force and their families. And our force and our families are the most important part. This budget makes meaningful investments in our service members and their families improving quality of life, housing and medical care and the moving process. As long as our most precious asset, our people, are properly armed, integrated together and ready to go, our citizens will be defended, our enemies deterred and our nation safe. Speaking of keeping our nation safe, I want to highlight the gunnery sergeant behind me, the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman who, after 37 years of selfless service to the nation and is the nation's highest ranking enlisted service member, will retire from the service later this month. And he and his wife, who's also a Marine, have gone all in over and over again.
(31:08)
It's an honor to serve every day alongside some of the most extraordinary warriors, civilian teammates, civil servants, and our families this nation have ever known. I assure this committee that the joint force remains committed and ready to go. With your continued support, we'll maintain the competitive edge that we need to have. I'm also reminded to always remember our deployed service members right now and their families who are right now, as we sit here today in this hearing room, out there doing our nation's business. And I would ask us all to remember our fallen and their families who continue to show us what right looks like. I thank you for the Congress and this committee for the support and I look forward to your questions.
Senator McConnell (31:53):
Thank you, General. Mr. Secretary, it probably won't surprise you, but I'm going to start with Ukraine, and I'm going to ask you a series of questions, but I don't want you to linger on any one of them, but answer the series of questions in one answer. Number one, who's the aggressor and who's the victim in the conflict?
Pete Hegseth (32:23):
Russia's the aggressor.
Senator McConnell (32:27):
Which side do you want to win?
Pete Hegseth (32:30):
As we've said time and time again, this President is committed to peace in that conflict. Ultimately, peace serves our national interests and we think the interest of both parties, even if that outcome will not be preferable to many in this room and many in our country.
Senator McConnell (32:45):
Which side is President Xi pulling for?
Pete Hegseth (32:50):
Well, as was stated by both of you, we obviously understand, unfortunately under the previous administration and the policies they pursued, it has driven Russia and China closer together. So there's no doubt that China would prefer that Vladimir Putin have a good outcome, but it would also prefer a prolonged to conflict that would keep us and other countries tied down and incapable of paying attention to the malign influence of China elsewhere.
Senator McConnell (33:20):
One thing I'm sure we agree on is we don't want a headline at the end of this conflict that says, "Russia wins and America loses." And given the fact that all of our adversaries are communicating with each other, that's extremely important if we're going to continue to play the role in the world that the vast majority of members of Congress think we should still play, particularly now that our adversaries are more significant than they have been since the Berlin Wall came down. With regard to money we're spending, what's the return on the investment of our security assistance to Ukraine?
Pete Hegseth (34:08):
Senator, I would just say given the approach of President Trump, that's not the headline regardless. Under the Obama administration, Crimea was invaded and we gave them blankets. Under President Trump during his first term, he gave the Ukrainians Javelins and the Russians did not invade. Under Biden, the Russians did invade and aid was slow-walked incompletely, and as a result it became a gridlock. Thankfully, the Javelins that President Trump provided actually stalled the Russian advance. Now we here we are at a place where Vladimir Putin knows that President Trump is strong. He knows his word means something, and as a result, a negotiated peace in Ukraine makes America look strong, makes us look like we understand the state of the world and where we want to be focused. Even if we understand that Russia is the aggressor and we applaud the efforts of the Ukrainians, there is a moment where you have to recognize what exists on the battlefield and that a better outcome is a negotiated peace to stop the killing and stop the slaughter.
Senator McConnell (35:09):
If I may-
Pete Hegseth (35:10):
And our budget reflects that perspective.
Senator McConnell (35:11):
If I may Mr. Secretary, I'm not here to defend the previous administration. They were completely inadequate anyway, and I think you could make an argument that the precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan was like a green light to Putin. But we are where we are, and beating up the past is not a plan for going forward to the future. What has benefited the United States, I think you would agree, 38 different states have produced weapons or parts of weapons out of the money that the Ukraine supplemental package passed last year… two new members of NATO now increased spending by virtually all of our NATO allies, which President Trump deserves part of the credit for encouraging that. Vladimir Putin probably guaranteed that it would happen. Everybody seems to be moving in the right direction and then they look at us and wonder whether we're in the midst of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory.
(36:35)
I think victory is defined by the people that have to live there, the Ukrainians, and I don't think they're going to ever conclude that victory means basically adopting the Russian views on all this. So what do you make of what the Russians are up to? They don't seem to me to be too interested in talking. We want to talk. They seem to be increasing the war. What's your take on that?
Pete Hegseth (37:06):
Well, no one's adopting views, sir. I would say that the budget reflects the reality that Europe needs to step up more for the defense of its own continent, and President Trump deserves the credit for that, in his first term and this term. We're about to go to The Hague where we hope most European NATO countries are going to commit to a 3.5, 1.5… total of 5% defense spending, which was inconceivable before President Trump. And he has set the standard that America can't be everywhere all the time for everybody. And if you're a European country, you cannot freeload off of the United States in perpetuity. You are our allies and our friends and we will stand with you, but you need to stand up in times of peace and in times of war. And this budget reflects that it's long overdue Europe does more, and that we be strategic about the outcome there, even if it's not preferable for all parties. So that our focus can turn as was mentioned by everybody thus far, to the Indo-Pacific and our pacing threat, while Europe ensures peace on that continent.
(38:10)
And so the budget is meant to reflect that reality. It includes hard choices, but that's been one of the things we're trying to do in this defense department is make some of those hard choices alongside President Trump.
Senator McConnell (38:21):
Yeah, the only thing I would say to conclude this before turning over to Senator Coons… re-litigating the past, it seems to me, is not helpful. I didn't defend any of the submissions, budget submissions that the previous administration made. I had a lot of the same complaints about how they were handling this. I want to avoid that for the future. And it seems to me pretty obvious that America's reputation is on the line. Will we defend democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors? That's the international concern that I have about this and I think a number of my members share that view. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons (39:17):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, just a quick question to clarify something. Is a full year continuing resolution bad for the Department of Defense? Just yes or no.
Pete Hegseth (39:29):
Sir, a full year continuing resolution is never preferable for any department, especially the Department of Defense, not preferable.
Senator Coons (39:37):
And I know General Caine, I don't need to ask you because your written testimony specifically says routinely operating under continuing resolutions lowers buying power, results in less deployable capital, makes it harder for industry to make long-term investments. And is it your commitment, Mr. Secretary, that you'll work with us to achieve a full year appropriation? You'll submit the budget documents necessary, work with us closely that we'll be able to do our work, so you can do yours.
Pete Hegseth (40:05):
Senator, we are committed to working with you to make sure the Defense Department gets as robust a budget as possible where we can meet the threats of today and tomorrow.
Senator Coons (40:14):
Thank you. I'll just say at the outset for all my colleagues, I am increasingly concerned that there is a threat that some believe they can best govern by continuing resolution, reconciliation and rescission and not ever actually have us appropriate. So I look forward to working with you to avoid that outcome, which I think would both disregard the role of Congress and put all of us at greater risk. It seems to me clear with regards to Ukraine that Vladimir Putin has no serious intent of negotiating. He continues to attack civilian targets night after night with hundreds and hundreds of drones. The Ukrainians have just carried out a spectacular attack against military targets. And it seems to me concerning that the 2026 request eliminates aid to Ukraine entirely.
(41:06)
At the same time, the Senate has a strongly bipartisan bill led by Senator Graham and Senator Blumenthal to impose more sanctions on Russia, and many senators of both parties want to provide more aid to Ukraine. Would you agree, Mr. Secretary, that the United States should use every tool it has at its disposal, including additional sanctions to pressure Russia to come to the table to negotiate a just and lasting piece for the war in Ukraine?
Pete Hegseth (41:34):
Senator, every tool at our disposal? No. We have a lot of tools in a lot of places, all around the world-
Senator Coons (41:40):
Let me be more narrow.
Pete Hegseth (41:40):
… that we need to apply.
Senator Coons (41:40):
Let me be more narrow. You said, and I'll take some exception to this, that our European allies cannot freeload off the United States in perpetuity. My impression is that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty was only invoked once. It was after 9/11, and a significant number of our European allies and partners deployed Afghanistan alongside us and suffered significant combat casualties. In the first two years of the war in Ukraine, a war of Russian aggression, 50 other countries stepped forward, deployed military support, delivered materiel, provided financial and operating support. And at regular meetings of the defense contact group, your predecessor led that process of deploying military assistance.
(42:28)
What message do you think it sends that as Ukraine continues to suffer day after day of punishing attacks on civilian centers, we're not using the 3.8 billion in presidential drawdown authority that remains to send additional air defense and interceptors, and you yourself chose to not attend the Ukraine defense contact group? Mr. Secretary, why not use the already appropriated presidential drawdown authority to deliver defense material badly needed by Ukraine?
Pete Hegseth (42:57):
Well Senator, as you know, presidential drawdown authority 71 through 74 still apply and they are still flowing. There's some in reserve. To your question about my statement… and I served with a lot of NATO allies in Afghanistan as well. Incredibly capable Canadians, Brits and Australians and others, and grateful for them. And I've gotten to know a lot of them in this process, going to Brussels. Amazing people, amazing countries.
Senator Coons (43:22):
Thus I was struck Mr. Secretary-
Pete Hegseth (43:24):
But we also wore a patch on our shoulder that said ISAF International Security Assistance Force. And you know what the joke was? That it stood for I saw Americans fighting, because what ultimately was a lot of flags, lot of flags was not a lot of on-the-ground capability. You're not a real coalition, you're not a real alliance unless you have real defense capability and real armies that can bring those to bear. And that's a reality that Europe is waking up too quickly. And we're glad because they're our friends-
Senator Coons (43:51):
Mr. Secretary-
Pete Hegseth (43:52):
… and we want them to be safe and free and secure. And sometimes that takes true talk and tough love, and they've responded very well to that-
Senator Coons (43:59):
They have.
Pete Hegseth (44:00):
… because we want them to succeed, and President Trump wants them-
Senator Coons (44:01):
Mr. Secretary, let's just make clear for the record that our military partners in Afghanistan included many who served and died. Our Danish partners and allies on a per capita basis suffered more-
Pete Hegseth (44:13):
Don't try to make it look like I don't care about the investments of our partners. Of course I do. I recognize-
Senator Coons (44:16):
Mr. Secretary-
Pete Hegseth (44:17):
… that there were lives lost from other countries.
Senator Coons (44:19):
Of course there were.
Pete Hegseth (44:20):
But the bulk of the effort was Americans, and an alliance needs to include other countries and be more balanced [inaudible 00:44:25]. That's the point I'm making.
