Pete Hegseth Senate Confirmation Hearing

Mr. Reed (00:00):

I'm deeply concerned about your nomination is your disregard for the law of armed conflict and your support for service members who have been convicted of war crimes. You have championed the pardoning of military members who were turned in by their fellow soldiers and SEALs, and let me emphasize that. They weren't discovered by reporters, they were turned in by fellow soldiers and fellow SEALs, and also pardoning of military contractors convicted of killing 14 Iraqi citizens without course. You have also advocated for the restitution of interrogation methods like waterboarding that have been defined as torture, and you have belittled the advice and counsel or the judge advocates general while on deployment. In your book, the War on Warriors, you write, "Should we follow the Geneva Convention? If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules?"

(01:03)
Mr. Hegseth, I would ask that you explain how you, if confirmed, would maintain good order and discipline within our forces and the support of our allies and partners by rejecting international law and the law of war. I'm also concerned about your abilities as a competent manager of organizations far less complex than the Department of Defense. From 2008 to 2010, you led the organization, Veterans for Freedom, which had an annual budget of less than $10 million. In each year you were in charge, expenses far exceeded revenues until the organization teetered on bankruptcy and had to be merged with another group.

(01:43)
In fact, according to public reporting, an independent forensic accountant reviewed the organization's finances and discovered evidence of gross financial mismanagement. I would note that this report has not been made available to any government agencies, which is I think alarming, but a Republican advisor to you during your tenure at the organization who read the report stated and I quote, "I watched him run an organization very poorly, lose the confidence of donors. The organization ultimately folded and was forced to merge with another organization who individuals felt could run and manage funds on behalf of donors more responsibly than he could. I don't know how he's going to run an organization with an $857 billion budget and 3 million individuals." And that is the only comment we've had and the only access we've had to the forensic report.

(02:42)
A similar thing happened with the Concerned Veterans for America, a second veterans group that you led from 2011 until 2016. During those five years, tax records show that the organization spent more than it raised. Just as troubling are reports that a significant amount of debt was incurred from social events and parties filled with excessive drinking and questionable personal behavior. Mr. Hick said, "I hope you will explain what actions you will take if confirmed to be a better steward of Defense Department's large budget."

(03:13)
Finally, while I appreciate our meeting last week, it is unacceptable that you did not meet with any other Democratic members of this committee before this hearing, as has been our bipartisan tradition. During my time in the Senate, I have voted for and worked closely with Secretary of Defense appointed by Republican presidents. While we may disagree politically, there was always an understanding that rank partisanship should have no place when it comes to providing for the men and women who serve in uniform. And Mr. Hegseth, I am troubled by the many comments you have made both as a commentator and in your published writings.

(03:49)
For example, in your book American Crusade, you wrote, "Modern leftists who represent the soul of the modern Democratic Party literally hate the foundational ideas of America." You also wrote, "The other side, the Left, is not our friend. We are not esteemed colleagues, nor mere political opponents. We are foes. Either we win or they win. We agree on nothing else." Mr. Hegseth, if confirmed as Secretary of Defense, you would lead an organization that, like the country it represents, is composed of Democrats and Republicans. Yet, your language suggests that you regard many of these men and women as foes, and I would ask you to explain why service members and civilians who do not share your political opinions can trust that they will not be targeted during your tenure.

(04:41)
Indeed, the challenge of the Secretary of Defense is to remove partisan politics from the military. You propose to inject it. This would be an insult to the men and women who have sworn to uphold their own apolitical duty to the Constitution. Mr. Hegseth, you are the ninth nominee of the Secretary of Defense that have had the honor to consider as a member of the Senate Armed Service Committee. I have voted in favor of all your predecessors, including those in the first Trump administration. Unfortunately, you lack the character, and composure, and competence to hold the position of Secretary of Defense. Thank you.

Mr. Wicker (05:18):

Thank you, Senator Reed. And now it's my privilege, and honor and pleasure to recognize two witnesses who have come forward to introduce our nominee. First, I recognize my former colleague and former Senator, Norm Coleman of Minnesota for the purpose of an introduction. Norm, we are glad to see you and glad to have you back and you are recognized for the introduction.

Norm Coleman (05:53):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Reed, members of the committee, my former colleagues. I'm honored to introduce a son of Minnesota to you, Pete Hegseth. As a senator from Minnesota, I spent many hours with this young man as he walked the halls of Congress advocating on behalf of America's veterans, and he's young in the best sense of the word. He's strong, focused, intelligent, incisive, a great listener and is almost supernaturally energetic, just what we need in a Secretary of Defense in times of massive change. He is the real deal. F. Scott Fitzgerald was a writer in my city of St. Paul. He said the problem with America is that there are no second acts. He was wrong. Pete was a brave soldier, has been an able communicator and I believe is about to begin a great second act as our Secretary of Defense. He has struggled and overcome great personal challenges.

(06:49)
Please don't give into the cynical notion that people can't change. We need the ones who can change to lead us, to be beacons of hope and to remind us that grace can lead us home. Four years ago, President Biden's nominee, Lloyd Austin, a good and honorable man, received 97 votes on the floor of the Senate and we went through the debacle of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Putin invaded Ukraine. The Houthis endanger our shipping lanes. We witnessed Israeli miracles against America's enemies in the Middle East where the United States was more of an impediment than a help. Our recruitment numbers have sunk dramatically and our southern border has suffered a slow, but dangerous invasion.

(07:34)
Yes, Pete Hegseth is an out-of-the-box nominee and I say it's high time to get out of the box. One more thought, the country longs for a government of less division and more respect and dignity. My hope is that this committee hearing provides what they are asking for. Disagree, yes, strongly if necessary, but then come together to support the nominee, this nominee, Pete Hegseth, of the one president we have at a time, laying aside partisan politics for the essential mission of national security upon which everything else depends. Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Mr. Wicker (08:12):

Thank you, Norm. I do appreciate that and appreciate your presence today. I now have the honor and pleasure of introducing Congressman Waltz. I understand, Congressman, you are still a member of the house for another day or two.

Congressman Waltz (08:32):

Another day or two.

Mr. Wicker (08:33):

Okay. And I now recognize Congressman Waltz for whatever opening statement and introduction he might make.

Congressman Waltz (08:42):

Thank you, Chairman Wicker and Chairman has a very nice ring to it, so congratulations ranking member Reed, distinguished members of this committee. It is a privilege to appear before you today and urge the members of this committee to confirm Pete Hegseth as our next Secretary of Defense. And I'm not here today just to advocate on behalf of a future colleague, but to speak on behalf of someone I consider a dear friend for over a decade now. Like Pete, I served in the US Army. Like Pete, I'm a veteran. We deployed to Afghanistan and all over the world at the height of the war on terror, which is the war of our generation. And like thousands of other war fighters, we've witnessed the hardships of war. We've experienced the loss of friends in combat. We've endured too much time away from family and friends and no one, I can promise you this, no one hates war more than those who have had to go fight it. No one does.

(09:54)
Pete's story, though, isn't that much different from the millions of other veterans and they know it and they appreciate him for the experiences that he's gone through. And after our country was brutally attacked on 9/11, Pete Hegseth answered the call of duty like so many others. He put the interest of this country ahead of his own. And I can tell you firsthand, as can the heroes sitting in this audience behind me, Pete's character of country, his selflessness, his duty, these are the key tenets that have shaped him into the leader that he is today. These are the traits that President Trump recognized when making the decision to nominate Pete for this critical role. He will bring the perspective of being the first Secretary of Defense to have served as a junior officer on the front lines, not in the headquarters, on the front lines in the war on terror and recognizes the human costs, the financial costs, and the policy drift that was discussed often in this very room that led us to decades and decades of war.

(11:06)
So not only does he understand the threats he faces, but as the Chairman mentioned, he is brilliant, in my mind, at communicating those to the American people in a way that is often not communicated in Washington, DC to reach out to the American people so that they understand why the military needs to do what it needs to do. And look, I have no doubt that he is going to get the Pentagon back to its primary mission, lethal readiness. That warrior [inaudible 00:11:38] enemies will respect. That warrior ethos is what our enemies will fear and it's that warrior ethos that will keep the peace.

(11:46)
And ladies and gentlemen, in my humble opinion, our military deserves better than it's getting. Our country faces a devastating recruitment crisis. Men and women are not volunteering to serve at the levels required. Our readiness is down, our costs are up. And it seems like nearly every major weapon system, again, often discussed in this very room is costing too much, delivering too little and taking way too long. The bottom line is the status quo is unacceptable. It's not working. And the members of this committee, you all know it, you know it's not working and the members of the House Armed Services know it's not working. And we have hearing after hearing, year after year and here we are decades later describing the same problems.

(12:43)
The Pentagon has continuously failed audits. The businesses that want to do business with a Pentagon have to pass an audit, but the entity itself fails an audit. Innovation is stalled. Morale is down. Standards have been weakened, and meritocracy is less valued. And as a result, our adversaries have been emboldened all over the world. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for change. It is time for change. You all have literally seen thousands of veterans, as the Chairman cited one amazing Medal of Honor recipient, but we have seen thousands of veterans expressing their support for Pete. This is a man who can reinvigorate that warrior ethos and this is a man that will lead.

(13:28)
I can't imagine having a more capable partner in my position as National Security Advisor. Pete is a man of family, of faith and he's committed to making our country stronger again. And most importantly, brother, I know this in my core, he will always have as a first principle, the service members that are out there on the front lines for all of us at the heart of every decision he makes. So Senators, I urge you to support this confirmation. It is critical that President Trump has his national security team in place for the challenges ahead, and I thank you.

Mr. Wicker (14:08):

Thank you, Mike, for your testimony and I'm guessing that each and every member of this committee will want to have you on speed dial for the next few years. So thank you both. Our two guests may stay, or I know they have other engagements and responsibilities also, but thank you both for your testimony. At this point. Mr. Hegseth, I'm required to ask you as a nominee, a series of questions that the committee asks all civilian nominees who appear before it. If you would, please simply respond in the affirmative or negative to each question. Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest?

Pete Hegseth (14:56):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Wicker (14:57):

Have you assumed any duties or taken any actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process?

Pete Hegseth (15:06):

No, sir.

Mr. Wicker (15:07):

Exercising our legislative and oversight responsibilities makes it important that this committee, its subcommittees and other appropriate committees of Congress receive testimony, briefings, reports, records, and other information from the Executive Branch on a timely basis. Do you agree if confirmed to appear and testify before this committee when requested?

Pete Hegseth (15:28):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Wicker (15:31):

Do you agree to provide records, documents and electronic communications in a timely manner when requested by this committee, its subcommittees or other appropriate committees of Congress, and to consult with the requester regarding the basis for any good faith, delay, or denial in providing such records?

Pete Hegseth (15:51):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Wicker (15:52):

Will you ensure that your staff complies with deadlines established by this committee for the production of reports, records and other information, including timely responding to hearing questions for the record?

Pete Hegseth (16:06):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Wicker (16:07):

Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to Congressional requests?

Pete Hegseth (16:14):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Wicker (16:15):

Will those witnesses and briefers be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings?

Pete Hegseth (16:21):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Wicker (16:22):

All right. So at this point, Mr. Hegseth, you'll recognize for your opening statement.

Pete Hegseth (16:36):

Well, thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed and all the members of this committee for this opportunity today. I'm grateful for and have learned a great deal from this advice and consent process. Our founders knew what they were doing. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee, senators from both parties to secure our nation. I want to thank the former Senator from Minnesota, Norm Coleman for his mentorship and friendship in this process and the incoming National Security Advisor Congressman, and more importantly for our purposes, Colonel Mike Waltz for his powerful words. I'm grateful to them both thank you to my incredible wife, Jennifer, who has changed my life and been with me throughout this entire process. I love you, sweetheart, and I thank God for you. And as Jenny and I pray together every morning, all glory, regardless of the outcome, belongs to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. His grace and mercy abounds each day. May his will be done.

(17:47)
Thank you to my father, Brian and Mother, Penny, as well as our entire family, including our seven wonderful kids, Gunner, Jackson, Peter Boone, Kensington, Luke, Rex, sorry. It's a lot of them. And Gwendolyn. Their future safety and security is in all of our hands. And to all the troops and veterans watching and here in the room, Navy SEALs, Green Berets, soldiers, pilots, sailors, marines, Gold Stars and more, too many friends to name. Officers enlisted, Black and white, young and old, men and women, all Americans, all warriors. This hearing is for you. Thank you for figuratively and literally having my back.

Speaker 1 (18:35):

[inaudible 00:18:35] Vietnam War. Pete, you are [inaudible 00:18:36].Not only that, you are a Christian Zionist and you support the war in Gaza by the Zionists.

Mr. Wicker (18:53):

I want to thank the authorities for their swift reaction to that outburst and state that similar interruptions will be treated in like manner. Mr. Hegseth, you may continue.

Pete Hegseth (19:09):

Well, as I'll say again, thank you for figuratively and literally having my back. I pledge to do the same for all of you. It's an honor to come before this committee today as President Donald Trump's nominee for the Office of Secretary of Defense. Two months ago, 77 million Americans gave President Trump a powerful mandate for change, to put America first at home and abroad. I want to thank President Trump for his faith in me and his selfless leadership for our republic. The troops have no better Commander in Chief than Donald Trump. As I've said to many of you in private meetings, when President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense. He, like me, wants a Pentagon laser-focused on lethality, meritocracy, war fighting, accountability and readiness.

Speaker 2 (20:19):

[inaudible 00:20:10]. When are you going to stop [inaudible 00:20:20] babies in Gaza? Veterans are committing suicide and you're sending money to foreign babies. Every veteran in here [inaudible 00:20:25].

Mr. Wicker (20:31):

You may continue, sir.

Pete Hegseth (20:33):

Returning the Pentagon back to war fighting, that's it. That's my job.

Mr. Wicker (20:39):

Mr. Hegseth, suspend your remarks. Let me just say this, the Capitol police going to remove immediately individuals that are disrupting the hearing. I see a pattern attempted to be inflicted on the committee and we're simply not going to tolerate that. You may proceed.

Pete Hegseth (21:08):

To bring back warfighting. If confirmed, I'm going to work with President Trump and this committee to one, restore the warrior ethos to the Pentagon and throughout our fighting force. In doing so, we will reestablish trust in our military, addressing the recruiting crisis, the retention crisis and readiness crisis in our ranks.

Speaker 3 (21:33):

[inaudible 00:21:30] Gaza. [inaudible 00:21:34].

Mr. Wicker (21:33):

Members of the security force will remove members.

Speaker 3 (21:37):

[inaudible 00:21:39].

Mr. Wicker (21:47):

Mr. Hegseth, you may.

Pete Hegseth (21:51):

The strength of our military is our unity and our shared purpose, not our differences. Number two, we're going to rebuild our military, always matching threats to capabilities. This includes reviving our defense industrial base, reforming the acquisitions process. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, no more valley of death for new defense companies. Modernizing our nuclear triad, ensuring the Pentagon can pass an audit and rapidly fielding emerging technologies. And number three, we're going to reestablish deterrence. First and foremost, we will defend our homeland, our borders, and our skies. Second, we will work with our partners and allies to deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific from the Communist Chinese. And finally, we will responsibly end wars to ensure that we prioritize our resources to reorient to larger threats. We can no longer count on reputational deterrence. We need real deterrence.

(22:56)
The Department of Defense, under Donald Trump, will achieve peace through strength. And in pursuing these America first national security goals will remain patriotically, apolitical, and stridently constitutional. Unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters. We are not Republicans, we are not Democrats. We are American warriors. Our standards will be high and they will be equal, not equitable. That's a very different word. We need to make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapons system, every pilot's fully qualified and current on the aircraft they are flying, and every general or flag officer is selected for leadership or promotion purely based on performance, readiness and merit. Leaders at all levels will be held accountable and war fighting and lethality and the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only focus.

(24:06)
This has been my focus ever since I first put on the uniform as a young Army ROTC at Princeton University in 2001. I joined the military because I love my country and felt an obligation to defend it. I served with incredible Americans in Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and on the streets of Washington, DC, many of which are with me here today. This includes enlisted soldiers I helped become American citizens and Muslim allies I helped immigrate from Iraq and Afghanistan because when I took off the uniform, my mission never stopped.

(24:51)
Now, it is true and has been acknowledged that I don't have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the last 30 years. But as President Trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly the right credentials, whether they are retired generals, academics or defense contractor executives. And where has it gotten us? He believes, and I humbly agree, that it's time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm, a change agent, someone with no vested interest in certain companies, or specific programs, or approved narratives. My only special interest is the war fighter, deterring wars and if called upon, winning wars by ensuring our warriors never enter a fair fight. We let them win and we bring them home.

(25:44)
Like many of my generation, I've been there. I've led troops in combat. I've been on patrol for days. I've pulled the trigger down range, heard bullets whiz by, flex cuffed insurgents, called in close air support, led medevacs, dodged IEDs, pulled out dead bodies and knelt before a battlefield cross. This is not academic for me. This is my life. I led then and I will lead now. Ask anyone who's ever worked for me, or with me. I know what I don't know. My success as a leader, and I very much look forward to discussing my organization's successes at Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. I'm incredibly proud of the work that we've done, but my success as a leader has always been setting a clear vision, hiring people smarter and more capable than me, empowering them to succeed, holding everyone accountable and driving toward clear metrics. Build the plan, work the plan, and then work harder than everyone else around you.

(26:56)
I've sworn an oath to the Constitution before and if confirmed, I will proudly do it again, this time for the most important deployment of my life. I pledge to be a faithful partner to this committee, taking input and respecting oversight. We share the same goals, a ready, lethal military, the health and wellbeing of our troops and a strong and secure America. Thank you for the time and I look forward to your questions.

Mr. Wicker (27:27):

Thank you very much, Mr. Hegseth. Before we begin with member questions, I would like to remind my colleagues that consistent with the bipartisan staff agreement from December and in concert with exactly how this committee dealt with the last Secretary of Defense nominee, each member will be recognized for one round of seven minutes to question the nominee. Out of respect for the time of all members of this committee, the time limits will be tightly enforced. We've now been here 45 minutes and I think we've done very well with the time. But at this point, I will begin my questioning of the nominee. Mr. Hegseth, you and your family have endured criticism of your nomination since it was announced in November. Let's get into this allegation about sexual assault, inappropriate workplace behavior, alcohol abuse, and financial mismanagement during your time as a non-profit executive. I should note that the majority of these have come from anonymous sources in liberal media publications, but I want to give you an opportunity to respond to these allegations, sir.

Pete Hegseth (28:46):

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that opportunity. You are correct, we undertook this responsibility with an obligation to the troops to do right by them for our war fighters. And what became very evident to us from the beginning, there was a coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media against us. That was clear from moment one, and what we knew is that it wasn't about me. Most of it was about President Donald Trump, who's had to endure the very same thing for much longer amounts of time and he endured it incredibly strong ways. So we in some ways knew it was coming. We didn't understand the depth of the dishonesty that would come with it. So from story after story in the media, Left-wing media, we saw anonymous source after anonymous source based on second or third-hand accounts. And time and time again, stories would come out and people would reach out to me and say, "I've spoken to this reporter about who you really are, and I was willing to go on the record, but they didn't print my quote. They didn't print any of my quotes." Or, " I've worked with you for 10 years, or I was your accountant, or I was your chief operating officer, or I was your board member, or I was with you on a hundred different tour stops for Concerned Veterans for America. No one called me. No one asked about your conduct on the record or off the record." Instead, a small handful of anonymous sources were allowed to drive a smear campaign, an agenda about me because our Left-wing media in America today sadly doesn't care about the truth.

(30:32)
All they were out to do, Mr. Chairman, was to destroy me. And why do they want to destroy me? Because I'm a change agent and a threat to them because Donald Trump was willing to choose me, to empower me to bring the defense Department back to what it really should be, which is warfighting. So I'm willing to endure these attacks, but what I will do is stand up for the truth and for my reputation, false attacks, anonymous attacks, repeated ad nauseam, printed ad nauseam as facts. We have provided to the committee, Mr. Chairman, and I know you're going to share, on the record statement after on the record statement from people who have served with me, worked with me at Fox News, Concerned Vets, Vets for freedom, you name it, from the top of the chain to the bottom, who will say I treat them with respect, with kindness, with dignity. That's men, that's women, that's Black, that's white, that's every background. I have prided myself as a leader, of respecting people, being professional. That is the balance of mine.

(31:35)
I'm not a perfect person, as is being acknowledged, saved by the grace of God, by Jesus and Jenny. I'm not a perfect person, but redemption is real, and God forged me in ways that I know I'm prepared for. And I'm honored by the people standing and sitting behind me and look forward to leading this Pentagon on behalf of the warfighters.

Mr. Wicker (31:58):

Thank you Mr. Hegseth. And frankly, I'm sure there are millions of Americans watching who would agree that they've experienced that same sort of redemption, so I do appreciate that. I realize that it involves a little bearing of the soul, but thank you for that. Now let's talk about top-line defense spending. I have a plan. I think you've read it. I issued another plan, Freedom's Forge, which you've also had a chance to look at. And you have noted correctly that the current trend line of defense spending falling below 3% of our GDP is a threat to national security. You also said building the strongest and most powerful military in the world must be done responsibly, but it cannot be done on the cheap. You still agree with that, do you not?

Pete Hegseth (32:47):

Yes sir, I do.

Mr. Wicker (32:50):

So tell us what you think particularly about my plan to make the defense department less bureaucratic, less top-heavy, cut out some of the bureaucracy in layers, make it more friendly to start-ups and to new ideas contained in my 20 or so page white paper defending Freedom's Forge.

Pete Hegseth (33:20):

Senator, I've had a chance to review the Forged Act, that paper. Those are precisely the kinds of ideas that need to be pursued, and I look forward to working with this committee to ensure we cut the red tape, we incentivize innovation, we rebuild the defense industrial base, cut out the bureaucracy, all the things that are preventing the platforms and the tools from getting rapidly from our great defense companies here that should, and those that want to compete into the hands of war fighters. But past is prologue on this, sir. And I would just look at what President Trump did after the drawdowns of lead from behind under President Obama. President Trump rebuilt our military. He didn't start wars, he ended them and he didn't allow wars to start on his watch. We've had the same kind of defense cuts under the Biden administration. And so look, I would present to the committee the reputation of President Donald Trump and me coming alongside him to ensure we have peace through strength by rebuilding our military investing as necessary. Going under 3%, Mr. Chairman, is very dangerous.

Mr. Wicker (34:23):

Okay, we've gone 45 seconds. Tell us in that point, get us started at least talking about deterring China and the Indo-Pacific.

Pete Hegseth (34:31):

It starts with priorities. The 2017 National Defense Strategy was the first step in reorienting away from simply entanglement in the Middle East, which our generation knows a lot about, and reorienting the behemoth that is the Pentagon toward new priorities, specifically the Indo-Pacific. So that strategy has started and was barely followed through on under the Biden administration. So we're going to start by ensuring the institution understands that as far as threats abroad, the CCP

Pete Hegseth (35:00):

… CPP is front and center. Also obviously defending our homeland as well.

Mr. Wicker (35:05):

Thank you very much. Senator Reed, you are recognized.

Mr. Reed (35:08):

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questioning, I would like to make three requests. First, many of my members would like a second round. That has been the custom. Senator Hagel was afforded three rounds, Senator Ashcoter two rounds, and that was done by Republican chairman with the consent and the appropriate guidance of Democrats. I must say too, my recollection is I've never denied anyone the opportunity to ask a second round of questions as I chair. I will request a second round. And my time is running. I think these are administrative-

Mr. Wicker (35:50):

Oh yeah, you're using your time. No. If the timekeeper will pause the time… I must say I think we're going to have adequate time for questioning and I know Democrat members have coordinated their questions as much as we have and we are following the same exact precedent on all things that we did with Secretary Austin. So I respectfully understand what you're saying, but I think we have an agreement. It's been known for quite some time and I intend to stick with that agreement which we made last December. What is your second request?

