but look, kate, a lot of people are going to say, why go on with these award shows? nobody wants to see celebrities collecting awards right now. these are glitzy events, but i want to share a different perspective. if you think about who you have in these rooms, you have the most powerful people with the biggest megaphone, and you have a national broadcast. and to be able to share a message of unity again, to put the spotlight on the first responders, to hopefully raise an incredible amount of funds to help these people. why wouldn't you want to take that opportunity? and the other point that i want to make is the entertainment industry has been suffering from covid to the strikes. all of these shutdowns, 99% of workers in hollywood live paycheck to paycheck, and they depend on gigs like these award shows, from the caterers to the florist to the security guards. so this also provides an incredible amount of work. kate.

while los angeles is suffering so greatly. >> yeah, absolutely. and we'll continue to suffer. i mean, we're talking years of recovery, especially when you see these images here. elizabeth, thank you very much. a new hour of cnn news central starts now. >> all right. three breaking stories developing right now. donald trump's pick for defense secretary pete hegseth on capitol hill. we are standing by for what is expected to be a contentious confirmation hearing. we're pouring over the final report from special counsel jack smith, which was released overnight. some new details about his investigation in the declaration that donald trump was not exonerated, and strong wind gusts sparked a new fire in california. the highest level red flag warning just went into effect. it's expected to be a treacherous 24 hours. i'm john berman with kate bolduan and sara sidner. this is cnn news

central. >> in a matter of moments, one of donald trump's most controversial cabinet nominees will answer senators questions in hopes of being confirmed. pete hegseth was picked to lead the most powerful military in the world. the defense secretary nominee is expected to face tough questions from lawmakers on the senate armed services committee. democrats are expected to press hegseth on a number of allegations against him, ranging from sexual assault to excessive drinking to financial mismanagement of a veterans charity. hegseth has denied all of those allegations, and in his opening remarks, he is expected to tell senators it's time to give someone with dust on his boots at the helm a change agent, someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives. cnn chief congressional correspondent manu raju and cnn anchor kaitlan collins, both on

capitol hill. manu, i want to start with you this morning. what are you learning there? >> this is going to be a very combative hearing as democrats prepare to really go after pete hegseth, questioning not only his qualifications, but all those allegations from the past, allegations that he has frankly denied across the board, whether it's accusations of sexual assault back in 2017, his alleged mismanagement of running two veterans organizations as well as excessive drinking and the like and womanizing, he has said that none of that is true, but that will be part of the questioning from democrats on this committee. >> they met last night to talk about their strategy and also about the fbi background report into pete hegseth. only two members on this committee have been briefed on the contents. the chairman and the ranking democrat. but the rank and file members have not. and that has caused a lot of criticism, particularly from democrats who plan to demand to see this at this closed at this open hearing now. and speaking to those members last night, those democratic members, they

contend there are holes in that investigation. >> was this a thorough fbi investigation, in your opinion? >> no, it was not. >> i only know that some of the folks that have the women in his past, women in his life, have wanted to be interviewed but have not been interviewed by the vetters. >> i believe that there are gaps in this investigation, in the failure to interview significant sources of information, including possibly his former spouses and the victim or survivor of the alleged rape and we have no way to verify whether those gaps exist because we have been barred from seeing the report. >> there are so many questions that are disturbing about this nominee. we hope tomorrow he is not evasive and he answers the questions fully and directly, not evade them. >> but to get confirmed. those

democrats are not necessary. in fact, they can all vote against him and he can still get the job simply because he needs a simple majority in the senate means all republicans except for three is enough for him to get the job today. watch for joni ernst. she's the republican on the armed services committee. someone to watch. she has not said how she will vote, but is considered a swing vote of sorts. how does she respond to his answers? a big question today. >> yeah. thank you manu. let's go now to kaitlan collins. you have some new reporting on on just how hegseth has been preparing, and we've seen his opening statement two and a half pages where he talks about restoring a warrior ethos. give us some sense of what he's been doing as he's going to face. it sounds like some very tough questions. >> yeah. and his team is fully expecting this to be quite a difficult confirmation hearing. sarah. and that's why pete hegseth spent several hours yesterday, i'm told, going over what those questions from those democratic senators who you heard there, not only just downright skeptical of pete hegseth nomination here, preparing for what those

questions are going to be, debating how pete hegseth should best try to answer them in these hearings. obviously, they are time limited when the senators get their chance to ask their questions, but we are expecting them to go over all of these allegations that have loomed over his nomination. allegations that pete hegseth has denied, but that have persisted throughout this entire process leading up to that fbi background check that, as manu was saying there, the chairman and the ranking member of this committee are the only ones who have actually gotten to see that themselves. now, certainly they've talked about it, but they're the only ones who have gotten to see it. and in his opening statement that we got a preview of this morning, sarah, that you just mentioned, pete hegseth talks about how this process over the last several weeks where he's gone in and met with these senators, this advise and consent process has actually been helpful to him, and that's what i've heard as well behind the scenes, because it's kind of given them a preview into what kind of questions he should expect to face today at this hearing, including from people like iowa senator joni ernst, who has been one of the most skeptical

of pete hegseth confirmation, she's gotten a little softer in her criticism of him in recent weeks. and that's the other key thing to watch in this is not just pete hegseth, as he's sitting there at this table facing these questions from republicans and democrats on the armed services committee, also look at who is in the room behind him, because we do expect his wife to be here. she has been accompanying him to a lot of the meetings that he's had here on capitol hill, as he's faced down these allegations about sexual assault and about his past marriages. and so look for her, but also republican allies of the president elect, donald trump, who are expected to be in that room. we just walked by the room where this hearing is going to be. i saw several of them standing outside the door. and that is all important here because there has been a pressure campaign that trump and his allies have mounted, as there's been a lot of criticism of pete hegseth of them following up and really trying to pressure any of the senators who might have been skeptical because pete hegseth needs all of these republicans to vote for him on this committee. and so that is something that is key to watch is not just the questions

coming from the senators, but also the outside influence of any senators who may be skeptical. any republicans of voting to confirm him? >> yeah. the republicans do not need a single democratic vote if they all vote together. so we will see what happens in this confirmation hearing. thank you so much to u. kaitlan collins. and to our manu raju, who is always running the halls and getting answers for the american public. >> kate, the other major headline today and also breaking overnight is donald trump not exonerated? that is what special counsel jack smith says as part of his final report just released into the investigation of trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, detailing in 130 pages donald trump's efforts to stay in power. just as donald trump is about to move back into power in days, smith says in this report that the evidence compiled against donald trump was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. let's get over to katelyn polantz. she's got much more on what we learned in this report. walk us through what jack smith is saying here.

caitlin. >> well, kate, jack smith looked at the evidence that his team has gathered, and they worked to come up with the decision to charge trump. they outline it in this report. it's about 170 pages long. and he says over and over again, we stand behind the charging decisions. we believe that donald trump could have faced a jury and that we could have convinced that jury potentially to find him guilty of these crimes, even after the supreme court's decision on immunity, giving protections around trump in the presidency. one thing that was really notable about the way this report came out, kate, and there was a court fight over it, is that jack smith attached a four page letter in his own voice, describing his team's work and how firmly he believes that this case was appropriate and the work that they did was sound as prosecutors, he says a couple of things that his team stood up for the for the rule of law. he says that they

worked with decency and the highest personal integrity, praising the prosecutors on that team. he also says that even though they were under attack, they were being threatened by people supporting donald trump. trump himself was attacking the work of that team. politics had no role in the decision making that this team did, and that the ultimate decision to charge donald trump fell to jack smith and jack smith alone. and he believes that they did the right thing. here's a quote from smith in that letter. the claim for mr. trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the biden administration or other political actors, is, in a word, laughable. so really, an extraordinary assessment, not just of the evidence against donald trump that never went to trial in court but was charged against him. there is also this assessment from jack smith about why he saw the value in this case. >> yeah, an extraordinary rebuke of the president elect, that's for sure. it's great to

