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 to unleash them

to win later on. >> our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men, which is it? is it? is it? only boys can fight. i mean, you've you've testified here today that you believe in women in combat, but you didn't just last year. how do you explain your conversion? >> sen. my testimony is clear. i'm writing a book. is different than being secretary of defense, and i look forward to leading the men and women of our military. and my comment there, senator, was about the burdensome rules of engagement that members of our of our generation, men and women, have seen on the battlefield. and one thing president trump changed in meaningful ways that led to meaningful developments on the battlefield. when president trump took control in the first term, i.s.i.s. was raging across iraq. and as someone who spent a lot of time there with, with, with other men and women who invested in that mission, it was a very difficult moment to see the black flag of i.s.i.s. fly. and what president trump did was untie the hands of war fighters. he changed the rules of engagement, untied the hands

of war fighters, and allowed them to complete their mission and crush i.s.i.s. it has not just tactical implications. operational and strategic implications. how you allow war fighters to go about winning and fighting their wars. president trump understands that. and within the laws of war and the uniform code of military justice, we are going to unleash war fighters to win wars so that wars don't drag on forever. as our generation has seen. >> so are you rejecting title 18 and title 42? i think also has provisions that incorporate the geneva convention and the laws of armed combat. are you saying that those laws should be repealed? that is the law of the land right now. >> senator, we have laws on the books from the geneva conventions into the uniform code of military justice. and then underneath that you have layers in which standard or temporary rules of engagement are put into place. we fight enemies also, senator, as as our generation understands that

play by no rules. they use civilians as human shields. >> so are you saying they target women and children? the geneva convention should not be absurd rules. >> we follow rules, but we don't need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars. >> you're saying two different things. you're saying we follow the rules, but we don't have to follow the rules in all cases. is that correct? >> senator, i burdensome rules. senator, i'm making an important tactical distinction that warfighters will understand that there are the rules we swear an oath to defend, which are incredibly important in this committee, understands and helps set them. and then there are those echelons above reality from, you know, corps to division to brigade to battalion. and by the time it trickles down to a company or a platoon or a squad level, you have a rules of engagement that nobody recognizes. and then it makes you incredibly difficult to actually do your job on the battlefield. that's the kind of assessment and look that an army major will give to this process. if i was confirmed to be the secretary of defense,

your quote is a true understanding of the quote in 2024. >> our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men in mahogany rooms. 80 years ago, that would be the geneva convention. america should fight by its own rules, and we should fight to win or not go in at all. are you saying that the geneva convention provisions which which clearly outlaw torture of prisoners, do not, should not apply in the future? >> senator, how we treat our wounded, how we treat our prisoners, the applications of the conventions are incredibly important, but we would all have to acknowledge that the way we fought our wars back when the geneva conventions were written, are a lot different than the asymmetric, non-conventional environment of counterinsurgency that i confronted in iraq and afghanistan. i was the senior counterinsurgency instructor in afghanistan. my job was to understand how the taliban and al qaeda operated, so that nato units coming in could be informed of what was happening. they knew our rules of engagement, and when they were more restrictive, they took

advantage of them. and it put our men and women in a more dangerous and difficult place. and you believe future wars we fight. we need to have someone atop the pentagon, sir, who understands how those ripple effects. >> well, i just want i just want to understand your position. your position is torture is okay. is that correct? waterboarding. torture is is is no longer prohibited given the circumstances of whatever war we're in. is that correct, senator? >> that is not what i said. i've never been party to torture. we are a country that fights by the rule of law, and our men and women always do. and yet we have too many people here in air conditioned offices that like to point fingers at the guys in dark and dangerous places. the gals in helicopters in enemy territory who are doing things that people in washington, dc would never dare to do, or in many cases. >> in one of your interviews, you said they're willing to do this. you're talking about donald trump and trump and senator cruz. they're willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe. are you okay with waterboarding?