Mr. Reed (36:37):

Second, as been publicly reported, you and I have both seen the FBI background investigation of Mr. Hegseth, and I want to say for the record, I believe the investigation was insufficient frankly. There were still FBI obligations to talk to people. They have not had access to the forensic audit, which I reference to, and the person who had access to was quite critical of Mr. Hegseth. I think people on both sides have suggested that they get the report. I know your colleagues have asked for it. Senator Thune assured me personally that he thought it was an appropriate idea. So I would ask and I would say too, as a precedent, one of President Trump's appointees had similar, very complicated personal issues. The report was made available to all the members of the committee. We would be following precedent and I ask that that be made possible.

Mr. Wicker (37:37):

Again, there's been much discussion about this and what I intend to do is follow the exact precedent that we've had for the last two hearings with regard to Secretaries of Defense, not only Secretary Austin but Secretary Mattis eight years ago, and that was for the chair and the ranking member to see the report and so that is my intention as chair of this committee.

Mr. Reed (38:13):

Finally, Mr. chairman, I have several letters that I would include for the record. One from Count Every Hero, which is an organization of retired four star generals and former Secretary of Defense that is critical of the proposed purge panels. One from an organization for domestic violence, one from a counsel on American relations and also several letters that raise questions. I would ask they be submitted for the record.

Mr. Wicker (38:48):

Without objection, they will be submitted. And Mr. Reed, your time has now expired. Just kidding. You're recognized for seven minutes.

Mr. Reed (39:01):

Thank you. You're a very understanding chairman. I like that. I like that. Mr. Hegseth, you've written and it's quote, "Oh yeah, and fire any general who carried water for Obama and Biden's extra constitution and agenda driven transformation of our military. Clean house and start over." It's come to my attention that current serving military personnel have received emails threatening them with being fired for supporting the current DOD policies. One mail that was sent to a military officer with the subject line, "Clean house," reminiscent of your specific comment states and I quote, "With the incoming administration looking to remove disloyal, corrupt, traitorous liberal officers such as yourself, we will certainly be putting your name into the list of those personnel to be removed. We know you support the woke DEI policies and will ensure you never again influence anyone in the future. You and redacted spouse's name will be lucky if you're able to collect your military requirement."

(40:12)
Now, I want to remind everyone that these policies that are being referred to date back decades, to the 1940s and '50s with respect to racial discrimination particularly and administrations of both parties, including the Trump administration and the first party caused those policies to be enforced. Mr. Hegseth, are you aware of these emails being sent to officers?

Pete Hegseth (40:39):

Senator, you mentioned the word accountability, which is something we have not had for the last four years.

Mr. Reed (40:46):

Are you aware of these messages being sent to officers?

Pete Hegseth (40:50):

Certainly, I'm not aware of that. It's not one of my efforts, but there's been no accountability for the disaster of the withdrawal in Afghanistan and that's precisely why we're here today-

Mr. Reed (41:00):

Excuse me.

Pete Hegseth (41:00):

Is that leadership has been unwilling to take accountability and it's the time to restore that to our most senior ranks.

Mr. Reed (41:07):

You've written publicly that DEI policy is a distraction and have military personnel walking on egg shells. Do you believe that emails like that, that are essentially threatening both a serving officer and a spouse and claiming that they'll lose their pension will have a distraction and detract from the lethality?

Pete Hegseth (41:28):

Senator, you mentioned the '40s and '50s and you are precisely right. The military was a forerunner in courageous racial integration in ways no other institutions were willing to do. I served with men and women of all backgrounds because of the courage of people decades and decades-

Mr. Reed (41:45):

Do you believe Mr. Hegseth-?

Pete Hegseth (41:45):

It's incredibly important-

Mr. Reed (41:46):

Please do you mean-?

Pete Hegseth (41:47):

However, the DEI policies of today are not the same as what happened back then. They're dividing troops inside formations, causing commanders to walk on eggshells, not putting meritocracy first. That's the indictment that's made by those serving right now.

Mr. Reed (42:03):

Excuse me.

Pete Hegseth (42:04):

And why we're having this conversation.

Mr. Reed (42:06):

All of your public comments don't talk about meritocracy. They talk about liberal Democratic efforts that are destroying the military, that those people are our enemies. That's not meritocracy. That's a political view and your goal, as I see emerging, is to politicize the military in favor of your particular positions which you've outlined extensively, which would be the worst blow to the professionalism of the United States military and would undercut readiness, undercut retention because I can see officers receiving these emails beginning to wonder very seriously if they should continue.

(42:52)
Let me change the subject for a moment here. You've been instrumental in securing pardons for several convicted war criminals and in at least two of these cases, the military personnel who served in combat with these convicted service members were not supportive of the pardons. They did their duty as soldiers to report war crimes. Your definition of lethality seems to embrace those people who do commit war crimes rather than those who stand up and say, "This is not right." So what's the response to your service members who personally witnessed these and courageously reported them to their superiors?

Pete Hegseth (43:40):

Senator, as someone who's led men in combat directly and had to make very difficult decisions, I've fought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way. I'm not talking about disavowing the laws of war or the Geneva Conventions or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Sir, I'm talking about restrictive rules of engagement that these men and women behind me understand, they've lived with on the battlefield, which has made it more difficult to defeat our enemies. In many of the cases you're talking about in particular, sir, there was evidence withheld, there was prosecutorial misconduct and as someone who looks case by case and defaults to the war fighter, to the men and women with dust on their boots, not the second-guessers in air-conditioned offices in Washington DC-

Mr. Reed (44:35):

Excuse me.

Pete Hegseth (44:35):

I looked case by case and was proud to work with President Trump to understand those cases and ensure that our warriors are always looked out for.

Mr. Reed (44:44):

Those cases were by adjudicated by who? People in Washington or fellow non-commissioned offices who had also served, sacrificed, and believed in the ethic of the military? Who were the court marshal-?

Pete Hegseth (44:57):

Senator, in multiple cases they were actually acquitted but charges lingered-

Mr. Reed (45:02):

In some cases, yes.

Pete Hegseth (45:02):

Regardless of where those convening authorities were, yes sir.

Mr. Reed (45:05):

Some were, but others were convicted and you asked for pardon. That's the only reason you asked for a pardon, because they were convicted. But the other factor too is you've already disparaged in writing the Geneva Convention, the rules of law, all of these things. How will you be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principle elements is discipline, respectful, lawful authority? You have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a JAG officer… Well, by the way, would you explain what a JAG off is?

Pete Hegseth (45:44):

I don't think I need to, sir.

Mr. Reed (45:46):

Why not?

Pete Hegseth (45:47):

Because the men and women watching understand.

Mr. Reed (45:50):

Well, perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand.

Pete Hegseth (45:54):

It would be a JAG officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the war fighters, their promotions, their medals in front of having the backs of those who are making the tough calls on the front lines.

Mr. Wicker (46:05):

Thank you, Senator Reed.

Mr. Reed (46:06):

Interesting. Thank you, Senator.

Pete Hegseth (46:08):

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wicker (46:09):

Senator Fischer.

Senator Fischer (46:10):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome Mr. Hegseth to you and to your family. Thank you for the meeting that we had. We talked about a number of things. First and foremost was that nuclear weapons are foundational to our national defense and having a safe, effective, and credible nuclear deterrent underpins our alliances and as you know, it deters our adversaries. Nuclear deterrence has been, and you and I believe agreed on this, must continue to be unequivocally the highest priority mission of the Department of Defense, but deterrence only works if our adversaries believe our nuclear forces are effective and credible. All three legs of our triad are undergoing that generational recapitalization programs and we cannot afford any more delays in those programs. Sir, do you believe and agree with President Trump's 2018 Nuclear Posture Review that preventing adversary nuclear attacks is the "highest priority" of the United States?

Pete Hegseth (47:25):

Senator, yes, I do.

Senator Fischer (47:26):

If confirmed, will you commit to supporting all three legs of the nuclear triad and to using every tool available to deliver these systems on schedule?

Pete Hegseth (47:38):

Senator, yes, I do because ultimately our deterrence, our survival is reliant upon the perception and the reality of the capability of our nuclear triad. We have to invest in its modernization for the defense of our nation.

Senator Fischer (47:54):

While former Secretaries of Defense have stated that nuclear deterrence is the highest priority, we haven't really seen that translated into budget requests or using the tools like the Defense Production Act. You've spoken about increasing lethality, you've spoken about getting programs done faster. How would you actually implement a culture change so that we can see these delivery schedules move forward, be rewarded? I can tell you in most every briefing we have, the schedules we're on are too late. So what would you do?

Pete Hegseth (48:35):

Well, ultimately, focus first on the things that are most important as we have discussed, Senator, the nuclear triad, understanding whether it's the B-21 or the Minuteman to the Sentinel, all aspects of the Columbia class submarines, ballistic missiles. What are the priorities that need to be focused on and ensure that in those particular cases…? You mentioned it, Senator, the Defense Production Act, emergency powers. If we're at a place where our nuclear capabilities are perceived to not be what they are, that is an emergency and we have an ally in our incoming commander-in-chief in President Donald Trump who has spoken about these things, understands the power and strength of nuclear deterrence will not allow them-

Senator Fischer (49:14):

It's the existential threat. It's the existential threat to this nation. How do you change the culture? It's not just the Production Act that's going to be able to do it. How are you going to move forward faster?

Pete Hegseth (49:29):

Competition, Senator, is important, critically important. The Death Valley that was talked about, leveraging the innovation of Silicon Valley, which for the first time in generations has shown a willingness, desire, and capability to bring its best technologies to bear at the Pentagon, a Pentagon that has become too insular tries, to block new technologies from coming in. So we have to embrace that, provide… There's some great office of strategic capital, DIU, initiatives that provide loans to companies to participate because you have to invest in the defense industrial base for the longer-term projects. We have the capability, the missiles and the munitions, but also to rapidly field emerging technologies that we need on the battlefield right now. So as we learn things, say, in the war in Ukraine, those technologies, as we look at threats we're going to face, find ways to rapidly field those using off the shelf technologies or standard designs, modular designs. Another easy one, Senator, that became evident in the process is digital designs. The Pentagon often builds entire systems without first using a digital design-

Senator Fischer (50:35):

Okay.

Pete Hegseth (50:36):

Which means you build prototypes and then scrap them and start over again. No private sector business could survive doing business that way. So there's a lot of innovation and I'm going to hire a lot of smart people, already have, to help with that.

Senator Fischer (50:48):

In the 2025 NDAA, it was established to a new position, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Deterrence, Chemical and Biological Defense Policy and Programs, and that was established so we could cut through a lot of the bureaucratic stovepipes that we see in the office of the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, will you direct the Department of Defense components to expeditiously implement this reform?

Pete Hegseth (51:23):

I would want to look directly-

Senator Fischer (51:26):

It is great.

Pete Hegseth (51:26):

At exactly what that reform is.

Senator Fischer (51:28):

It is great.

Pete Hegseth (51:28):

I take your word that it's great, Senator. I will review it robustly and I look forward to implementing it.

Senator Fischer (51:32):

Okay, thank you. During the first Trump administration, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that the US needed to once again develop and deploy a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile known as SLCM to offset significant Russian and Chinese advantages in theater-range nuclear capabilities. Since then, Congress on a strong bipartisan basis has directed the Navy and the National Nuclear Security Administration to continue this effort. Do you support the SLCM program?

Pete Hegseth (52:12):

As of right now, Senator, based on what I know I do, but one of my answers I'll have repeatedly throughout this morning is getting an opportunity to look under the hood, the classified material, get an understanding of true capabilities vis-à-vis enemy capabilities. Because what we know right now on the nuclear… Sorry, Senator, what I know on the nuclear side is that Russia and China are rushing to modernize and build arsenals larger than ours. We need to match threats to capabilities and the systems we elevate will be tied to whether those capabilities are needed based on the adversaries we face.

Senator Fischer (52:49):

Would you ensure that this program is executed according to law?

Pete Hegseth (52:55):

Absolutely. Absolutely, Senator.

Senator Fischer (52:59):

Short, short here, what is your plan to revitalize the industrial base in this country?

Mr. Wicker (53:06):

It needs to be real short.

Pete Hegseth (53:11):

Serious investment targeted at systems that we truly need by also incentivizing competition and laser focus from the OSD, from the Office of Secretary of Defense to all the particular strategic initiatives to revive them. So it's not just one system, it's multiple systems.

Mr. Wicker (53:27):

You may want to expand on that on the record. At this point, my colleagues, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter organized by a group called Flag Officers for America, which has 120 retired generals and admirals offering their support for Mr. Hegseth's nomination. I ask unanimous consent. Without objection, it is entered into the record. Senator Shaheen.

Senator Shaheen (54:01):

Good Morning, Mr. Hegseth.

Pete Hegseth (54:02):

Good morning, Senator.

Senator Shaheen (54:04):

I was pleased when I was contacted on your behalf about meeting before this hearing. I've been on this committee since 2011, and during that time I voted to confirm six nominees to be Secretary of Defense from three administrations, two Democratic and one Republican, the first Trump administration. Every one of those nominees met with me and my Democratic colleagues on this committee before the hearing. So as you can imagine, I was disappointed when no one ever followed up when we followed up with your office. You were not able to meet. Do you understand that if you're confirmed to be Secretary of Defense that you will have a responsibility to meet with all members of this committee, not just Republicans?

Pete Hegseth (54:51):

Senator, I very much appreciate and understand the traditionally bipartisan nature of this committee. National defense is not partisan. It should not be about Republicans or Democrats. And so I look forward to working together with you and your colleagues on priorities facing this nation. Yes.

Senator Shaheen (55:07):

I think we would expect that. And one reason that I wanted to meet with you was because I thought it would be really helpful to better understand your views on women in the military because you've made a number of surprising statements about women serving in the military. As recently as November the 7th of 2024 on the Shawn Ryan Show, you said, and I quote, "I'm straight up saying that we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective." The quote went on a little longer, but that was the gist of it. That was before you were nominated to be Secretary of Defense. Hegseth, do you know what percentage of our military is comprised of women?

Pete Hegseth (55:54):

I believe it's 18 to 20%, Senator.

Senator Shaheen (55:56):

It's almost 18%. And in fact, DOD's 2023 demographic report indicated that there are more women serving now and there are fewer separations. So they make up a critical part of our military, wouldn't you agree?

Pete Hegseth (56:11):

Yes, ma'am. Women in our military, as I have said publicly, have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield.

Senator Shaheen (56:20):

Well, you also write in your book, The War on Warriors with the chapter, the Deadly Obsession with Women Warriors, that quote, "Not only are women comparatively less effective than men in combat roles, but they are more likely to be objectified by the enemy and their own nation in the moral realms of war." Mr. Hegseth, should we take it to believe that you believe that the two women on this committee who have served honorably and with distinction made our military less effective and less capable?

Pete Hegseth (56:52):

I'm incredibly grateful for the two women who've served our military in uniform and including in the Central Intelligence Agency, contributions on the battlefield. Indispensable contributions. Senator, I would like to clarify when I'm talking about that issue, it's not about the capabilities of men and women. It's about standards. And this committee has talked a lot about standards, standards that we unfortunately over time have seen eroded in certain duty positions, certain schools, certain places, which affects readiness, which is what I care about the most-

Senator Shaheen (57:26):

I appreciate that.

Pete Hegseth (57:27):

Readiness on the battlefield.

Senator Shaheen (57:27):

But however-

Pete Hegseth (57:27):

So my comments time and time again to standards-

Senator Shaheen (57:31):

Your statements publicly have not been to that effect. After your nomination, you did state to a group of reporters that you "support all women serving in our military today who do a fantastic job across the globe, including combat." So what I'm confused about, Mr. Hegseth, is which is it? Why should women in our military, if you were the Secretary of Defense, believe that they would have a fair shot and an equal opportunity to rise through the ranks, if on the one hand you say that women are not competent, they make our military less effective, and on the other hand you say, "Oh no. Now that I've been nominated to be the Secretary of Defense, I've changed my view on women in the military?" What do you have to say to the almost 400,000 women who are serving today about your position on whether they should be capable to rise through the highest ranks of our military?

Pete Hegseth (58:28):

Senator, I would say I would be honored to have the opportunity to serve alongside you, shoulder to shoulder, men and women, black, white, all backgrounds with a shared purpose. Our differences are not what define us. Our unity and our shared purpose is what define us, and you will be treated fairly and with dignity, honor, and respect just like every man and woman in uniform, just like the men and women that I've worked with in my veterans organizations to include when I was a Headquarters and Headquarters Company commander in the Minnesota National Guard, we had women in our ranks as well.

Senator Shaheen (58:59):

Your eleventh-hour conversion. But Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to submit chapter five, the Deadly Obsession with Women Warriors for the record. Mr. Hegseth-

Mr. Wicker (59:08):

Without objection, it will be submitted.

Senator Shaheen (59:12):

Are you familiar with the Women, Peace, and Security agenda at the Department of Defense?

Pete Hegseth (59:17):

Yes, ma'am, I am.

Senator Shaheen (59:18):

This is a law that was signed during President-elect Trump's first term. It was legislation that I sponsored with Republican Senator Capito of West Virginia. It was co-sponsored by Marco Rubio, the nominee to be the president-elect's Secretary of State. It was led in the House of Representatives by Kristi Noem, the president-elect's nominee to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. It mandates that women be included in all aspects of our national security, including conflict resolution and peace negotiations. And at the Department of Defense, it has been the law for eight years under both the Trump and Biden administrations. The DOD has incorporated women throughout its decision-making as a result. Every single combatant commander across two administrations has told this committee that this law and its implementation at the Department of Defense provides them a strategic advantage operationally.

(01:00:13)
Based on your comments, it appears that the example that you would like to set not only for women in this country but for women across the globe, 50% of the world's population, as the prospective nominee to lead the most combat-credible military in the entire world is that women should not have an equal opportunity in our military. So will you commit to preserving the Women, Peace, and Security law at DOD and including in your budget the requisite funding to continue to restore and resource these programs throughout the DOD?

Pete Hegseth (01:00:54):

Senator, I will commit to reviewing that program and ensuring it aligns with America-first national security priorities, meritocracy, lethality, and readiness, and if it advances American interests, it's something we would advance. If it doesn't, it's something we would look at.

Senator Shaheen (01:01:10):

Well, since former President Trump signed the law, I hope that he agrees with you.

Mr. Wicker (01:01:15):

Thank you, Senator Shaheen. At this point I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record five letters of support from female service members and combat veterans who support Mr. Hegseth's nomination. These women represent diverse viewpoints from a retired colonel with over 25 years of service to an active duty navy surface warfare commander to a senior airman. They support Hegseth and comment on his focus on merit, war-fighting readiness, military training status, and the warrior ethos. So without objection, it will be entered into the record. And now I'm honored to recognize Senator Cotton for seven minutes.

Senator Cotton (01:02:04):

Mr. Hegseth, let's continue on this line of questioning about what's sometimes referred to as women in combat. I think that phrase is something of misnomer. Many members of this committee have served in combat in the last 25 years, to include women and men. I'm sure all those men served with women, whether they were military police officers or they were pilots or whether they were intelligence analysts or medics or what have you. I assume you served with women who were on the front lines as well. Is that correct?

Pete Hegseth (01:02:35):

Yes, sir.

Senator Cotton (01:02:35):

And were those women anything other than skilled, brave, and honorable in their service?

Pete Hegseth (01:02:40):

They were some of the best soldiers I worked with.

Senator Cotton (01:02:42):

So women have been serving in combat for a long time. Women have even been serving in combat units like infantry battalions for a long time in roles like medics or mechanics or what have you. So what we're talking about here specifically is women in ground combat roles, in jobs like infantrymen or artillerymen or special forces. Until about 10 years ago, that wasn't the case. Under Secretary Panetta, those roles were opened up to women to serve in. Has President Trump indicated at all that he plans to rescind or alter that guidance?

Pete Hegseth (01:03:16):

You're correct to point out, Senator, that these are the decisions that the Commander-in-Chief will have the prerogative to make. He has not indicated to me that he has plans to change whether or not women would have access to these roles. However, I would point out ensuring that standards are equal and high is of importance to him and great importance to me because in those ground combat roles, what is true is that the weight of the ruck on your back doesn't change, the weight of the 155 round that you have to carry doesn't change, the weight of the 240 Bravo machine gun you might have to carry doesn't change. And so whether it's a man or a woman, they have to meet the same high standards.

(01:03:56)
And Senator, in any place where those things have been eroded or in courses, criteria have been changed in order to meet quotas, racial quotas or gender quotas, that is putting a focus on something other than readiness, standards, meritocracy, and lethality. So that's the kind of review I'm talking about, not whether women have access to ground combat.

Senator Cotton (01:04:21):

Great, so thank you. So you expect no change to that guidance, but as you point out, in these specific jobs, there are irreducible physical demands. We expect our intelligence analysts and our mechanics to be physically fit in the military, but it's different when you're in the infantry or the artillery. You just mentioned a few things. Let me point it out. An artillery shell weighs almost a hundred pounds. An Abrams tank round weighs around 50 pounds. The M240 Bravo machine gun with its tripod weighs almost 50 pounds. The average weight of a full kit, ammo, water, camo, body armor for a soldier is over a hundred pounds. Nothing you can do can change any of those things. That is physical reality. Go ahead.

Pete Hegseth (01:05:09):

Yes, Senator, and I would say the requirements to handle those things in a ground combat unit as far as standards can look different than those of a medic or a drone pilot. And so it's not that it has to be the same standard throughout. It's standards to maximize efficacy of that particular position.

Senator Cotton (01:05:26):

Let me read a quote here from one army officer. "While it may be difficult for a 120 pound woman to lift or drag 250 pounds, the army cannot artificially absolve women of that responsibility. It may still exist on the battlefield. The entire purpose of creating a gender-neutral test was to acknowledge the reality that each job has objective physical standards to which all soldiers should be held regardless of gender. The intent was not to ensure that women and men will have an equal likelihood of meeting those standards." I assume based on your testimony, you agree with that army officer?

Pete Hegseth (01:06:04):

Absolutely. The standards need to be the same and they need to be high and they need to be set by the people closest to the problem set, closest to the understanding of what is required by that job. Commanders, commanding officers, and co-COMs and elsewhere who understand the reality of what they face, that's the feedback we should get. That's what should be enshrined and enforced and no other set of political prerogatives… When I talk about removing politics, ideological or political prerogatives should contribute to those determinations. Nothing other than the execution of the mission.

Senator Cotton (01:06:35):

Thank you. For the record, that army officer was Captain Kristen Griest, the Army's first female infantry officer and one of its first female ranger school graduates. One final point, you said they need to be objective, gender-neutral, and high. That's because the demands are in fact very high. The current physical fitness test for the army has a minimum two-mile run of 22 miles run. And I want the reporter to note that I'm putting run in air quotes because 22 miles at two miles is not running. It may be jogging. It's probably walking fast. Let's move on. Got a big… 22 minutes.

Speaker 4 (01:07:19):

Thank you.

Senator Cotton (01:07:21):

We've got a big audience here. Many of them seem to be patriotic supporters of you, Mr. Hegseth. And some of them seem to be liberal critics of you. I would note that it's only the liberal critics that have disrupted this hearing. As was my custom during the Biden administration, I want to give you a chance to respond to what they said about you. I think the first one accused you of being a Christian Zionist. I'm not really sure why that is a bad thing. I'm a Christian. I'm a Zionist. Zionism is that the Jewish people deserve a homeland in the ancient holy land where they've lived since the dawn of history. Do you consider yourself a Christian Zionist?

Pete Hegseth (01:08:01):

Senator, I support… I'm a Christian and I robustly support the state of Israel and its existential defense and the way America comes alongside them as a great ally.