see you, caitlin. thank you for laying it out, john. >> all right. also new this morning, a last ditch attempt to save tiktok. democratic senator ed markey plans to introduce a bill to extend the deadline for the tiktok ban here in the united states by an additional 270 days. that ban is set to take effect january 19th, which is like a few days from now. republican senator rand paul, democratic congressman ro khanna also want to extend the deadline. with me now is someone who feels strongly about this, but i suspect in a different way. republican congressman from south dakota, dusty johnson. congressman, thanks so much for being with us. so how do you feel about this effort? a a bipartisan effort to extend the tiktok ban past january 19th? >> i think it is crazy that we would allow an adversary of the united states to control such a major news outlet. this is not about the content on tiktok. listen, i get it. people are hungry for their goofy dance videos. there are lots of places they can get that. this

is about the fact that we would allow the chinese communist party this kind of access to propaganda channels. we would never have let the soviet union buy up the cbs evening news and the wall street journal. the fact that some are okay with the chinese communist party running tiktok is hard for me to understand. >> so donald trump just days ago posted on social media, quote, why would i want to get rid of tiktok? what do you think about that? >> well, he really is talking about the content there. he sees that too many traditional social media platforms have sometimes in a deliberate way, push back against conservative voices, including donald trump's. so he understands that tiktok has been a, in some respects, a platform that's been friendlier to him. and so, listen, i get it. if we're making an argument about content, clearly the first amendment really, really matters. and we want to have platforms where people are able to say good things about donald

trump, bad things about donald trump. but this is fundamentally about whether or not we want an adversary to have this much control over how 170 million americans get their news. and i would say this there has been nobody in america who has done more to open american eyes to the threats coming from the chinese communist party than donald trump. and for too long we have been sleepwalking through these threats. so i actually think he deserves a lot of credit with tiktok years ago for helping us understand how problematic this really is. >> but you do acknowledge he was for the ban before he was either against it or impartial on the ban. i mean, he was for the same ban that you basically passed in a bipartisan way in congress. now he is saying things like, why would i want to get rid of tiktok? he's, you know, trying to save the app. he says, i'm just not sure he's in the same exact place that you are. congressman. >> no. and he doesn't have to be in the exact same spot i am.

listen, he's a big boy. i'm a big boy. reasonable people can change their opinions based on new facts or on their consideration of the issue. so i get it. everybody wants to drive wedges on the big picture issues about the fact that the chinese communist party is seeking every single day to destabilize our country. donald trump and dusty johnson are in lockstep, and i would note this is an overwhelmingly bipartisan issue. when you look at the big picture threats from the ccp. >> well, look, we'll see. we'll see if you're in lockstep on january 20th or 21st, depending on what the president does. the reason i think this is such an interesting issue is because, as you say, the stakes are incredibly high. i mean, incredibly high in terms of what china is said to have a direct role in, and also because there is genuine bipartisan disagreement. i mean, there are democrats who agree with you 1,000%, but there are also republicans who disagree with you 1,000%. this is one of the few bipartisan issues we have in washington. there was a report bloomberg is reporting this morning that

there are chinese officials who have been musing about the idea of selling tiktok to elon musk. what would you think about that? >> i don't know that i care who buys it. i know kevin o'leary, one of the sharks, has been talked publicly about maybe acquiring it as well. anybody in the world can buy tiktok as long as it's not iran, north korea, russia or china, anybody else can run it. that's what the first amendment is about. let them have their say very quickly. >> jd vance, who will be vice president a few days, said that he thinks that donald trump should pardon or will pardon nonviolent january 6th protesters, probably not violent ones, although he did say there's some gray area with those who committed acts of violence. what do you think that gray area is? >> oh, certainly. >> we can agree that people who. trespassed had a very different january 6th. the people who came in and conducted acts of violence. i'm not opposed to the idea of

looking at each one of these situations on a case by case basis. i think that's only reasonable. we should not in any way condone those people who conducted violence against law enforcement agents or others. and so i think the vice president generally has this right. >> all right. listen, congressman johnson, i appreciate you coming on. please come back next week. i do think this discussion about tiktok is one of the most important. it's got, you know, 100 million users in the united states. there are a lot of people who care about this on both sides. and you're a strong voice on this issue. so thank you. >> thanks much. >> all right sarah. >> all right justin. strong wind gusts posing a new threat that could once again ground firefighting aircraft dropping water and retardant on the flames. we are also live on capitol hill, where any moment now, a confirmation hearing for donald trump's controversial defense secretary nominee will begin. we'll take you there have i got news for you is back for a new season, whether you like it or not.

>> are those the only two choices? >> yes. you like it or you don't? >> i'm on the fence. >> this is going to be a long season. >> have i got news for you returns february 15th on cnn. it. are you ready for this? >> are you ready for this? are you ready for this new alka-seltzer plus cold or flu fizzy chews, chew fizz. >> feel better? >> fast. >> no water needed. new alka-seltzer plus fizzy juice. >> covid 19. i'm not waiting. if it's covid. paxlovid. >> paxlovid is an oral treatment for adults with mild to moderate covid 19 and a high risk factor for becoming severe. it does not prevent covid 19. >> my symptoms are mild now, but i'm not risking it if it's covid. paxlovid. >> paxlovid must be taken within the first five days of symptoms and help stop the virus from multiplying in your body. >> taking paxlovid with certain medicines can lead to serious or life threatening side effects, or affect how it or other medicines work, including hormonal birth control. tell your doctor about all medicines, vitamins and herbal supplements you take as certain tests or dosage changes of your

other medicines may be needed. tell them if you have kidney or liver problems, hiv one r or plan to be pregnant or breastfeed. don't take paxlovid if allergic to its ingredients. stop taking and call your doctor right away. if you have allergic reaction symptoms. serious side effects can include allergic reactions, some severe, like anaphylaxis and liver problems. these are not all the possible side effects, so talk to your doctor if it's covid, paxlovid, ask your doctor today. >> what do you got there, larry? >> time machine. >> you're going to go back and see how the pyramids were built or something? >> nope. ellen and i want to go on vacation, so i'm going to go back to last week and buy a winning lottery ticket. can i come? only room for one. >> how am i getting home? >> sitting on my lap like last time? >> ronald? fine. but i'm bringing this. all right. >> or you could try one of these savings options. >> the right money moves aren't as far fetched as you think. >> there it is. see? told you. it's going to all work out. thanks. future me. >> okay, everyone. >> our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition

for strength and energy. >> ensure with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health and ensure complete with 30g of protein. >> how many subscriptions do you have? >> probably just netflix and spotify, right? >> it's saying you have 13 subscriptions, which is costing you around $270 a month. >> what? >> you can cancel the ones you don't want right through the app, and it can even help you try and get a refund. >> make food this good in a flash with new 15 minute recipes from hellofresh that go from fridge to fork in three simple steps hellofresh homemade, made easy and tasty to wow. three little birds. >> when the temperature drops, you've got two

choices close your eyes and think warm thoughts, or open your eyes and get out here. >> there's only one vehicle lineup that embraces everything the cold has to offer. the official vehicles of winter jeep. >> there's only one right now. >> during the jeep start something new sales event. get $3,500 total bonus cash allowance on most 2024 jeep wrangler gas powered models. hurry in today. >> my parents worked hard for everything we had. they taught me the value of a dollar and how to use it wisely. those lessons are forever and today i share them with all our employees. it's why i team up with vanguard for our company's 401 k plan, because everyone deserves to have someone look out for their financial well-being. >> vanguard 50 years of helping investors be well on their way. at harbor freight, we do business differently from the