Senator Coons (44:26):
Mr. Secretary,, as I pointed out in my opening comments, our partners and allies have stepped up, have invested, have engaged in the defense of Ukraine and so should we. We should not be pursuing a ceasefire and a negotiated resolution to the war in Ukraine at any cost. Peace through strength means actually using our strength continuing to support Ukraine and securing a lasting peace. Putin will only stop when we stop him and the best way to stop him is indeed through a stronger NATO. I look forward to the NATO summit. I agree with you that a significant investment by NATO in our collective security is a great investment, but we cannot abandon Ukraine. That would put us significantly at a strategic disadvantage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell (45:14):
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins (45:15):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me start by thanking you for framing what is at stake and for your emphasis on Ukraine. I also agree with Vice-Chair Coons that the department has been unacceptably slow in providing us with the account-level information that we need to draft the Defense Appropriations Bill. I agree with him that a CR is not conducive to the smooth and effective operations of the department. But I would respectfully point out to my colleague that the appropriations committee reported the defense appropriations bill before the August recess and it was the democratic leader who decided not to bring the bill to the floor. And that is why we ended up with a continuing resolution.
(46:19)
Mr. Secretary, let me turn to you now. You recently stated that DOD is focused on the strategic threat posed by China and that this threat is, and these are your words, real and could be imminent. And I agree with you. China now fields a navy of approximately 400 ships and is expanding its fleet at a pace that far exceeds ours. The US Navy currently has only 293 ships. Clearly inadequate. Yet the Department of Defense budget for FY 26 proposes funding for only three additional ships, a Columbia-class submarine, a Virginia-class submarine, and an ocean surveillance ship. No funding in the base budget is requested for DDG-51s, the Navy's workhorse surface combatant. Instead, the administration unwisely is relying on reconciliation to fund a second Virginia-class submarine and two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
(47:40)
Reconciliation, Mr. Secretary, was meant to provide one-time supplemental funds to augment the defense budget, not to supplant the investments that should be in the base budget. Could you explain the Department's rationale for excluding these critical war-fighting platforms from the annual appropriations request and creating instability for future defense budgets?
Pete Hegseth (48:17):
Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. There are a lot of complexities that go into how budgets are formed. From the view of our department, working on Capitol Hill and with the White House, is that we have two bills and one budget. So when I look at the threats that we face in the Indo-Pacific, that is precisely, precisely… as we've worked with the chairman and the joint staff and across OSD and all the co-COMs, that has precisely been the compass by which we have judged the capabilities that we need. So when you look at the totality of the 961 billion or 1 trillion total over national security, that's 19 new ships. It's a historic investment in shipbuilding. It's over 6 billion in the shipbuilding defense industrial base. It's long-range fires, it's hypersonics, it's pre-positioning stocks, it's critical munitions. It's all focused in ways the previous administration talked a lot about, but we are actually making the tough choices to invest in.
(49:12)
So I understand the dynamics of base bill versus reconciliation, and I concede that, ma'am. But ultimately we're looking at it as one investment for FY-26 and we think, with a 13% increase over last year, that it's a historic investment.
Senator Collins (49:28):
Well, I would point out that the budget overall actually provides less buying power than the FY-25 enacted budget because it does not adjust for inflation. And I hope that's something that we can work together on to correct. Let me turn to another issue. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine overhauls the Navy's submarines, nuclear submarines. Senator Shaheen and I helped to secure an exemption from the hiring freeze for the shipyard, and that is absolutely essential. But if I could speak for Senator Shaheen as well as myself, both of us are hearing from shipyard leaders as well as the Navy as well as the rank-and-file workers, the union leadership, that the delays in hiring and onboarding across the airports from frontline mechanics to security personnel continue. Could you speak to what is causing this delay since the exemption from the hiring freeze was granted months ago?
Pete Hegseth (50:55):
Well, it's a great point, Senator. I will have our team dive into that because that should not be the case. It was very specifically exempted because of the importance of those shipyards and whatever we can do to speed it up for you, we will do.
Senator Collins (51:06):
Thank you.
Senator McConnell (51:12):
Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Murray, and then Senator Graham.
Senator Murray (51:15):
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hegseth, you oversee one of the largest and most important organizations on planet earth. More than anything, the Department of Defense needs stable, competent, and strategic leadership. And much as I had feared back in January, it is not what we are seeing under your leadership. In a matter of months, you have lost top aides and reportedly struggled to hire new ones, you have fired highly respected top military officials, you shared highly sensitive attack plans over Signal and apparently with people in your own personal circles, and you've not taken responsibility for those mistakes, while the security challenges we face have grown larger, not smaller.
(52:04)
And then in the face of these challenges, you have taken a series of actions that weaken our posture. For example, in my home state of Washington, which is home to many DOD installations critical to our Indo-Pacific strategy, you have pushed out almost 2000 highly trained civilian employees, including at Puget Sound, Naval Shipyard. Mr. Secretary, you talk about returning the department to its mission of war- fighting, but I am repeatedly hearing that your policy and personnel changes at the Pentagon are only undermining, not strengthening our military's preparedness to protect our country. You are deploying the American military to police the American people. You're sending the National Guard to California without the Governor's request, sending the Marines not after foreign threats, but after American protesters. And now President Trump is promising heavy force against peaceful protesters at his D.C. military parade.
(53:05)
Those sorts of actions and that sort of rhetoric from a President of the United States should stop every one of us cold. Threatening to use our own troops on our own citizens at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional and it is downright un-American. We should all be speaking out against this and demanding accountability.
(53:29)
Now, Mr. Secretary, I have to say for people who tout their commitment to transparency and efficiency, I've never seen an administration more bent on hiding basic facts from American people. Your department has been unresponsive to congressional inquiries and oversight requests. All the while. you are working to muzzle the free press. denying journalists access to the Pentagon Press Corps. Now, before I turn to my questions, let me just note it is now mid-June and we only just a few days ago received some but not all important portions of your budget request. It should have not have taken this long to get this request, and we do still need to see the justifications in order for this committee to do its work. We're missing those. Not having a full budget at this juncture is really unacceptable. So I am deeply concerned.
(54:24)
So let me turn to my questions, and this is important. This administration has put the civilian workforce under attack from day one, encouraging resignations firing probationary employees, instituting hiring freeze, requiring OPM to approve any new hire one by one, and new last week, requiring prospective employees to explain how they would, quote, "help support the President's executive orders and policy priorities." We have spoken with military installations across our country. Almost all of them have been forced to fire skilled civilian employees who are badly needed, and all of them also have hundreds and in some cases thousands of new hires ready to bring on board, but now have to individually be reviewed by OPM, apparently to ensure that they support the president's priorities.
(55:20)
Secretary Hegseth, I want to know and keep your answer short, I have limited time, will you be firing more shipbuilders? Yes or no?
Pete Hegseth (55:29):
Senator, we haven't fired Shipbuilders. We've offered, through a right sizing of our civilian positions, which everyone in this committee would acknowledge that the Defense Department has had a bloated bureaucracy for a long time-
Senator Murray (55:40):
Mr. Secretary, so you will not-
Pete Hegseth (55:41):
… have given a voluntary process by which some people can choose to take a DRP.
Senator Murray (55:45):
Okay, we all know the process. I'm just asking you a question.
Pete Hegseth (55:46):
So it's not a firing of shipbuilders. That's a totally disingenuous characterization of what our department is doing.
Senator Murray (55:51):
Let me just ask you, do you-
Pete Hegseth (55:51):
We are focusing on shipbuilding, ma'am.
Senator Murray (55:53):
Mr. Secretary, do we need more or fewer shipbuilders?
Pete Hegseth (55:57):
We are investing historically in our shipbuilding defense industrial base and workforce and ships in this budget. More than anything the previous administration ever did.
Senator Murray (56:07):
Well, you managed to fire highly skilled workers, including my home state of Washington for no reason. So let me just say, the Navy needs welders, not people who can recite a President's Executive Orders. If the Navy wants to hire a qualified candidate for the role, but that candidate happened to vote for or donate to Democrats, would they be hired?
Pete Hegseth (56:30):
Senator, there's never been a litmus test for hiring welders.
Senator Murray (56:34):
Well, that is what the new-
Pete Hegseth (56:35):
If you can weld, you can work with the Defense Department
Senator Murray (56:37):
That is what they're being asked. And Mr. secretary, I just have to say, we need to drop the politics in our military. We need to hire the best people. We do not need to force them out. That is simply the case at this point. I'm out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell (56:53):
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham (56:56):
Thank you. Welcome. One of the things you're trying to do is hire people based on merit, right?
Pete Hegseth (57:02):
Yes sir.
Senator Graham (57:03):
You could care less if they're libertarian, vegetarian, Democrat, Republican, as long as they didn't do the job.
Pete Hegseth (57:08):
Yes sir.
Senator Graham (57:08):
Okay. All right. More people are joining military now than any time in recent memory, right?
Pete Hegseth (57:14):
Yes, sir.
Senator Graham (57:15):
So the situation described as Senator Murray is not being viewed by other Americans because they're signing up in droves.
Pete Hegseth (57:22):
Senator, there's been a historic surge.
Senator Graham (57:25):
You know why? Because they think you're a winner. They think you're going to lead. They think you're going to have their back. That's why they're signing up. Keep doing what you're doing. Now, do you agree that the world kind of miscalculated Hitler in the '20s and '30s?
Pete Hegseth (57:43):
Certainly did not understand the scope of the threat, yes sir.
Senator Graham (57:45):
Like the guy wrote a book, I Want to Kill All The Jews, and nobody believed him. You remember that? General Caine, is that a fair statement, that the military industrial complex of the '20s and '30s really miscalculated
Senator Graham (58:00):
Hitler?
General Caine (58:01):
Yes, sir.
Senator Graham (58:02):
The danger of that is like 50 million people get killed, so let's don't do that now. As to Iran, they say they want to kill all the Jews. Do you agree with them?
Pete Hegseth (58:13):
I believe they mean what they chant. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham (58:16):
Do you agree with that, General Caine?
General Caine (58:20):
Sir, I think they've got some agendas for sure to advance.
Senator Graham (58:24):
Well, is that agenda to use a nuclear weapon against Israel?
General Caine (58:29):
Sir, I think they would potentially-
Senator Graham (58:31):
If they had a nuclear weapon, would they use it against Israel, in your professional military judgment?
General Caine (58:38):
Sir, I think they'd use it to pressure Israel. I don't know whether they would use it.
Senator Graham (58:43):
Well, is it 50/50, 60/40, 70/10? What is it?