Senator Cotton (01:08:11):

Thank you. Because another protester, and I think this one was a member of Code Pink, which by the way is a Chinese Communist front group these days, said that you support Israel's war in Gaza. I support Israel's existential war in Gaza. I assume like me and President Trump, you support that war as well, don't you?

Pete Hegseth (01:08:30):

Senator, I do. I support Israel destroying and killing every last member of Hamas.

Senator Cotton (01:08:36):

The third protester said something about 20 years of genocide. I assume that's our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think our troops are committing genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Pete Hegseth (01:08:46):

Senator, I do not. I think, Senator, our troops, as you know, as so many in this committee know did the best they could with what they have. We're not the outcomes and tragically the outcome we saw in Afghanistan under the Biden administration put a stain on that. But it doesn't put a stain on what those men and women did in uniform, as you know full well, Senator.

Senator Cotton (01:09:07):

Thank you, Mr. Hegseth.

Mr. Wicker (01:09:08):

Thank you, Senator Cotton. At this point, I ask unanimous consent to offer to the record a letter submitted by Omar Abassi, son of former city council president of Samara, Iraq, who worked with Mr. Hegseth in Iraq. Without objection, that will be entered. Senator Gillibrand.

Senator Gillibrand (01:09:29):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hegseth. I do want to thank you for particularly your public statements because they are so hurtful to the men and women who are currently serving in the US military, harmful to morale, harmful to good order and discipline. If you are saying that women shouldn't be serving in the military… And I'm going to read you your quotes because the quotes themselves are terrible. You will have to change how you see women to do this job well, and I don't know if

Mrs.Gillibrand (01:10:00):

If you are capable of that. So I want to press on these issues that my colleague Jeanne Shaheen brought up because she said it so well. So first of all, you answered your questionnaire. Do you believe that any American who wants to serve their country in the military and can meet objective standards set by the military should be allowed to serve without limitation? You've said yes to that question. But then in all of these other circumstances, you've denigrated active duty service members. We have hundreds, hundreds of women who are currently in the infantry, lethal members of our military serving in the infantry, but you degrade them. You say we need moms but not in the military, especially in combat units. So specific to Senator Cotton's question, because Senator Cotton was giving you layups to differentiate between different types of combat and specifically as secretary, would you take any action to re-institute the combat arms exclusion for female service members knowing full well you have hundreds of women doing that job right now?

(01:11:04)
And the standards, your two-mile run, Tom is about the Army combat fitness test. It is not the requirements to have an MOS-11 Bravo, which is the infantry. These are the requirements today for people serving in the industry, men and women. They're gender-neutral and they are very difficult to meet. They have not been reduced in any way, and our combat units, our infantry is lethal. So please explain specifically, because you will be in charge of 3 million personnel. It is a big job and when you make these public statements, and I get you were not Secretary of Defense then. I get you were on TV, I get you were helping veterans. I get it was a different job. But most recently, you said this in November of 2024, knowing full well you might have been named as Secretary of Defense. So please explain these types of statements because they're brutal and they're mean and they disrespect men and women who are willing to die for this country.

Pete Hegseth (01:12:09):

Well Senator, I appreciate your comments and I would point out I've never disparaged women serving in the military. I respect every single female service member that has put on the uniform past and present. My critiques, Senator, recently and in the past, and from personal experience, have been instances where I've seen standards lowered and you mentioned 11 Alpha, 11 Bravo MOS, places in units. The book that has been referenced multiple times here, The War on Warriors, I spent months talking to active duty service members, men and women, low ranks, high ranks, combat arms and not combat arms. And what each and every one of them told me, and which personal instances have shown me is that in ways direct, indirect, overt and subtle, standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, infantry battalions to ensure that commanders meet-

Mrs.Gillibrand (01:13:09):

Give me one example. Please give me an example. I get you're making these generalized statements.

Pete Hegseth (01:13:13):

… commanders meet quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers or infantry enlisted and that disparages those women who are incredibly capable of meeting that standard.

Mrs.Gillibrand (01:13:20):

Commanders do not have meet quotas for the infantry. Commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry. That does not exist. It does not exist. And your statements are creating the impression that these exist because they do not. There are not quotas. We want the most lethal force. But I'm telling you, having been here for 15 years, listening to testimony about men and women in combat and the type of operations that were successful in Afghanistan and in Iraq, women were essential for many of those units. When ranger units went in to find where the terrorists hiding in Afghanistan or in Iraq, if they had a woman in the unit, they could go in, talk to the women in a village, say "Where are the terrorists hiding? Where are the weapons hiding?" And get crucial information to make sure that we can win that battle. So just you cannot denigrate women in general and your statements do that.

(01:14:14)
We don't want women in the military, especially in combat. What a terrible statement. So please do not deny that you've made those statements. You have. We take the responsibility of standards very seriously and we will work with you. I'm equally distressed. You would not meet with me before this hearing. We could have covered all of this before you came here so I could get to the 15 other questions that I want to get to. So women, you have denigrated. You have also denigrated members of the LGBTQ community. Did you know that when don't ask, don't tell was in place, we lost so many crucial personnel, over 1,000, in mission-critical areas. We lost 10% of all our foreign language speakers because of a political policy.

(01:14:57)
You said in your statement you don't want politics in the DOD. Everything you've said in these public statements is politics. I don't want women, I don't want moms. What's wrong with a mom, by the way? Once you have babies, you therefore are no longer able to be lethal. You're basically saying women, after they have children, can't ever serve in the military in a combat role. It's a silly thing to say. It's a silly thing to say beneath the position that you are aspiring to.

(01:15:22)
To denigrate LGBTQ service members is a mistake. If you are a sharpshooter, you're as lethal regardless of what your gender identity is, regardless of who you love. So please know this to be a true statement. So you say it was a political thing. You say it undermined us, social engineering. I don't know why someone having to publicly say or not publicly say who they love is social engineering. I think having that policy in the first place was highly problematic and as you said in your statement, do you agree anybody should be able to serve in the military if they meet the standards?

Pete Hegseth (01:16:02):

Senator, as the president has stated, I don't disagree with the overturn of don't ask, don't tell.

Mrs.Gillibrand (01:16:10):

Great, because I don't want you thinking can't serve if you're a mom, can't serve if you're LGBTQ, and then last, can't serve if you're a leftist. The statements you said about people who have views differently than you, that we're the enemy, are you saying that 50% of the DOD, if they hold liberal views or leftist views or are Democrats are not welcome in the military? Are you saying that?

Pete Hegseth (01:16:34):

Senator, I volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan under Democrat President Barack Obama. I also volunteered to guard the inauguration of Joe Biden but was denied the opportunity to serve because I was identified as an extremist by my own unit for a Christian tattoo.

Mr. Wicker (01:16:52):

Thank you very much. Senator Gillibrand, you held up a document and referred to it during your questioning. Would you like that entered into the record?

Mrs.Gillibrand (01:17:03):

It may be one without my marks.

Mr. Wicker (01:17:06):

Okay. We'll delete. We'll clean it up.

Mrs.Gillibrand (01:17:07):

We'll submit a clean document.

Mr. Wicker (01:17:08):

Without objection, that will be admitted at the point of your question, and I would like to enter into the record, at this point, a letter of support from retired Air Force Colonel Melissa Cunningham. Colonel Cunningham supports Mr. Hegseth and mentions his warrior ethos, combat effectiveness and maintaining military training standards. So without objection, both of those will be admitted and I now recognize Senator Rounds.

Mr. Rounds (01:17:35):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. First of all, good morning. I'd like to thank you for your service to our nation in uniform and also your work on behalf of your fellow veterans and for your willingness to enter into this maelstrom of public service. I think the presence of so many veterans who have showed up to support you speaks volumes.

(01:17:56)
I also want to recognize your family service and sacrifice. You know as well as anyone that it's not just the man that enters the arena, but it's the entire family who also works their way through this process as well. I appreciated our meeting with you and with your wife, Jennifer, this last month. And I thought that we had an excellent conversation and I appreciate your statement and your answers to the advanced policy questions, especially your desire to bring a renewed focus on war fighting and lethality back to the Pentagon. I also respect and I appreciate my friend and colleague, Senator Gillibrand and some of her questions and I know that she had a number of them in there. You had an opportunity to respond very briefly. Were there any other responses that you would like to make or clarifications that you would like to make before I move on to my questions?

Pete Hegseth (01:18:50):

Senator, thank you very much for the opportunity to meet and for the question. I would acknowledge you were mentioning female engagement teams which have shown a great deal of success on the battlefield. It would be and universally acknowledged as such. I've been in Iraqi homes where the language and gender barrier was real, and the ability to have someone there to help in that process would be a massive accelerant in mission success. I recognize that reality. I also recognize that female engagement teams assigned to a SEAL team or a Green Beret team meet different standards also, which is okay because of the duty positions involved in that job.

(01:19:34)
As far as politics, Senator, it has been the joy of my life to lead men and women in military outfits. When you're in combat or in training, there's a lot of conversations that happen. And you start to realize that a lot of people you're serving with share your political ideals or they don't. You find out there's Republicans, there's Democrats, there's Libertarians, there's Independents, there's vegetarians, everything in between. None of that matters. It never mattered in how I led men and women, how I interacted with them, what missions we undertook. Politics has nothing to do with the battlefield, which is why President Trump has asked me to say, "Let's make sure all of that comes out." This is about war fighting capability, setting standards high, and making sure we give our boys, our men and women everything they need to be successful on the battlefield. So politics can play no part in that and I look forward to infusing that, as we always have, inside our units.

Mr. Rounds (01:20:34):

I appreciate you making that very clear. And one of the areas that we want to do our best is to provide for the equipment and the technical capabilities so that no young man or woman enters into a battle as a fair fight and that they always have the advantage. Those are the types of questions that I'd like to get into right now and I want to start by talking about something that sometimes gets a little bit into the weeds, but I think it's critical. Mr. Hegseth, from what I've heard from 24 senior DOD officials in hearings over the last two years, including the Secretary of Defense, every service chief and eight combatant commanders, is that sharing the portion of the spectrum, and this is in the weeds, I know, but I'm going to ask it to get it on the record, the 3.1 to 3.5 gigahertz band would have extremely serious consequences and very costly consequences on our war fighting capabilities.

(01:21:33)
In fact, the Department of the Navy alone has estimated that relocating their systems to a different part of the spectrum band would cost them $250 billion. That's just for the destroyers that defend our coasts with the radars that they have in them. If confirmed, what will you do to make sure that the Department of Defense can maintain its access to end the use and to be able to maneuver within the electromagnetic spectrum at home and abroad? And would you be willing to literally go to the mat with the interagency to protect war fighter requirements for the use of the spectrum?

Pete Hegseth (01:22:13):

Well, Senator, thank you for the question. And my job, in part, will be to go to the mat when necessary for things I believe are an absolute requirement for the Department of Defense and the men and women in uniform. There's no doubt about that. In this particular case as far as spectrum, I look forward, as I've said before, getting a full class… Because this issue has come up a number of times in meetings. It's critically important with how our war fighters communicate across all services. So I'm going to get a classified briefing immediately about how it would impact the spectrum if it were to allow other companies or other it to be off [inaudible 01:22:51].

Mr. Rounds (01:22:50):

Rest assured, China would know. China would love to have our ability to use that part of the spectrum restricted. They would love that.

Pete Hegseth (01:22:57):

Absolutely right. And so I will go in with eyes only toward ensuring we have the capabilities we need and there's no disruption when I take that brief.

Mr. Rounds (01:23:04):

Thank you. In your advanced policy questions, you recognize a cooperative approach by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea to undermine US influence around the world. As you point out, aggression by any one actor would be an opportunity for others to engage the US on multiple fronts along the continuum of the conflict. As we discussed in my office, neither of us wants to send our troops into a fair fight. We want to make sure that they have every advantage that the United States can give them and that requires resources and reforms. Given the growing potential of a multi-theater conflict involving near-peer adversaries, what steps would you take to prepare the Department of Defense to simultaneously execute and sustain operations across multiple regions while maintaining readiness and deterrence globally?

(01:23:55)
And I just have to make note, and I want to make it clear, we have language in this year's fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act calling for a review of the Department's operational plans, and I just want to make sure that you're aware of that and that we will have, if we have a fight with one, chances are very good that we're going to have two battles or two different battlegrounds at the same time.

Pete Hegseth (01:24:18):

Senator, which is why I believe our country's incredibly fortunate to have a new commander-in-chief in Donald Trump who through the strategic approach he has taken with allies and against foes has prevented wars and is determined to do the same. That's our chief job, is deter and prevent wars. My job, should I be confirmed at the Secretary of Defense, is to ensure we have the right prioritization of assets and strategy and then the tools in the toolbox necessary, the pointiest possible spear for President Trump to wield if necessary as the last resort. So President Trump at the helm, I think, will go a long way in making sure our enemies know there's a new sheriff in town.

Mr. Rounds (01:25:02):

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Mr. Wicker (01:25:05):

And thank you very much. Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:25:10):

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this hearing. Thank you for being here, Mr. Hegseth, and I want to join in expressing appreciation and respect for your service to our country and thanks to all the veterans who are here today and thank you for your service as the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I hope we can focus on doing better for our veterans and doing better in management of the Department of Defense. There's always room for improvement. I think what we need in that position is not just better but the best in financial management because those decisions are life-and-death decisions affecting the 3.4 million Americans who serve our national security and our national defense and put their lives on the line.

(01:26:04)
I want to talk about financial mismanagement at the two organizations that you headed, which are the only test of your financial management that we have before this committee, the Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. You took over the Veterans for Freedom in 2007. In 2008, you raised $ 8.7 million but spent more than 9 million creating a deficit. By January 2009, you told donors that the organization had less than $1000 in the bank and debts of $434,000. By 2010, revenue at the Veterans for Freedom had dropped to about $265,000. In the next year, it had dropped further to $22,000. You don't dispute these numbers, do you?

Pete Hegseth (01:27:09):

Senator, I'm extremely proud of the work me and my fellow vets did at Vets for Freedom, a bunch of young vets with no political experience, a small group working hard every single day-

Mr. Blumenthal (01:27:24):

I apologize for interrupting.

Pete Hegseth (01:27:25):

We raised donor funds, and we have letters submitted for the record from almost everyone that worked with me every single day, including our chief operating officer, who will attest that every dollar we raised was used intentionally toward the execution of our mission, which is supporting the war fighters. Exactly why we're here today, the war fighters in the Iraq surge. There was a campaign in 2008, Senator. Barack Obama Versus John McCain.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:27:53):

If I can just ask you another question-

Pete Hegseth (01:27:53):

We believed John McCain would be the right person to win and so we spent more-

Mr. Blumenthal (01:27:55):

I have the tax returns from that organization-

Pete Hegseth (01:27:58):

I'm glad they there for the record.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:27:59):

… which I am going to ask to be entered into the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wicker (01:28:03):

Without objection.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:28:04):

These tax returns are yours. They have your signature and I'm going to ask that members of the committee review them because they're the only documents. I've asked for others. I've asked for the FBI report that would presumably document, it should have documented, this kind of financial mismanagement and these are the 990s from that organization. By the year of 2011, donors had become so dissatisfied with that mismanagement, they in effect ousted you. They merged that organization with Military Families United. And thereafter, you joined a second organization as executive director. The Concern Veterans-

Pete Hegseth (01:28:55):

In between, Senator, I went to Harvard University for two years and Afghanistan.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:28:59):

I want to ask you questions about Concern Veterans for America. Again, another set of tax returns, the 990s from that organization. I ask they be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wicker (01:29:10):

Without objection, both of those returns are now part of the record.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:29:15):

2011 to 2016. At the end of 2013, shortfall of $130,000. At the end of 2014, shortfall of $428,000. You had a surplus the following year, but then another deficit of $437,000. By the time you left, that organization had deep debts, including credit card transaction debts of about $75,000. That isn't the kind of fiscal management we want at the Department of Defense. We can't tolerate it at the Department of Defense. That's an organization with a budget of $850 billion, not 10 or 15 million, which was the case at those two organizations, and it has command responsibility for 3.4 million Americans. The highest number that you managed in those two organizations was maybe 50 people. Let me ask you, how many men and women now serve in the United States Army? What is [inaudible 01:30:28]?

Pete Hegseth (01:30:28):

Senator, I would like an opportunity to respond to-

Mr. Blumenthal (01:30:33):

Well, I've asked you a question.

Pete Hegseth (01:30:35):

… the impugning of my leadership of the veterans' organization-

Mr. Blumenthal (01:30:36):

How men and women currently serve?

Pete Hegseth (01:30:37):

Concerned Veterans of America. You're on the VA committee, Sir, and I appreciate your service there. The VA Accountability Act and the Mission Act were all brainchilds of Concerned Veterans for America. We used our donor money very intentionally and focused to create policy that bettered the lives of veterans.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:30:56):

Mr. Hegseth, I am asking you a very simple question. How many men and women currently serve in the United States Army?

Pete Hegseth (01:31:05):

Senator, the United States Army, 450,000 on active duty, Sir.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:31:09):

And how many in the Navy?

Pete Hegseth (01:31:12):

And the Navy is 425, Sir.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:31:14):

Well, it's 337 this year. How many in the Marine Corps?

Pete Hegseth (01:31:18):

175. 175,000, Sir.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:31:21):

172,300. Those numbers dwarf any experience you had by many multiples. I don't believe that you can tell this committee or the people of America that you are qualified to lead them. I would support you as the spokesperson for the Pentagon. I don't dispute your communication skills, but I believe that we are entitled to the facts here. I've asked for more documents. I assume you'd be willing to submit to an expanded FBI background check that interviews your colleagues, accountants, ex-wives, former spouses, sexual assault survivors and others and enable them to come forward.

Pete Hegseth (01:32:16):

Senator, I'm not in charge of FBI background checks.

Mr. Blumenthal (01:32:18):

But you would submit to it and support it?

Pete Hegseth (01:32:22):

I'm not in charge of FBI background checks.

Mr. Wicker (01:32:25):

Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I, at this point, want to submit a letter from Captain Wade Zirkel, the founder of Vets for Freedom and the person who hired Pete Hegseth to run the organization. Although the 2008 financial crisis dried up fundraising for nonprofits, captain Zirkel says, and I quote, "Pete responded to this crisis with decisive action by reducing staff and renegotiating all debts with creditors until they were fairly resolved, an impressive feat and a testament to Pete's character. Pete departed the VFF in 2010 to take on a new role with concerned Veterans for America. Pete departed on good terms." Without objection, that will be added to the record. Senator Ernst, you're recognized for seven minutes.

Ms. Ernst (01:33:18):

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter submitted by Mr. Mark Lucas, who is a fellow Iowan and Iowa Army National Guard member Mr. Lucas and I served together in the Iowa Army National Guard. He succeeded Pete Hegseth as executive director of Concerned Veterans for America. And in his letter, Mr. Lucas says that Mr. Hegseth, "Laid a strong foundation that postured CVA for long-term success." And that Mr. Hegseth, "Continued to be an invaluable asset to both me as a leader and the organization." So I would ask for unanimous consent to enter this Washington Times article and the letter from Mr. Mark Lucas into the record.

Mr. Wicker (01:34:10):

Without objection.

Ms. Ernst (01:34:11):

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Hegseth and-

Pete Hegseth (01:34:15):

Good morning, Senator.

Ms. Ernst (01:34:15):

… thank you very much. I appreciate your service to our nation. It's something that I know you are very proud of and it is something that we have in common and that we share. You and I have had many productive conversations. And just for our audience, we have had very frank conversations. Is that correct, Mr. Hegseth?

Pete Hegseth (01:34:42):

Senator, that is a correct characterization.

Ms. Ernst (01:34:44):

You know that I don't keep anything hidden, pull no punches. My colleagues know that as well. So I do appreciate you sitting down and allowing me the opportunity to question you thoroughly on those issues that are of great importance to me.

(01:35:03)
Just to recap those issues, three that are very important, one is the DOD and making sure that we have a clean audit. The second is women in combat, and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. And the third was maintaining high standards and making sure that we are combating sexual assault in the military, okay? So Mr. Hegseth, I'm going to address the issue because this will tie into some of the financial concerns that have been raised here as well. And it's why I'm trusting my fellow Iowan, asked for unanimous consent of his letter to go into the record. But like me, a lot of Iowans are really, really concerned and upset about the wasteful Washington spending, and of course, in our Pentagon. It's an issue that I have been combating for years. So there's significant room for greater efficiency and cost-cutting within the department. And the DOD is the only federal agency that has never passed an audit. As the Senate DOGE Caucus Chair and Founder, that's unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to you as well. So I appreciate that you mentioned that in your opening statement. What are those steps that you will take to ensuring the Pentagon has a clean audit by the year 2028?

Pete Hegseth (01:36:34):

Senator, I appreciate your work on this topic, which you've been involved in for a long time. You mentioned Concerned Veterans for America. I just want to clarify, we had very generous donors who set a very clear budget that we stuck to every single year. So the latitude there was restricted and we worked very hard and diligently inside it.

(01:36:54)
You've also been a leader on the Pentagon Audit for a very long time. I think when we met Senator, I said 2014 was the first year. We discovered a 2013 op-ed I wrote about the need for a Pentagon audit because an audit is an issue of national security, and frankly respect to American taxpayers who give $850 billion over to the Defense Department and expect that we know where that money goes. And if that money is going somewhere that doesn't add to tooth and instead goes to fat or tail, we need to know that. Or if it's wasted, we need to know that. So I think previous Secretaries of Defense, with all due respect, haven't necessarily emphasized the strategic prerogative of an audit. And myself, my Deputy SecDef and others already know that a Pentagon audit will be the comptroller others central to ensuring we find those dollars that can be used elsewhere legally under the law, inside the Pentagon. So you have my word it will be a priority.

Ms. Ernst (01:37:53):

Okay. Thank you. Okay, moving on to women in combat. And I had the privilege of serving in uniform for over 23 years between our Army Reserves and our Iowa Army National Guard. Did serve in Kuwait and missions in Iraq. And so it is incredibly important that I stress and I hope that if confirmed, you continue to stress that every man and woman has opportunity to serve their country in uniform and do so at any level as long as they are meeting the standards that are set forward. And we talked about that in my office. I do believe in high standards.

(01:38:42)
Now, I was denied the opportunity to serve in any combat role because I have a lot of gray hair and the policy has changed since then, okay? So I've been around for quite a while. But for the young women that are out there now and can meet those standards, and again, I'll emphasize they should be very, very high standards. They must physically be able to achieve those standards so that they can complete their mission. But I want to know, again, let's make it very clear for everyone here today, as Secretary of Defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles?

Pete Hegseth (01:39:31):

Senator, first of all, thank you for your service. As we discussed extensively as well.

Ms. Ernst (01:39:35):

It's my privilege.

Pete Hegseth (01:39:36):

And my answer is yes, exactly the way that you caveated it. Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, combat rows given the standards remain high. And we'll have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded in any one of these cases. That'll be one of the first things we do at the Pentagon, is reviewing that in a gender-neutral way, the standards, ensuring readiness and meritocracy is front and center. But absolutely. It would be the privilege of a lifetime, if confirmed, to be the Secretary of Defense for all men and women in uniform who fight so heroically. They have so many other options. They decide to put their right hand up for our country and it would be an honor to have a chance to lead them.

Ms. Ernst (01:40:22):

Thank you. And just very briefly, we only have less than a minute left, but we have also discussed this in my office. A priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members are treated with dignity and respect. This has been so important. Senator Gillibrand and I have worked on this and we were able to get changes made to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to make sure that we have improvements on how we address the tragic and life-altering issues of rape, sexual assault. It will demand time and attention from the Pentagon under your watch if you are confirmed. So as Secretary of Defense, will you appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response?

Pete Hegseth (01:41:20):

Senator, as we have discussed, yes, I will.

Ms. Ernst (01:41:23):

Okay. And my time has expired. Thank you for your answers.

Mr. Wicker (01:41:27):

Senator Hirono.

Ms. Hirono (01:41:29):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hegseth, welcome.