other guys. we design and test our own tools and sell them directly to you. no middlemen, just quality tools you can trust at prices you'll love. >> this part changed my life. >> superman. crazy. just that simple little thing over the horse. >> chris wanted to change the world. >> people are literally walking because of him. >> super man, the christopher reeve story february 2nd on cnn let's go right back over to capitol hill. >> and cnn's manu raju has been standing by waiting to see pete hegseth as he's heading in for his confirmation hearing. what do you see, manu? >> yeah, right now we are still waiting for him to arrive. i did see him right down the hallway walking in. we see democratic and republican senators walking, preparing for this very combative hearing. what we've heard from members going in is that this is going to come down a lot along party lines. a lot of republicans are defending him, defending him against accusations from his

past, as well as democrats saying that there are questions about his qualifications, whether he should have the job. let's let's take a second to see if he will actually. here's mr. hegseth now let's see if he gets a chance to answer questions. mr.. hegseth. mr.. hegseth, so the whole committee see the fbi background check, would you support the whole committee seeing the fbi background check experience? >> would you get out of the shot, please? >> all right, so you saw him going in there giving a thumbs up to the crowd. one of the big questions that we have is who else will see this background investigation? remember, right now, only the chairman and the ranking democrat, the chairman roger wicker the republican chairman of the committee and the ranking democrat jack reed have seen this background investigation into pete hegseth. democrats say there's holes in that. republicans say that the democrats are just looking for controversy right now. but there are a lot of members in the rank and file who do want to see this investigation. and one of the things that the democrats plan to address in this hearing in a

matter of minutes, is to see it. they want to all see this. and typically for nominees, it's only the chairman and the ranking member who see those background checks. but it doesn't always happen that way. in fact, oftentimes or sometimes in controversial situations like one of the most famous one, john tower, who was the last nominee, who was actually voted down by the senate, a cabinet nominee voted down by the senate over allegations himself of excessive drinking as he was picked to lead the pentagon. the whole committee at that point did see the fbi background check. expect democrats to point to that in this hearing here. but as i tried to ask pete hegseth on his way in, if you support having the whole committee see that background check didn't respond to that. not surprising. nominees often don't respond to questions on their way in, but republicans are still feeling confident despite all the democrats ratcheting up their attacks, planning to go after him about everything from the past, about whether he's qualified for the job. expect a lot of republican defense behind him, and republican defense is what he needs in order to get the job. >> that's right, manu, and what we're showing right now, manu, is just through that doorway

that you're standing, that you're standing by right there inside the committee hearing room. pete hegseth is going to be walking in. he may he's probably in there in shaking hands with people behind the dais. that's generally what they do before he's going to sit down and manu, explain for everyone, walk through what's exactly going to happen. now once they gavel in, he's in for hours, likely of questioning laid out for people. >> yeah, yeah. >> we expect this to be a very long, contentious affair. first, they'll be opening statements by the chairman and the ranking member. then there'll be people who will be supporting pete hegseth introducing him as well. the former senator, norm coleman, i'm told, will be one of the people supporting him, as well as donald trump's pick to be his national security advisor. congressman mike waltz will be actually in here defending him as well. he just was just actually just spoke to reporters moments ago, defended pete hegseth service, pushed back against the attacks, that he is not qualified for the job. so then they he'll make those statements and then pete hegseth himself will deliver his opening statement. we've

seen an early copy of it. he's going to plan to talk about how he plans to try to bring the military back to a lethal fighting force, to defend how he's a much different and unconventional nominee of sorts. so expect him to make his case. and then each of the members, the 27 members on the senate armed services committee, will get about seven minutes each to question pete hegseth and then stopped by the republican, the democrat. they're going to rotate, and then there'll be a second round of questioning after that for about five minutes or so. so this is going to be a long contentious affair. can democrats trip him up? will it change any republican minds? huge question. as pete said, he's trying to get one of the most important jobs in government. a critical moment in his confirmation hearing. in a matter of minutes. >> and and it's and it is all of that wrapped into one manu that you're hitting on. that's why this is so important. it's not only a controversial pick for cabinet, for a cabinet secretary from donald trump. this is also defense secretary is one he's going to be running. i believe it's the largest agency in the federal government, an $800 billion budget. and that is why

when it comes to the senate, this advise and consent role and responsibility is so critical. and they do take this responsibility very seriously. this is an important moment for what it's going to look like going forward. for donald trump's second term. manu is standing outside. we're watching the inside right there. we're going to we're going to get back to senator wicker. >> senator wicker, hang on one second. >> go back to him, guys. >> not a thorough investigation. senator wicker, are you okay? >> that's the chairman, the republican chairman of the committee. we'll get right back to it. a lot happening on capitol hill right now. we'll get right back to you. >> kobe believed in himself at the youngest possible age. >> it's one of the most remarkable stories in sports history. >> i don't want to be remembered as just a basketball player. >> kobe premieres january 25th on cnn. >> can support your brain health. >> mary. janet. hey, eddie. no. fraser. frank. frank. >> fred, how are you? >> fred? >> support up to seven brain

health indicators, including memory. when you need to remember. remember. >> never want a next level clean swish with the whoa of listerine. it kills 99.9% of bad breath germs for five times more cleaning power than brushing and flossing alone. get a next level clean with listerine. feel the whoa! >> at humana, we believe your health care should evolve with you, and part of that evolution means choosing the right medicare plan for you. humana can help. hi, my name is sam davis, and i'm going to tell you about medicare advantage prescription drug plans that can provide more coverage than original medicare, including prescription drug coverage, all wrapped up into one convenient plan. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you have to meet a deductible for each, and then you're still responsible for 20% of the cost. next, let's look at medicare supplement plans. if a service is covered under

original medicare, then a medicare supplement plan pays for some or all of your medicare deductibles and the 20% coinsurance. but they may have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. humana medicare advantage prescription drug plans include medical coverage, plus prescription drug coverage with $0 copays on hundreds of prescriptions. most plans include $0 copays for covered preventive dental services, vision coverage that includes vision exams and a yearly allowance toward eyewear, even hearing benefits that include routine hearing exams and coverage toward hearing aids. you can get $0 copays for in-network preventive services and $0 co-pays for routine vaccines, and there's worldwide coverage for emergency and urgent care. when you travel. plus, humana also offers medicare advantage plans. plans have $0 or low monthly plan premiums, and there's a cap on your out of

costs, so call or go online today to see if there's a humana plan in your area. and to get our free decision guide. licensed humana sales agents are standing by. so call now. humana a more human way to health care. >> your life is pretty smart, but when it's time to eat, suddenly you feel out of sync. refresh your routine with factor chef prepared meals delivered with a tap ready in two minutes. eat smart with factor tackling quarterbacks or tackling subscriptions. >> whoa! >> if i had to choose tackling quarterbacks because it's so easy to tackle subscriptions with experience. easy. i'll go tackle those

for all those making it big out there... ...shouldn't your mobile service be able to keep up with you? get wifi speeds up to a gig at home and on the go. introducing powerboost, only from xfinity mobile. now that's big. yeah. all it takes is a few taps. solid rocket money today. >> stars have come to play. >> playing against carolina is really hard. they hit a lot. oh my goodness. always a handful playing against edmonton. two top players in the league. you

talk about awesomeness. >> hurricanes. sabers. oilers. wild. >> tomorrow at 530 on tnt. >> all right. you are looking at live pictures from capitol hill. this is the dirksen senate office building. a large hearing room. pete hegseth just walked in. this is the senate armed services committee. hegseth is president-elect trump's pick to be defense secretary. you're looking at the armed services chair, roger wicker. >> good morning. >> the hearing will come to order. >> let's listen in. >> the committee on armed services has convened this hearing to consider the pending nomination of mr. pete hegseth to be secretary of defense. and at this point, um, in light of the continued suffering and death in, in and around los angeles, california, i'm. i'm going to ask my colleagues and those in