General Caine (58:46):
I don't know what the percentage is.
Senator Graham (58:48):
Well, you can't be wrong, can you? What does Israel think?
General Caine (58:52):
Sir, I think they think they would potentially use-
Senator Graham (58:55):
What do you think, Mr. Secretary? If they had a nuclear weapon, would they use it to wipe out Israel?
Pete Hegseth (59:00):
I think Israel believes, quite understandably-
Senator Graham (59:03):
Do you believe that?
Pete Hegseth (59:03):
… that it is an existential threat to their existence.
Senator Graham (59:05):
Do you believe that?
Pete Hegseth (59:07):
Hold on. And that in the hands of the wrong Iranian, a cleric or a radical, that they would seek to use it.
Senator Graham (59:11):
Well, is this a radical cleric that exists there today?
Pete Hegseth (59:16):
As of right now-
Senator Graham (59:16):
If he's not, who the hell would be? So I'm trying to get everybody to think, let's don't do what we did in the thirties. They're going to use a nuclear weapon if they get it. Are they trying to build a nuclear weapon versus a peaceful nuclear power program? Mr. Secretary, have the Iranians been trying to build a nuke?
Pete Hegseth (59:34):
There are plenty of indications that they have been moving their way towards something that would look a lot like a nuclear weapon.
Senator Graham (59:40):
Does China intend to take Taiwan by force if necessary?
Pete Hegseth (59:46):
We don't believe they've made that decision yet, but certainly if you look at their exercises that they're performing in that area, they look a lot like that would look like.
Senator Graham (59:52):
What do you think, General Caine? Do you think China is intent on taking Taiwan?
General Caine (59:57):
Sir, I think it's, not to split hairs, but I think it depends on what you define take. I think if-
Senator Graham (01:00:03):
I mean like take it over.
General Caine (01:00:04):
I think if they could get them their way for sure. Do I think they're going to use military capability? Maybe, maybe not. Do we need to be prepared for that? Yes.
Senator Graham (01:00:13):
Is Putin going to stop in Ukraine?
General Caine (01:00:17):
I don't believe he is, sir. I think he'll go into-
Senator Graham (01:00:20):
What do you think, Secretary? Is he going to stop?
Pete Hegseth (01:00:22):
It remains to be seen, Senator.
Senator Graham (01:00:24):
Well, he says he's not. This is the thirties all over. It doesn't remain to be seen. He tells everybody around what he wants to do. Are you familiar with his military buildup in terms of armaments? It's well beyond what we need to do to take Ukraine. Listen, I think I like what you're doing. I just think we got to get this stuff right.
(01:00:48)
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon because they'll use it. They're homicidal maniacs who are religious Nazis. China is an expansionist power who will take Taiwan if we don't deter them. Russia will dismember Ukraine and keep going if we don't stop them. Radical Islam, are they still out there, General Caine?
General Caine (01:01:10):
Sir, I think there are still folks that would do America harm.
Senator Graham (01:01:13):
So is ISIS dead?
General Caine (01:01:16):
No, sir.
Senator Graham (01:01:17):
Is Al-Qaeda dead?
General Caine (01:01:19):
Mostly, and dying more every day.
Senator Graham (01:01:21):
Yeah, but are they still out there trying to get here?
General Caine (01:01:25):
Yes, sir, to a certain extent.
Senator Graham (01:01:26):
So the threat of radical Islam is still real to the American people?
General Caine (01:01:32):
Yes, sir, if allowed to scale. We work hard to not allow that to happen.
Senator Graham (01:01:36):
And how you do that? You hit them over there before they come here, right?
General Caine (01:01:40):
Sir, we have a variety of ways, as you know.
Senator Graham (01:01:42):
It's better to have partners than do it by yourself?
General Caine (01:01:45):
Always, sir. Yes.
Senator Graham (01:01:46):
Okay, so go over just a little bit. The point is radical Islam is out there. They're trying to get here. Mr. Secretary, if they had a nuclear weapon, would they use it? Would Al-Qaeda use a nuclear weapon if they had one?
Pete Hegseth (01:01:59):
Senator, a nuclear weapon in the hands of Al-Qaeda would be a very bad thing.
Senator Graham (01:02:02):
Is there a whole lot of the difference between a nuclear weapon in the hands of Al-Qaeda and the Ayatollah in Iran? I don't think so. They just have a different religious reason to do it.
(01:02:13)
The point is these budgets are important, but we need to up our game. We need to build more ships because China's building more ships, so we need to hit the enemy before they hit us. We need the ability to project. As to final thought as to Russia, China buys and India buys 70% of Russia's oil, Mr. Secretary. Are you familiar with that?
Pete Hegseth (01:02:37):
Yes, sir.
Senator Graham (01:02:37):
If they stop buying cheap Russian oil tomorrow, would that grind Putin's war machine to a halt?
Pete Hegseth (01:02:44):
It's a vulnerability. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham (01:02:45):
We have an ability through legislation to get China and India's attention that if you keep buying cheap Russian oil to empower Putin to kill the Ukrainian children, you're going to lose access to our markets. I would urge you and the administration to use that tool to get the attention of China and India.
(01:03:03)
I'll end with this. We're not going to evict every Russian from Ukraine. I'm a practical guy. But we've got to end this war so we don't entice China to take Taiwan and we don't encourage Iran to think we're just all talk in stopping their nuclear ambitions. So you live in very dangerous times. I want to help you. General Caine, you're the right man at the right time. Thank you.
Senator McConnell (01:03:33):
Senator Reid and then Senator Moran.
Senator Reed (01:03:36):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you have already ordered 4,000 National Guardsmen into Los Angeles plus 700 active duty Marines. That's against the advice and opposition of the governor, the mayor, and the chief of police of Los Angeles. And these forces are in addition to 11,000 military personnel, active duty and National Guard, that have been deployed to the southern border in support of customs and border protection.
(01:04:10)
Separately, the Department of Homeland Security has requested more than 20,000 National Guard troops to assist in, I quote, "Interior immigration efforts." And I understand you've approved an additional phase of 700 service members for this mission with additional associated command and control from Texas, Florida, and Louisiana.
(01:04:34)
This week, the Department of Homeland Security sent another request for DOD support to transport ammunition, quote, "To authorize military forces to detain or arrest American citizens, to provide DHS with military drone surveillance support, and to have the Marine Corps advise DSH on running joint operations." Is it your intent to approve the requests? All of them?
Pete Hegseth (01:05:07):
Well, Senator, we very much support President Trump's focus on defending the homeland on our southern border as well as supporting law enforcement officials doing their job in ICE in Los Angeles who deserve not to be assaulted, accosted, and rioted while rounding up one of the 21 million illegals allowed in as an invasion under the previous administration. I would-
Senator Reed (01:05:32):
Are you prepared to authorize DHS to use drones and also to authorize military forces to detain or arrest American citizens?
Pete Hegseth (01:05:41):
Senator, every authorization we've provided the National Guard and the Marines in Los Angeles is under the authority of the president of the United States, is lawful and constitutional. They are assisting in defending.
Senator Reed (01:05:53):
So the answer is yes.
Pete Hegseth (01:05:54):
Law enforcement officers-
Senator Reed (01:05:57):
So the answer is yes.
Pete Hegseth (01:05:58):
Law enforcement facilities-
Senator Reed (01:05:58):
So the answer is yes.
Pete Hegseth (01:05:58):
… in the execution of their job.
Senator Reed (01:06:00):
The answer is yes.
Pete Hegseth (01:06:00):
In the city of Los Angeles.
Senator Reed (01:06:05):
How are you paying for this? Is this done on a reimbursable basis by the Department of Homeland Security or is the Department of Defense paying for this?
Pete Hegseth (01:06:13):
As we mentioned yesterday, a lot of this we are paying for and some we'll collaborate with DHS on.
Senator Reed (01:06:19):
And how is that done, given the CR, which restricts your spending dramatically? What are you taking from? Readiness?
Pete Hegseth (01:06:27):
Well, as we acknowledged, and I can pass to my colleague [inaudible 01:06:31] who knows the details on this, but in 2025 where we took from, we have completely refunded and then some in the FY26 budget.
Senator Reed (01:06:40):
Your whole ethic seems to be revolving on the lethality of the military force. How is this operation with Marines and National Guardsmen improving their lethality?
Pete Hegseth (01:06:53):
Senator, you mentioned the 11,000 at the border. It's actually 13,000, and I've been down there to speak with them multiple times. And people will say that mobilization hurts readiness. When you talk to them, it actually improves their readiness.
Senator Reed (01:07:09):
I'm talking about lethality. That's what you talk about all the time.
Pete Hegseth (01:07:09):
Readiness, readiness and training and accountability-
Senator Reed (01:07:12):
Training.
Pete Hegseth (01:07:12):
… is all part of lethality.
Senator Reed (01:07:13):
No, that's right, training.
Pete Hegseth (01:07:14):
The more ready you are, the more capable you are, the more accountable you are, the higher your standards are-
Senator Reed (01:07:18):
How much-
Pete Hegseth (01:07:19):
It all makes you more lethal.
Senator Reed (01:07:20):
So-
Pete Hegseth (01:07:21):
And the mission in Los Angeles, as you know well, sir, is not about lethality. It's about maintaining law and order on behalf of law enforcement agents who deserve to do their job without being attacked by mobs of people. We're very proud that the National Guard and the Marines are on the streets defending the ICE agents, and they will continue to do that.
Senator Reed (01:07:43):
Law and order is a-
Pete Hegseth (01:07:43):
They're doing a great job.
Senator Reed (01:07:43):
… is a civil function under the Constitution of the United States. Civil enforcement, law enforcement authorities, not the US military. And-
Pete Hegseth (01:07:54):
There's plenty of precedent for the US military supporting law enforcement officers.
Senator Reed (01:07:58):
And what your military is doing right now is laying [inaudible 01:08:00] wire, guarding buildings, maintaining vehicles for other services. This is not only, I think illegal, but also a diminution of the readiness and the focus of the military.
(01:08:14)
But let me change course a bit. There's a general understanding that you have taken possession of this Qatari aircraft, the 747, but there are public reports that Qataris have not yet signed a memorandum of understanding, which would specify that the agreement was initiated by the Trump administration and Qatar is not responsible for any future transfers of the plane's ownership. Are you in possession of the Qatari airplane now?
Pete Hegseth (01:08:48):
Any specifics about future aircraft that could be Air Force One can't be discussed here.
Senator Reed (01:08:54):
Sure, it can be discussed here.