Mr. Wicker (01:41:33):

Thank you.

Ms. Hirono (01:41:34):

I am focused on your fitness to serve including your character and temperament and your overall qualifications to do the job. And I do appreciate the comments of Ranking Member Reed with his concerns regarding your nomination because I share those concerns. As part of my responsibility as a member of this committee to ensure the fitness of all nominees who come before any of the committees on which I sit, I ask the following two initial questions. First, since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?

Pete Hegseth (01:42:16):

No, Senator.

Ms. Hirono (01:42:17):

Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?

Pete Hegseth (01:42:24):

Senator, I was falsely accused in October of 2017. It was fully investigated, and I was completely cleared.

Ms. Hirono (01:42:33):

I don't think completely cleared is accurate, but the fact is that your own lawyer said that you entered into an NDA and paid a person who accused you of raping her a sum of money to make sure that she did not file a complaint.

(01:42:54)
Moving on. As secretary, you'll be in charge of maintaining good order and discipline by enforcing the Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ. In addition to the sexual assault allegations, and by the way, the answer to my second question should have been yes. I have read multiple reports of your regularly being drunk at work, including by people who worked with you at Fox News. Do you know that being drunk at work is prohibited for service members under the UCMJ?

Pete Hegseth (01:43:26):

Senator, those are-

Ms. Hirono (01:43:28):

Yes or no?

Pete Hegseth (01:43:28):

… multiple false anonymous reports peddled by NBC News-

Ms. Hirono (01:43:31):

Do you know that drinking on the job is-

Pete Hegseth (01:43:33):

… that run directly contradictory to the dozens of men and women at Fox News Channel Channel-

Ms. Hirono (01:43:38):

[inaudible 01:43:38]-

(01:43:38)
… who I work with, who came on the record-

Pete Hegseth (01:43:39):

I'm not hearing the answer to my question.

(01:43:40)
… and said they have never seen that.

Ms. Hirono (01:43:42):

In your opening statement, Mr. Hegseth, you commit to holding leaders accountable at all levels. That includes you, of course. And frankly, as secretary, you'll be on the job 24/7. You recently promised some of my Republican colleagues that you stopped drinking and won't drink if confirmed. Correct?

Pete Hegseth (01:44:06):

Absolutely.

Ms. Hirono (01:44:07):

Will you resign as Secretary of Defense if you drink on the job, which is a 24/7 position?

Pete Hegseth (01:44:15):

I've made this commitment on behalf of the men and women I'm serving.

Ms. Hirono (01:44:17):

Will you resign as Secretary of Defense if you drink on the job?

Pete Hegseth (01:44:20):

I've made this commitment on behalf of the men and women I'm serving-

Ms. Hirono (01:44:23):

I'm not hearing-

Pete Hegseth (01:44:23):

… because it's the most important deployment of my life.

Ms. Hirono (01:44:26):

I'm not hearing an answer to my question, so I'm going to move on. While you have made that commitment, you will not commit to resigning if you drink on the job. As Secretary of Defense, you will swear an oath to the Constitution and not an oath to any man, woman, or president. Correct?

Pete Hegseth (01:44:44):

Senator, on multiple occasions, including as a Young Second Lieutenant, I have sworn an oath to the Constitution-

Ms. Hirono (01:44:47):

Answer is yes?

Pete Hegseth (01:44:48):

… and I'm proud to do so. Yes, Ma'am.

Ms. Hirono (01:44:50):

In June of 2020, then President Trump directed former Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper to shoot protesters in the legs in downtown D.C.,

Ms. Hirono (01:45:00):

An order Secretary Esper refused to comply with. Would you carry out such an order from President Trump?

Pete Hegseth (01:45:08):

Senator, I was in the Washington DC National Guard unit that was in Lafayette Square during those events holding a riot shield-

Ms. Hirono (01:45:15):

Would you carry out an order to shoot protestors-

Pete Hegseth (01:45:15):

… on behalf of my country.

Ms. Hirono (01:45:18):

… in the legs?

Pete Hegseth (01:45:18):

I saw 50 Secret Service agents-

Ms. Hirono (01:45:20):

As directed to [inaudible 01:45:21]-

Pete Hegseth (01:45:21):

… get injured by rioters trying to jump over the fence, set the church on fire and destroy statues.

Ms. Hirono (01:45:26):

You know what, that sounds to me that you will comply with such an order. You will shoot protesters in the leg.

(01:45:32)
Moving on, President-elect has attacked our allies in recent weeks refusing to rule out using military force to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal, and threatening to make Canada the 51st state. Would you carry out an order from President Trump to seize Greenland, a territory of our NATO ally, Denmark, by force, or would you comply with an order to take over the Panama Canal?

Pete Hegseth (01:46:02):

Senator, I will emphasize that President Trump received 77 million votes to be the lawful Commander in Chief of this country.

Ms. Hirono (01:46:08):

We're talking about the election. My question is, would you use our military to take over Greenland or an ally of Denmark?

Pete Hegseth (01:46:21):

Senator, one of the things that President Trump is so good at is never strategically tipping his hand, and so I would never in this public forum give one way or another direct what orders the president will give me in any context.

Ms. Hirono (01:46:32):

That sounds to me that you would contemplate carrying out such an order to basically invade Greenland and take over the Panama Canal.

(01:46:42)
Current DOD policy allows service members and eligible dependents to be reimbursed for travel associated with non-covered reproductive healthcare, including abortions. Will you maintain this common sense policy?

Pete Hegseth (01:46:57):

Senator, I've always been personally pro-life. I know President Trump has as well and we will review all policies, but our standard is whatever the president wants on this particular issue, with my advice, I will take a look at.

Ms. Hirono (01:47:10):

If a president tells you that this common sense policy will not be maintained, you will not enable our service members to seek reproductive care. That's what it sounds like to me.

Pete Hegseth (01:47:21):

I don't believe the federal government should be funding-

Ms. Hirono (01:47:22):

I'm hearing answers to my questions.

Pete Hegseth (01:47:24):

… travel for abortion.

Ms. Hirono (01:47:26):

I just want to note that the other area of serious concern to me is President Trump saying that he wants to use the military to help with mass deportations, which will cost billions of dollars, and what that will do to readiness is very, very concerning.

(01:47:44)
Mr. Hegseth, I have noticed a disturbing pattern, you previously have made a series of inflammatory statements about women in combat, LGBTQ service members, Muslim Americans, and Democrats. Since your nominations, however, you have walked those back on TV and interviews and most recently in your opening statements, you are no longer on Fox and Friends, Mr. Hegseth. If confirmed, your words, actions, and decisions will have real impacts on national security and our service members' lives. There are close to three million personnel in the Department of Defense, $900 billion budget. I hardly think you are prepared to do the job. Thank you, Mr. Hegseth.

Pete Hegseth (01:48:36):

Senator.

Mr. Wicker (01:48:37):

Thank you. That wasn't a question. Mr. Hegseth. Thank you, Senator Hirono. Senator Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan (01:48:43):

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hegseth. Congratulations on your nomination, and thank you and your family for your service and sacrifice.

Pete Hegseth (01:48:51):

Thank you Senator.

Mr. Sullivan (01:48:52):

Now for the most important question you will receive all day. In 1935 before the Congress, the father of the United States Air Force, General Billy Mitchell was testifying about a certain place in the world. He said, "I believe that in the future, whoever holds this place will control the world. This location is the most strategic place in the world." What place was Billy Mitchell talking about? And let me give you a hint, it wasn't Greenland.

Pete Hegseth (01:49:25):

I believe he was talking about the great State of Alaska, Senator.

Mr. Sullivan (01:49:28):

He was talking about the great State of Alaska. Great answer. If confirmed, will you commit to come with me to the great State of Alaska, meet our warriors who are on the front lines every day?

Pete Hegseth (01:49:38):

Senator I have and as I mentioned to you in the past, I did a brief training exercise up at Fort Wainwright, at a previous part of my military life I look forward to returning.

Mr. Sullivan (01:49:48):

Great. And I will say, we are on the front lines with this new air of authoritarian aggression. In Alaska, the last two years we've had Chinese and Russian naval task forces, joint strategic bomber task forces in our EEZ, in our ADIS, and after his election, President Trump put out an extensive statement on Alaska, which included the following statement. We will ensure Alaska gets even more defense investments as we fully rebuild our military, especially as Russia and China are making menacing moves in the Pacific. Mr. Hegseth, if confirmed, will you work with me, this committee, and the incoming Commander in Chief on continuing to build up our military assets and infrastructure in Alaska to reestablish deterrence in the Arctic and in the Indo-Pacific.

Pete Hegseth (01:50:43):

If confirmed, Senator, it would be a pleasure to work alongside you and this entire committee to recognize the very real threat in the Indo-Pacific, the very real ways even these past couple of weeks that Russia has attempted to probe and push in and around Alaska, and also the very real strategic significance of Alaska vis-a-vis shipping lanes through the Arctic. There are many, many ways in which Alaska is strategically significant, and with a shift toward a necessary shift toward Indo-Pacom. Alaska by necessity will play an important role in that.

Mr. Sullivan (01:51:15):

Thank you, Mr. Hegseth. I very much appreciate your focus on lethality and war fighting. We desperately need it.

(01:51:23)
I want to provide a few examples of the Biden woke military, which is not focused on readiness or lethality, and want to get your comments on it. Nobody wants an extremist or racist in our military, but one of the most disgraceful and shameful things I've seen over the past four years as a senator on this committee, and as a Marine Corps Reserve officer, was on day one the Biden administration played up a false and insulting narrative that our military was chock-full of racists and violent extremists. This reached a pinnacle in this committee when Biden's Undersecretary of Policy, Colin Kahl, the number three guy at the Pentagon, testified that one of his top goals would be to "ending violent extremism and systemic racism within the ranks of the military." He had no data on this. The media loved it, fanned the flames, wrote baloney stories on this false narrative. Disappointingly some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here reinforce this ridiculous narrative. One even suggesting that almost 10% of our uniformed military was extremists. 200,000 members, ridiculous by the way from this committee on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Hegseth, unlike Undersecretary Kahl. You have a lot of experience with our military. Do you believe the military is a systemically racist organization and if confirmed, will you commit to defend, not denigrate, our troops?

Pete Hegseth (01:53:01):

Senator, I was also offended by those comments, because anyone who's been on active duty in the National Guard, man woman in units, understand that it's fundamentally false.

Mr. Sullivan (01:53:13):

By the way, there's three studies, to his credit, Secretary Austin put out one of them that said exactly what you just said, fundamentally false.

Pete Hegseth (01:53:22):

Senator, they knew it. Anyone who'd been in a unit knew it. One could argue that if not the least, one of the least racist institutions in our country, is the United States military.

Mr. Sullivan (01:53:33):

That's right.

Pete Hegseth (01:53:33):

Being a racist in our military has not been tolerated for a very long time.

Mr. Sullivan (01:53:37):

One of the greatest civil rights organizations in America.

Pete Hegseth (01:53:40):

Never in my formations, never in other formations.

Mr. Sullivan (01:53:40):

Would you agree, the US military is one of the most forward leaning, probably one of the greatest civil rights organizations in American history?

Pete Hegseth (01:53:48):

No doubt. No doubt, Senator.

Mr. Sullivan (01:53:50):

Let me turn to another one. Last year at a hearing before this committee, I called the Biden Secretary of the Navy to resign, because he's failing in his ability to build ships. We are being completely outbuilt in terms of ships by the Chinese, and yet this Secretary of the Navy has been focused on climate change not building ships in lethality. Mr. Hegseth, if your Secretary of the Navy ends up focusing on climate change more than shipbuilding in lethality, will you commit to me to fire him?

Pete Hegseth (01:54:29):

My secretary of the Navy, should I be confirmed, sir, will not be focused on climate change in the Navy, just like the Secretary of the Air Force won't be focused on LG powered fighter jets, or the Secretary of the Army will not be focused on electric powered tanks.

Mr. Sullivan (01:54:45):

Let me ask that-

Pete Hegseth (01:54:45):

We're going to be focused on lethality.

Mr. Sullivan (01:54:47):

I have one minute left.

Pete Hegseth (01:54:48):

And defeating our enemy.

Mr. Sullivan (01:54:48):

And I appreciate that. The other thing President Biden did, his first executive order, as president was to focus on transgender surgeries for active duty troops. This is all I'm describing the woke military here under Biden over the last four years. If confirmed and you issued an order saying we are going to rip the Biden woke yoke off the neck of our military and focus on lethality and war fighting, how do you think the troops will react?

Pete Hegseth (01:55:20):

Senator, I know the troops will rejoice.

Mr. Sullivan (01:55:23):

They will love it.

Pete Hegseth (01:55:24):

They will love it and we've already seen it in recruiting numbers. There's already been a surge since President Trump won the election of recruiting, the army says it now-

Mr. Sullivan (01:55:32):

And do you think our military will-

Pete Hegseth (01:55:32):

… will surpass its [inaudible 01:55:34] goals.

Mr. Sullivan (01:55:34):

And our military will follow that order?

Pete Hegseth (01:55:36):

Our military will follow that order, Senator.

Mr. Sullivan (01:55:38):

Gladly.

Pete Hegseth (01:55:39):

Gladly, because they want to focus on lethality and war fighting and get all the woke political prerogative, politically correct, social justice, political stuff out of the military.

Mr. Wicker (01:55:49):

Thank you, Senator Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan (01:55:51):

Thank you.

Mr. Wicker (01:55:51):

Senator Kaine.

Mr. Kaine (01:55:53):

Thank you Mr. Hegseth. I'm looking forward to this opportunity to talk. I want to return to the incident that you referenced a minute ago that occurred in Monterey, California in October 2017. At that time you were still married to your second wife, correct?

Pete Hegseth (01:56:09):

I believe so.

Mr. Kaine (01:56:10):

And you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your third wife, correct?

Pete Hegseth (01:56:15):

Senator, I was falsely charged. Fully investigated and completely cleared.

Mr. Kaine (01:56:21):

So you think you were completely cleared because you committed no crime. That's your definition of cleared. You had just fathered a child two months before by a woman that was not your wife. I am shocked that you would stand here and say you're completely cleared. Can you so casually cheat on a second wife and cheat on the mother of a child that had been born two months before and you tell us you were completely cleared.

Pete Hegseth (01:56:45):

Senator.

Mr. Kaine (01:56:46):

How is that a complete clear?

Pete Hegseth (01:56:48):

Senator her child's name is Gwendolyn Hope Hegseth, and she's a child of God and she's seven years old. And I'm glad she's here.

Mr. Kaine (01:56:55):

And you cheated on the mother of that child less than two months after that daughter was born, didn't you?

Pete Hegseth (01:57:01):

Those were false charges. It was fully investigated and I was completely cleared. And I'm so grateful for the marriage I have to this amazing woman behind me.

Mr. Kaine (01:57:09):

You've admitted that you had sex at that hotel on October 2017. You said it was consensual, isn't that correct?

Pete Hegseth (01:57:18):

Anything…

Mr. Kaine (01:57:20):

You've admitted that it was consensual and you were still married and you just had a child by another woman.

Pete Hegseth (01:57:24):

Again-

Mr. Kaine (01:57:25):

How do you explain your judgment?

Pete Hegseth (01:57:26):

Completely false charges against me. Fully investigated and I was completely cleared.

Mr. Kaine (01:57:31):

You have admitted that you had sex while you were married to wife two after you just had fathered a child by wife three. You've admitted that. Now if it had been a sexual assault that would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it?

Pete Hegseth (01:57:45):

It was a false claim then and a false claim now.

Mr. Kaine (01:57:47):

If it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be a secretary of defense, wouldn't it?

Pete Hegseth (01:57:54):

That was a false claim. Just talking about a hypothetical.

Mr. Kaine (01:57:57):

So you can't tell me whether someone who has committed a sexual assault is disqualified from being secretary of defense?

Pete Hegseth (01:58:05):

Senator, I know in my instance, and I'm talking about my instance only it was a false claim, and it was fully investigated.

Mr. Kaine (01:58:11):

But you acknowledge that you cheated on your wife and that you cheated on the woman by whom you had just fathered a child. You have admitted that.

Pete Hegseth (01:58:21):

I will allow your words to speak for themselves.

Mr. Kaine (01:58:23):

You're not retracting that today, that's good. I assume that in each of your weddings you've pledged to be faithful to your wife. You've taken an oath to do that, haven't you?

Pete Hegseth (01:58:31):

Senator, as I've acknowledged to everyone in this committee, I'm not a perfect person, not claiming to be.

Mr. Kaine (01:58:36):

But now, I just asked the simple question. You've taken an oath, like you would take an oath to be secretary of defense, and all of your weddings to be faithful to your wife. Is that correct?

Pete Hegseth (01:58:45):

I have failed in things in my life and thankfully I'm redeemed by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Mr. Kaine (01:58:49):

In finalizing divorces from your first and second wives, were there non-disclosure agreements in connection with those divorces?

Pete Hegseth (01:58:56):

Senator, not that I'm aware of.

Mr. Kaine (01:58:59):

If there were, would you agree to release those first and second wives from any confidentiality agreement?

Pete Hegseth (01:59:04):

Senator, it's not something I'm aware of.

Mr. Kaine (01:59:06):

But if there were, you would agree to release them from a confidentiality?

Pete Hegseth (01:59:10):

Senator, that's not my responsibility.

Mr. Kaine (01:59:12):

Did you ever engage in any acts of physical violence against any of your wives?

Pete Hegseth (01:59:16):

Senator, absolutely not.

Mr. Kaine (01:59:18):

But you would agree with me that if someone had committed physical violence against a spouse, that would be disqualifying to serve as secretary of defense, correct?

Pete Hegseth (01:59:26):

Senator, absolutely not have I ever done that.

Mr. Kaine (01:59:29):

You would agree that that would be a disqualifying offense, would you not?

Pete Hegseth (01:59:33):

Senator, you're talking about a hypothetical.

Mr. Kaine (01:59:36):

I don't think it's a hypothetical. Violence against spouses occurs every day, and if you as a leader are not capable of saying that physical violence against a spouse should be a disqualifying fact for being secretary of the most powerful nation in the world, you're demonstrating an astonishing lack of judgment.

(01:59:58)
The incident in Monterey led to a criminal charge, a criminal investigation, a private settlement, and a cash payment to the woman who filed the complaint. And there was also a nondisclosure agreement, correct?

Pete Hegseth (02:00:10):

It was a confidential settlement agreement off of a nuisance lawsuit.

Mr. Kaine (02:00:14):

Right. During an interview, you claimed that you settled the matter because you were worried that if it became public it might hurt your career. Do you maintain that you were blackmailed?

Pete Hegseth (02:00:24):

Senator, I maintain that false claims were made against me and ultimately, those false claims-

Mr. Kaine (02:00:30):

Your attorney used the phrase-

Pete Hegseth (02:00:31):

I have the opportunity to attest my innocence in those false claims.

Mr. Kaine (02:00:34):

But you didn't reveal any of this to President Trump or the transition team as they were considering you to be nominated for secretary of defense. You didn't reveal the action, you didn't reveal the criminal complaint, you didn't reveal the criminal investigation, you didn't reveal the settlement, you didn't reveal the cash payment. Why didn't you inform the Commander in Chief and the transition team of this very relevant event?

Pete Hegseth (02:01:01):

Senator, I've appreciated every part of the process with the transition team. They have been open and honest with me. We've had great conversations between the two of us, and I appreciate the opportunity that President-elect Trump has given me.

Mr. Kaine (02:01:12):

But you chose not to reveal this, right? Because you knew it would hurt your chances. So you chose not to reveal this really important thing to the Commander in Chief and the transition team, because you were worried about your chances rather than trying to be candid with the future President of the United States. Are there any other important facts that you chose not to reveal to the president-elect and his team as they were considering you to be secretary of defense?

Pete Hegseth (02:01:38):

Senator, I sit here before you an open book as everyone who's watched this process.

Mr. Kaine (02:01:43):

With multiple nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements, tying the hands of many people who would like to comment to us.

(02:01:51)
Much has been made of your workplace behavior as a leader of nonprofit veterans organizations and as a Fox News contributor. Were you fired from either of the leadership positions with the nonprofits?

Pete Hegseth (02:02:04):

I was the leader. I was the CEO of Concerned Veterans for America, and the executive director of Vets for Freedom.

Mr. Kaine (02:02:06):

I know which ones. Those two, were you fired? Were you fired from either of them?

Pete Hegseth (02:02:10):

And I was never fired from a veteran's organization.

Mr. Kaine (02:02:12):

Do you have nondisclosure agreements with either of those organizations?

Pete Hegseth (02:02:15):

Not that I'm aware of, Senator.

Mr. Kaine (02:02:17):

Many of your work colleagues have said that you show up for work under the influence of alcohol or drunk. I know you've denied that, but you would agree with me, right, that if that was the case, that would be disqualifying for somebody to be secretary of defense.

Pete Hegseth (02:02:29):

Senator, those are all anonymous false claims and the totality-

Mr. Kaine (02:02:33):

They're not anonymous.

Pete Hegseth (02:02:34):

The letters on the record here.

Mr. Kaine (02:02:35):

They're not anonymous.

Pete Hegseth (02:02:36):

On the record, people who've worked with me-

Mr. Kaine (02:02:38):

We've seen records with names attached to them.

Pete Hegseth (02:02:38):

… at Vets for Freedom, Concerned Vets for America, and Fox News attributed to me being-

Mr. Kaine (02:02:43):

One of your colleagues said-

Pete Hegseth (02:02:43):

… working hard every day on behalf of my mission.

Mr. Kaine (02:02:45):

One of your colleagues said that you got drunk at an event at a bar and chanted, "Kill all Muslims." Another colleague, not anonymous, we have this. Said that you took coworkers to a strip club, you were drunk, you tried to dance with strippers, you had to be held off the stage and one of your employees in that event filed a sexual harassment charge as a result of it. Now, I know you denied these things, but isn't that the kind of behavior that if true would be disqualifying for somebody to be secretary of defense?

Pete Hegseth (02:03:19):

Senator, anonymous, false charges.

Mr. Kaine (02:03:20):

They're not anonymous. And I'll just conclude and say this to the chairman. You claimed that this was all anonymous. We have seen records with names attached to all of these, including the name of your own mother. So don't make this into some anonymous press thing. We have seen multiple names of colleagues consistently throughout your career that have talked about your abusive actions, attitudes, words, and statements.

Mr. Sullivan (02:03:44):

Chairman, I think he's over his time. He's way over his time.

Mr. Kaine (02:03:46):

I now yield.

Mr. Wicker (02:03:48):

And thank you very much. I now ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a family court order concerning the appointment of parenting time between Hegseth and Mrs. Samantha Hegseth. It states that there were no claims of domestic abuse or probable evidence of abuse in the relationship. Without objection, that will be added to the record. And we now move to Senator Cramer.

Mr. Cramer (02:04:28):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Mr. Hegseth for your service, for your willingness to endure this. And I'm sorry for what has been happening to you, particularly the very idea that you should have to sit there and answer hypothetical potential in somebody's imagination, crimes that may take place at some point. And wouldn't that disqualify you if you were a murderer or if you were a rapist? Unfair. Unfair. And I'm embarrassed for this behavior.

(02:04:57)
But first, I want to say thank you for your strong proclamation, unapologetic proclamation of faith in Jesus Christ. I sat here and listened to your opening statement and thought, "Wow, this is a guy who in today's culture is willing to stand up and say the first thing is first faith in Jesus Christ." And I was reminded of what Christ said in Matthew, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and these things shall be added unto you." You are going to have a great future as our secretary and I look forward to that day happening.

(02:05:35)
I also want to get back to, you mentioned and it got rather dismissed quickly, pivoted, as a lot of things do. You'd mentioned that you were not able to serve with your National Guard Unit in the protection of the inauguration of Joe Biden, because of a tattoo, a Christian tattoo. Can you elaborate just a little bit on what is this very offensive, extremist racist tattoo that you have?