the audience to, um, observe a moment of silence. >> i'm in. thank you. i also want to take this opportunity to thank my good friend, um, ranking member jack reed. this is my first opportunity to chair this committee and this congress. i want to thank senator reed. under his chairmanship, he proved time after time that he cares deeply about national security and about the united states of america, and particularly the men and women who wear the uniform and stand watch both here and around the world to protect the united states. senator reed, i want to thank you for the many courtesies that you have extended to me in the past, and i look forward to working with you again in a bipartisan fashion. this congress, um, it's also

appropriate to recognize and welcome three senators attending their very first senate armed service committee hearing as members. senator banks of indiana, senator sheehy of montana, and senator slotkin of michigan. we are excited to have you as committee colleagues and look forward to many important contributions, contributions from each of you. and senator slotkin, as i look down at the end of the dais there, it seems that only a week or two ago, i was sitting in that very chair, uh, being recognized by the chairman of the committee, the distinguished senator from michigan. so. time. time flies. now, um, let me say this. we had, uh, uh, very appropriate

expression of approval. uh, by the members of the pardon me, members of the audience as, um, as our nominee and his family walked in, um, the the distinguished ranking member. and i sincerely hope that that is the last, uh, signal of approval or disapproval in, uh, in today's hearing, um, people of the public are here. they're welcome to observe today's hearing. and, um, senator reed and i agree, though, that no disruptions will be allowed. audience members may not verbally or physically distract from the hearing to include shouting, standing or raising signage or gestures that block the view of the audience. um, and we're we're very serious about this. um, aren't we? um, mr. reed and those who do so

will be immediately escorted from the room. um, so, um, again, welcome to the witnesses to his friends and to interested members of of the public. um, if confirmed. um, mr. pete hegseth would assume the role in a moment of consequence, the united states faces the most dangerous security environment since world war two. we're witnessing the explosive growth and reach of china's hard power. we're also observing the emergence of an axis of aggressors. that coalition is characterized by broadening and deepening military cooperation among the dictatorships ruling china, russia, iran and north korea. terrorism remains a threat, as

israel wages war against hamas and hezbollah, and as the assad regime collapses in syria. america has entered a window of maximum danger, and the department needs energetic and focused civilian leadership. those values begin at the top with the secretary of defense. many of my distinguished colleague colleagues have served in a significant tenure on this committee, and our meetings are fairly long. we should reflect over previous secretaries of defense and their hearings and ask ourselves a simple question. has the civilian leadership of the pentagon, under the administration of both parties, proven up to the challenge? often the answer has been no. the civilian leadership has not built the department of defense to meet the moment. and this is our moment to correct that. a few examples illustrate how leaders in the past have fallen

short. most of the department's signature programs run years behind schedule, and billions of dollars over cost. vital initiatives have suffered, such as the f-35, the new sentinel icbm, and the navy's shipbuilding program, including the constellation class frigate. the department of defense desperately needs civilian leaders who listen to the advice of combatant commanders, many of whom would benefit from innovative systems. yet a risk averse dod culture has kept too many promising technologies on the wrong side of the so-called valley of death. that tenuous period between experimental prototypes and production contracts. defense companies backed by venture capital receive less than 1% of defense contracts. as we all know, the pentagon still cannot even pass an audit. the department must simplify and streamline its bureaucracy so it can respond

to. innovation. staffs have ballooned. organizations are top heavy. civilian leaders have promised time and again to slim down the bureaucracy and perhaps genuinely hoped to. every day, men and women in uniform make tremendous contributions to u.s. security. they and the american people deserve a pentagon that does the same. today's department of defense is no longer prepared for great power competition. it is not a national defense institution ready to achieve and sustain technological supremacy across the range of operations. admittedly, this nomination is unconventional. the nominee is. unconventional, just like that new york developer who rode down the escalator in 2015 to announce his candidacy. candidacy for president. that may be what makes mr. hegseth an excellent choice to improve this

unacceptable status quo that i just described. he is a decorated post 911 combat veteran. he will inject a new warrior ethos into the pentagon, a spirit that can cascade from the top down. mr. hegseth will bring energy and fresh ideas to shake up the bureaucracy. he will focus relentlessly on the warfighter and the military's core missions, deterring wars and winning the ones we must fight. he will bring a swift end to corrosive distractions such as die. today, many simply acknowledge and live with the systemic problems i have mentioned earlier in acquisition, accountability, technology transition, and organizational civil service reform. mr. hegseth will actually move to fix these issues decisively. in short, i'm confident that mr. hegseth, supported by a team of

experienced top officials, will get the job done. the secretary of defense is an incredibly important position, but the secretary's span of control is limited. the pentagon is vast with 3 million plus personnel, uniformed civilian and contractor. a successful secretary understands that steering the ship means focusing his attention on strategic level priorities. the secretary must be supported with exceptional subordinates who will run the day to day affairs of the office of the secretary of defense, the military services and the other dod components. i'm also confident that as an infantryman, mr. hegseth understands the military principle of commander's intent. communicate, the clear objective, empower subordinates to use initiative and judgment, and hold everybody accountable. we must not underestimate the importance of having a top

shelf communicator. as secretary of defense, other than the president. no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform. the congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace through strength defense policy. i have no doubt mr. hegseth will excel in a skill in which many of his predecessors have fallen short. much has been made of both mr. hegseth personal life and some of his policy pronouncements regarding his personal conduct. mr. hegseth has admitted to falling short, as we all do from time to time. it is noteworthy that the vast majority of the accusations leveled at mr. hegseth have come from anonymous sources. contrast these anonymous accusations with the many public letters of support and commendation we have seen letters from people who served with mr. hegseth. these individuals have worked with him professionally. they really know him and his character.

these patriotic americans have been willing to put their names and reputations on the line to support mr. hegseth. i look forward to sharing these testimonials with the american people. let me mention one right now. it comes from david bellavia, who earned the medal of honor for heroic actions in combat in fallujah, iraq. david bellavia writes the following pete is fearless, unflappable, and confronts conflicts head on. he's a leader to the core. when pete is confirmed as the next secretary of defense of the united states of america, this country will finally know the privilege of having a true ambassador able to speak on behalf of this generation and its two decade global war on terror. washington doesn't build men like pete. combat builds men like pete. as i said, there are more letters expressing the same

endorsement. today we will hear from the nominee directly. i want to thank mr. hegseth, as well as his loved ones, for being here today. i look forward to discussing his nomination. i look forward to hearing from mr. hegseth about the ways he hopes to rebuild the american strength that secures the peace, and so now i turn to my friend and colleague, ranking member reed, for his opening remarks. >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i'd like to first congratulate you on your chairmanship. >> i look forward to continuing our committee's strong tradition of bipartisanship and collaboration. and thank you for your thoughtful and conscientious service to the committee over many years. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd also like to take a moment to join chairman wicker in welcoming our new members. senator slotkin, senator banks and senator shaheen, welcome. we look forward to working with you. mr. hegseth, i welcome you and your family to today's hearing. and i'm also glad to recognize my former colleague, norm

coleman and congressman mike waltz. thank you, congressman. mr. hegseth, i want to begin by saying that i respect and appreciate your military service in the army national guard. i know from experience that there is no greater privilege than to lead american soldiers. and i thank you for answering the call. you have been nominated to be the secretary of defense. the secretary is responsible for leading a department of 3.5 million service members and civilians, an annual budget of nearly $900 billion and hundreds of thousands of aircraft, ships, submarines, combat vehicles, satellites and the nuclear arsenal. the secretary also plays a powerful role with our allies, partners and adversaries abroad. and as we speak, china is seeking to undermine our interests, intimidate our friends, and challenge our standing in the world. russia's campaign against ukraine threatens not only europe, but the entire global order. ongoing violence in the middle east has teetered

on the edge of all out war, and the ideologies and actions of violent extremists endanger our citizens, even on our own soil. as the recent tragedy in new orleans painfully reminds us. these are perilous times, and the position of secretary of defense demands a leader of unparalleled experience, wisdom, and, above all else, character. the secretary is expected to be a fair, nonpartisan and responsible leader, as well as a trustworthy advocate for the men and women that he leads. mr. hague said, i do not believe that you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job. we must acknowledge the concerning public reports against you. a variety of sources, including your own writings, implicate you with disregarding the laws of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol

abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other troubling issues. i have reviewed many of these allegations and find them extremely alarming. indeed. the totality of your own writings and alleged conduct would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed as the secretary of defense. nonetheless, i understand that you reject many of these reports as they involve whistleblower's non-disclosure agreements and anonymous. although numerous sources, including those who have faced political intimidation for sharing their experiences. i hope you will address each of these allegations thoroughly and truthfully during your testimony. just as importantly, i hope you will pledge to prevent any repercussions for whistleblowers, both civilian and military. if confirmed. mr. hegseth, during our meeting last week, you said that if confirmed, your top priority would be, quote, restoring a warrior culture to the

department of defense because you believe the u.s. military has been weakened by political correctness over the years, you have made clear your opinion of the military's diversity initiatives. as you have said, quote, diversity is not our strength. unity is. and in a recent podcast, you said, quote, i'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. when i joined the army as a young officer in the 1970s, the u.s. military was rife with racial tension. women were prohibited from serving in most roles. gay service members were banned, and we relied on a national draft to fill our ranks. the soldiers i served with were proud to do so, but it was certainly not the nation's most capable military by any standard. we have made great progress since then. today, the department of defense is fully integrated. every race and religion is accepted. women serve in all combat roles and leadership positions. sexual orientation is irrelevant to service, and the all volunteer

force visibly reflects the nation it protects. our military is more diverse than it has ever been, but more importantly, it is more lethal than it has ever been. this is not a coincidence. mr. haugestad, i hope you will explain why you believe such diversity is making the military weak, and how you propose to undo that without undermining military leadership and harming readiness, recruitment and retention. mr. hegseth that another reason i am 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 tuned 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 cause. 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 of the judge advocate general while on deployment. in your book, the war on warriors, you write, quote, 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 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. 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. 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. hegseth, i hope you will explain what actions you will take, if confirmed, to be a better steward of defense department's large budget. 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 secretaries 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. for example, in your book american crusade, you wrote, quote, 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, that 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. 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 for secretary of defense that i've had the honor to consider as a member of the senate armed services 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. >> 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 an introduction. 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 is young in the best sense of the word. he is 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 saint paul and

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. please don't give in to 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. 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. >> thank you. norm, i do appreciate that and appreciate your presence today. i now have the honor and pleasure of. um of introducing congressman waltz. i understand, congressman, you are still a member of the house for another day or two. another

day or two. okay. and. i now recognize congressman waltz for whatever opening statement and introduction he might make. >> 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, a decade now. like pete, i served in the u.s. 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 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. 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 interests 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 cost, the financial cost and the policy drift that was discussed often in this very room. that led us to decades and decades of war. 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 ethos is what our enemies will respect. that warrior ethos is what our enemies will fear, and it's that warrior ethos that will keep the peace. and look, 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

and here we are decades later, describing the same problems the pentagon has continuously failed, audits the businesses that want to do business with the 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. 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 strong 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. thank you. >> 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? yes, sir. have you assumed any duties or taken any actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? no, sir. 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? >> yes, sir.

>> 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. yes, sir. 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? >> yes, sir. >> will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests? >> yes, sir. >> will those witnesses and briefers be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings? yes, sir. all right. um. so, so at this point, um, mr.

hegseth, you are recognized for your opening statement. >> 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 advise 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. thank you to my father, brian and mother penny, as well as our entire family, including our seven wonderful kids, gunnar jackson, peter boone, kensington, luke. jack, 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. >> you are misogynists. not only that, you are a christian scientist and you support the war in gaza by the zionists. >> i want to thank the authorities for their swift reaction to that outburst and state that that. similar interruptions will be treated in like manner. mr. hegseth, you may continue. >> 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, warfighting accountability and readiness. and gaza kathryn barger, ken martin, sue kohl michael holmes. >> mcgowan and joe biden. and your testimony to john metchie derrick henry.

>> you may continue, sir. >> returning the pentagon back to warfighting. that's it. that's my job. >> mr.. hegseth, suspend your remarks. let me just say this. the capitol police are going to remove immediately individuals that are disrupting the hearing. i see a pattern. attempted. to be inflicted on the committee. and and we're simply not going to tolerate that. you may proceed. >> 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

you. >> remember, members of the security force will remove members. mr.. mr.. hegseth, you may you may 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. 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 is 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. this has been my focus ever since i first put on the uniform. as a young army rotc cadet 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, d.c., 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. 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. 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 downrange, 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. 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 well-being of our troops, and a strong and secure america. thank you for the time and i look forward to your questions. >> 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. um, let's get into this allegation about, um, sexual assault, inappropriate workplace behavior, alcohol abuse and financial mismanagement during your time as a nonprofit executive. i

should note that the majority of these have come from anonymous sources in, um, liberal media publications. but i want to give you an opportunity to respond to these allegations, sir. >> mr. chairman, thank. mr. chairman, thank you for that opportunity. um, you are correct. we undertook this responsibility with an obligation to the troops to do right by them for our warfighters. 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. um, 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, 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, you know, i've, 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 ten 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 100 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. 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 war fighting. so i am 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 as zain asher 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, concern 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. i'm not a perfect person, as has been acknowledged, say, 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 i look forward to leading this pentagon on behalf of the warfighters. >> thank you, mr. hegseth. and frankly, i'm sure there are millions of americans watching who would would agree that that they've experienced that same sort of redemption. so i do appreciate that. i realize that it involves a little baring 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, for. freedom's forge, which you've also had a chance to look at, and you have noted correctly

that, um, 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, 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? >> yes, sir, i do. >> um. um. so, uh, tell us what you think about, uh, particularly about my plan to make the defense department, uh, less bureaucratic, less top heavy, cut out some of the bureaucracy and layers, make it more, um, more friendly to startups and to new ideas contained in my 20 or so page white paper. um, uh, defending freedom's forge. >> uh, 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 warfighters. but past is prolog on this, sir. and i would just look at what president trump after 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 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%, mister chairman, is very dangerous. >> okay, we've got 45 seconds. tell us. um, in that point, get us started at least talking about

deterring china in the indo-pacific. >> it starts with priorities. it starts 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 is 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, um, the ccp is front and center, also obviously defending our homeland as well. >> thank you very much. senator reed, you are recognized. >> 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. uh, senator hagel was afforded three rounds. uh, senator ashcroft or two rounds. uh, and that was done

by a republican chairman with the consent and the appropriate guidance of, uh, democrats. i must say, to my recollection, is i've never denied anyone the opportunity to ask the second round of questions. as i chaired, i would request the second round. and my time is running out. i think these are. >> oh, yeah. you're using your time. no. uh, if the timekeeper will will pause the, uh, the time, um, i, i must say, i think we're going to have adequate time for questioning. and i know democrat members have, uh, have coordinated their questions as much as we have. and we are we are following the same exact precedent on on all things that we did with secretary austin. so. i, i, um, 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 to stick with that that agreement, which we made last december. what is your second request? >> second, uh, 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, uh, there are still fbi, uh, obligations to talk to people. they have not had access to the forensic audit, which i referenced to in the person who had access to was quite critical of mr. hegseth. uh, and 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. uh, so i would ask and i would say to as a precedent, uh, 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 again, we are 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, and and that was for the chair and the ranking member to see the report. and so, um, that is my intention as chair of this committee. >> uh, finally, mr. chairman, i have several letters that i would include, for the record, uh, one from count every hero, which is an organization of retired four star generals and former secretaries of defense that are critical of the proposed purge panels, one from

an organization for domestic violence, one for a council on american relations. uh, and also, uh, excuse me. and also several letters that raised questions i would ask. they be submitted for the record. >> without objection, they will be submitted. and, mr. reed, your time has now expired. just kidding. yeah. you're you're recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you. you're very understanding, chairman, i like that. i like that, uh, miss hegseth, you've written and it's quote. oh, yeah. and fire any general who hasn't carried water for obama and biden's extra constitution and agenda driven transformation for 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 retirement. end quote. now, i want to remind everyone that these policies that are being referred to, uh, date back. decades to the 1940s and 50s with respect to racial discrimination, particularly, and administrations of both parties, including the trump administration and their first

party, uh, caused those policies to be enforced. mr. head said. are you aware of these emails being sent to officers? >> senator, you mentioned the word accountability, which is something we have not had for the last four years. >> are you aware of these messages being sent to officers? >> 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. excuse me. is that leadership has been unwilling to take accountability, and it's time to restore that to our most senior ranks. you have written publicly that dahiyeh policy is a distraction and have military personnel walking on eggshells. >> do you believe that emails like that that are essentially threatening both, uh, serving officer and a spouse and claiming that they'll lose their pension will have a distraction and detract from the lethality?