Pete Hegseth (01:08:55):
There is a conversation about a memorandum of understanding. A memorandum of understanding remains to be signed, Senator.
Senator Reed (01:09:02):
You have signed a contract with a company to reconfigure the aircraft. What is the price of that contract?
Pete Hegseth (01:09:13):
That cannot be revealed in this setting.
Senator Reed (01:09:15):
Why can't it be revealed in this setting? This is the appropriation committee of the United States Senate. We appropriate the money that you will spend after it's authorized by my committee, and you cannot tell us how much the contract is for?
Pete Hegseth (01:09:27):
You will have that number, Senator.
Senator Reed (01:09:28):
No, we want it now.
Pete Hegseth (01:09:28):
It just can't be talked about in a public realm.
Senator Reed (01:09:33):
The contract has been signed, correct? The contract has been signed?
Pete Hegseth (01:09:34):
The memorandum of understanding is not completed.
Senator Reed (01:09:36):
No, I'm talking about-
Pete Hegseth (01:09:36):
Therefore, it's not.
Senator Reed (01:09:37):
I'm talking about the contract with the American contractor. Has it been signed?
Pete Hegseth (01:09:43):
Nothing on that front that I'm aware of is being executed.
Senator Reed (01:09:47):
Well, that's contrary to what we've all heard. Second thing, what's the delivery time in the contract?
Pete Hegseth (01:09:56):
Again, the delivery time of anything of that sensitive nature is not for public consumption.
Senator Reed (01:10:01):
Can you tell me the delivery time for the Boeing aircraft that were being prepared for Air Force One? Was that in the contract?
Pete Hegseth (01:10:08):
One of the problems is that the way we actually procure aircraft in this country takes so long, when it's ordered it's seven, eight, nine, 10 years late, requiring the necessity for a stopgap alternative.
Senator Reed (01:10:20):
Well no, what you've just said is that the Boeing information was public knowledge, the delivery date, the cost, the course overruns. But this is not because this is not only a bad deal for the American public, it's gratifying the president's ego. That's all it is. Thank you.
Senator McConnell (01:10:47):
Senator Moran and then Senator Durbin and Senator Hoeven.
Senator Moran (01:10:53):
Chairman McConnell, thank you. Secretary, an issue for me as a Kansan, but an issue for folks who fly out of Ronald Reagan National Airport, January 29th, an Army Black Hawk helicopter and a commercial airliner arriving at DCA from Wichita collided midair. I know you're aware of it. You were involved in responding on the night of the accident, January the 29th. It killed 67 individuals, many of them Kansans.
(01:11:28)
I want to hear a confirmation from you. Since that flight, I ask, as did the Department of Transportation, the FAA, that the helicopter flights emanating from the Pentagon be put on pause. It's my understanding from information from the Army is that since January 29th, seven flights have taken off and landed at the Pentagon. Six of those flights occurred during periods of high volume at DCA. One of those aircraft caused two different commercial flights to abort landing on May the first. And since this latest incident, I understand that all flights have been halted.
(01:12:11)
My question is, will you commit to maintaining that restriction on all non-essential rotary flights, including VIP transport from the Pentagon, until the Department of Transportation, the FAA determines the safe way in which that can be done, if there is a safe way.
Pete Hegseth (01:12:31):
Senator, that was a very tragic incident which can never happen again. We initiated an investigation immediately, worked directly with the Department of Transportation immediately. They've taken the lead on it. In real-time at that moment, we even stood over maps and looked at routes to make sure we were ensuring that routes of Black Hawks were away from the flight path so that it didn't happen again.
(01:12:57)
There are essential reasons why you may need to move along a corridor similar to that, but there is no authorization for VIP or convenience flights along that route. That is not the case and will not remain the case. You have our assurance that I'm working with Secretary Duffy very closely to make sure that the only flights that would be even in a modified path would be those that are necessary and authorized.
Senator Moran (01:13:24):
And that ban on non-essential flights, including VIP transportation, remains in effect until Secretary Duffy reaches a conclusion if it's possible to fly safely?
Pete Hegseth (01:13:39):
We are in direct coordination with Secretary Duffy and we take his recommendations very seriously and work together. And only where there's a dynamic and ongoing need for the Defense Department would we push back and try to figure out a middle ground.
Senator Moran (01:13:53):
Thank you. And I compliment you on your response and engagement on January the 29th. I appreciate that very much, including the conversation you and I had that evening.
(01:14:08)
There's so many national and international issues I want to talk to you about. But I also want to make certain that some things that no other member of this committee would ask about, a circumstance that I've encountered in Kansas and we've sought the Department of Defense's help. And we're fighting, in my view, we're fighting the bureaucracy. We have an Army Corps of Engineers Lake in Kansas. It's next to a city, a community called Council Grove. It's a county seat town of several thousand people. Their community depends upon the tourist traffic and usage of that lake.
(01:14:45)
They had a manager, a ranger at that lake. The Corps did hire … That ranger shifted to another lake. The hiring freeze prevented somebody from being hired to replace that person. The Secretary of the Army, I appreciate his cooperation, signed a waiver to allow the hiring. But now we have been told weeks to months for the Army Corps of Engineers to go through the hiring process to replace the person. And if I could get your attention or your staff's attention to see if there is not a faster way. This community says that the people who come to stay and visit the lake, so at the moment the marina is threatened to be closed. There's no one to clean the latrines. No one can check the permits. So the lake is unusable, and summer is the season in which this community thrives based upon visitors to the lake.
(01:15:43)
And I was told by the Army Corps of Engineers they had the person they wanted to hire. That person had applied, but the hiring freeze prohibited him from being hired. And they have people in mind to be the seasonal employees, to do the seasonal work at the lake. But now the bureaucracy, my word, not anybody else's, I suppose, the bureaucracy of the Army Corps of Engineers delays this even weeks or months longer. The season, we've already missed Memorial Day. Can you help me?
Pete Hegseth (01:16:15):
This is an issue we were made aware of almost in real-time. And the Secretary of the Army was very responsive.
Senator Moran (01:16:21):
He was.
Pete Hegseth (01:16:22):
And I'm actually meeting, as it happens, today with the director of the Army Corps of Engineers to across the board identify where this is happening and free it up. So it'll get special attention.
Senator Moran (01:16:31):
I appreciate that very much. The season is fast dissipating for the success of that community's economic well-being.
(01:16:41)
It was reported that the Pentagon is or has diverted anti-drone technology intended for Ukraine to the US Air Force in the Middle East. And the explanation for that was the safety and security of our military men and women in the Middle East depend upon this technology. I, and I assume no one, can argue with the importance of protecting our military. Was there a precipitating factor that caused that circumstance, that move to be necessary? And is there any plan to provide Ukraine with the necessary technology to replace those anti-drone defenses?
Pete Hegseth (01:17:22):
Senator, as you know, the Middle East is and remains a very dynamic theater. In the interest of putting America and Americans first, we're going to surge counter-UAS systems to our troops and our bases and our places first, if we think there's a potential for a threat. And considering the environment there right now, that has been and will continue to be a priority for us.
Senator Moran (01:17:45):
What about the capability of resupplying or reinserting that technology into other places, including Ukraine? Is the capacity just not sufficient to do that?
Pete Hegseth (01:17:56):
We would have to review the capacity, but it's one of the challenges of all the munitions that we've given to Ukraine over these last three years, is it's created some challenges in other places.
Senator Moran (01:18:08):
I can imagine that many things are frustrating to you, as they are to me. And one is our inability to have a supply chain sufficient to meet the global demands of the United States military in our country. And it is a focus that I heard you say in your testimony is one of yours. And our safety is dependent upon a private sector supply chain necessary to meet all needs, in my view, including those of supporting Ukraine.
(01:18:44)
I'm very supportive of the department's review of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan. I think it was one of the saddest days in my experience as a member of Congress to see the circumstances and the nature of our departure and the loss of life that occurred in that effort. It is important that when we're withdrawing, we do it in a way that protects our interests. And we did not do that, in my view. It's also a poor signal to our adversaries that we are feckless, we're incapable of doing things well. It also is a message to our allies that we may not remain strong and keep our commitments to them.
(01:19:43)
So while I wouldn't debate the departure from Afghanistan, in my view, it's undebatable about the nature of the withdrawal and how damaging it was to our country. In the midst of all that chaos, we abandoned thousands of Afghans who worked side-by-side with Kansas soldiers. I hear about it frequently and I heard more about it back at the time, about who we left behind that were allies and friends of those who served. Can you help fix the problem of those who are in limbo, who were our Afghan allies, and their status either here in the United States or their status waiting to come to the United States? What should be our policy?
Pete Hegseth (01:20:31):
Senator, our doors have been open-
Senator McConnell (01:20:33):
Could I just take a minute to encourage everybody to stay within the five minutes because we have a number of senators here who need to get a chance.
Senator Moran (01:20:41):
I obviously violated the rule and didn't know it, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell (01:20:44):
So after Senator Moran, we'll go to Senator Durbin and then Senator Hoeven.
Senator Moran (01:20:49):
Mr. Secretary, I'll follow up with you.
Senator Durbin (01:20:50):
[inaudible 01:20:56]
Senator Moran (01:21:01):
I can take a subtle hint.
Senator Durbin (01:21:04):
We're just going to have to get the gentleman from Kansas a clock.
Senator Moran (01:21:08):
I thought I had four minutes and 55 seconds left.
Senator Durbin (01:21:13):
Mr. Secretary, I was surprised to learn that medical research has discovered the possibility, probability that men and women who serve our nation develop certain cancers more prevalent among them than the general population. Are you aware of this?
Pete Hegseth (01:21:33):
That men and women in uniform may develop certain different cancers than civilians?
Senator Durbin (01:21:39):
More frequent and the like.
Pete Hegseth (01:21:42):
I'm not familiar with the particular study that you're referring to, but I'd be interested to see it.
Senator Durbin (01:21:46):
Also, I learned at the same time that brain injuries are particularly prevalent among some members of our military, and understanding the violence of that experience, it's not a surprise, but it does have long-term impact. Were you aware of that?
Pete Hegseth (01:22:04):
Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin (01:22:06):
Do you know why?
Pete Hegseth (01:22:09):
Well, decades of deployments to places where explosions large and small happen on the regular basis and certain people are right next to small explosions on a regular basis or big explosions in one incident, or they have a duty MOS, like you're an artilleryman, where the constant thud of that alters the physical aspect of your brain in ways that we don't fully understand, but we know are caused by that service. So we're very aware of that.
Senator Durbin (01:22:41):
Do you feel a special responsibility as Secretary of Defense, representing these services and the men and women who are part of them, to make sure that we get as quickly as we can to the bottom of this and figure out what we can do, if anything, to reduce the likelihood of additional cancers or brain injuries?