Pete Hegseth (02:06:03):

It's a tattoo I have right here, Senator. It's called the Jerusalem Cross. It's a historic, Christian symbol. In fact, interestingly, recently I attended briefly the memorial ceremony of former president Jimmy Carter, on the floor of our national Cathedral. On the front page of his program was the very same Jerusalem cross. It is a Christian religious symbol. And when the events happened before preceding the Biden inauguration, I was a part of the mobilization to defend that inauguration, as someone who'd been a proud supporter of Donald Trump, but also a member of the military, had orders to come to Washington DC to guard that inauguration. And at the last minute, those orders were revoked. I'd never had orders revoked before. I've been on orders to a lot of places to do a lot of difficult and dangerous things. They were revoked and I was not told why.

(02:06:58)
Later when I wrote my book, I was able to get information that it was because I had been identified. Someone who'd served in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo Bay, holding a riot shield outside the White House. I'd been identified as an extremist, as someone unworthy of guarding the inauguration of an incoming American president.

(02:07:21)
And if that's happening to me, Senator, how many other men and women, how many other patriots? How many other people of conscience? We haven't even talked about COVID, and the tens of thousands of service members who are kicked out because of an experimental vaccine. In President Trump's defense department, they will be apologized to, they will be reinstituted with pay and rank. Things like focusing on extremism, Senator, have created a climate inside our ranks that feel political when it hasn't ever been political. Those are the types of things that are going to change. And Senator Sullivan, you mentioned that study, after a whole study was held, extremism working group study, a hundred extremists were identified in the ranks of three million and most of those were gang related.

Mr. Cramer (02:08:10):

You Mr.-

Pete Hegseth (02:08:11):

So it was a made up boogeyman to begin with.

Mr. Cramer (02:08:12):

You, Mr. Hegseth, are not the extremist. The people who would deny you your expression of faith are the extremists, they're the racists, they're the bigots. You're the one that is protecting their right to be one. Thank you for that.

(02:08:28)
I want to go to another point in your opening statement, and it's summarized in this beautiful one sentence paragraph. You said, "Leaders at all levels will be held accountable. And war fighting and lethality and the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only focus." At that moment, in my mind's eye, I heard soldiers, airmen, Marines, sailors, guardians, from the Pentagon to the Pacific and everywhere in between. Applaud. Applaud. And they're thinking, "It's about time. I can get on board with that idea." And quite honestly, and I want to get to this because I think it's so important, I would say, I don't know, just about maybe every one, I am trying to think of an exception to this, that wears the uniform that has ever come before this committee or that I've met with privately, publicly that I've been on tours with, that I've traveled with that wear the uniform, whether it's with four stars or no stars agrees with that statement.

(02:09:32)
And I just want to caution you, and I'd be interested in your feedback on this, there's been a lot of talk about firing woke generals, creating the purge group, and all those things you and I have talked about. I would say give those men and women a chance under new leadership. My favorite painting in the rotunda is of George Washington retiring his commission, establishing on day one, a man who could have been king, chose to be a civilian leader of this country. And I just would encourage you to trust them first and look forward to them saluting the civilian leadership of this country.

(02:10:15)
So just, maybe, if you could spend a minute just elaborating a little bit about the wokeness, where it comes from, and who will be held accountable.

Pete Hegseth (02:10:24):

The wokeness comes not from the uniform ranked, Senator, but from the political class. On day one, on January 20th, when President Trump is sworn in, he will issue a new set of lawful orders and the leadership of our services will have an opportunity to follow those lawful orders or not. Those lawful orders will not be based on politics. They will be based on readiness, accountability, standards, and lethality. That is the process by which leaders will be judged, and accountability is coming, because everybody in this room knows, if you're a rifleman and you lose your rifle, they're throwing the book at you. But if you're a general who loses a war, you get a promotion. That's not going to happen in Donald Trump's Pentagon. There will be real standards for success. Everyone from the top, from the most senior general to the most lowly private, will ensure that they're treated fairly, men and women, inside that system.

Mr. Cramer (02:11:21):

I also just want to commend you for your answers to Senator Fischer's questions about nuclear deterrence, but I also appreciate the fact that you emphasized reputational deterrence, because deterrence is not a weapon system. It is an attitude and you project an attitude of deterrence. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wicker (02:11:39):

Thank you, Senator Cramer. Senator King.

Mr. King (02:11:43):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hegseth, welcome to the committee.

Pete Hegseth (02:11:46):

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. King (02:11:47):

You've made several references to your religion today. I share that devotion to Christianity, but I must say I've been reminded somewhat of Saul on his way to Damascus. You seem to have been converted over the last several weeks and several months. You wrote in your book, just last year, but if we're going to, this is the book, War on Warriors, but if we're going to send our boys to fight, and it should be boys, we need to unleash them to win. Later on, our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men, which is it? Is it only boys can fight? I mean, you've testified here today that you believe in women in combat, but you didn't just last year. How do you explain your conversion?

Pete Hegseth (02:12:36):

Senator, my testimony is clear. Writing a book is different than being secretary of defense, and I look forward to leading the men and women of our military. And my comment there, Senator, was about the burdensome rules of engagement that members of our generation, men and women, have seen on the battlefield. And one thing, President Trump changed in meaningful ways that led to meaningful developments on the battlefield. When President Trump took control in the first term, ISIS was raging across Iraq. And as someone who spent a lot of time there with other men and women who invested in that mission, it was a very difficult moment to see the black flag of ISIS fly. And what President Trump did was untie the hands of war fighters-

Mr. King (02:13:18):

I appreciate your position today, I-

Pete Hegseth (02:13:19):

He changed the rules of engagement, untied the hands of war fighters, and allowed them to complete their mission and crush ISIS. It has not just tactical implications, operational and strategic implications, how you allow war fighters to go about winning and fighting their wars. President Trump understands that and within the laws of war and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we are going to unleash war fighters to win wars so that wars don't drag on forever as our generation has seen.

Mr. King (02:13:47):

So are you rejecting Title 18 and Title 42, I think, also has provisions that incorporate the Geneva Convention and the laws of armed combat. Are you saying that those laws should be repealed? That is the law of the land right now.

Pete Hegseth (02:14:05):

Senator, we have laws on the books from the Geneva Conventions into the Uniform Code of Military Justice and then underneath that, you have layers in which standard or temporary rules of engagements are put into place. We fight enemies also, Senator, as our generation understands, that play by no rules. They use civilians as human shields.

Mr. King (02:14:26):

So are you saying-

Pete Hegseth (02:14:27):

They target women and children.

Mr. King (02:14:29):

… the Geneva Convention should not be observed?

Pete Hegseth (02:14:31):

We follow rules. We follow rules, but we don't need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars, and that's what President Trump understands.

Mr. King (02:14:37):

You're saying two different things. You're saying we follow rules but we don't have to follow the rules in all cases. Is that correct?

Pete Hegseth (02:14:43):

Senator, I'm making-

Mr. King (02:14:44):

You don't like burdensome rules.

Pete Hegseth (02:14:45):

Senator, I'm making an important tactical distinction that war fighters will understand, that there are the rules we swear in oath to defend, which are incredibly important and this committee understands and helps set them. And then there are those echelons above reality, from corps to division to brigade to battalion. And by the time it trickles down to a company or a platoon or a squad level, you have a rules of engagement that nobody recognizes. And then it makes you incredibly difficult to actually do your job on the battlefield. That's the kind of assessment and look that an army major will give to this process, if I was confirmed to be the secretary of defense.

Mr. King (02:15:22):

Your quote is-

Pete Hegseth (02:15:23):

A true understanding of that.

Mr. King (02:15:24):

Your quote in 2024, "Our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men in mahogany rooms 80 years ago." That would be the Geneva Convention. "America should fight by its own rules and we should fight to win or not go in at all." Are you saying that the Geneva Convention provisions, which clearly outlaw torture of prisoners, do not, should not apply in the future?

Pete Hegseth (02:15:48):

Senator, how we treat our wounded, how we treat our prisoners, the applications of the Geneva Conventions are incredibly important, but we would all have to acknowledge that the way we fought our wars back when the Geneva Conventions were written are a lot different than the asymmetric, nonconventional environment of counterinsurgency that I confronted in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was the senior counterinsurgency instructor in Afghanistan. My job was to understand how the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operated so that NATO units coming in could be informed of what was happening. They knew our rules of engagement and when they were more restrictive, they took advantage of them and it put our men and women in a more dangerous and difficult place.

Mr. King (02:16:26):

And you believe that-

Pete Hegseth (02:16:26):

For future wars we fight, we need to have someone atop the Pentagon, sir, who understands how those ripple effects impact the men and women in uniform.

Mr. King (02:16:35):

Well, I just want to understand your position. Your position is torture's okay? Is that correct? Waterboarding, torture is no longer prohibited given the circumstances of whatever war we're in. Is that correct?

Pete Hegseth (02:16:46):

Senator, that is not what I said. I've never been party to torture. We are a country that fights by the rule of law, and our men and women always do. And yet we have too many people here in air-conditioned offices that like to point fingers at the guys in dark and dangerous places. The gals in helicopters, in enemy territory who are doing things that people in Washington DC would never dare to do or send, in many cases.

Mr. King (02:17:11):

In one of your interviews you said, "They're willing to do this," you're talking about Donald Trump and Senator Cruz, "They're willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe." Are you okay with waterboarding?

Pete Hegseth (02:17:21):

Senator, the law of the land is that waterboarding is not legal.

Mr. King (02:17:26):

So the statement that you made, you now recant. Is that correct? They are willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe. You expressed that with approval.

Pete Hegseth (02:17:37):

Senator, I'm very familiar with that as a concept, having spent a year at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba guarding 700 of those that attacked us on 9/11.

Mr. King (02:17:45):

But I just want to be clear, are we going to abide by the Geneva Convention and the prohibitions on torture, or are we not? Is it going to depend on the circumstances?

Pete Hegseth (02:17:55):

As I've stated multiple times, the Geneva Conventions are what we base our… What an American first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. America first understands, we send Americans for a clear mission and a clear objective. We equip them properly for that objective. We give them everything they need and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively.

Mr. King (02:18:26):

I understand that-

Pete Hegseth (02:18:27):

To defeat America's enemies, which is why we say-

Mr. King (02:18:28):

I just have a few seconds left, Mr. Hegseth. I was very disturbed in your opening statement where you talked about the priorities that you have. We will work with our partners and allies to deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific from the Communist Chinese. There's not a single mention in this statement about Ukraine or Russia. Is this code for we're going to abandon Ukraine?

Pete Hegseth (02:18:51):

Senator, the President, that's a presidential level policy decision and he's made it very clear that he would like to see an end to that conflict. We know who the aggressor is, we know who the good guy is. We'd like to see it as advantageous for the Ukrainians as possible, but that war needs to come to an end.

Mr. King (02:19:06):

You talk a lot about deterrence of China. I would submit that Xi Jinping is watching what we do very carefully. If we abandon Ukraine, that would be the strongest single possible to Xi Jinping that he can take Taiwan without significant resistance from this country.

Mr. Wicker (02:19:19):

Thank you, Senator King. Senator Scott of Florida.

Senator Scott (02:19:23):

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record two letters, which testify to Mr. Hegseth's leadership record at Concerned Veterans for America. The first letter submitted by Mr. Darin Selnick, a senior advisor at CFA, stated that there has been no better leader, policy champion, or fighter for the military and veterans and Pete. He was instrumental in 2014 and 2017 in ensuring that veterans had healthcare choice. The second letter submitted by Mr. Casin Spero, Digital Media Director of CVA from 2015 to 2017 stated, "Pete brought incredible energy, focus, and a clear vision to the organization and showed

Senator Scott (02:20:00):

… showed in everything that the team accomplished together.

Mr. Wicker (02:20:03):

And I similarly ask to submit to the record a letter from Paul J. Roberts, retired Colonel of US Army Special forces, speaking to the unwavering integrity of Mr. Hegseth. Is there objection? Without objection, those three will be admitted. Senator Scott?

Senator Scott (02:20:28):

All right, first, congratulations on your nomination.

Pete Hegseth (02:20:31):

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Scott (02:20:32):

And thank you for being willing to serve our nation. I served in the Navy. I'm really proud of my dad. He was crazy. He did all four combat jumps with the 82nd Airborne. He, after that, survived all that, and fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and what they went through, it was hell. So I have a lot of respect for him, and for everybody that puts on the uniform, and serves in battle, and has to lead people in battle. Because being on a ship that didn't happen to me, but I had a lot of friends that happened to, and it clearly happened to my dad.

(02:21:04)
I've served on this committee for six years, two years under President Trump, and the past four under President Joe Biden. I've seen how the Biden-Harris administration pushed the DOD to prioritize woke-ness over being the most lethal military force in the world, it's our readiness, our national security, and our ability to recruit people who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country. Can you talk about some of the changes we can make to improve recruitment and rebuild our military into the most lethal force in the world?

Pete Hegseth (02:21:33):

First of all, Senator, thank you for the question. Thank you for your time. I think the first and most important thing we could have done is elect Donald Trump as the new commander in chief, because past is prologue. Our war-fighters understand what kind of commander in chief they're going to get in President Donald Trump, someone who stands behind them, someone who gives them clear missions, someone who ends wars decisively, the issue of Ukraine was mentioned, and ensures new wars are not started. There was a minor incursion under Barack Obama into Crimea, followed by nothing under President Trump, followed by an all-out assault by Vladimir Putin into Ukraine under the Biden-administration. That did not happen under Donald Trump. Donald Trump managed the Taliban. Under the Biden administration, Afghanistan collapsed tragically, ending in the lives of 13 at Abbey Gate, who we remember every single day. And no one was held accountable for that.

(02:22:28)
Chinese spy balloons were flying over the country. None of that happened under Donald Trump, and our war-fighters understand that. So there's no better recruiter in my mind for our military than President Donald Trump. My job is to come alongside him, should I be confirmed, and continue to emphasize his emphasis on war-fighting, on getting anything that doesn't contribute to meritocracy out of how decisions are made inside the Pentagon. What gender you are, what race you are, your views on climate change, or whether you are a person of conscience and your faith should have no bearing on whether you get promoted or whether you're selected go to West Point, or whether you graduate from Ranger school. The only thing that should matter is how capable are you at your job? How excellent are you at your job? I served in multi-ethnic units in every place that I were, every place that I served. None of that mattered, but suddenly we re-inject DEI and Critical Race Theory, dividing troops into different categories, oppressor and oppressed, in ways that they otherwise just want to work together.

(02:23:36)
That's why I've pointed out before, and I'll say it again, because I'm sure it'll be quoted to me at some point, the dumbest phrase in military history is, "Our unity is our strength." No, our shared purpose is our strength. Our shared mission is our strength. We are one DOD community of all committed to the same mission. Has nothing to do with your background, has to do with what your commitment is to the country. And that is my solemn pledge to every single person that would put the uniform on, and reflects President Trump's priorities as well, Senator.

Senator Scott (02:24:13):

Thank you. We talked a little bit about the fact the Pentagon can't do an audit. Can you talk about … To me, I've run big businesses, it's all about accountability. If you want to get an audit done, you can get an audit done. You might get a letter saying there's things you have to fix, but it all goes to accountability, and we haven't had it. So can you talk about how you bring accountability to the table, what you've done in the past, and what you're going to do with regard to bringing accountability to the Pentagon?

Pete Hegseth (02:24:44):

I meant it when I said it in the opening statement, Senator, I know what I don't know. I know I've never run an organization of three million people with a budget of 850 billion. But what I do know, is that I've led men and women, I've led people. And it's leadership of people, and motivation of people, and a clear vision of people where you build a team, cast that vision, empower people properly. I want smarter and more capable people around me than me, and you will get that at the department. I cast the clear vision, build the plan, work it, we set the metrics, and everyone is held accountable.

(02:25:21)
I know our incoming businessman president believes in accountability and holding people accountable. That will happen at the Pentagon. I mean, this has been a problem for a long time. Secretary Rumsfeld gave a speech on September 10th, 2001 that's mostly forgotten, but it was about the need for acquisition reform, "Cutting tail to give to teeth," to war-fighters. Then 9/11 happened, and these are problems that have been persistent for a long time, but now we have new threats, and we need the urgency of this moment. As you said, Mr. Chairman, the most dangerous moment we've been since the end of the Cold War, and possibly since World War II. The urgency to do everything possible to get the capabilities into the hands of war-fighters, emergency powers, defense production act, whatever it takes, and an audit is certainly part of it.

Senator Scott (02:26:08):

Why do you want to do this? Why do you want to do this job? What drives you?

Mr. Wicker (02:26:14):

You have 30 seconds.

Audience (02:26:19):

You [inaudible 02:26:20]-

Pete Hegseth (02:26:19):

Because I love my country, Senator, and I've dedicated my life to the war-fighters. People see me as someone who hosts a morning show on television, but people that really know me, know where my heart's at. It's with the guys in this audience, who've had my back and I've had theirs. We've been in some of the darkest and most difficult places you can ever be in. You come back a different person, and only by the grace of God am I here before you today. I'm doing this job for them.

Mr. Wicker (02:26:53):

Thank you.

Pete Hegseth (02:26:54):

For all of them.

Mr. Wicker (02:26:54):

Thank you, Mr. Hegseth.

Pete Hegseth (02:26:55):

[Inaudible 02:26:55].

Mr. Wicker (02:26:56):

Senator Warren?

Senator Warren (02:26:57):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Hegseth, thank you for your service. So if you're confirmed as Secretary of Defense, you will oversee our military, including about a quarter of a million women who currently serve on active duty in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Space Forces, and the Marines, and I have serious concerns that your behavior toward women disqualifies you from serving in this role. Now I've been trying to get answers from you for quite some time on this. You haven't wanted to meet, or to answer any of my questions, so we'll just have to do it here and dive in. I want to pick up on some of the questions asked by Senators Shaheen, and Gillibrand, and Hirono and I just want to make sure we have a list of some of the facts that I think are undisputed.

(02:27:42)
I'm not going to talk about anonymous sources. I'm just going to quote you directly. We've got the video, we've got it in print. So going back to January 2013, you told a Fox News interviewer that women in the military simply couldn't measure up to men in the military, saying, "That allowing women to serve in combat roles would force the military to lower the bar." You picked up on that same theme in 2015, making remarks on Fox News referring to women in combat as, "It would erode standards." June 2024, you said on Ben Shapiro's podcast, "Women shouldn't be in combat at all." And then of course we've talked about it in 2024, you published a book, and you say on page 26 of your book, "We need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units." Page 48 of your book, you claim that, "Women should not be in combat roles, because men are distracted by women." Then 10 weeks ago, you appeared on the Sean Ryan show and said, "I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles." Now I presume you recall making all these statements?

Pete Hegseth (02:29:01):

Senator, I'm not familiar with the article you're pointing to in 2013, but it underscores my argument completely, because in-

Senator Warren (02:29:07):

I've got the video.

Pete Hegseth (02:29:07):

… because in that 2013 argument I was talking about standards.

Senator Warren (02:29:09):

No, I've got-

Pete Hegseth (02:29:10):

Standards are what it's always been about, Senator.

Senator Warren (02:29:13):

Please, let's not had the same fight again.

Pete Hegseth (02:29:14):

Always been about standards, Senator.

Senator Warren (02:29:15):

I quoted you directly, we've got the video, we're happy to show it. But I want to be clear here, for 12 years you were quite open about your views, and your views were consistently the same, women are inferior soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and guardians. And in case anyone missed the point, and these are your words from 10 weeks ago, "Women absolutely, straight up, should not be permitted to serve in combat." I notice on each of these quotes, those are said without qualification. It's not by how much you can lift, or how fast you can run, they don't belong in combat, period, or your words, "Straight up." Then on November 9th, 2024, just 32 days after your last public comment, saying that women absolutely should not be in combat, you declared that, "Some of our greatest warriors are women," and you support having them serve in combat. Now that is a very big about-face in a very, very short period of time. So help me understand Hegseth, what extraordinary event happened in that 32-day period that made you change the core values you had expressed for the preceding 12 years?

Pete Hegseth (02:30:50):

Senator, again, I very much appreciate you bringing up my comments from 2013, because for me this issue has always been about standards, and unfortunately, because of some of the people that have been in political power-

Senator Warren (02:31:02):

Excuse me, Mr. Hegseth-

Pete Hegseth (02:31:03):

… for the last four years-

Senator Warren (02:31:05):

Let's just stop right there.

Pete Hegseth (02:31:06):

… priorities other than standards, lethality, and meritocracy-

Senator Warren (02:31:09):

Mr. Hegseth-

Pete Hegseth (02:31:09):

… have driven decision-making.

Senator Warren (02:31:09):

I'm quoting you from the podcast, "Women shouldn't be in combat at all." Where [inaudible 02:31:19] reference to standards, that they should be there if they can carry, if they can run, I don't see that at all, Mr. Hegseth. What I see, is that there's a 32- day period in which you suddenly have another description about your views of women in the military, and I just want to know what changed in the 32 days, that the song you sang is not the song you come in here today to sing?

Pete Hegseth (02:31:48):

Senator, the concerns I have and the concerns that many have had, especially in ground combat units, is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed, and that makes the combat more difficult for anyone involved.

Senator Warren (02:32:01):

Now let me make a suggestion about what happened in that 32 days. You got a nomination from President Trump. Now I've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the first time I've heard of a nomination conversion, and I hope you understand that many women serving in the military right now might think that if you can convert so rapidly your long-held and aggressively-pursued views in just 32 days, that 32 days after you get confirmed, maybe you'll just reverse those views and go back to the old guy who said, "Straight up women do not belong in combat." Now Mr. Hegseth, you have written that after they retire, generals should be banned from working for the defense industry for 10 years. You and I agree on the corrosive effects of the revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors. It's something I would've liked to talked with you about if you'd come and been willing to visit with me. But the question I have for you on this, is will you put your money where your mouth is, and agree that when you leave this job you will not work for the defense industry for 10 years?

Pete Hegseth (02:33:16):

Senator, it's not even a question I've thought about, because it's not one-

Senator Warren (02:33:19):

You can think about it right now.

Pete Hegseth (02:33:20):

… it's not one … My motivation for this job has never been-

Senator Warren (02:33:23):

I understand that.

Pete Hegseth (02:33:24):

… has never been about what could-

Senator Warren (02:33:24):

I just need a, "Yes," or, "No," here.

Pete Hegseth (02:33:26):

… conceivably come next.

Senator Warren (02:33:27):

Time is short. I just need a yes or no?

Pete Hegseth (02:33:29):

I would consult with the President about what the policy should be at the Defense Department.

Senator Warren (02:33:32):

In words, you are quite sure that every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for 10 years. You're not willing to make that same pledge?

Pete Hegseth (02:33:45):

I'm not a general, Senator.

Senator Warren (02:33:49):

You'll be the one, let us just be clear, in charge of the generals. So you are saying, "Sauce for the goose, but certainly not sauce for the gander?"

Pete Hegseth (02:33:59):

I would want to see what the policy of the President is.

Senator Warren (02:34:01):

Oh, I'll bet you would.

Mr. Wicker (02:34:04):

Thank you Senator Warren. Senator Tuberville?

Senator Tuberville (02:34:06):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank for your hard work and your committee's hard work, Mr. Chairman, this is going well. I'd like to submit this letter, topic, "Conduct at Vets for Freedom for Hegseth." I'd like to submit that for the record please.

Mr. Wicker (02:34:22):

Without objection.

Senator Tuberville (02:34:24):

General Hegseth, I mean Mr. Hegseth, thanks for being here today, and with your family. I know this is tough. That's what it's all about though. You're a tough guy, been here for a while, never seen this many people here for a support of a nominee. That's impressive. I met with a lot of them yesterday, and they're very passionate. So thank you for willing to take this on, and congratulations on your nomination. I am worried about recruiting. We can look at everything out there and talk about all these things, these narratives, but at the end of the day, I came from a team sport where the people, the players actually won the games, and that's what's going to happen here. You're not going to win the game. Now, you're going to set the precedent, you're going to get the blame or the credit, but there's going to be people that's going to be under you that's going to set the precedent for the future of our country.