>> senator, you mentioned the 40s and 50s. you're 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 is incredibly important. do you mean, 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. excuse me. and why we're having this conversation. >> 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 is, i see emerging is to politicize the military in favor of your

particular positions, which have 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. uh, let me change subjects for a moment here. uh. you've been instrumental in securing pardons for several convicted war criminals. uh, and at least two of these cases, the military personnel who served in combat with these convicted service were not supportive of the pardons. they did their duty as soldiers to report war crimes. uh, 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? your service members who personally witnessed these and took courageously reported them to their superiors? >> senator, as someone who's led men in combat directly and had to make very difficult decisions, i've thought 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 to defeat our enemies. 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 warfighter, to the men and women with dust on their boots,

not the second guessers in air conditioned offices in washington, d.c. excuse me, i look 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. >> those cases were adjudicated, were adjudicated by who? people in washington or fellow noncommissioned officers who had also served to sacrifice and believed in the ethic of the military, who who were the who were the court martialed? >> senator, in multiple cases, they were actually acquitted, but charges lingered. yes, regardless of where those some were competing authorities were. >> yes, sir. 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

principal elements is discipline, respect for lawful authority? you have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a jag officer. oh, by the way, would you explain what a jag off is? >> i don't think i need to, sir. >> why not? >> because the men and women watching understand? >> well, perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand. >> it would be a jag officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the warfighters. their promotions, their medals, in front of having the backs of those who are making the tough calls on the front lines. >> thank you. senator. >> interesting. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you very much, senator fischer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, mr. hegseth, to 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, i believe, agreed on this. it 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, um, and agree with president trump's 2018 nuclear posture review, that preventing adversary nuclear attacks is, quote, the highest priority of the united states? >> senator, yes, i do. >> if confirmed, will you commit to supporting all three

legs of the nuclear triad and using every tool available to deliver these systems on schedule? >> senator? yes, i do, because ultimately, our deterrence, our survival is reliant upon the capability, 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. >> 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, um, move forward, be rewarded? i can tell you, in most every briefing we have,

um, the schedules we're on are too late. so what would you do? >> well, ultimately, ultimately focused 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 two, the sentinel, all, 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. >> it's the existential threat. >> it's the existential threat to this nation. how do you change the 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?

>> 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, uh, tries to block new technologies from coming in. so we have to embrace that, provide there's some great offices of strategic capital d new initiatives that provide loans to companies to participate, because you have to invent, 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, 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. >> uh, in the 2025 ndaa, it was established to a new position. the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear deterrence, chemical and biological defense policies and programs. and that was established so we could cut through a lot of the bureaucratic stovepipes that 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? >> i it sounds i would i would want to look directly at exactly what that reform is. >> it is, i take your word that it's great, senator.

>> i will review it robustly. and i look forward to implementing it. >> okay. thank you. uh, during the first trump administration, the 2018 nuclear posture review concluded that the u.s. needed to once again develop and deploy a nuclear armed, sea launched cruise missile known as slocum 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 slocum program? >> as of right now, senator, based on what i know, i do, but one of my answers i'll have repeatedly throughout this this morning is getting an opportunity to look under the hood classified material, get an understanding of true capabilities vis a 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. >> would you, um, would you ensure that this program is executed according to law? >> absolutely, absolutely. senator. >> what short? short here. what is your plan to revitalize the industrial base in this country needs to be real short. >> real short um. >> 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. >> you may want to expand on that. on the record at this

point, uh, my colleagues, i would, um, 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 nomination. i ask unanimous consent. without objection, it is entered into the record. senator shaheen. >> good morning, mr. hegseth. >> good morning, senator. >> 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? >> senator, i very much appreciate and understand the traditionally bipartisan nature of this committee there. 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 on priorities facing this nation. >> yes, 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. um, as recently as november the 7th of 2024 on the

sean 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. um, that was before you were nominated to be secretary of defense. um, mr. hegseth, do you know what percentage of our military is comprised of women? >> um, i believe it's 18 to 20%, senator. >> 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? >> 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. >> 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? >> i'm incredibly grateful for the 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, readiness. i appreciate that. and so my comments, however, time and time again to standards, your

statements publicly have not been to that effect. >> after your nomination, you did state to a group of reporters that you quote, support all women serving in our military today who do a fantastic job across the globe, including combat. um, 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 at 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? >> 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 defines 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. well, i appreciate your 11th hour conversion, but, mr. chairman, for the record, i would like to submit chapter five, the deadly obsession with women warriors. >> for the record, um, mr. hegseth, without objection, will be submitted. are you familiar with the women, peace and security agenda at the department of defense? >> uh, yes, ma'am, i am, um, 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 based on your comments, it 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? >> 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. >> since former president trump signed the law, i hope that he agrees with you. >> 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 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. mr. hegseth and comment on his focus on merit, warfighting readiness, military training status, and the warrior ethos. so without objection, it will be entered into the record. um, and now i'm honored to recognize senator cotton for seven minutes. >> mr. hegseth, let's continue on this line of questioning about what sometimes referred to as women in combat. i think that phrase is something of a misnomer. um, 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. you

served, i assume you served with women who were on the front lines as well. is that correct? yes, sir. and were those women anything other than skilled, brave and honorable in their service? >> they were some of the best soldiers i worked with. >> 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 ten years ago, that wasn't the case under secretary panetta. those roles were opened up to women to serve in, um, just as president trump indicated at all that he plans to rescind or alter that guidance. >> 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 me 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. and senator, in any place where those things have been eroded or in courses, criteria have been changed in order to meet quotas, uh, 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. okay. >> 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 100 pounds, and 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 100 pounds. nothing you can do can change any of those things, right? that is physical reality uh. >> go ahead. 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. >> 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 and 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? >> uh, 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 cocoms 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. >> 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. um, let's move on. did you got a big 22 minutes? thank you. we've got a big audience here. many of them seem to be patriotic. supporters of you, mr. hegseth. 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 senator? >> i support i am a christian and i robustly support the state of israel and its existential defense and the way america comes alongside them as their great ally, because another one, another protester, and i think this one was a member of codepink, 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, senator?