Pete Hegseth (01:23:00):
Senator, I served with a lot of men who were affected in a lot of ways by those types of symptoms, including symptoms that led to the taking of their own life. This is a deadly serious issue. We are committed to getting to the bottom of who it affects and why and making sure we do right by it.
Senator Durbin (01:23:19):
So let me tell you what I've done about it. As chairman of this subcommittee at one point in time, we have dramatically, dramatically increased the medical research to protect the men and women in uniform. As we learn these things, we want to get to the bottom of it as quickly as possible. It is enough for me that they risk their lives for our country. We shouldn't make it a more dangerous situation, and we ought to understand what's going on in their minds and their bodies when they serve.
(01:23:48)
And as a result of that, we have dramatically increased defense medical research. I think we owe it to the men and women in uniform. Your budget cuts two thirds, two thirds, of that amount for defense health research. How can that be consistent with our mutual goal of making the military life a safer life for our men and women in uniform?
Pete Hegseth (01:24:11):
Senator, I would take issue with your characterization that all two thirds of that whatever was reduced is focused on the issues that you just spoke about. Because those are issues that as a secretary who's very close to these issues and knows people close to these issues, my team knows that's exactly the type of research that we would fund. But we did find lots of other research inside the Defense Department, to the tens and millions and in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars, that was a boondoggle for the American people and we were proud to get rid of it.
Senator Durbin (01:24:42):
Give me an example of a boondoggle in medical research in there.
Pete Hegseth (01:24:45):
There are multiple-
Senator Durbin (01:24:45):
Defense-
Pete Hegseth (01:24:46):
I mean, we're talking about some stuff I shouldn't say in public, marbles in the rear ends of cats, tens of millions of dollars. Things that don't have-
Senator Durbin (01:24:57):
Is this like the 300-
Pete Hegseth (01:25:00):
… a connection to what you're talking about. So I respect-
Senator Durbin (01:25:02):
Is this like the 350 year old social security check that the president told-
Pete Hegseth (01:25:07):
Senator, I respect completely the issue that you're speaking with. And this department couldn't be more empathetic to that and ensure that it's funded. But the Defense Department has been a place where organizations, entities, and companies know they can get money almost unchecked to whether or not it actually applies to things that happen on the battlefield.
Senator Durbin (01:25:25):
That's just not even-
Pete Hegseth (01:25:26):
That's what we worked very hard to find in ways that other secretaries have not.
Senator Durbin (01:25:30):
Let me tell you-
Pete Hegseth (01:25:31):
This committee and others talk about waste, fraud, and abuse all the time. We have actually gone after waste, fraud, and abuse because every dollar that's spent-
Senator Durbin (01:25:38):
Let me just tell you-
Pete Hegseth (01:25:39):
… is a dollar we can pour into the world [inaudible 01:25:41].
Senator Durbin (01:25:40):
Eliminating two thirds of the money for defense health research, put that next to the decision to cut NIH medical research by 40%. Does that make America great again for these military families? I don't think so. $45 million for a parade, for God's sake. Money should be put in defense medical research instead of wasted on some pomp and circumstance for the president. This is not consistent with what the men and women in uniform deserve.
Senator McConnell (01:26:11):
Senator Hoeven, then Senator Schatz and Senator Bozeman.
Senator Hoeven (01:26:14):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for being here and I want to thank you for your service as well, Mr. Secretary, General. Appreciate it.
(01:26:25)
I want to talk about our strategic defense and in two aspects, one's our nuclear forces and then the Golden Dome concept. And if you think about it, they really go together. In other words, our nuclear forces, the nuclear triad is what has kept any country from ever challenging us with any kind of nuclear weapon. And it's done that since World War II. So it's vitally important that we maintain the strongest nuclear arsenal in the world. Would you agree with that, Mr. Secretary and also General?
Pete Hegseth (01:26:57):
Senator, no doubt. Our nuclear triad is
Pete Hegseth (01:27:00):
… the silent foundation of our entire deterrent effect, and that's why this budget fully funds all three legs of the triad and make sure we're leaning forward in ensuring we have the most capable nuclear deterrent possible.
Senator Hoeven (01:27:15):
General?
General Caine (01:27:16):
Sure, I'd agree with that, sir.
Senator Hoeven (01:27:18):
Right. It is the bedrock on which all our conventional forces reside, so we've got to update our nuclear forces to make sure that they're always superior to any near-peer adversary. That's the Sentinel program. Now, in 2025, $1.7 billion was taken out, which we are putting back in through reconciliation. And there's 4.1 in 26 versus the five that was originally asked for by Air Force.
(01:27:45)
But that's an overlap in terms of… It's actually only 2.6 because that 1.5 is being brought back in. I want to know, and I want insurances, I'd like assurances from both of you that that effort with Sentinel will be funded so that we stay on schedule with that vital upgrade. Secretary?
Pete Hegseth (01:28:07):
If you want, we could have Bryn speak specifically to that, that we are funding it full-
Senator Hoeven (01:28:11):
Yeah, the key question here is a commitment to keep that on schedule.
Ms. Bryn MacDonnell (01:28:17):
Yes, sir. The Sentinel is fully funded. The only reductions in '26 were a reflection of the Nunn-McCurdy breach that the Sentinel program experienced. But since then, there's been a restructuring which the secretary can speak to.
Senator Hoeven (01:28:27):
And Secretary and General, y'all are committed to keeping that on schedule and providing the funding to do it?
Pete Hegseth (01:28:31):
The challenge with that program has been how it was administered from the beginning, which everyone in this committee is aware of leading to the Nunn-McCurdy breach, needing to an understanding of how we do it properly. We are putting our best people with a daily focus on this program to get it back on track because that's how important it is.
Senator Hoeven (01:28:49):
So you are committed keeping it on schedule… And on Nunn-McCurdy, General, the Air Force, I want to commend, they've done some good work and we've worked closely with them. But we need a commitment to keep the funding going to keep them on schedule as well with the revisions based on Nunn-McCurdy.
Pete Hegseth (01:29:03):
The funding is there, Senator. It will be incumbent on the service and others to keep that on track, but it is not, thus far, been a program that's done that.
Senator Hoeven (01:29:13):
Right. But I'm not criticizing you. I'm trying to make sure you're committed to keeping that funding in place to do it. Is that the case?
Pete Hegseth (01:29:21):
The funding is in the budget for FY26 completely.
Senator Hoeven (01:29:24):
Okay. General?
General Caine (01:29:27):
Sir, I'm guessing you know that in my job, I don't actually fund anything, I just recommend and advocate for. So I'm going to defer to my bosses to the left on that.
Senator Hoeven (01:29:37):
I understand, but there's a difference between what you all and the Air Force have asked for and what's in the budget.
General Caine (01:29:43):
Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven (01:29:43):
I understand the Nunn-McCurdy adjustments. I just want to make… And we're working closely with Air Force and we'll continue to. I just want to make sure the commitments stay.
General Caine (01:29:50):
You've got my support to continue to advocate for the program through the Air Force and through the chief and the secretary down there.
Senator Hoeven (01:29:57):
Thank you, sir. And then I want to flip to the other side of the coin, which now is Golden Dome. I mean, we've got the nuclear forces, so nobody ever tries to fire a missile at us, right? And then with the Golden Dome, well, I guess if they do, we're going to take it out. Now, in that regard, you've got a number of programs that are critically important to our capabilities to make sure that we have better technology for our forces than our near peer. So, for example, TRMC, Test Resource Management Center at Air Force, we're now developing the Sky Range program at the Grand Forks Air Force Base, which enables us to test hypersonic missiles. George Rumford leads that program. I want to understand your commitment to that program to drone, counter-drone, which we're seeing is so important. And again, we've got both a test site as well as Grand Sky Technology Park on the Grand Forks Air Force base.
(01:30:48)
Your commitment to upgrading ISR, not just trying to do everything from satellite. So think next-gen ISR, taking beyond Global Hawk, which you need in places like whether it's supporting Ukraine or certainly in the Middle East. And the very good work you did taking out the Houthis and putting a stop to that nonsense. Okay? And then also SDA and the low Earth orbit satellites. Starting with you, Secretary, talk about your commitment to those programs. And if you agree, they're vitally important both in terms of achieving Golden Dome, but in terms of our near-peer challenges in terms of maintaining our capabilities, our superiority. And same thing, General, I would put the same question to you as well.
Pete Hegseth (01:31:34):
Well, Senator, I certainly agree about your lens. Your lens is near-peer adversaries, capabilities to threats, and defending the homeland. Things like hypersonics, like UAS, counter UAS, ISR. Critical to that, that's why there's robust increases in those budgets and all of those places, both for how they might be applied in the Indo-Pacific or elsewhere, but also integrated into the Golden Dome.
Senator Hoeven (01:31:57):
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman (01:31:58):
Senator Schatz. And then-
Senator Hoeven (01:32:01):
Could the General respond?
General Caine (01:32:03):
That's right. I'd echo the secretary's response, the effects are the key and we'll stay close on the effects that you're trying to achieve. And I appreciate your advocacy for those effects.
Senator Hoeven (01:32:15):
Yeah, I'm going to continue to work very hard to make sure that we have resources going into those programs. Because that's where, as they say in hockey, that's where the pucks going.
General Caine (01:32:24):
Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll take all resources at all times, sir. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven (01:32:27):
Thank you, Chairman.
Sen. Schatz (01:32:32):
Secretary, thank you for being here. Good to meet you, General. Thank you, Ms. MacDonnell. I'll start with General Caine. Is the United States being invaded by a foreign nation?
General Caine (01:32:47):
Sir, thanks for your question. I think at this point in time, I don't see any foreign state-sponsored folks invading. But I'll be mindful of the fact that there has been some border issues throughout time and defer to DHS who handles the border along the nation's contiguous outline.
Sen. Schatz (01:33:14):
Is there a rebellion somewhere in the United States?
General Caine (01:33:20):
Sir, I think there's definitely some frustrated folks out there.
Sen. Schatz (01:33:29):
I mean, if frustrated folks were a rebellion… And I guess that goes to my question for the secretary, two things. There should be some sort of paper flow that the committee, the Congress, the public can look at in invoking Title 10, section 12, 406. So can you give us some clarification on whether the orders that were issued apply to specifically Los Angeles, to California generally, or is this a nationwide order?
Pete Hegseth (01:34:12):
The orders that have been issued, which are publicly available known, relate to an ongoing situation in Los Angeles which could expand to other places. But it's quite easy to point out that there has been an invasion of 21 million illegals in our country onto the previous administration. This administration was elected to get a hold of that.