(02:35:26)
Now, the war games that we play on our computers with our adversaries right now, for us it don't look good, because our military, we're in trouble. Our whole country's in trouble. Thank God President Trump got elected November the 5th. We couldn't kept down this same path. We could not, that could not happen. I met with a couple of generals this summer, "Coach, we're spending more money on transgender restrooms than we are coverings for $100 million-airplanes." That's not acceptable. We can't do that. That's not what this is about. Met with a couple of Navy SEALs not too long ago. They just got back from crawling around in the mud and the muck overseas, unknown places, couldn't tell you where they've been, carrying a weapon, obviously protecting us and our allies, and the first week they're back, what did they do? They had to go through a week of DEI training. Both are now out, they gave it up. It was embarrassing to them of what they had to do.

(02:36:28)
We've lost all sight of what we're doing in our military, lost all sight. It starts with leadership and it starts with recruiting. Why would a young man, used to when I was growing up, if you couldn't afford to go to college, you had the opportunity to go to the military where you could learn a trade, you could learn. You could make a living for your family and eventually possibly get an education. That was a good alternative. We've forgotten that. We've forgotten it. We can't give up on our young people. Young people are our number one commodity in this country, and they're the ones that's going to live and die for the freedom of this country in the future.

(02:37:02)
So again, thank you for taking this on. Recruiting, our service academies are meant to serve as our primary commissioning source of officers. It now appears that they are a breeding ground for leftist activists and champions of DEI and Critical Theory. Now, not all, but some, and some is way too much. How are we going to eliminate this Mr. Hegseth? How are we going to get this back on track, to where we grow our leaders? I had a young man that, forever, he wanted to go to West Point, I got him a nomination, I got him accepted, and he turned it down. He says, "Coach, I'm not getting involved with that mess." How are we going to overcome this?

Pete Hegseth (02:37:44):

Senator, thank you for the question. And I think it comes down to leadership, clear leadership, from President Trump through me, should I be nominated. That's what soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Guardians see, is clear leadership. It says, "This is what we believe. This is the mission we're going to give you. Here's the equipment we're going to give you, and here's how we're going to support you." Because the military at a lot of levels, Senator, has been for generations of family business. My grandfather served, my father served, I served, my daughter served. That chain has started to break, with generations of people my age and older talking to their kids and grandkids, wondering, pondering, "Do I want them to serve? Will my country use them responsibly?" When that kind of doubt is cast, you get serious recruiting problems like we do right now. You get questions about, "Whether I want my son or daughter to follow my path in West Point?" Which I've heard multiple times, "Would I want my …"

(02:38:47)
So you have to rip root and branch the politics and divisive policies out of these institutions, and then focus them on creating and preparing actual future military leadership. West Point, traditionally, is focused on engineering, and rightfully so, because in our fighting forces across all services, we need the best and brightest minds in engineering, in addition to military studies. That's what I did at ROTC at Princeton, Military Science. That, and we need more uniformed members going back into West Point, the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy as a tour to teach with their wisdom of what they've learned in uniform. Instead of just more civilian professors that came from the same left-wing, woke universities that they left, and then try to push that into service academies. When that changes, Senator, I truly believe under Donald Trump, we will have a recruiting renaissance. That sends signals to the world, to our enemies and our allies alike, that is America's back, and thankfully then we have the men and women of our country willing to want to serve.

Senator Tuberville (02:39:45):

Thank you, and it's about attitude too. I love your attitude. You've got to be motivated. You've got to understand that people, they will hook up with you. They will understand and learn under their leaders. Why would you fight for a country that you don't love? That's what I keep hearing from a lot of our college kids, that they're getting from these woke universities that they go to. Now, and I worked at a lot of them. That is one of the excuses I get from our kids. We've got to break that. Another one, according to the Pentagon, between 2001 and 2024, the number of civilian employees in the office of the Secretary of Defense has nearly doubled from 1,500 to 3,000. Civilians on Joint Chiefs has increased from 191 to almost 1,000. Our military in-strength goes down, our staff numbers are exploding. What are you going to do about that?

Pete Hegseth (02:40:43):

Senator, we're going to address that. We won World War II with seven four-star generals. Today we have 44 four-star generals. There's an inverse relationship between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield. We don't need more bureaucracy at the top. We need more war-fighters empowered at the bottom. So it's going to be my job, working with those that we hire and those inside the administration, to identify those places where fat can be cut, so it can go toward lethality.

Mr. Wicker (02:41:14):

Thank you, Senator Tuberville. Senator Peters?

Senator Peters (02:41:17):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, [inaudible 02:41:20] welcome to this committee.

Pete Hegseth (02:41:22):

Thank you.

Senator Peters (02:41:24):

We have far too much partisanship in our country right now. I think it's eating away at the fabric of what has always made this country great, about bringing people together from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of experiences. We know that in our motto, "Together as one, we are strong." And so we and this committee, and certainly I speak for myself, but I think I speak for many of my colleagues, want to take partisanship out of this proceeding as much as we can. I'm not naive, it's out there, I get it. But we've got to try to take that out. I want you to know that, as a member of this committee, I have voted in a bipartisan way for secretaries of defense. I voted for two secretaries of defense when Donald Trump was previously president.

(02:42:15)
We had those two, we had, I think, five total secretaries of defense during that four-year period. So we want to keep that in mind as to what we might see in this coming administration. But I voted, and we voted by a big margin for those folks as well. But part of that was the process, and having an opportunity to get to know the person, and to understand their qualifications, and understand the standards. I made repeated requests to meet with you prior to this meeting. I know many of my other colleagues also wanted to meet with you. I did that with the other nominees that I was happy to vote for. I thought they were highly qualified individuals and true professionals. And yet I could never get a meeting with you. Was there a reason you were afraid to have one-on-one meetings with some of my colleagues before the hearing?

Pete Hegseth (02:43:03):

Senator, I know there was a great deal of outreach to multiple offices, schedules get full. There's a lot going on.

Senator Peters (02:43:10):

I was ready.

Pete Hegseth (02:43:10):

And I welcome the opportunity-

Senator Peters (02:43:11):

I was ready.

Pete Hegseth (02:43:12):

… pending my schedule to have an opportunity to sit down.

Senator Peters (02:43:14):

I was ready. It would've been so much better to have that opportunity to talk beforehand. I think that's a big mistake, and it doesn't set us on a good course when you refuse to meet with people and have a professional conversation about the huge challenges that we face at the Department of Defense. My colleagues, the folks who introduced you and others, the chairman, has mentioned about the management of the DOD as a concern, cost overruns, delays on weapons systems. We need strong management at the Department of Defense first and foremost. We've got to have someone who's going to grab the reins and give the taxpayers value for having the most lethal fighting force in the world that defends freedoms, but we've got to do it in an efficient way. I've heard about the jobs you've had in the past. Let's just talk about qualifications. I know you had two previous positions. How many people reported to you in those positions?

Pete Hegseth (02:44:05):

Senator, at Vets for Freedom, we were a small upstart. Our focus was-

Senator Peters (02:44:10):

Just the number, please?

Pete Hegseth (02:44:11):

… working on Capitol Hill, going back to the battlefield for war-fighters-

Senator Peters (02:44:14):

Just just the number, please?

Pete Hegseth (02:44:15):

We probably had eight to 10 full-time staff, and lots of volunteers.

Senator Peters (02:44:20):

So you had eight? Has there been any other, we've heard about the two, and certainly there's been a lot of talk about the mismanagement, et cetera.

Pete Hegseth (02:44:27):

[Inaudible 02:44:28].

Senator Peters (02:44:27):

I'm just curious, I won't go into that, just curious, so you had eight there. What's the largest number of people you've ever supervised, or had in an organization in your career?

Pete Hegseth (02:44:37):

Not three million, Senator.

Senator Peters (02:44:39):

No, I don't expect that. No one, very few people have ever had that experience. But how many, it's a straight-up question.

Pete Hegseth (02:44:44):

I think we had over 100 full-time staff at Concerned Vets for America, roughly with thousands of volunteers.

Senator Peters (02:44:51):

So 100 people?

Pete Hegseth (02:44:52):

I was also a headquarters company commander, which would've been-

Senator Peters (02:44:54):

Okay, that's fine.

Pete Hegseth (02:44:55):

… a couple of hundred. So nothing remotely near the size of the defense department.

Senator Peters (02:44:59):

Right.

Pete Hegseth (02:44:59):

I would acknowledge that.

Senator Peters (02:45:00):

Actually not remotely near even a medium-sized company in America, let alone a big company in America, especially a major corporation. And you're basically, we're hiring you to be the CEO of one of the most complex, largest organizations in the world. We're the board of directors here. I don't know of any corporate board of directors that would hire a CEO for a major company if they came and said, "You know, I supervised 100 people before." They'd ask you, "Well, what kind of experiences you had?" We need innovation. Can you give me an experience or your actual experience of driving innovation in an organization? Give me an example of where you have done that?

Pete Hegseth (02:45:38):

Oh my goodness, Senator, absolutely. At Concerned Veterans for America, we created the Fixing Veterans Healthcare Task Force, a bipartisan task force that had never been done before, to create policy, to drive policy change on Capitol Hill that organizations fought ferociously against. We got the VA Accountability Act passed and the Mission Act passed in a way that a nonprofit of our size-

Senator Peters (02:45:59):

Okay.

Pete Hegseth (02:45:59):

… veterans organization-

Senator Peters (02:46:00):

We appreciate it.

Pete Hegseth (02:46:00):

… has never done.

Senator Peters (02:46:01):

Thank you.

Pete Hegseth (02:46:01):

And that's testified in all the letters-

Senator Peters (02:46:03):

Thank you.

Pete Hegseth (02:46:03):

… we put forward to the committee, which are on the record.

Senator Peters (02:46:05):

Okay, I have limited time. Thank you for that. Give me an example of where you've driven down cost. I've heard examples that Senator Blumenthal gave, the cost was a real problem for you in your 50-person organization, that you actually raised a lot less than what you actually spent. Did you drive costs down in a 50-person organization? Let me tell you, we've got to drive cost down dramatically in a organization of three million people and hundreds of billions of dollars. You don't have that experience that you can talk about? To me, this is … Or acquisition reform. You bring that up. Have you had experience in acquisition reform?

Pete Hegseth (02:46:45):

I've written about and studied on acquisition reform for quite some time.

Senator Peters (02:46:48):

Have you actually done it?

Pete Hegseth (02:46:49):

Because what we need in the hands of our war-fighters better change, because we're not doing it well right now.

Senator Peters (02:46:53):

It better. And we need people who have experienced actually doing that. You talk about standards, again, I'm going to go back to CEO of the most complex organization in the world. I don't think there's a board of directors in America that would hire you as a CEO with the kind of experience you have on your resume. You talk about standards, you talk about raising, or we have a problem of standards in the DOD, and we have to raise standards for the men and women who serve. Do you think that the way to raise the minimum standards of the people who serve us, is to lower the standards for the Secretary of Defense? That we have someone who has never managed an organization more than a 100 people who is going to come in and manage this incredibly important organization, and do it with a professionalism? And has no experience that they can tell us that they have actually done that. I have real problems with that.

(02:47:47)
This is not about other issues that are brought up. They're all very important. I'm just about trying to get things done, managing efficiently, and having the best people who have demonstrated that in a large organization. And I'm sorry, but I don't see that in your background. There are a lot of other things you can do very well. You're a capable person, but you have not convinced me that you're able to take on this tremendous responsibility with a complex organization, and having little or no significant management experience.

Pete Hegseth (02:48:20):

Senator, I'm grateful to be hired by one of the most successful CEOs in American history, should I be confirmed.

Audience (02:48:25):

[Inaudible 02:48:28].

Mr. Wicker (02:48:28):

Mr. Hegseth, it seems to me that you've supervised far more people than the average United States senator supervises typically.

Senator Peters (02:48:46):

Except for former governors, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wicker (02:48:48):

Senator Mullin, I understand you are yielding back your time, and do not wish to ask questions. I was misinformed?

Senator Mullin (02:48:57):

Am I-

Mr. Wicker (02:48:57):

Senator Mullin?

Senator Mullin (02:48:58):

Okay.

Mr. Wicker (02:48:58):

[inaudible 02:49:00].

Senator Mullin (02:49:00):

Caught me totally off guard there. I'd like to submit for the record signatures by 32 members of the House Representatives who are veterans. The signatures call on the Senate to honor the constitutional duty of advise and consent by conducting a fair, thorough confirmation process that evaluates his nomination solely on the substance and merits, his distinguished military service, academic credentials, and a bold vision for revitalizing a national offense, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record?

Mr. Wicker (02:49:30):

Without objection.

Senator Mullin (02:49:33):

There's a lot of talk going about, talking about qualifications and then about us hiring him if we are the board. But there's a lot of senators here I wouldn't have on my board, because there is no qualifications except your age, and you've got to be living in the State, and you're a citizen of the United States to be a senator, other than the fact we've got to convince a lot of people to vote for us. Then when we start talking about qualifications for, if you're qualified for it, could the Chairman tell me what the qualifications are for the Secretary of Defense? Mr. Chairman, could you tell me what the qualifications are for the Secretary of Defense?

Mr. Wicker (02:50:10):

I'd be happy-

Senator Mullin (02:50:12):

I'll read it.

Mr. Wicker (02:50:13):

… for you to do that.

Senator Mullin (02:50:14):

Let me read it for you, because I Googled it.

Mr. Wicker (02:50:16):

I was getting some advice from my second-in-command.

Senator Mullin (02:50:19):

I understand that. Yeah, but I'm just making a point, because there's a lot about qualifications, and I think it's so hypocritical of senators, especially on the other side of aisle, to be talking about his qualifications not going to lead to the Secretary, or be the Secretary of Defense, and yet your qualifications aren't any better. You guys aren't any more qualified to be the senator than I'm qualified to be the senator, except we're lucky enough to be here. But let me read you what the qualifications of the Secretary of Defense is, because I Googled it, and I Googled it and went through a lot of different sites. And really it's hard to see, but in general, the US Secretary of Defense position is filled by a civilian, that's it.

(02:50:58)
If you have served in the US Army forces, and have been in the service for, you have to be retired for at least seven years, and Congress can weigh that. Then there's questions that the senator from Massachusetts brought up about serving on a board inside the military industry. Yet your own secretary that you all voted for, Secretary Austin, we had to vote on a waiver because he stepped off the board of Raytheon. But I guess that's okay, because that's a Democrat Secretary of Defense. But you so quickly forget about that. Then Senator Kaine, or I guess I better use, "The senator from Virginia," starts bringing up the fact that, "What if you showed up drunk to your job?" How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night? Have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign from their job?

(02:51:57)
Don't tell me you haven't seen it, because I know you have. Then how many senators do you know have got a divorce for cheating on their wives? Did you ask them to step down? No. But it's for show. You guys make sure you make a big show and point out the hypocrisy, because a man's made a mistake. And you want to sit there and say that he's not qualified. Give me a joke. It is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself as this higher standard and you forget you got a big plank in your eye. We've all made mistakes. I've made mistakes. Jennifer, thank you for loving him through that mistake.

(02:52:35)
Because the only reason why I'm here and not in prison, is because my wife loved me too. I have changed, but I'm not perfect. But I found somebody that thought I was perfect. And for whatever reason, you love Pete, and I don't know why, but just like our Lord and Savior forgave me, my wife's had to forgive me more than once too. And I'm sure you've had to forgive him too. So thank you. So before I go down this rabbit hole again, tell me something about your wife that you love?

Pete Hegseth (02:53:14):

She's the smartest, most capable, loving, humble, honest person I've ever met, in addition to being incredibly beautiful.

Senator Mullin (02:53:30):

Don't forget about your kids.

Pete Hegseth (02:53:32):

I'm supposed to talk about my kids?

Senator Mullin (02:53:33):

No, no. Well, she's also the mother.

Pete Hegseth (02:53:35):

Oh, an amazing mother-

Senator Mullin (02:53:36):

Yes.

Pete Hegseth (02:53:37):

… of our blended family of seven kids all of which are-

Senator Mullin (02:53:40):

Brother, I'm pulling you along. I'm trying to help you here. Do you believe that you're going to be running the secretary, or the Department of Defense by yourself?

Pete Hegseth (02:53:52):

Senator, absolutely not. Just as President Trump is assembling his cabinet, I look forward, and already am in the process of building one of the best possible teams you can imagine, with decades and decades of experience outside of the Pentagon driving innovation and excellence, and also inside the building knowing how to make it happen, yes, sir.

Senator Mullin (02:54:14):

So in your organizations that you did have the privilege of running, did you have a board that you-

Pete Hegseth (02:54:22):

In both organizations, we had a board, yes.

Senator Mullin (02:54:24):

Okay, and what did you do with that board? What kind decisions did you make with them?

Pete Hegseth (02:54:29):

Those boards provided oversight and insight into decision-making.

Senator Mullin (02:54:33):

They all have special, unique sets that maybe filled gaps that you're not the expertise in?

Pete Hegseth (02:54:39):

Yes, sir.

Senator Mullin (02:54:40):

So do you believe you're capable of surrounding yourself with capable individuals that you're going to be able to run those same ideas by, and surround yourself with people that are smarter and better equipped in maybe areas that you don't necessarily carry those expertise with?

Pete Hegseth (02:54:58):

Senator, the only reason I've had success

Pete Hegseth (02:55:00):

Best in life to include my wonderful wife is because of people more capable around me and having the self-confidence to empower them and say, "Hey, run with the ball. Run with the football, take it down the field. We'll do this together. I don't care who gets the credit." And in this case, that's how the Pentagon will be run.

Mr. Mullin (02:55:19):

Let's end with this, Mr. Chairman, about the qualifications. You got a man who has literally put his butt on the line, who served 20 years in the service, multiple deployments, has heard the bullets crack over the top of his head, has been willing to go into combat, been willing to see friends die for this country, and he's willing to still put himself through this. His wife is willing to still stand beside him knowing he wasn't perfect, knowing that all this was going to be brought up and he's still willing to serve the country. What other qualifications does he need? That I yield back?

Mr. Wicker (02:56:03):

Thank you. Senator Mullin, Senator Duckworth. And again, we really are going to strictly enforce the rule about no demonstrations or noise, the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Reed (02:56:20):

Just a point of personal privilege to make a correction. The reason that General Austin required a waiver was not because his participation in a corporate enterprise. It was because he did not have seven years of interruption between his service and his appointment. Second point is that if any of us were appointed as Secretary of Defense, we would be subject to the same types of questions, and the case in point is Senator John Tau was nominated the Secretary of Defense. It was discovered by his colleagues that his behavior was not commensurate with the responsibilities despite his service, and he was voted down. Thank you.

Ms. Duckworth (02:57:03):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wicker (02:57:05):

Senator Duckworth, you are recognized.

Ms. Duckworth (02:57:07):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And also, Secretary Mattis had to have this waiver as well. Mr. Hegseth, this hearing is about whether you are qualified to be Secretary of Defense, and one of the qualifications, to answer my colleagues' question, is to actually win the votes of every member of this committee and to be confirmed by the United States Senate. And you need to convince us that you're worthy of that vote, because the people of the state of Illinois voted for me to be their senator so that I could cast that vote when it comes to picking who is going to be the next Secretary of Defense. This hearing now seems to be a hearing about whether or not women are qualified to serve in combat and not about whether or not you are qualified to be Secretary of Defense. And let me just say, that the American people need a Sec Def who's ready to lead on day one.

(02:57:52)
You are not that person. Our adversaries watch closely during times of transition, and any sense that the Department of Defense that keeps us safe is being steered by someone who's wholly unprepared for the job puts America at risk, and I am not willing to do that. With that in mind, Mr. Hegseth, I want you to try to explain to the American people, this committee who have to vote for you, and to our troops who are deployed around the world, why you are qualified to lead the Department of Defense. We already know that you've only led the largest a 200-person organization. We already know that you so badly mangled a budget that, after you left, they had to bring in a forensic accountant to figure out what went wrong, and that the largest budget you ever managed was about $18 billion. That is about 51,560 times fewer, lower than the Department of Defense budget of $825 billion.

(02:58:45)
$16 million is 51,568 times smaller than the defense budget. Please describe to me, Mr. Hegseth, you talk about DOD passing an audit. Please describe to me a time or an organization when you, that you led, underwent an audit, because you say you're going to hire smarter people than you to run this audit. I'm not asking you to be an accountant. I want you to be able to tell me what kind of guidance will be given to those employees, what will happen, whether or not you pass that audit. Have you led an audit of any organization, yes or no? I don't want a long answer. Yes or no? Have you led an audit of any organization of which you were in charge

Pete Hegseth (02:59:28):

Senator, in both of the organizations I ran, we were always completely fiscally responsible with the money that we had.

Ms. Duckworth (02:59:33):

Yes or no, did you lead an audit?

Pete Hegseth (02:59:33):

And the way my leadership has been stated-

Ms. Duckworth (02:59:33):

Yes or no, did you lead an audit? Yes or no?

Pete Hegseth (02:59:33):

… has been completely mischaracterized.

Ms. Duckworth (02:59:34):

What are you afraid of? You can't answer this question? Yes or no, did you lead an audit? Do you not know this answer?

Pete Hegseth (02:59:44):

Senator, every part of-

Ms. Duckworth (02:59:45):

Yes or no?

Pete Hegseth (02:59:45):

… my leadership of these organizations-

Ms. Duckworth (02:59:46):

Yes or no? Yes or no, did you lead an audit?

Pete Hegseth (02:59:47):

… has or misrepresented from top to bottom.

Ms. Duckworth (02:59:48):

I will take that as a no. What were the findings? Though there were no findings because you've never led an audit. What guidance did you give the auditors? None, because you've never led an audit. Nobody expects you to be an accountant, Mr. Hegseth. What we expect is for you to understand the complexity of this Pentagon budget process that is absolutely necessary to outfit our war fighters. Look, the Secretary of Defense is required to make quick decisions every single day that, well, with high-level information that's being provided for them. A Secretary of Defense has to have breadth and depth of knowledge. Right now, I am concerned that you have neither. Mr. Hegseth, what is the highest level of international negotiations that you have engaged in, that you have led in? Because the Secretary of Defense does lead international security negotiations. There are three main ones that the Secretary of Defense leads and signs. Can you name at least one of them?

Pete Hegseth (03:00:38):

Could you repeat the question, Senator?

Ms. Duckworth (03:00:39):

Sure. What is the highest level of international security agreement that you have led, and can you name some that the Secretary of Defense would lead? There's three main ones. Do you know?

Pete Hegseth (03:00:51):

I have not been involved in international security arrangements because I have not been in government other than serving in the military. So, my job has been to-

Ms. Duckworth (03:00:58):

So, no. The answer is can you name one of the three main ones-

Pete Hegseth (03:01:00):

… lead men and women in combat.

Ms. Duckworth (03:01:00):

… that the Secretary of Defense signs.

Pete Hegseth (03:01:01):

You're talking about defense arrangements. I mean, NATO might be one that you're referring to.

Ms. Duckworth (03:01:06):

Status of forces agreement would be one of them.

Pete Hegseth (03:01:09):

Status of forces agreement. I've been a part of teaching about status of forces agreements inside Afghanistan.

Ms. Duckworth (03:01:13):

So, but you don't remember to mention it? You're not qualified, Mr. Hegseth. You're not qualified. You talk about repairing our defense industrial complex. You're not qualified to that. You could do the acquisition and cross-servicing agreements, which essentially are security agreements. You can't even mention that. You've done none of those. You talked about the Indo-Pacific a little bit and I'm glad that you mention it. Can you name the importance of at least one of the nations in ASEAN, and what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations? And how many nations are in ASEAN, by the way?