>> i do, i support israel destroying and killing every last member of hamas. >> and 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? >> senator, i do not. i think our senator, our troops, as you know, as so many in this committee know, did the best they could with what they had. 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. thank you, mr. hegseth. >> thank you, senator cotton. at this point, i offer i ask unanimous consent to offer to the record a letter submitted by omar abassi, son of former city council president of samarra, iraq, who worked with mr. hegseth in iraq. without objection, that will be entered. senator gillibrand. >> thank you, mr. chairman. um,

thank you, mr. hegseth. i do want to thank you for your service, and i want to thank you for your willingness to serve in this capacity. >> thank you. >> senator, i have many concerns about your record and particularly your public statements, because they are so hurtful to the men and women who are currently serving in the u.s. 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 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 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 reinstitute the combat arms exclusion for female service members, knowing full well you have hundreds of women doing that job right now 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 are 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 are not secretary of defense, then i get you are 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. >> well, senator, i appreciate your your comments. and i would point out i have 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 and it the book that has been referenced 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 and indirect, overt and subtle standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school infantry battalions to ensure that commanders, please give me an example. >> i get you're making these generalized statements quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers or infantry enlisted, and that disparages those women commanders are not capable of

meeting that 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 there that these exist because they do not. there are not quotas. we want the most lethal force. but i'm telling you, having 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 and 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. 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 a thousand in mission critical areas. we lost 10% of all our foreign language speakers because of a political policy. 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. i mean, you're basically saying women after they have children can't ever serve in the military in a combat role. it's it's a it's a silly thing to say. it's a silly thing to say beneath the position that you are aspiring

to, to denigrate lgbtq service members is 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. you say it was a political thing. you say it undermined u.s. social engineering. i don't know why having 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? >> senator, as the president has stated, i don't disagree with the overturn of don't ask, don't tell. >> 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, 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. >> uh, thank you very much, senator gillibrand. you you held up a document and referred to it during your questioning. would you like that entered into the record without my. okay. you okay? we'll we'll delete we'll submit a clean copy without objection. that will be admitted at the 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. >> thank you, mr. chairman. um, first of all, good morning. uh, 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. i also want to recognize your family's service and sacrifice. you know as well as anyone that it's not just a man that enters the arena, but it's the entire family who also works their way through this process as well. uh, i appreciated our meeting with you and with your wife, jennifer, this last month. 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 warfighting 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, senator, thank you very much for the opportunity to meet and for the question. >> i would i would also acknowledge, um, 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. so 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 the duty positions involved in that job, uh, as far as politics, senator, i 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. >> i appreciate you making that very clear. and i 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. um, mr. hegseth, from what i've heard from 24 senior dod officials and 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 warfighting capabilities. 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 and 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 warfighter requirements for the use of the spectrum? >> 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. and in this particular case, as far as spectrum, i look forward, as i've said before, getting a full classified because this issue has come up a number of times in meetings. it's critically important with how how our warfighters communicate across all services. so i'm going to get a classified briefing immediately about what that would, how it would impact the spectrum if it were to allow other companies or other to be rest assured, china would to know. >> china would love to have our ability to use that part of the spectrum restricted. they would love that. >> 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 briefing. >> thank you. in your advance policy questions, you recognize a cooperative approach by china, russia, iran and north korea to undermine u.s. influence around the world. as you point out, aggression by won or by any one actor would be an opportunity for others to engage the u.s. 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? 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 that you're aware of that and that we will have if we have a fight with one, the chances are very good that we're going to have two battles or two different battlegrounds at the same time. >> senator, which which is why i believe our country is

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 to 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. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and thank you very much, senator blumenthal. >> thank you, 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. 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 $1,000 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? >> 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. we raised we raised donor funds and i took 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 warfighters. exactly why we're here today. the warfighters in the iraq surge. there was a campaign in 2008, senator barack obama, if i john mccain, ask you and i believe john mccain would be the right person to win. and so we spent more from that organization. i'm glad they're in. >> for the record, i'm going to ask to be entered into the record. mr. chairman. >> um, without objection, 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 nine 90s 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. in between. >> senator, i went to harvard. >> i want to ask you some questions, and i want to ask you questions about concerned veterans for america. again, another set of tax returns, the nine 90s from that organization. i asked that they be made part of the record. mr. chairman, without objection, both of those returns are now part of the record 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 dollars, not 10 or 15 million, which was the case that 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 the end strength? >> senator, i would like an opportunity to respond to, well, i'm impugning of my leadership of veterans organization, concerned veterans for america. you're on the va committee, sir, and i appreciate your service there. um, the the va accountability act and the mission act were all brainchild of concerned veterans for america. we used our donor money very intentionally and focused to create policy that bettered the lives of veterans. mr.. >> hegseth, i'm asking you a very simple question. how many men and women currently serve in the united states army? >> senator, the united states army, 450,000 on active duty, sir. >> and how many in the navy and the navy is 425, sir. well, it's 337 this year. how many in the marine corps?

>> 175, 175,000, sir. >> 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. >> senator, i'm not in charge of fbi background checks, but you would submit to

it and support it. i'm not in charge of fbi background checks. thank you. >> senator blumenthal. i at this point want to submit a letter from captain. wade zirkle, the founder of vets for freedom, and the person who hired pete hegseth to run the organization. although the two 2008 financial crisis dried up, fundraising for non-profits, captain zirkle 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, and impressive feat, and a testament to pete's character, pete departed vf 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 are recognized for seven minutes. >> 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, quote, laid a strong foundation that postured cva for long term success, end quote, and that mr. hegseth quote continued to be an invaluable asset to both me as a leader and the organization. end quote. so i would ask for unanimous consent to enter this washington times article and the letter from mr. mark lucas into the record. >> without objection. >> okay. thank you, mr. chair. good morning, mr. hegseth, and 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. um, you and i have had many productive conversations and just for our audience, we have had very frank conversations. is that correct, mr. hegseth? >> senator, that is a correct characterization. >> you know that i don't keep any anything hidden. pull no punches. um, 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. 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 the financial concerns that have been raised here as well. and it's why, you know, i trusting my fellow iowan, ask for unanimous consent of this 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? >> 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 have very generous donors who set a very clear budget that we stuck to every single year. so the latitude there was was restricted, and we worked very hard and diligently inside it. you've also been a leader on the pentagon, ordered 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 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. 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. i 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 we talked about that in my office. i do believe in high standards. now, i was denied the opportunity to serve in any combat role. um, 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. um, 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? >> senator, first of all, thank you for your service. as we discussed extensively as well, it's my privilege and my answer is yes, exactly the way that you caveated it. yes, women will have access to ground combat roles. combat roles, 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 will be part of. 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 to, if confirmed, to be the secretary of defense for all men and women in uniform who fight so heroic, 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.

>> 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 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. um, 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, and on how we address the tragic and life altering, um, 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?

>> senator, as we have discussed, yes, i will, okay. >> and my time has expired. thank you for your answers. >> senator hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. uh, mr. hegseth, welcome. >> thank you. >> 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 to 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? >> no. >> senator, have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?

>> senator? i was falsely accused in october of 2017. it was fully investigated and i was completely cleared. >> i don't think completely cleared is accurate, but my the 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. moving on, as secretary, you will 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? senator, yes or no? >> multiple false anonymous reports peddled by nbc news. do you know that run directly contradictory to the dozens of men and women at fox news channel who i work with? >> i'm not hearing on the record my question and said 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 will be on the job 24 over seven. you recently promised some of my republican colleagues that you stopped drinking and won't drink if confirmed. correct i absolutely. will you resign as secretary of defense if you drink on the job, which is a 24 over seven position? >> i've made this commitment on behalf of. >> will you resign as secretary of defense? >> i've made this commitment on behalf of the men and women

i'm serving. i'm not because it's the most important deployment of 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. um, as secretary of defense, you will swear an oath to the constitution and not an oath to any man, woman or president. correct? >> senator. on multiple occasions, including as a young second lieutenant, i have sworn an oath to the constitution, and i'm proud to do so. yes, ma'am. >> in june of 2020, then-president trump directed former secretary of defense mark esper to shoot protesters in the legs in downtown d.c. an order secretary esper refused to comply with. would you carry out such an order from president trump? >> senator, i was in the washington, dc national guard unit that was in lafayette square. during those, would you carry out an order to shoot protesters in the legs? i saw 50 secret service agents to get

injured by rioters trying to jump over the fence, set the church on fire and destroy it. >> that sounds to me that you will comply with such an order. you will shoot protesters in the in the leg. 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 take 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 senator, i will emphasize that president trump received 77 million votes to be the lawful commander. we're not talking about the election. my question is, would you use our military to take over greenland or an ally of of denmark?