>> senator, the law of the land is that waterboarding is not legal. >> so the statement that you made you now recant. is that correct? they are willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe. you you express that with approval. >> senator, i'm very familiar with that as a concept. having spent a year at guantanamo bay, cuba, guarding 700 of those that attacked us on 9/11, i just want to be clear. >> are we are we going to abide by the by the geneva convention and the prohibitions on torture, or are we not? is it going to, as i've circumstances, as i've stated multiple times, the geneva conventions are what we base our. >> but what an american first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. america first understands. we send americans for a clear mission and a clear objective. we equip them properly for that objective. we give them everything they need, and then we stand behind them

with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively to defeat america's enemies. >> which is why we say, i just have a few seconds left. mr. kohl's, if you could, i was very disturbed in your opening statement where you you talked about the priorities that you have. we will work with our partners and allies to deter aggression in the indo-pacific from the communist chinese. there's not a single mention in this statement about ukraine or russia. is this code for we're going to abandon ukraine? >> senator, the president, this is that's a presidential level policy decision. he's made it very clear that he would like to see a end to that conflict. we know who the aggressor is. we know who the good guy is. we'd like to see it as advantageous for the ukrainians as possible, but that war needs to come. >> you talk a lot about deterrence of china. i would submit that xi jinping is watching what we do very carefully. if we abandon ukraine, that would be the strongest signal possible to xi jinping that he can take taiwan without significant resistance from this country. thank you, senator king.

>> senator scott of florida. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into the record two letters which testify to mr. hegseth leadership record at concerned veterans for america. >> the first letter submitted by mr. darren zelnick, a senior advisor at cfr, stated that there's been no better leader, policy champion or fighter for the military and veterans in pete. he was instrumental in 2014 and 2017, in ensuring that veterans had health care choice. the second letter, submitted by mr. kassan spero, digital media director of cva from 2015 to 2017, stated pete brought incredible energy, focus and a clear vision to the organization and showed everything that the team accomplished together and i am similarly asked to submit to the record a letter from paul j. >> roberts, retired colonel, u.s. army special forces, speaking to the unwavering integrity of mr. hegseth. uh, is there um is there objection?

without objection, those three will be admitted. senator scott. all right. >> first, congratulations on your nomination. >> thank you, senator, and thank you for being willing to serve our nation. >> um, i served in the navy. i'm really proud of my dad. he was crazy. he did all four combat jumps with the 82nd airborne. he after that, survived all that and fought in the battle of the bulge. and what they went through, it was hell. um, so i have a lot of respect for him and for everybody that puts on the uniform and serves in battle and has to lead people in battle because it, um, uh, being on a ship, that didn't happen to me, but i had a lot of friends that happened to in my it happened to my dad. i've served on this committee for six years, two years under president trump in the past, four under president joe biden. i've seen how the biden-harris administration pushed the dod to prioritize wokeness over being the most lethal military force in the world. it's our readiness, our national security, and our ability to recruit people who are willing

to put their lives on the line for our country. can you talk about some of the changes we can make to improve recruitment and rebuild our military into the most lethal force in the world? >> first of all, senator, thank you for the question. thank you for your time. um, i think the first and most important thing we could have done is elect donald trump as the new commander in chief, because past is prolog. uh, our warfighters understand what kind of commander in chief they're going to get in president donald trump, someone who stands behind them, someone who gives them clear missions, someone who ends wars decisively. and the issue of ukraine was mentioned and ensures new wars are not started. there was a minor incursion under barack obama into crimea, followed by nothing under president trump, followed by an all out, uh, assault by vladimir putin into ukraine under the biden administration. that did not happen under donald trump. donald trump managed the taliban under the biden administration. uh, afghanistan

collapsed tragically, ending the lives of 13 at abbey gate, who we remember every single day. and no one was held accountable for that. chinese spy balloons were flying over the country. none of that happened under donald trump and our warfighters understand that. so there's no better recruiter in my mind for our military than president donald trump. my job is to come alongside him. should i be confirmed and continue to emphasize his emphasis on war fighting, on getting anything that doesn't contribute to meritocracy out of how decisions are made inside the pentagon, what gender you are, what race you are, your views on climate change, or whether you are a person of conscience and your faith should have no bearing on whether you get promoted or whether you're selected to go to west point or whether you graduate from ranger school. the only thing that should matter is how capable are you at your job? how excellent are you at your job? i served in multi-ethnic units in every place that i