Pete Hegseth (03:01:46):

I couldn't tell you the exact amount of nations in that.

Ms. Duckworth (03:01:49):

No, you couldn't, because you've not even bothered to do-

Pete Hegseth (03:01:50):

But I know we have allies in South Korea and Japan, and in AUKUS with Australia trying to work on-

Ms. Duckworth (03:01:55):

… Okay.

Pete Hegseth (03:01:55):

… submarines with them, and data transfers with them.

Ms. Duckworth (03:01:56):

Mr. Hegseth, none of those countries are in ASEAN.

Pete Hegseth (03:01:58):

We have allies across.

Ms. Duckworth (03:01:59):

None of those three countries that you've mentioned are in ASEAN. I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations. [inaudible 03:02:08].

(03:02:10)
Mr. Hegseth, se ask our troops to go into harm's way all the time. We ask them to go into harm's way, and this behind me, it's a copy of the Soldier's Creed, a copy that usually hangs over my desk here in the Senate, and you should be familiar with it. It's a same copy that hung over my desk at Walter Reed every single day that I woke up and fought my way back because I wanted to go back and serve next to my buddies who'd saved my life. This same copy, these words I repeated over and over and over again. And let me read out two things to you, two sentences. I will always place the mission first, and I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior task.

(03:02:55)
Mr Hegseth, our troops follow these words every single day and they man up and they pack their rucksacks and they go to war, and they deserve a leader who can lead them, not a leader who wants to lower the standards for himself while raising the standards for other people. And by the way, our troops already meet the standards. We ask troops to man that ship, fight that fire, fly that helicopter until their very last breath, and they do that every single day. They cannot be led by someone who's not competent to do the job. How can we ask these warriors to train and perform the absolute highest standards when you are asking us to lower the standards to make you the Secretary of Defense simply because you are buddies with our president-elect?

(03:03:37)
And by the way, he has filed for bankruptcy six times. I'm not quite sure he's the kind of CEO you want to refer to as a successful businessman. Let me make it clear. You can't seem to grasp that there is no US military as we know it without the incredible women that we serve, women who've earned their place in their units. You have not earned your place as Secretary of Defense. You say you care about keeping our armed forces strong and that you like our armed forces' meritocracy, then let's not lower the standards for you. You, sir, are a no-go at this station.

Mr. Wicker (03:04:11):

Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I would like to submit for the record a letter submitted by Mr. Brian Marriott that says, "Anyone who would claim that Pete mismanaged funds at Vets of Freedom is ignorant of the facts." Without objection, it will be admitted to the record. Senator Budd.

Mr. Budd (03:04:33):

Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and congrats on your chairmanship of this committee. I want to thank you for your leadership and your handling of this today. I think you're doing a great job. So, I want to also submit for the record a letter submitted by Mr. Daniel Catlin, the former operations manager at Vets for Freedom. Mr. Catlin's letter states that Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Catlin conducted weekly meetings to meticulously review every dollar that the organization spent. Pete's hands-on approach and dedication to financial responsibility ensured that Vets for Freedom operated within its budget. Mr, Catlin's letters also states that Pete treated his staff with the utmost respect, regardless of race or gender. So, I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wicker (03:05:19):

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Budd (03:05:21):

Thank you. Mr. Hegseth, congratulations on your nomination. Thanks for appearing before the committee today. I enjoyed meeting in my office before Christmas and I've enjoyed our friendship before that. You stated in your advanced policy questions that the American people need to be informed, engaged, and inspired to join our military. I wholeheartedly agree with that. And we also have a problem though with obesity and falling academic standards. It's very concerning and we've talked about that before. So, if confirmed, how would you approach increasing the number of Americans eligible to serve in the military but without lowering standards?

Pete Hegseth (03:06:03):

Well, Senator, I think there are already, to the credit of, I believe the Army and other services have now caught up to that, which have piloted programs that have had some success, that have allowed young Americans who want to serve in the military but can't necessarily pass the ASVAB or pass the APFT to get into basic training, an opportunity to get caught up, a preparatory class. Unfortunately, yes, we do have a problem of obesity in our country, not necessarily something that the, if I'm confirmed, Secretary of Defense is able to address.

(03:06:35)
But I do think leading from the front matters. I do think having a Secretary of Defense that will go out and do PT with the troops matters, that has been out there and done that before, and hopefully that's a motivating factor for young people. But the reality of obesity and criminal backgrounds and medical problems have long been an issue of recruitment in America unfortunately. What changed is the perception of military service because of the condition of the services, and frankly because of, in some ways, the way our schools don't teach young people to love the country anymore. And if you don't love the country, why do you want to serve that country? That's a deeper problem. But all of those things need to be addressed to revive recruiting, and obesity's certainly a part of it.

Mr. Budd (03:07:20):

Thank you for that. So, I've had multiple conversations, young folks back in North Carolina, young men, young women, and we get to meet a lot of them. But I hear from some of these folks who I encourage to join the military. They say that they're concerned that it's become politicized. And if confirmed, would you commit to working with my office to address the military recruiting crisis and ensuring the military is focused on a war fighting?

Pete Hegseth (03:07:48):

Senator, absolutely. A, number one, from day one with a mandate from the Commander in Chief who received that mandate, when Americans spoke out loudly and said, "We want peace through strength, we want America first foreign policy, and we don't want political ideology driving decisions inside our defense department." That was clear. It's an infection that the American people are acutely aware of, which the men and women in this room have lived firsthand. I've lived it firsthand and that's why it will be a priority. And I truly believe, and I'm humbled by this, the response we've already seen from young men and women who've decided to join the military when they had said, "I wasn't going to."

(03:08:34)
But seeing a Commander in Chief, Donald Trump reassured them. Seeing the possibility, if confirmed, of a Secretary of Defense that would have their back reassured them. And so, in the first couple of months after President Trump's election, we have already seen the numbers are there, a recruiting surge, in all the services, that I would welcome the opportunity to continue. And it's humbling to think that families across this country would have confidence in us to deliver for their young men and women. There's no more important task.

Mr. Budd (03:09:06):

Thank you for that. So, shifting gears a bit, I want to hear some of your thoughts on the growing fighter aircraft capacity gap with China and what this means for a potential fight in the Indo-Pacific. So, if confirmed, what policy recommendations will you make to the president on procurement and maintenance of fourth and fifth generation fighters while we continue to research and develop sixth generation in collaborative combat aircraft?

Pete Hegseth (03:09:29):

Senator, that's a very important conversation, one that I've been looking at a great deal. A lot of it, just to be clear, involves classifications and understanding precisely cost and capabilities, including capabilities of enemy systems, both not just fourth and fifth, but potential sixth generation, which we've already seen a prototype released from the Chinese. That's a dangerous development considering, at least the publicly understood condition of NGAD, which I look forward to the opportunity to looking underneath the hood on that. But ensuring fourth and fifth are capable and upgraded as necessary will be a part of our contingency.

(03:10:09)
But when you look at what's happening in the Indo-Pacific, say, operability, range is going to matter because it's such a large battle space, that will all factor in decisions that are made. And that's where I feel, frankly, a little bit liberated, is that I didn't work at Lockheed or any number of, pick a defense contractor. I didn't mean to point one out in particular. Pick any. I haven't. I don't have a special interest in any particular system or any particular company or any particular narrative. I want to know what works, I want to know what defeats our enemies, what keeps us safe, what deters them, what keeps our enemies up at night. Whatever that is, I want more of it and I want to invest in it, and I know that's the view that President Trump has as well.

Mr. Budd (03:10:54):

Thank you. Some have commented recently about the need to eliminate immediately a manned aircraft. So, I'd say maybe one day, but that day's not now, and certainly not before 2027, especially in the Indo-Pacific. So, if confirmed, will you commit to work with my office in this committee to ensure the proper mix of fighters, manned and unmanned?

Pete Hegseth (03:11:16):

I look forward to working with you on that, Senator, because unmanned will be a very important part of the way future wars are fought. Just the idea of survivability for a human being drives cost and time in ways that unmanned systems do not. But I look forward to that conversation, Senator.

Mr. Wicker (03:11:32):

Thank you, Senator Budd. I now recognize Senator Reed for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Reed (03:11:38):

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that two letters be submitted for the record. One letter is signed by numerous organizations including the Government Accountability Project, the other signed by several organizations including the Truman National Security Project.

Mr. Wicker (03:11:53):

Without objection, so ordered. Now, Senator Kelly, Senator Rosen got here after the gavel went down. Do you really want to go ahead of her?

Mr. Kelly (03:12:06):

I am going to defer to my good friend and colleague, Senator Rosen-

Mr. Wicker (03:12:10):

That is a really good-

Mr. Kelly (03:12:11):

… for the great state of Nevada.

Mr. Wicker (03:12:12):

… really good decision. Senator Rosen, you are recognized.

Ms. Rosen (03:12:17):

And thank you, Senator Kelly. I owe you one. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, ranking member Reed for holding this hearing. And Mr. Hegseth, I appreciate your service and your willingness to serve again. However, I am deeply disappointed that you would not agree to meet with me as other members have said on this committee prior to this hearing, as is the precedent for this committee and others. So, let me tell you a little bit about what I would've talked about had you made yourself available prior to the hearing. Nevada is home to the premier aviation training ranges for both the Air Force and the Navy, the largest ammunition depot in the world and the only place in the country where we are able to verify the reliability of our nuclear stockpile without the need for explosive testing. The Nevada National Guard is one of the few, only few units across the country with the mission of fighting wildfires. It's for another hearing, and currently activated to fight the devastating fires around Los Angeles in support of our neighbors.

(03:13:16)
We therefore play a critical role in our national security and the person who holds the position of Secretary Defense matters greatly to Nevada service members and our military equities. But every single person who serves in the military, we've talked about, my colleagues, esteemed colleagues have talked about recruitment and retention. One day, they will become a veteran. So, my veterans and the folks who are serving active duty now are concerned about what you think. DOD does not have jurisdiction over Nevada's 200,000 plus veterans. But I am interested in your views about the service members once they've transitioned out of the military, given the influence you would have while they're in service if confirmed. In 2019, on a segment of Fox & Friends, you said that veteran service organizations, VSOs, I'm going to quote, "Encourage veterans to apply for every government benefit they can ever get after they leave the service."

(03:14:12)
You stated you don't want to, "Be dependent on government assistance from the VA based on injuries or illnesses that might've arisen from your military service." So, I'm just going to ask you a few yes or no questions about veterans, understanding you don't have jurisdiction, but this is important to our morale, it's important to our recruitment and is important to our retention, and it is important to how we respect others in this country. So, yes or no, please. Do you believe that VSOs are wrong to support veterans in obtaining the benefits that they have rightfully earned and deserve when they sign that line like you did for your service?

Pete Hegseth (03:14:48):

Senator-

Ms. Rosen (03:14:48):

Yes or no, please.

Pete Hegseth (03:14:49):

… Veterans deserve the benefits they've earned. I have been in many battles with traditional veterans'-

Ms. Rosen (03:14:54):

So, you would agree that the-

Pete Hegseth (03:14:55):

… service organizations over differences of opinion about how to deliver those services-

Ms. Rosen (03:14:58):

… So, yes or no?

Pete Hegseth (03:14:58):

… including veteran's choice-

Ms. Rosen (03:15:00):

Do you believe VSOs are wrong?

Pete Hegseth (03:15:02):

… which is a… VSOs is a very broad term. We were a VSO also, ma'am. But some of those services took a traditionally bureaucratic approach.

Ms. Rosen (03:15:08):

So, should they be able to obtain, should be they be able to help the veterans obtain the benefits that they have earned, yes or no? Should anyone be able to help?

Pete Hegseth (03:15:14):

Every veteran should have rapid-

Ms. Rosen (03:15:16):

Okay, thank you.

Pete Hegseth (03:15:16):

… access to all the benefits that they've earned. Absolutely.

Ms. Rosen (03:15:17):

Do you believe that veterans should be ashamed for having sought and obtained the benefits that they have earned? Do you think veterans should be ashamed to seek out benefits? Yes or no?

Pete Hegseth (03:15:26):

Senator, I think we should be ashamed as a nation of the amount of veterans that commit suicide because they hit a brick wall.

Ms. Rosen (03:15:31):

Do you think Veterans should be ashamed?

Pete Hegseth (03:15:32):

They commit suicide because they hit a brick wall of the bureaucracy of the VA.

Ms. Rosen (03:15:34):

That is not the question, sir. I'm going to move on. I', going to take that as a yes.

Pete Hegseth (03:15:37):

And reformers are not courage enough.

Ms. Rosen (03:15:38):

How about veterans who suffer lasting injuries or illnesses due to their military service? Do you think they deserve our support and assistance? I mean, your answers to these, they're too broad. People want to know, are you willing to support our veterans' organizations that will help our veterans get every damn thing that they deserve because they signed on the dotted line to keep us safe, just like you did? I respect that. Will you?

Pete Hegseth (03:16:06):

Senator, with all due humility, I don't know that there's anyone in this room over the last 20 years that have worked harder to ensure that our veterans are taken care of.

Ms. Rosen (03:16:14):

So, do you think veterans are dependent on the-

Pete Hegseth (03:16:14):

It has been a passion my life alongside, with so many on this dais, to make sure that veterans receive. And it is a recruiting crisis.

Ms. Rosen (03:16:21):

… But you said that veterans are dependent on the government.

Pete Hegseth (03:16:22):

When veterans are not treated well, they don't want their sons and daughters to join.

Ms. Rosen (03:16:27):

You said veterans are dependent the government. Do you believe that veterans getting these benefits are dependent on the government, or do you believe it's a benefit they've earned and deserve through their service?

Pete Hegseth (03:16:34):

It's a benefit they've earned and a hand up to the chapter of their life. Absolutely.

Ms. Rosen (03:16:37):

But these are your words then. So, you have again changed your position. Where you believe that veterans are dependent, now you believe they've earned and deserved it. I just think it's disrespectful to change that position. These are benefits that people may need throughout their life and may not know when they need them or how they're going to need them, and they need to be there when they do. Thank you. I'm going to move on to my next question. America's role in the world. Our alliance is the threats America's facing. They're serious, they're wide-ranging, from China to Russia to Iranian-backed terrorism. So, do you agree with the National Defense Strategy that the US cannot compete with China, Russia and their partners alone, and certainly cannot win a war that way? And this is a quote from the National Defense Strategy.

(03:17:28)
It's your interpretation that American- first foreign policy is America alone. Does that include abandoning our allies and partners such as NATO, Taiwan, Israel, and others? And if we can't win alone and we don't strengthen our strategic partnerships, I would say that position, your position places on a strategic path to lose to our adversaries. So, maybe you're okay with choosing that path for America. I want to know how you square that position with the positions you articulated in your book where you wrote that NATO is at relic, at best a distraction and should be scrapped and remade. Are you okay with sending us down a path where we can't win?

Pete Hegseth (03:18:08):

Senator, the world has had, our friends in the world have had no better ally. Our allies and partners have had no better friend than President Donald Trump who's reinvigorated a NATO alliance-

Ms. Rosen (03:18:19):

I'm not talking about President Donald Trump. I'm talking about your words.

Pete Hegseth (03:18:21):

… who has stood behind Israel in every way, in ways this administration has not. He has ensured that the NATO alliance has become far more robust. He worked with allies in the Pacific as well.

Ms. Rosen (03:18:29):

Is Donald Trump is going to stand behind Ukraine? Is Donald Trump is going to stand behind Ukraine? Are you going to stand behind Ukraine? You say he's the strongest president? President-elect trump said he will end the war on Ukraine before he takes office. Okay, so less than a week before he is inaugurated. To the best of your knowledge, do you have knowledge of a plan that he's going to use to rapidly end the war with Ukraine? Do you believe it's feasible that it does not make unacceptable concessions to Vladimir Putin who is a brutal dictator? And are you going to give President-elect Trump military advice that you have given others to achieve the objective of us winning the war in Ukraine? How do you think a rapid end of the war that Vladimir Putin started will affect the United States standing across the world?

Pete Hegseth (03:19:16):

Senator, I will always give clear guidance, my clear guidance, best guidance to the President of the United States on matters like that.

Ms. Rosen (03:19:22):

Do you think that if we concede to Vladimir Putin, that that will hurt our credibility with our allies and partners? And do you not believe that our adversaries are watching?

Mr. Wicker (03:19:31):

Perhaps you can take that for the record, Mr. Hecgseth. Senator Schmidt?

Mr. Schmidt (03:19:36):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to submit for the record a letter submitted by Mr. Christopher Ahn, the former director of operations for Vets for Freedom. Mr. Ahn, his letter states that the suggestion, "The suggestion that funds were misused for personal gain, lavish parties or other improper purposes is categorically false. Throughout my time working with Pete Hegseth, he consistently demonstrated exceptional integrity in leadership." I ask unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record.

Mr. Wicker (03:20:02):

Without objection, so ordered. Senator Schmidt.

Mr. Schmidt (03:20:04):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hegseth, good to see you here today. Thank you for your service.

Mr. Wicker (03:20:08):

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Schmidt (03:20:08):

And your willingness to serve. I also want to thank you for your clarity in articulating the vision you have for the Department of Defense in restoring an ethos, a warrior ethos, which is in stark contrast to the ethos we've seen the last four years, which is of weakness and wokeness. And I want to drill down on a few things specifically, in exactly how we've gotten to where we've gotten with recruiting and morale. DEI. There's been a little bit of discussion about this, but for those watching at home, DEI is not about giving everybody opportunity. It is rooted in cultural Marxism. The idea that you pit the room, any room, with oppressor versus oppressed. It's race essentialism and it is poison. It has no business whatsoever in our military. I think the American people have spoken loudly and clearly about this. They're tired of this. They're tired of woke ideology.

(03:21:12)
And to my Democrat colleagues on the other side, if you haven't picked up on that, you missed the plot, because that's what November 5th partially was about. And so, let's talk specifically about some of these DEI programs that have been funded. In our academy, specifically the Air Force Academy, it was advised as disfavored language to refer to your mom and dad as mom and dad. Okay? Dear mom and dad, I'm writing home. Don't say that. That's insane. We're all just people, you can't say that either. And in an effort to police this, in a 1984 Orwellian novel, there was actually an eyes and ears program to rat on your fellow students who might say mom and dad, or just say in a tough situation, "You know what? We're all just people." Can't say that. This wasn't limited, by the way, to our academies. The Secretary of the Air Force, our current Secretary of the Air Force in a memo from August of 2022, thought we had too many white officers. Advocated for quotas. And if you crunch the numbers, that meant that 5,800 white officers who've worked really hard should be fired in the United States of America. I don't know how we got here. And by the way, the Air Force isn't alone here. The Navy sort of touted a drag queen influencer. This stuff is insane, and people wonder why recruiting has dropped off. And let me just go through a few numbers, and I want to get your comments on how we fix this because it's gone completely off the rails. In 2022, the Army missed their recruiting goal of 60,000 soldiers by over 15,000. In 2023, the Navy missed their recruiting goals by over 7,000. In 2022, the Air Force couldn't meet their standards, their numbers, even though they lowered their standards. They've lowered their standards to meet numbers they still can't get to. Mr. Hegseth, we got to fix this. I think what you've demonstrated today is that you have the talent and the ability and the desire to fix it. How are you going to fix it?

Pete Hegseth (03:23:40):

Well, Senator, thank you for the question. First and foremost, upfront, we have to tear out DEI and CRT initiatives' root and branch out of institutions.

Mr. Schmidt (03:23:51):

100%.

Pete Hegseth (03:23:51):

And then, you have to put in Army, Navy, and Air Force secretaries and others, civilian positions at the helm who are committed to the same priorities that the President of the United States is, and if confirmed, the Secretary of Defense will be. Send a clear message that this is not a time for equity. Equity is a very different word than equality. Equality is the bedrock of our military. Men and women, duty positions in uniform, black, white, doesn't matter, we treat you equally based on who you are in the image of God as an individual. And we all get the same bad haircuts.

(03:24:26)
You're not an individual, you're part of a group. Equity prescribes some sort of an outcome based on differing attributes that we have that divide us. What skin color are you? What gender are you? And then, infuse that in the institutions which manifest in things like quotas, formal or informal, which does what to morale? Sends it in the tubes, and it makes people feel like they're being judged by something other than how good they are at their job, which is poisonous inside institutions.

Mr. Schmidt (03:24:55):

So, on top of this recruiting crisis, that wasn't enough for this administration. During the covid hysteria and in their attempt to fire 100,000 people who worked for bigger companies because they didn't get the covid shot, or to mask five-year-olds, they decided also to make this a central plank in their policy at the Pentagon. 8,000 well-trained, so we got a recruiting crisis, 8,000 well-trained men and women were fired. Were fired. Will you commit today, Mr. Hegseth, to recruit these folks back, to give them back pay, and give them an apology from the United States government for how they were disrespected?

Pete Hegseth (03:25:40):

Senator, I will commit to this because the Commander-in-Chief has committed to this, that not only will they be reinstated, they will receive an apology, back pay and rank that they lost because they were forced out due to an experimental vaccine.

Mr. Schmidt (03:25:56):

Thank you, and I'm at limited time, but I just want to say, for all the talk of experience and not coming from the same cocktail parties that permanent Washington is used to, you were a breath of fresh air. And again, if you weren't paying attention to what this election was all about, it was about the disruptors versus the establishment. And the American people have had enough of business as usual for the same people that we line up for these same jobs who give us the same results. We need somebody who's going to go in there and fight for innovation, fight for change. I think you're that person and I appreciate your willingness to sit here and listen to some of these undignified attacks. It's ridiculous. Thank you.

Mr. Wicker (03:26:40):

Captain Mark Kelly, you're recognized.

Mr. Kelly (03:26:43):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on your chairmanship. I want to make a request to the committee that we have a second round of questions.

Mr. Wicker (03:26:53):

Pursuant to the bipartisan staff agreement that we reached late last year, this will be one round of seven-minute questions.

Mr. Kelly (03:27:05):

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wicker (03:27:08):

I'll be happy to recognize my colleague, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Reed (03:27:11):

I think it's important to note for the record that when Secretary Hagel was here, we had three rounds of questioning. When Secretary Carter was here, we had two rounds of questioning, and I cannot recall any time where I have denied, as a chairman, a member to ask for a second round and receive the second round. So, we are, I think, violating the principles of the committee, and I just want to go on the record [inaudible 03:27:42].

Mr. Wicker (03:27:41):

And your comment is noted.

Mr. Reed (03:27:44):

Thank you.

Mr. Kelly (03:27:46):

Mr. Hegseth, thank you for being here today. Thank you for your service to this country.

Pete Hegseth (03:27:51):

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Kelly (03:27:52):

Few nominees come into this room with all the necessary experience to do this job, to be Secretary of Defense. We get that. It's a reflection on just how big of a job this is. What I want to understand is whether or not you bring any of the necessary experience that this job requires. And here's where I'm concerned. Senator Coleman, in introducing you, and this is a quote he said, "He has struggled and overcome great personal challenges." You walk in here saying that you've had personal and character issues in your past, including heavy drinking, which you wrote about.

(03:28:34)
And you said, and this is a quote from you that you said, "I sit before you as an open book." Yet you haven't actually said what personal challenges it is that you've overcome when you've been asked about them. So, I'm going to give you an opportunity here to be as forthright as you say you want to be. So, while leading concerned veterans of America, there were very specific cases cited by individuals about your conduct. I'm going to go through a few of them, and I just want you to tell me if these are true or false. Very simple. On Memorial Day, 2014, at a CVA event in Virginia, you needed to be carried out of the event for being intoxicated.

Pete Hegseth (03:29:21):

Senator, anonymous smears.

Mr. Kelly (03:29:24):

[inaudible 03:29:23]. Just true or false. Very simple. Summer of 2014 in Cleveland, drunk in public with the CVA team.

Pete Hegseth (03:29:33):

Anonymous smears.