>> 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. sounds to me in any context, that sounds to me that you would contemplate carrying out such an order to basically invade greenland and take over the panama canal. >> current dod policy allows service members and eligible dependents to be reimbursed for travel associated with non-covered reproductive health care, including abortions. will you maintain this common sense policy? >> senator, i've always been personally pro-life. i know president trump has as well, and we will review all policies, but our our standard is whatever the president wants on this particular issue. >> so my advice i will take, if the president tells you that this i don't believe that i will not be maintained. you will not. enable our service members to seek reproductive care. >> so i don't believe the

federal government. >> i'm not hearing answers to my questions. mr. chairman. i just want to note that the other area that is 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. uh, 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 a 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 3 million personnel in the department of defense, $900 billion budget. i hardly think you are prepared to do the job. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator, thank you, thank you. that wasn't a question, mr. hegseth. um, thank you, senator hirono. >> senator sullivan, thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. hegseth, congratulations on your nomination. and thank you and your family for your service and sacrifice. >> thank you, senator. >> 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, quote, 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. >> i believe he was talking about the great state of alaska. >> 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. >> 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. >> great. and i will say we are on the front lines with this new era 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 easy. in our 80s 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? >> if confirmed? senator, it would be a pleasure to work alongside you in 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 indopacom, alaska, by necessity, will play an important role in that. >> thank you, mr. hegseth. i very much appreciate your focus on lethality and war fighting.

we desperately need it. 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, quote, 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, 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? >> senator, i was also offended by those comments because anyone who's been on active duty in the national guard, man or woman in units, understand that is fundamentally false. >> 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, senator. >> they knew it. anyone who'd been in a unit knew it. the one could argue that, if not the least one of the least racist institutions in our country is the united states military. being a racist in our military has not been tolerated for a very long time. one of the greatest civil rights organizations in america. >> would you agree? the u.s. military is one of the most forward leaning, probably one of the greatest civil rights organizations in american history. >> no doubt. >> let me turn to another one. last year, at a hearing before this committee, i called on the biden secretary of the navy to resign because he's failing in his ability to build ships. we are being completely out built 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. secretary, mr. hegseth, if your secretary of the navy ends up focusing on climate change

more than shipbuilding and lethality, will you commit to me to fire him? >> 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 lng powered fighter jets. or the secretary of the army will not be focused on electric powered tanks. >> let me ask. >> we're going to be focused on lethality one minute defeating our enemy. >> 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, senator, i know the

troops will rejoice. they will love it. >> 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, do you think our military and our military will follow that order? >> our military will follow that order? senator, 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. >> thank you, senator sullivan. senator kaine, 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? >> uh, i believe so. >> and you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your third wife. correct? >> senator, i was falsely charged. i fully investigated and completely cleared.

>> so you think you are 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? how is that a complete, clear senator? >> her child's name is gwendolyn hope hegseth, and she's a child of god, and she's seven years old. and she was glad you cheated on the mother of that child. >> less than two months after that daughter was born, didn't you? >> those were false charges. well, not fully investigated. and i was completely cleared. and i am so grateful for the marriage. i have to this now. you've admitted me. >> you've admitted that you had sex at that hotel in october 2017. you said it was consensual. isn't that correct? >> anything? >> uh, you've admitted that it was consensual and you were

still married and you just had a child by another woman. again, how do you explain your judgment? >> false charges against me. you fully investigated, and i was completely clear. >> 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? >> it was a false claim then, and a false claim now. >> if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it? >> that was a false claim. so you're talking about a hypothetical, so you can't tell me whether someone who has committed a sexual assault is disqualified from being secretary of defense? senator, i know in my instance, and i'm talking about my instance only it was a false claim, but you acknowledged that it was fully acknowledged that you cheated on your wife and that you cheated on the woman who by whom you had just fathered a child. >> you have admitted that i

will allow your words to speak for them. 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, senator? >> as i've acknowledged to everyone in this committee, not a perfect person i'm not claiming to be, but i just asked a simple question. >> you've taken an oath like you would take an oath to be secretary of defense in all of your weddings, to be faithful to your wife. is that correct? >> i have failed in things in my life, and thankfully i'm redeemed by my lord and savior, jesus christ and finalizing divorces from your first and second wives. >> were there non-disclosure agreements in connection with those divorces? >> senator? not that i'm aware of. >> if there were, would you agree to release those first and second wives from any confidentiality agreement? >> senator, it's not something i'm aware of, but but if there were, you would agree to release them from a confidentiality agreement. senator, that's not my responsibility. >> did you ever engage in any acts of physical violence against any of your wives, senator? >> absolutely not. >> 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? >> senator? absolutely not. have i ever done that? >> you would agree that that would be a disqualifying offense? >> would you not, senator, you're talking about a hypothetical. >> 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. 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. >> it was a confidential, confidential settlement agreement off of a nuisance lawsuit. right. >> during an interview, you claim 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, senator? >> i maintain that false claims were made against me and ultimately, your attorney. false claims. you had the opportunity to attest my innocence in those false claims. >> 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 you didn't reveal the 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 of the transition team of this very relevant event? >> 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, 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 of 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? >> senator, i sit here before you, an open book as everyone who's watched this process with with multiple nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements tying the hands of many people who would like to comment to us, much of 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? i was the leader. i was the ceo of veterans for america. the two were you fired? were you fired for me? i was never fired from a do you have do you have nondisclosure agreements with either of those organizations? not that i'm aware of, senator. >> 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. >> senator, those are all anonymous false claims. >> and the totality, they're not they're not anonymous. >> the letters on the record here, they're not anonymous on the record. we've seen records with names attached to them. concerned vets for america and fox news, one of your one of your colleagues working hard every day on behalf. >> 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? >> senator, anonymous false charges, they're not

anonymous. >> and i'll just conclude and say this to the chairman. you claim 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, and i think he's over his time. >> he's way over his time. >> i now yield, and thank 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 mr. 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 we now.

um, we now move to, uh, senator cramer. >> thank you. 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, for for this behavior. but first i want to say thank you for your strong. proclamation, unapologetic, 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 to that day. happening i, uh, i also want to get back to you mentioned and it got rather dismissed, quickly pivoted as a lot of things do. you 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 what that what is this very offensive, extremist, racist tattoo that you you have? >> uh, it's a tattoo i have right here, senator. it's called the jerusalem cross. it's a historic christian symbol. in fact, interestingly, um, recently we i attended briefly the memorial ceremony for former president jimmy carter. um, 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 on before preceding the biden inauguration, i was a part of the mobilization to defend that inauguration. as someone who had 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 never had orders revoked before. i'd 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. later, when i wrote my book, i was able to get information. it was because i had been identified as someone who had served in iraq and 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. 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 were kicked out because of an experimental vaccine in president trump's defense department. they will be apologized to. they will be reinstituted, reinstituted with pay and rank, things like focusing on extremism. senator, have created a climate inside our ranks that feel political when it has 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, 100 extremists were identified in the ranks of 3 million, and most of those were gang related. it was a made up boogeyman to begin with. >> 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. i want to go to your another point in your opening statement, and it's summarized in this beautiful one sentence paragraph. you said, quote, 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 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 every maybe everyone. i'm 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. and i just want to caution you, and i'd be interested in your feedback on this. you know, there's been a lot of talk about firing woke generals. you're 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. you know, 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 i just would encourage you to, um, to trust them first. and and look forward to them saluting, saluting the civilian leadership of this, of this country. so just maybe if you could spend a minute, just elaborate a little bit about the this where it comes from

and who will be held accountable. >> 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. um, 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 from the most senior general to the most lowly private, will ensure that they're treated fairly. men and women inside that system. >> i also just want to commend you for your answers to senator

fisher'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. >> thank you, senator cramer. senator king, thank >> but if we're going to send our boys to fight and it should be boys. we need