Sen. Schatz (01:34:34):
Yeah, we just take-
Pete Hegseth (01:34:35):
And when you have ICE officers being attacked with concrete blocks-
Sen. Schatz (01:34:38):
Secretary-
Pete Hegseth (01:34:39):
They should be allowed to do their job.
Sen. Schatz (01:34:41):
Secretary, I'd really like to not try to create a viral moment for either of us. I'm actually trying to understand kind of the scope of this order. The order effectuates, the ability to mobilize the Guard and the Marines. In the order, it does not specify a location, it does not specify which Marines or which guard, and I'm trying to figure out, if you decided to do this collectively in Kansas or any other place, would you need to specify a new sort of fact pattern? Or do you think this order applies to any guard anywhere, any service branch, anywhere?
(01:35:28)
It's just like I get your justification. We disagree about the circumstances. I'm just trying to figure out, did you just potentially mobilize every guard everywhere and every service member everywhere? I mean, create the framework for that. I understand you didn't. I'm saying what does the document do in your opinion?
Pete Hegseth (01:35:48):
Senator, if you notice, the initial order of 2000 in California was followed by a follow-on order for the additional 2000, with a recognition that the situation there required more resources in order to support law enforcement. So part of it is getting ahead of a problem so that if in other places, if there are other riots and places where law enforcement officers are threatened, we would have the capability to surge National Guard there if necessary. And thankfully, in most of those states, you'd have a governor that recognizes the need for it, supports it and mobilizes it him or herself. In California, unfortunately, the governor wants to play politics with it.
Sen. Schatz (01:36:27):
I did step on the last part of your sentence, so I'm going to try to take turns here. Just on the 747 question, did the Department of Defense initiate the conversation with the Qataris? Did they initiate the conversation? How did that go?
Pete Hegseth (01:36:47):
Senator, I have to have to go back and review it, but we've been a part of the ongoing conversation.
Sen. Schatz (01:36:51):
Yeah. But I think it kind of matters who's asking, doesn't it?
Pete Hegseth (01:36:57):
Ultimately, the defense department is or soon will be when the memorandum of a understanding needs signed in receipt of a gift from the Qatari government, that could serve once it's modified eventually as something that the president could use.
Sen. Schatz (01:37:09):
I mean, I think this is illegal and unconstitutional and I won't rant about that. But I actually think from the standpoint of our collective responsibilities, it very much matters what the paper flow was, who started these conversations that had come out of the White House, did it come out of the Secretary of State or the President, or the SEC-DEF, or at a lower level, or ambassadors? We're entitled to no because we can agree or disagree about the propriety of this. But my basic request of you is that if we're going to disagree, let's disagree with the same set of facts.
(01:37:43)
Let's have the documentation on the Qatari aircraft, let's have the same set of documentation about what these orders do and don't do with respect to Los Angeles. Because if we're just going to scream past each other and then see who succeeds more on the internet, that's actually not the way to do this work. We're supposed to be in struggle against each other, but in a way where we actually have all the information. You have our information, we have yours. And so, I'm hoping that we can get some documentation about both matters in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman (01:38:19):
Senator Boozman and Senator Shaheen.
Sen. Boozman (01:38:23):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for being here. Thank you for your service to our country. Mr. Secretary, Ebbing Air National Guard Base in Fort Smith, Arkansas is the home to the F-35 foreign military sales pilot training mission. They recently graduated the first two Polish pilots, an accomplishment we're very excited to see repeated. Mr. Secretary, can you explain the importance of training partners and allies on American systems and how that enables mission readiness and deterrence around the world?
Pete Hegseth (01:39:04):
Senator, it's a great question and a great point. Our ability to project power by with and through allies is one of the most important force multipliers that we have, including not just these sophisticated platforms like the F-35, but the training of their people. And including something we're putting a lot of emphasis on, which is military to military training, which creates enduring bonds over generations that we're then able to leverage for future capability.
(01:39:31)
So I'm encouraged to hear about those two graduations. I know it's a program we're investing in. I know it keeps our defense industrial base robust. It also projects capabilities to allies and partners. So that's a program we're aware of, we think is very important. And appreciate you raising it.
Sen. Boozman (01:39:47):
Very good. General Cain, we've seen how quickly munitions are expended in high-intensity conflicts like in Ukraine and Israel. How vital sustained supply chains are in modern conflict, the importance, had the opportunity of taking your predecessor into Camden, Arkansas-
General Caine (01:40:09):
Yes, sir.
Sen. Boozman (01:40:09):
… to see the great work, our industry, partners are doing to help solve the problem. However, the department's organic industrial base also fills important capability gaps. Do you believe the department's organic industrial base meets our munitions needs? And if not, where can we invest more to fix that?
General Caine (01:40:30):
That's right. I appreciate the question, especially about munitions. One of my jobs as the chairman is to make sure that the youngsters have the combat capability that they need at scale before they need it. So I appreciate the committee and the Congress's investment in the defense side of the munitions build base. My hope is, as I've talked about with some of the committee leadership before, is that we can raise everybody's capacity. Do that through changing the culture and not only the munitions production, but across the entire national and defense industrial base.
(01:41:06)
Encourage competition to keep the prices down, write better contracts and increase the overall capacity. So I appreciate your investment in the government side. I hope we can continue to grow the private side as well. Not just here, but also in our closest allies and partners. It's an important issue, sir. Thank you.
Sen. Boozman (01:41:24):
Very good. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, while Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb was a success, it also highlighted just how vulnerable our installations remain to potential attacks, particularly from emerging threats. Putting on my MILCON share hat for a second, how does this operation change the way we think about installations, installation security survivability?
Pete Hegseth (01:41:54):
It's an excellent point, sir. I will say that even before that operation, it's something we've put on the forefront of our planning of the conversations the chairman and I have on a regular basis. It's force protection forward deployed, but then it's also a recognition here in the States. It's cheaper, attributable, commercially available drones with small explosives, represent a new threat, as was exemplified in that operation. That day, we met and our staffs met to re-evaluate and ensure we're doing enough and to get a full layout once again of the force protection, CONUS and OCONUS, to see what systems we have and which ones we need and which ones we can fast forward so that our troops are protected.
(01:42:38)
First and foremost, forward deployed. That's the question about from Ukraine to there as part of that, but also in our homeland. And that will be a part of Golden Dome also, the reality of drones of different types. But it's a critical reality of the modern battlefield that we have a responsibility to address.
Sen. Boozman (01:42:57):
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman (01:43:06):
Senator Shaheen followed by Senator Capito.
Sen. Shaheen (01:43:10):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary General Cain, welcome. Thank you for being here. Both of you mentioned in your opening remarks the challenges with our defense industrial base. And, General Cain, as you think about that, how do lead times for the defense industrial base affect your ability to resource worldwide operations? And are you concerned about those delays?
General Caine (01:43:38):
Well, Senator, thanks for the question. And I recall our conversation prior to my confirmation about my opportunity to run a manufacturing business earlier in my life. And the importance of decreasing lead time in order to backfill the magazine stores if we were to get into a high-end conflict anywhere in the world will be really important. And as the secretary and I consider, what does the force of the future require for the munitions, I'm always thinking about lead time, and what has to be true to solve the problem of shortening that lead time. And frankly also lowering the cost to the taxpayer while assuring the quality that we need out at the tactical edge. So it's a key portion, ma'am.
Sen. Shaheen (01:44:22):
Mr. Secretary, when you were asked about the impact of President Trump's tariffs under section 232 on the defense industrial base, you commented that you're in the business of tanks, not trade. But can't buy tanks without trade. And the administration's steel and aluminum tariffs are having an impact on the lead times for our defense industrial base. I've visited companies in New Hampshire whose lead time has gone from weeks to years because of those steel tariffs. So how does the department address that?
(01:44:58)
I asked this question of Secretary Ludnick at the Commerce hearing because he was talking about the benefit of those tariffs. But in the short term, I asked him if he had notified DOD about the tariffs because clearly, it's going to have an impact on our defense industrial base. So did the secretary raise that with you and with the Department of Defense? And how did you respond and how are you addressing the impact on DOD and the defense base because of those tariffs?
Pete Hegseth (01:45:36):
Secretary Ludnick and I have had multiple conversations about this and I'm grateful that he's leading the charge on rebalancing our trade relationships. And a big part of… One of the things, complicating factors we face at the defense department is critical systems, whether they're tanks or munitions, you name it, that are reliant on supply chains elsewhere, and rebalancing that trade relationship means you're bringing industry home, you're bringing capabilities home.
Sen. Shaheen (01:46:00):
I understand-
Pete Hegseth (01:46:00):
Right now we have a lot of-
Sen. Shaheen (01:46:02):
… in the long term, how the benefits accrue. But in the short term, how are you addressing that issue? Because there are short-term impacts and how are we going to address that if we need munitions, or tanks, or whatever it is, and we don't have the steel and aluminum because of the tariffs.
Pete Hegseth (01:46:25):
I would first say, Senator, that somebody had to stand up and say stop on this cycle of sourcing elsewhere, and relying on supply chains elsewhere, and allowing for unfair trade balances. And that's what President Trump and Secretary Ludnick have done. Somebody had to do that.
Sen. Shaheen (01:46:40):
I understand. But-
Pete Hegseth (01:46:41):
At the same time, yes, we are working-
Sen. Shaheen (01:46:43):
Are you dealing with the short term?
Pete Hegseth (01:46:44):
In the short term, we're working very hard on the commercial side with allies and partners, other places where we can source the materials necessary, as fast as possible, commercially available to address any shortfalls. But we are grateful for the fact that those trade relationships are being right-sized.
Sen. Shaheen (01:47:01):
General Caine, earlier in the conversation, ISIS came up and the resurgence of ISIS in Syria, given the changes, they are a real concern. How important is it that you think we maintain troops on the ground to address any potential resurgence of ISIS?
General Caine (01:47:24):
Ma'am, I don't recall the conversation being linked to any particular part of the world-
Sen. Shaheen (01:47:28):
It wasn't.
General Caine (01:47:29):
Yes, ma'am.
Sen. Shaheen (01:47:29):
It was just about ISIS. But I'm asking you because-
General Caine (01:47:32):
Yes ma'am.
Sen. Shaheen (01:47:32):
… Syria is the most likely place for ISIS to resurge. And we know that there are cells there that… We've seen it in the last few weeks where they attacked.