Mr. Kelly (03:29:35):

I'm just asking for true or false answers. An event in North Carolina, drunk in front of three young female staff members after you had instituted a no alcohol policy and then reversed it. True or false?

Pete Hegseth (03:29:49):

Anonymous smears.

Mr. Kelly (03:29:51):

December of 2014 at the CVA Christmas party, at the Grand Hyatt at Washington, DC, you were noticeably intoxicated and had to be

Pete Hegseth (03:29:59):

Anon-

Mr. Kelly (03:30:00):

… be carried up to your room. Is that true or false?

Pete Hegseth (03:30:03):

Anonymous smears.

Mr. Kelly (03:30:05):

Another time a CVA staffer stated that you passed out in the back of a party bus. Is that true or false?

Pete Hegseth (03:30:12):

Anonymous smears.

Mr. Kelly (03:30:14):

In 2014 while in Louisiana on official business for CVA, did you take your staff, including young female staff members, to a strip club?

Pete Hegseth (03:30:26):

Absolutely not. Anonymous smears.

Mr. Kelly (03:30:28):

Is it accurate that the organization reached a financial settlement with a female staffer who claimed to be at a strip club with you, and there was a colleague who attempted to sexually assault her? Was there a financial settlement?

Pete Hegseth (03:30:55):

Senator, I was not involved in that. I don't know the nature of how that played out.

Mr. Kelly (03:31:01):

But you understand there was a financial settlement for a young female staffer who accused another member of the organization, not you, of sexual assault in a strip club?

Pete Hegseth (03:31:14):

We have multiple statements on the record referring to that-

Mr. Kelly (03:31:17):

But you claim you were not there when that occurred.

Pete Hegseth (03:31:21):

Absolutely not.

Mr. Kelly (03:31:24):

Now, the behavior I cited, if true, do you think that this behavior of intoxication, going into these type of establishments, women on your staff being so uncomfortable that they have to file these sort of harassment claims, do you think this is appropriate behavior for a leader?

Pete Hegseth (03:31:47):

Senator, the overwhelming majority of anyone who's worked for me, including the on the record statements that have been submitted to this with their name on it, on the record, men and women who worked with me every day are the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that testify to my leadership and professionalism in leading Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. My leadership has been completely impugned on these veterans organizations that did fantastic work on behalf of the men and women-

Mr. Kelly (03:32:19):

Mr Hegseth, I'm not even going to go into the accusations.

Pete Hegseth (03:32:19):

And we managed our financial books with integrity across the board. How many… everybody who runs the campaign.

Mr. Kelly (03:32:24):

I have limited time. I'm not going to get into the accusations that come from Fox News. I know you have some of your Fox News colleagues here. There are multiple instances of accusations against you about drinking on the job coming in.

Pete Hegseth (03:32:37):

All anonymous, all false, all refuted by my colleagues, who I worked with for 10 years at 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM. And everything in between-

Mr. Kelly (03:32:45):

The challenge here for me, Mr. Hegseth, is when there is discussion about personal challenges. And you admittedly had issues with heavy drinking. It's hard to square this, to square the circle here. It's a difficult thing to do. Let me ask you if… I have about 90 seconds left here. If you had to answer these questions about sexual assault against you and your drinking and your personal conduct, would it have been different if you were under oath?

Pete Hegseth (03:33:20):

Senator, all I'm pointing out is the false claims against me.

Mr. Kelly (03:33:24):

Okay. I take it you do not want to answer that question. I walked into this hearing this morning concerned that you haven't demonstrated adequate leadership in your civilian roles. And this is a dangerous world we're living in here. And America cannot afford a secretary of defense who is unprepared for that mission. I'm going to leave with concerns about your transparency.

(03:33:48)
You say you've had personal issues in your past yet, when asked about those very issues, you blame an anonymous smear campaign, even when many of these claims are not anonymous. Which is it? Have you overcome personal issues or are you the target of a smear campaign? It can't be both. It's clear to me that you're not being honest with us or the American people because you know the truth would disqualify you from getting the job. And just as concerning as each of these specific disqualifying accusations are, what concerns me just as much is the idea of having a secretary of defense who is not transparent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my two seconds.

Mr. Wicker (03:34:35):

Thank you, Senator Kelly. I would at this point ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record letters by Tina Kingston, Louisiana State Director of Concerned Veterans for America, and Holly Talley, Louisiana Local Director of Concerned Veterans for America attesting to the appropriateness of Mr. Hegseth's conduct with regard to female staffers. Without objection, that is added to the record. And Senator Banks, you are now recognized.

Senator Jim Banks (03:35:12):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Hegseth. You have conducted yourself very well today, in fact so well that I believe it's incumbent upon this committee to confirm you ASAP to get you on the job to clean up the mess that we have at the Pentagon ongoing at this moment because of the leadership there over the last four years has failed us. In President Biden's first year in office the Department of Defense spent over 5 million man-hours on, "Counter extremism and diversity training." What you and I might call woke training or DEI.

(03:35:52)
The administration has refused to provide us any more recent data than that first year, but we know that it's exponentially more man-hours wasted on DEI over the last four years. And I wonder, what do you make of that? What could those 5 million man-hours in that first year of Secretary Austin and President Biden's administration, what could those 5 million man-hours have been used for?

Pete Hegseth (03:36:19):

Senator, that's a lot of service members sitting in a lot of briefs hearing about a lot of threats or political perspectives that might be dangerous, that do not comport to threats that actually exist inside the force or ideas that introduce critical race theory or DEI or climate change initiatives that they and their commands have to conform to. And every time one of those happens it gets pushed down the chain of command. That also includes new layers of leadership that have been created under this administration committed to enforcing those types of DEI and CRT initiatives.

(03:36:59)
So we hear 5 million man-hours, and that sounds like a lot. The more troubling aspect is how many training hours that takes away from a company commander or a battalion commander or a wing commander who's out there trying to maintain their force, which is already constrained because of what the Biden administration has done to the defense budget and defense capabilities. So they're having to choose between the political prerogatives of the civilians who are demanding more DEI and CRT and gender quotas and the readiness of their forces. And I believe this Pentagon is prepared because of our commander in chief for a secretary of defense, should I be confirmed, that focuses, laser focuses on these issues, and they're ready to respond. They want to pack their rucksacks and go train because they understand we live in a dangerous world.

Senator Jim Banks (03:37:43):

I think that's an important point, a key point, because months later, while the priority of the Biden-Austin-led Pentagon was on DEI and woke training, one of the biggest embarrassments in American history happened when we lost 13 of our heroes in the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. Secretary Austin testified before the House Armed Services Committee a couple of years ago. And responding to a question from me said he had, "No regrets," about what happened in Afghanistan. I wonder, what do you make of that?

Pete Hegseth (03:38:18):

Senator, it's shameful. They still tout it as the most successful airlift in American history when what the rest of us all saw was true, laid before our eyes. Utter failure, a destruction of Military legacy there, abandonment of our allies, death of American troops, detriment to our reputation, and then no answers and no accountability on the other side. And then what was unleashed because of what happened in Afghanistan? The October 7th attacks, an invasion into Ukraine. The world recognized weakness for what it was, and who bore the brunt for it? The troops on the front lines at Abbey Gate doing an impossible job, whose external security was the Taliban because there was no actual plan for this under the Biden administration.

(03:39:07)
And yet the only person held accountable in those moments was a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who had the courage to stand up and say, "Someone should be held accountable for that." His name is Stu Scheller. No one else involved has ever taken accountability for it. When that microcosm becomes the reality of the perception of the American Military or America's commitment to victory and success and positive outcomes, the world responds to that. President Trump is going to restore real deterrence by bringing a real warrior culture back, rebuilding our Military, and ending wars properly. And if we have to fight them, winning them decisively.

Senator Jim Banks (03:39:46):

I served in Afghanistan, you served in Afghanistan. 75% of our nation's veterans disagree with how the withdrawal from Afghanistan was handled, the embarrassment of it. What that's done I believe has directly impacted our historic recruitment crisis in this country, without a doubt, and you've already talked about that. But how do we fix it? How do we bring pride back to wearing the uniform for the next generation, to inspire them to do what you and I did, to raise our right hand and take that oath and serve this great country?

Pete Hegseth (03:40:20):

I do think it comes back to strong, clear leadership. Patriotic, pro-American leadership that says, " We're not going to focus on all the other political prerogatives." That's why… we all have political perspectives. I said this before and I'll say it again. In uniform, none of that matters. You wear green, you wear blue, you bleed red. That's it. Who you vote for doesn't matter. But when the perception of that changes, then you don't want people deciding whether to serve based on a political party in power. That's a dangerous thing for continuity inside your Military, and it's fragile right now. President Trump, and if I'm confirmed, with my leadership we're going to restore the continuity of an apolitical Military that acts decisively and only based on merit. They sound basic but they're fundamental.

Senator Jim Banks (03:41:10):

You and I agree that wokeness is weakness. Mr. Hegseth, do you support racial quotas in recruitment or promotions in the United States Military?

Pete Hegseth (03:41:19):

Senator, I do not support any form of racial quota.

Senator Jim Banks (03:41:23):

Do you support affirmative action in our nation's Military academies?

Pete Hegseth (03:41:27):

Senator, I only support hiring and promoting and admitting the best and brightest, whatever their background is.

Senator Jim Banks (03:41:33):

I think that's very important. Mr. Hegseth, Lloyd Austin, the secretary, later went AWOL. He disappeared for days and never told the president, didn't even inform the president's chief of staff that he was going into the hospital. Would that ever occur on your watch?

Pete Hegseth (03:41:50):

No, senator. I know in any one of my jobs, if I had decided to go AWOL for even a day or two in uniform or around that, that would've been a concern.

Senator Jim Banks (03:41:59):

I believe accountability matters. No one to this day has ever, as you've said, been held accountable for what happened in Afghanistan. It was embarrassing to this country. It's impacted this country greatly. And I applaud you and President Trump are bringing accountability back to our Pentagon. With that, I yield back.

Mr. Wicker (03:42:16):

Chair recognizes the distinguished ranking member for unanimous consent. Request.

Mr. Reed (03:42:21):

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit an article discussing some of the issues of the readiness and DEI. There has been a comment that 5.9 Million man-hours have been used for DEI. General Meyer clarified that that is an estimate out of more than 2 million man-hours that the Department of Defense invested during the time period.

Mr. Wicker (03:42:50):

Where is this published, sir?

Mr. Reed (03:42:52):

This is published by Megan Meyers. And I will get the citation-

Mr. Wicker (03:42:59):

Okay.

Speaker 5 (03:42:59):

Speak up.

Speaker 6 (03:43:00):

Military.com.

Mr. Reed (03:43:02):

Military.com. I'm sorry.

Mr. Wicker (03:43:03):

Without objection. It will be admitted to the record.

Mr. Reed (03:43:06):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wicker (03:43:07):

And Senator Slotkin, welcome to the committee. And you are recognized.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:43:12):

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for referencing the great Carl Levin as you introduced me. We miss him in Michigan. For those who I haven't met in my one week that I've been sworn into the Senate, I'm a CIA officer recruited after 9/11. I did three tours armed in Iraq alongside the Military and have worked for four different secretaries of defense, both Democrat and Republican, proudly, and watched them make decisions that literally determine the life and death of Americans in the dark of night.

(03:43:44)
I'm also a Democrat representing a state that Trump won. We both won on the same ballot. So I understand that President Trump has the right to nominate his people. We are going to have policies that we disagree with. All of that to me comes very standard. What I think I'm most concerned with is that no president has the right to use the uniformed Military in a way that violates the US Constitution and further taints the Military as that apolitical institution that we all want.

(03:44:15)
And our founders designed the system so that we had posse comitatus, that we weren't going to use active duty Military inside the United States and make American citizens potentially scared of their own Military. We went through our own experience with the British. As the secretary of defense, you will be the one man standing in the breach should President Trump give an illegal order. I'm not saying he will but if he does, you are going to be the guy that he calls to implement this order. Do you agree that there are some orders that can be given by the commander in chief that would violate the US Constitution?

Pete Hegseth (03:44:55):

Senator, thank you for your service but I reject the premise that President Trump is going to be giving illegal orders.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:45:01):

No, I'm not saying he will, but do you believe there is such a thing as an illegal order that Joe Biden or any other president, Donald Trump could give? Is there anything that a commander in chief could ask you to do with the uniformed Military that would be in violation of the US Constitution?

Pete Hegseth (03:45:16):

Senator, anybody of any party could give an order that is against the Constitution or against the law.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:45:22):

Right. Okay. And so are you saying that you would stand in the breach and push back if you were given an illegal order?

Pete Hegseth (03:45:29):

I start by saying I reject the premise that President Trump will be giving any illegal orders at all.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:45:35):

This isn't a hypothetical. Your predecessor in a Trump administration, Secretary Esper, was asked and did use uniformed Military to clear unarmed protesters. He was given the order to potentially shoot at them. Helos flew low in Washington D.C. as crowd control. He later apologized publicly for those actions. Was he right or wrong to apologize?

Pete Hegseth (03:45:59):

Senator, I was there on the ground. I saw the helo myself.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:46:02):

I understand and I respect that.

Pete Hegseth (03:46:03):

I've there. I understand the level of threat that was involved in that moment. I also understand legality and the Constitution and the laws of what you have.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:46:08):

Was he right or wrong to apologize?

Pete Hegseth (03:46:15):

I'm not going to put words in the mouth of Secretary Esper or anybody else from this podium.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:46:19):

No. He said them himself. You don't have to. What are you scared of? Did he do the right thing by apologizing?

Pete Hegseth (03:46:25):

I'm not scared of anything, senator-

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:46:27):

Then say, "Yes," or, "No." You can say, "No."

Pete Hegseth (03:46:28):

I'm interested in upholding the laws in the Constitution in any particular

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:46:31):

Donald Trump asked for the active-duty 82nd Airborne to be deployed during that same time. Secretary Esper has written that he convinced him against that decision. If Donald Trump asked you to use the 82nd Airborne in law enforcement roles in Washington D.C., would you also convince him otherwise?

Pete Hegseth (03:46:50):

I'm not going to get ahead of conversations I would have with the president.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:46:53):

Okay.

Pete Hegseth (03:46:53):

However, there are laws and processes inside our Constitution that would be followed.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:46:58):

President Trump said in November that he is willing to consider using the active-duty Military against the, "Enemy within." Have you been personally involved in discussions of using the US Military active duty inside the United States?

Pete Hegseth (03:47:14):

Senator, I'm glad we finally got to the topic of border security equaling national security because it's been abdicated and ignored for the last four years.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:47:22):

That wasn't my question. I'm just asking, have you been involved? You're about to be the secretary of defense, potentially. Have you been involved in discussions about using the active duty Military inside the United States?

Pete Hegseth (03:47:33):

Senator, I am not yet the secretary of defense.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:47:36):

Right. I'm just ask-

Pete Hegseth (03:47:37):

If confirmed, I would be party to any number of conversations, which, I would not reveal what I have discussed with the President of the United States or not.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:47:45):

No, no. Have you been in conversations? Again, you're going to be in charge of 3 million. The active duty that I know you care about, I believe you care about. So have you been in conversations about using the active duty in any way, whether it's setting up in detention camps, policing dangerous cities? Have you been involved in any of those conversations?

Pete Hegseth (03:48:04):

Certainly I have been involved in conversations relating to doing things this administration has not, which is secure the southern border and not allow floods of illegals to enter our country through an invasion that threatens the American people.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:48:20):

Okay, okay. I got it.

Pete Hegseth (03:48:20):

And there are ways in which the Military is already playing a role in that, to include 5,000 National Guardsmen from Indiana and Texas who are at the border right now, allowing for border security.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:48:29):

Will you ask the active duty Military to staff detention centers?

Pete Hegseth (03:48:33):

Military members enforcing our southern border.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:48:35):

Our US Military is not trained in law enforcement rules. I think you know that. We've seen how that mission is difficult for them in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, because that's not the training a uniformed Military comes with. Do you support the use of active duty Military in supporting detention camps?

Pete Hegseth (03:48:51):

Senator, everything we will do would be lawful and under the Constitution.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:48:54):

Okay, I'm going to take that as a yes.

Pete Hegseth (03:48:56):

But I recognize that this administration has abdicated its responsibility. President Trump is going to restore order at the border, prevent our enemies from invading. And yes, he has said mass deportations will be a part of what happens.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:49:07):

In the spirit of preserving the institution that I think we both care about legitimately, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, I've heard a couple of different things. One, you said you will not change the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is what governs justice system in the Military. Yes or no? You said that earlier. I'm just confirming.

Pete Hegseth (03:49:25):

Those are laws, senator, set by Congress.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:49:26):

Okay. So you will not go to change it. You will not attempt to change it. You also said that JAG officers are potentially people who put their own interests in their own medals and promotions ahead of the troops. Senator Lindsey Graham was a JAG officer for most of his life. Is that what you believe about those who implement our justice system in the US Military?

Pete Hegseth (03:49:47):

Senator, I was speaking about particular JAG officers I've had to deal with in my Military experience, not about a member of the United States Senate.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:49:54):

Are you, as secretary of defense, going to get involved in the implementation of the US Military Code of Justice?

Pete Hegseth (03:50:01):

Senator, ultimately it will be a big part of my job to evaluate decisions vis-a-vis the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (03:50:08):

I'll take as a yes. Is CQ Brown on your list in the warrior boards to be removed from his position?

Pete Hegseth (03:50:15):

Senator, every single senior officer will be reviewed based on meritocracy, standards, lethality, and commitment to lawful orders they will be given.

Mr. Wicker (03:50:25):

Thank you, Senator Slotkin. I now recognize Senator Shaheen for a unanimous consent request.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen (03:50:32):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a request from a former general who served 35 years. Dennis Laich, who most recently was commander of the 94th Regional Readiness Command at Fort Devens, Mass, who was asked that his letter opposing Mr. Hegseth's nomination be entered into the record.

Mr. Wicker (03:50:53):

Is there objection? Without objection it will be entered. Also, I present a host of letters and op-eds from former co-workers at Vets for Freedom and Concerned Vets for America, as well as Fox News Channel. I also have letters and op-eds from many veterans and Iraqis and Afghanis who were helped by Mr. Hegseth. I ask unanimous consent to introduce these letters and op-eds. Without objection is so ordered. Senator Sheehy, you've been very patient.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:51:39):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Entering a support letter in for Mr. Hegseth submitted by nearly 90 former soldiers who served with Pete in combat. I would like to submit a statement from 86 of them who support his nomination. Although they come from different units and ranks, as signatories commend Mr. Hegseth for his selfless leadership, love of his soldiers, and commitment to our country.

Mr. Wicker (03:51:57):

Two items.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:51:59):

Sorry. One item. I ask a unanimous consent to this into the record.

Mr. Wicker (03:52:02):

Without objection, it will be entered.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:52:05):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pete, I'm actually going to ask you questions because I want to hear your answer. How many genders are there? Tough one.

Pete Hegseth (03:52:15):

Senator, there are two genders.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:52:17):

I know that well. I'm a Sheehy, so I'm on board. What is the diameter of the rifle round fired out of an M4A1 rifle?

Pete Hegseth (03:52:29):

That's a 5.56.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:52:31):

How many push-ups can you do?

Pete Hegseth (03:52:34):

I did five sets of 47 this morning. My brother saw it.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:52:40):

What do you think our most important strategic base is in the Pacific?

Pete Hegseth (03:52:43):

In the Pacific? Guam is pretty strategically significant.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:52:49):

How many rounds of 5.56 can you fit into the magazine of an M4 rifle?

Pete Hegseth (03:52:54):

Depends on the magazine, but standard issue is 30, senator.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:52:58):

And what size round does the M9 Beretta standard issue sidearm for the Military fire?

Pete Hegseth (03:53:03):

A nine millimeter, senator.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:53:07):

What kind of batteries do you put in your night vision goggle?

Pete Hegseth (03:53:12):

Duracell.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:53:16):

So right there you're representing qualifications that show you understand what the war fighter deals with every single day on the battlefield. You understand what happens on the front line, where our troops will be. And what happens, unfortunately, in this country is decisions made in rooms like this, bad decisions end up in dead 17, 18, 19-year-old Americans. And those Americans rarely come from families that sit in rooms like this. They come from lower, middle-income families who, sometimes the Military is their only way out. And they join because maybe they want to go to college. Maybe they had no other choice. Maybe they love this country. But for whatever reason they joined and they signed on the dotted line. And when people like us screw up, they don't come home. And that's the one thing that I care about. As you remember, when I shut the door when you came with their entourage. Senator Coleman. I've known him for a long time. And you and I sat together. I asked you one question. You remember what that question was?

Pete Hegseth (03:54:11):

Are you going to have the backs of the war fighters?

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:54:12):

Exactly. What is going to be your number one priority? And I don't care, frankly, what all these letters and articles say. I've been a part of a smear campaign, too. I get it. I care that you're going to have one thing in mind when you sit in that chair in that five-sided building. And you told me what that was. So with that, you have my support. I'm sorry you have to go through a process like this, but it is one of the most important jobs in the world. We got to make sure you're ready for it. I thank you for your answers.

(03:54:41)
I got one final question that's very important to me. This is more of a technical question, but I think it's, to fix the Army in this country is a one or two-year problem. We can make bullets, we can make rifles. Fix the Air Force might be a five-year problem. To fix our Navy is a decades-long pursuit. How are you going to fix our national… you don't have all the power. We're not China. Unfortunately you can't snap your fingers. But how are you going to lead an initiative when the DOD to reinvigorate our national shipbuilding industry so we were able to compete with China? Because freedom of navigation is critical to our economy and the global economy. It's going to be a very important task for you to complete.

Pete Hegseth (03:55:19):

It's a critical question, senator, and that's why I'm grateful that President Trump has said definitively to me and publicly that shipbuilding will be one of his absolute top priorities of this administration. So a lot of it does go into pulling things up into the OSD's office, secretary of defense's office to shine a spotlight on it to make sure that bureaucracy doesn't strangle important initiatives that need to happen. We need to reinvigorate our defense industrial base in this country to include our shipbuilding capacity.

(03:55:48)
Some of it is on the east, some of it's on the west, some of it's on the Great Lakes. The workforce problems that our shipyards are facing are significant. And there's been a big investment from this committee, I know, in a lot of those places because of the shortfalls. Manpower issues, everything else. But we also see adversaries that have been able to innovate themselves in ways that their shipbuilding capacity is, I won't reveal it at this hearing, multitudes and multitudes beyond our capabilities.

(03:56:15)
So it needs to be a rapid investment, a rapid fielding, and then we need to incentivize outside entities to fill the gap. We talk a lot about UAVs. UAVs are very important, but there's also a future of UUVs, unmanned underwater vehicles that will be a part of amplifying the impact of our Navy, because this administration has allowed our number of ships to drop below 300. It sets a projection of 340 or 350, but doesn't create the capacity to actually address it. And so if we're going to defend our interests, our allies, and put America first, we're going to have to be able to project power. That means shipbuilding. It means historic investments in our defense industrial base there, and then also driving innovation and cost savings in ways that only business leaders inside the Pentagon can do.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:57:08):

I'd add, I don't think any board in the world would've hired Steve Jobs or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg when they founded their companies either. This country was founded by young people who had a great vision. Thank you for being willing to serve your country again, and thanks for coming here today.

Pete Hegseth (03:57:24):

Thank you.

Senator Tim Sheehy (03:57:25):

I yield back, chairman.

Mr. Wicker (03:57:26):

Thank you, Senator Sheehy. You yield back the balance of your time. Mr. Ranking Member, can we agree that you and I will notify members of a specific time until which the record will remain open for submission of questions for the record?

Mr. Reed (03:57:50):

Yes. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wicker (03:57:51):

That will be a day or two. This concludes today's hearing. I want to thank the witnesses and their families. And this hearing is adjourned.

Pete Hegseth (03:58:02):

Thank you, thank you.