General Caine (01:47:42):
Yes, ma'am. I'd be happy to sit with you sometime in a different setting to talk the CT threats and my views on them at the classified level. I'm actually somewhat hopeful around the pressure that we have against ISIS in Syria right now, given the change of government there through a unique set of circumstances that nobody could potentially-
Sen. Shaheen (01:48:06):
I agree. My concern is the withdrawal of US troops would provide an opening to ISIS.
General Caine (01:48:12):
Yes, ma'am. And, of course, I'll defer. That's a policy decision, I'll defer to the secretary.
Sen. Shaheen (01:48:17):
Let me just correct the record here before I close. I'm out of time. But, Mr. Secretary, you pointed out that javelins were given to Ukraine during the first Trump administration and I support that. But I would point out that he was impeached over holding up giving those javelins and equipment to Ukraine. So I think as we look at the record, we ought to try and be accurate about how we portray things. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman (01:48:48):
Senator Capito, Senator Murphy, and then Senator Kennedy.
Sen. Capito (01:48:52):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Hegseth. And thank you, General. And thank all of the men and women every day that serve us and protect us. Extremely grateful. Secretary Hegseth, you and your team are working on a National Defense Strategy. I'd be interested to know when you think you'll be coming forward with that. We know that the last year, the commission on the National Defense Strategy found that "there's a high probability that the next war will be fought across multiple theaters and would involve multiple adversaries." How are you thinking about these interconnected threats, and how will your National Defense Strategy establish a new force to meet those challenges? And when do you think that report will come forward?
Pete Hegseth (01:49:32):
Senator, it's the right question. It drives almost all of our decision-making, certainly on a topic related to budget. We did an interim National Defense Strategy almost immediately upon arriving because with a new administration, our planning guidance was from the previous administration that we think had the wrong priorities or some of the wrong priorities. And by issuing that interim National Defense Strategy, it allowed our building to plan around the priorities of President Trump.
(01:49:57)
And that interim National Defense Strategy focused on defending the homeland, a recognition that is important, our pacing threat in the Indo-Pacific, and then burden sharing for our allies and partners, making sure that they're stepping up so that we can focus where we need to. I would anticipate that our National Defense Strategy will include a lot of those ingredients, but more fully developed. I would expect late summer if I were to put a pin on it.
(01:50:25)
But that interim strategy has driven why we're investing, where we're investing. And I think driven a lot of difficult decisions. There are things in this budget that we have to address, that have been deferred for a long time. That we're willing to say that may have been a fight for the last 20 years, but it's not as applicable to the long-range fight we think we may need to be a part of in the future. Or it's not survivable, given what we've seen in the last three years in Ukraine and the way the battlefield is changing. That's what I would hope the American people would expect from their department, leaning on the military expertise of our uniformed class to try to get it right.
Sen. Capito (01:51:00):
Thank you. We'll look forward to that report. And that leads me to my second question, and I'm interested in listening to all the questions that this hasn't been asked. And this is a question on space superiority. I mean, in my view, I think a powerful destabilizing force would be if China were to get the superior hand in space. General Saltzman has said that he feels that we do not have what we need to fight on our terms. So I would imagine in your National Defense Strategy, but also reflected in your budget, how does this match with the need for us to become space dominant?
Pete Hegseth (01:51:44):
I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to point out that it was President Trump that created the Space Force when a lot of people said he shouldn't in his first administration. And that's been critically important to us, gaining advantages in that space to include our ability to implement something like the Golden Dome. We also are able to leverage world-class private companies that come alongside DOD to help us with that capability. Obviously, how we rapidly field things is going to matter. And then you'll see some of which is classified, obviously, ways in which we're investing in this budget to ensure we maintain dominance in space. That is the frontier, that is a co-com, if you will, that we need to be able to understand fully, and defend against, and match our adversaries.
Sen. Capito (01:52:28):
Well, it's interesting because I think there's a tremendous interplay between the military superiority that we could achieve in defensive capabilities in space along with what's going to happen in the private sector. Because if we don't achieve this militarily or defensively, we're not going to be able to have the private sector superiority that we all enjoy in every facet of our life. So last question, you mentioned, and I'm very proud of this fact, that the recruiting goals that we've seen them falling short with the exception of Marine Corps. I want to give them a shout-out because they are meeting their goals. You said that they are higher. So I assume you have some of the statistics as to how much the recruitment is up. I'm curious to know for women, is recruitment up for women, and how you see that. Do you have statistics-
Pete Hegseth (01:53:14):
Yeah, I mean, I think there was plenty of pre-criticism that certain groups would not be interested in joining the military in this environment. And we've seen the exact opposite. Because for us, it's not about women, or men, or black, or white. It's about we want the most qualified Americans possible in our ranks who are ready to go, and they have responded. So across the services, the army is four months ahead, the Air Force is way ahead, the Navy is way ahead. And we're going to meet goals well beyond the goals that were reduced by the previous administration because they could not recruit. So we're talking about far surpassing anything that was done before.
Sen. Capito (01:53:54):
Is there one prevailing thought when you're doing your actual recruiting, talking to recruit that's signing up? What's the difference?
Pete Hegseth (01:54:02):
The difference is a commander in chief they believe in, Senator.
Sen. Capito (01:54:04):
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman (01:54:11):
Senator Murphy, you're up.
Sen. Murphy (01:54:16):
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I wanted to build on some of the questions that Senator Schatz was asking just to try to build a fact predicate for some of the tough spending decisions we're going to have to make here. Just to confirm, I heard you say with respect to the gift of the plane from Qatar, that we do not yet have a signed MOU with the government of Qatar. Is that right?
Pete Hegseth (01:54:48):
Correct. We're in the process of working through that.
Sen. Murphy (01:54:51):
And did you also say we don't have a signed contract with the company that is going to do the work? Or did you say that we have a contract, you're just not willing to disclose the terms?
Pete Hegseth (01:55:02):
The terms should not be disclosed of anything related to an aircraft of this type.
Sen. Murphy (01:55:07):
So in 2018, when the contracts were signed with Boeing to do the upgrades or the new contracts for Air Force One, the terms of that contract were disclosed, they were made public. In fact, it was the Trump administration that issued a press release, given the total is $3.9 billion. Are you saying this time around even after you sign the contract, you're not going to make public any of the terms of the contract?
Pete Hegseth (01:55:36):
I wasn't involved in that previous administration decision, but we're happy to take a look.
Sen. Murphy (01:55:43):
The Air Force testified before the House that that contract would likely deliver the new Air Force Ones by the 2028 timeframe. It doesn't stand to reason that you'll be able to retrofit
Sen. Murphy (01:56:00):
… the plane from Qatar much sooner than 2028. So I'm trying to understand what the gap is that we're trying to fill. If this contract ends up being a half a billion dollars and the gap only ends up being six months, that doesn't sound like a wise investment for this committee to make.
Pete Hegseth (01:56:21):
Senator, I would defer to the expertise of the Air Force as far as timing of modifications and when that would happen, but there's also been delay after delay after delay on the Boeing side. So I don't know that's a firm fixed date yet unfortunately, can't be counted on.
Sen. Murphy (01:56:37):
So obviously the underlying question here is what is going to happen to the plane at the end of Trump's presidency? The president said on May 12th that this plane would be transferred to his presidential library at the end of his term. Is that your understanding of what is going to happen to this plane?
Pete Hegseth (01:57:00):
The president said that, that's my understanding, although I would look at what comes out in the MOU.
Sen. Murphy (01:57:05):
But why would we ask the American taxpayer to spend upwards of $1 billion on a plane that would then only be used for a handful of months and then transfer directly to the president? That doesn't sound like a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
Pete Hegseth (01:57:21):
A lot of the capabilities, as you know, Senator, of that particular platform are and should remain classified. So there are reasons why you might modify even for a short period of time an aircraft to ensure the safety and security of the President of the United States.
Sen. Murphy (01:57:36):
But when do you believe that those upgrades would be made? How long would the president have it before it got transferred to his personal possession?
Pete Hegseth (01:57:45):
That would be a determination of the Air Force that would take hold of it and make those modifications within whatever time window they believe gets it to the place where it needs to be.
Sen. Murphy (01:57:54):
Yeah, I think this is extraordinary, Mr. Chairman. We're talking about a pretty massive investment of appropriation's dollars into a plane that the secretary is saying is currently planned to be transferred personally to the president's. There's a lot of other pending needs that we need to fund, this would seem to be low on the list. Mr. Secretary, one final question. Obviously you know that there is a concern in the public about a double standard that is applied to protests, sometimes protests that turns violent. The president when he came into office issued pardons to the individuals that attacked the United States Capitol, including those individuals who beat savagely police officers. You have deployed the National Guard and readied Marines in a way that many people think is unnecessary given the state and the local resources. So maybe let me ask the question this way so that you can assuage people's concerns that there is a double standard. The National Guard was deployed here on January 6th and that was a decision made by the Department of Defense. Do you support that decision? Do you believe that that was the right decision to deploy the National Guard to defend the capitol on January 6th?
Pete Hegseth (01:59:12):
All I know is it's the right decision to be deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ICE agents who deserve to be defended in the execution of their jobs.
Sen. Murphy (01:59:20):
But I think it's important to know whether you think it was also important to have the National Guard defending the United States Capitol when there were violent protesters here on the president's behalf to make sure that folks know that you care about protest, whether it's against the president or on behalf of the president.
Pete Hegseth (01:59:37):
Senator, I was in the Washington, D.C. National Guard when that happened and was initially ordered to go guard the inauguration of Joe Biden. But because of the politicization of the Biden administration, my orders were revoked and ultimately because of the politics that being played inside the Defense Department by the previous administration. So-
Sen. Murphy (01:59:59):
But do you Support the decision made on January 6th to send the National Guard here to defend the capitol?
Pete Hegseth (02:00:03):
I support the decision that President Trump made and requesting the National Guard to be denied.
Sen. Murphy (02:00:13):
So you do not the support the decision-
Pete Hegseth (02:00:13):
President Trump requested support for the National Guard in advance and was denied.
Sen. Murphy (02:00:14):
To send the National Guard to defend the capitol. I think that speaks to the worry that many Americans have that there is a double standard that you are not willing to defend against attacks made on our democracy by supporters of the president. But you are willing to deploy the National Guard to protect against protesters who are criticizing the president. That's not how our taxpayer dollars are supposed to work. They're supposed to be used to defend the United States, no matter the nature of the political affiliation of the protesters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell (02:00:46):
Senator Baldwin.
Sen. Baldwin (02:00:48):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on a couple of lines of questioning just specifically, Mr. Secretary, what is the authority that the administration is using to deploy active duty Marines to California neighborhoods? What authority?
Pete Hegseth (02:01:08):
Senator, the president has constitutional authority in order to support--
Sen. Baldwin (02:01:12):
Cite the provision of the constitution.
Pete Hegseth (02:01:15):
I'd have to pull up the specific provision, but our office of general counsel alongside our leadership has reviewed and ensured in the order that we set out that it's completely constitutional for the president to use federal troops to defend federal law enforcement.
Sen. Baldwin (02:01:33):
Look, I'd like to know the specific constitutional statutory authority. The president made it clear that he relied on section 12406 of Title 10 with regard to the National Guard troops. I need to know the authority that he is relying upon in terms of active duty Marines being deployed to California neighborhoods. So you'll follow up with me?
Pete Hegseth (02:02:07):
Yes, Senator.
Sen. Baldwin (02:02:07):
Thank you.
Pete Hegseth (02:02:07):
But there's plenty of precedent of active duty troops being used to support law enforcement, historical precedent.
Sen. Baldwin (02:02:16):
I'm not disputing that. I am just asking you to cite the authority under which the active duty Marines are being deployed to California-
Pete Hegseth (02:02:23):
It's in the order, ma'am, but we'll make sure we get it to you as well.
Sen. Baldwin (02:02:26):
Thank you. I want to dovetail on a couple of other comments also with regard to the lack of specific detail in the budget request for the Department of Defense. I take great pride in Wisconsin's contributions to our national defense, and that includes many Wisconsinites who are hard at work building the Constellation-class frigate. There is no mention of frigate procurement, just like Senator Collins noted that there's no mention of destroyer procurement in the budget materials that you provided to this committee. My state makes the frigate. I'd also note that there's no mention of the destroyers, as I said. So really we are looking at a very incomplete budget request when we are just four months out from the beginning of the next fiscal year. Mr. Secretary, this committee takes the appropriations process seriously. I take the hard work of Wisconsin's shipbuilders seriously, and I'd like your commitment to provide this material to the committee expeditiously so we can do our work.
Pete Hegseth (02:03:41):
Senator, we'll make sure you get all the information, but what I would say is this is a historic investment in shipbuilding, both the defense industrial base and ships in Wisconsin, and particularly related to the frigate. It's been a program with a lot of problems and a lot of delays and a lot of modifications that have led to serious challenges-
Sen. Baldwin (02:04:02):
Maybe has called for many modifications to the plan that has-
Pete Hegseth (02:04:04):
I'm not saying it's all the fault of the shipyard. There are many ways in which modifications were made that changed an existing design so extensively that it led to a ship that was not even capable of the original mission it was supposed to execute. So our job is to make tough choices on some platforms like that that may not be funded the way they were in the past because we have to make some of those tough choices.
Sen. Baldwin (02:04:31):
Well, we don't have any of the detail right now of what your plans are with regard to the frigate or the destroyer, and we need that information to do our jobs. Can you get it to me, your committee expeditiously?
Pete Hegseth (02:04:44):
We have that information, Senator. We have worked in real time in four months to reverse a lot of priorities from the previous administration. We have those details and that information and we will get it to you.
Sen. Baldwin (02:04:55):
But the committee needs those details. So this committee has also worked hard alongside the department to improve recruitment and meet retention goals. The department is planning to separate several thousand service members due to your partisan beliefs about troops who are transgender. Mr. Secretary, I've seen your speeches and social media posts, but what I'm interested in is the sound policy analysis that we would expect from the secretary of Defense and how this misguided decision will impact military readiness. My colleagues and I have requested this information from you and we are still waiting to receive it. And so I will ask you now, what assessment did the Department of Defense conduct prior to implementation to evaluate the impact that this policy would have on our national security? Moreover, what is the cost to recruit and train thousands of individuals of comparable experience and skill?
Pete Hegseth (02:05:59):
Thankfully, recruiting is not an issue. It's at historically high levels and we're proud of the cross-section of Americans-
Sen. Baldwin (02:06:04):
What analysis did you do?
Pete Hegseth (02:06:06):
We did extensive analysis, Senator, and we agree with the assessment of the executive order that was issued by the White House, that there are mental health issues associated with gender dysphoria that complicate military service and readiness. And as a result, we made the decision.
Sen. Baldwin (02:06:20):
I have asked for that analysis. Please provide it to me and the committee.
Pete Hegseth (02:06:27):
We will provide it.
Sen. Baldwin (02:06:29):
And then, Mr. Secretary, I think we can all agree that we are at a critical point in our history with respect to global threats that need to counter adversaries like China and Iran. You've gotten a number of questions along those lines and I'm disappointed that you are instead focusing on a class of ships named for civil rights leaders. You chose Pride Month to direct the Navy to rename a ship named for Navy veteran Harvey Milk. This committee will continue to pursue serious work in the interest of American National Security and I ask you to choose to join us in that endeavor.
Pete Hegseth (02:07:12):
Senator, we're not interested in naming ships after activists. That's the stance we're taking.
Senator McConnell (02:07:21):
All right. Where we are due to the interests of all of the members of the subcommittee is right near the end, Mr. Secretary. We're going to call on Senator Murkowski and at that point the hearing will conclude and if anybody has additional questions for the record, they can submit it for response. Senator Murkowski.
Sen. Murkowski (02:07:42):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, Mr. Secretary and General Caine, welcome, welcome. And I also want to recognize, General, your trip north to Alaska last week or two weeks ago. We appreciate that. We all know, everyone in this room knows the strategic role that Alaska plays when it comes to being on the front lines, whether it is the threat from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. We're sitting up there. We host the backbone of our nation's missile defense there at Fort Greely, advanced fifth generation fighters at Eielson and at JBER, critical long range radar and surveillance systems throughout the state. We've got key airborne forces at JBER, Fort Wainwright. I mean, it's good, it's solid. We appreciate it and we think that we're in a pretty critical place and we think that you recognize and acknowledge that we're in a pretty critical place. And yet the FY '25 defense budget overview document that was released under the last administration stated that the goal of the budget request in terms of the Arctic was to quote, "develop a monitor and respond approach."
(02:08:59)
I thought that that was a pretty passive approach in a highly critical region. We don't need to go into how many ICE Breakers we have versus Russia. The good news is is that with this reconciliation bill that we're talking about, we move to make a difference in an aggressive way that is really, really important. But I will share with you that I'm a little bit frustrated where we've got stated support for the role in the Arctic region, and I'm assuming that means the U.S. Arctic region. There's a seeming fixation on Greenland that I think sends, I don't know whether it's a troubling signal or a mixed signal that we're looking past the significance of the U.S. Arctic and the area that is already part of the United States and happily so. But I like to remind people, everything that the administration wants in Greenland when it comes to strategic location, when it comes to resources and minerals, we've got it on the U.S. side.
(02:10:15)
So I think any serious Arctic policy has to start with a serious investment. In Alaska we've built it, we need to do more. I would just ask both you, Mr. Secretary and General Caine, your view of the strategic importance of Alaska and more importantly the broader Arctic because this is really when we're talking about DOD posturing to make sure that we're deterring adversaries in the region. I just came from a relatively uncomfortable exchange with the Army Corps of engineers, we don't have a deep water Arctic port in the United States. Everybody says it's important, and the signal of importance that we got was a $3 million placeholder in the budget. To me that doesn't signify significance. I'm going to stop talking to listen to both of you. Thank you.
Pete Hegseth (02:11:15):
Thank you, ma'am. I agree with you, it's difficult to understate the strategic significance of Alaska, whether you're looking at INDOPACOM, whether you're looking at Russia, whether you're looking at the Arctic, whether you're looking at space-based capabilities, whether you're looking at energy, you name it. It's both a defensive posture but also a power projection posture that is a central focus of how we plan.
Gen. John D. Caine (02:11:42):
Senator, first, thanks for letting me visit up there. I got a full range of academics from your colleague about Billy Mitchell and air power history.
Sen. Murkowski (02:11:51):
How many times did you hear that?
Gen. John D. Caine (02:11:53):
Ma'am, only a few. But as the secretary said that the Northern flank is critical and it's in the right place on the globe for us to be able to do a lot of things from that power projection platform. And so as the department considers through the secretary for rail, I know it'll be high on our radar.
Sen. Murkowski (02:12:16):
Well, I appreciate that and appreciate the continued focus. There's a lot of focus on the INDOPACOM, should be, but just remember we sit right on top of it. We're connected, we're part of that.
Gen. John D. Caine (02:12:29):
Yes, ma'am.
Sen. Murkowski (02:12:29):
I'm running out of time. I have been concerned. We have E-3 capability up north, of course, but we were all counting on the E-7 Wedgetail coming our way. We're kind of limping along up north right now, which is unfortunate. And the budget proposes terminating the program. Again, the E-3 fleet barely operational now. And I understand the intent to shift towards the space space. You call it the air moving target indicators. But my concern is that you've got a situation where you're not going to be able to use more duct tape to hold things together until you put this system in place. And so how we maintain that level of operational readiness and coverage, I'm not sure how you make it. General Caine.
Gen. John D. Caine (02:13:37):
Well, ma'am, thank you for the question. The E-3 and the E-3 community have been really important to us for a long, long time. And I'll defer to the controller. The department has a bridging strategy through investing in some additional airborne platforms in order to gap fill while the space-based capabilities come online.
Ms. Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell (02:14:01):
Yes, sir. Thank you. Ma'am, we do have in the budget 150 million in FY '26 for a joint expeditionary E-2D unit with five dedicated E-2Ds, and the budget also funds for additional E-2Ds to fill the near-term gap at $1.4 billion.
Sen. Murkowski (02:14:17):
And can you tell me will that have implications for what we're seeing up north in Alaska?
Ms. Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell (02:14:25):
I would defer to the secretary and the chairman on that question, ma'am.
Pete Hegseth (02:14:31):
The answer is yes. I would file this entire discussion under difficult choices that we have to make, but the E-7 in particular be sort of late more expensive and gold-plated. And so filling the gap and then shifting to space-based ISR is a portion of how we think we can do it best considering all the challenges.
Sen. Murkowski (02:14:53):
Well, I appreciate the indulgence of the chair. My time is well over. If your teams can come back with us to just give us a little bit of a walkthrough in terms of what we can be expecting in this space, I would appreciate it.
Pete Hegseth (02:15:06):
Yeah, you will.
Sen. Murkowski (02:15:06):
Thank you both. Thank you all.
Senator McConnell (02:15:09):
Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Members of the subcommittee will have a week to get questions in for the record, and we'd request witnesses to respond within 30 days. So the subcommittee stands in recess, subject to the call of the chair. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