work, every place that i served. none of that mattered. but suddenly we re-inject dei and critical race theory, dividing troops into different categories, oppressor and oppressed in ways that they otherwise just want to work together. that's why i've pointed out before, and i'll say it again, and because i'm sure it will be quoted to me at some point, um, the dumbest phrase in military history is our unity is our strength. no, our shared purpose is our strength. our shared mission is our strength. we are one dod community of all, committed to the same mission has nothing to do with your background, has to do with what you what your commitment is to the country. and that is my solemn pledge to every single person that would put the uniform on and reflects president trump's priorities as well. senator. >> thank you. you know, we talked a little bit about the fact that the pentagon can't, uh, can't do an audit. right. um, can you talk about the to

me, that's i've run big businesses. it's all about accountability. if you want to get an audit done, you can get an audit done. you might get a letter saying, hey, there's things you have to fix, but it all goes to accountability. and we haven't had it. so can you talk about what how what you bring how what you how you bring accountability to the table, what you've done in the past and what you're going to do with regard to bringing accountability to the pentagon. >> i meant it when i said it in the opening statement. senator, i know what i don't know. i know i've never run an organization of 3 million people with a budget of 850 billion. but what i do know is that i've led led men and women. i've led people, and it's leadership of people and motivation of people, and a clear vision of people where you build a team, cast that vision, empower people properly. i want smarter and more capable people around me than me, and you will get that at the department. i cast the clear vision, build the plan, work it. we set the metrics and everyone is held accountable. i

know our business incoming businessman, president believes in accountability and holding people accountable. that will happen at the pentagon. i mean, this has been a problem for a long time. secretary rumsfeld gave a speech on september 10th, 2001 that's mostly forgotten, but it was about the need for acquisition reform, cutting, cutting tail to give to teeth to warfighters. and then 9/11 happened. and these are problems that have been persistent for a long time. but now we have new threats and we need the urgency of this moment. as you said, mr. chairman, the most dangerous moment we've been since the end of the cold war and possibly since world war two, the urgency to do everything possible to get the capabilities into the hands of warfighters, emergency powers, defense production act, whatever it takes. and an audit is certainly part of it. >> why do you want to do this? why do you want to do this job? what's your what drives you? >> you have 30s. >> because i love my country, senator, and i've dedicated my

life to the warfighters. people see me as someone who hosts a morning show on television, but people that really know me know where my heart's at. it's with the guys in this audience who've had my back, and i've had theirs. we've been in some of the darkest and most difficult places you can ever be in. you come back a different person, and only by the grace of god am i here before you. today i'm doing this job for them, for all of them. >> thank you, mr. hegseth. >> senator warren. uh, thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. hegseth. thank you. thank you for your service. so if you're confirmed as secretary of defense, you will oversee our military, including about a quarter of a million women who currently serve on active duty in the army, the navy, the air force, the space forces and the marines. and i have serious concerns that your behavior toward women disqualifies you from serving in this role. now,

i've been trying to get answers from you for quite some time on this. you haven't wanted to meet or to answer any of my questions, so we'll just have to do it here and dive in. i want to pick up on some of the questions asked by senator shaheen and gillibrand and hirono. and i just want to make sure we have a list of some of the facts that i think are undisputed. i'm not going to talk about anonymous sources. i'm just going to quote you directly. we've got the video, we've got it in print. so going back to january 2013, you told a fox news interviewer that women in the military simply couldn't measure up to men in the military, saying that allowing women to serve in combat roles would force the military to lower the bar. you picked up on that same theme in 2015, making remarks on fox news, referring to women in combat as, quote, erode. it would erode standards. june 2024. you said on ben shapiro's podcast, quote, women shouldn't be in

combat at all. and then, of course, we've talked about it. in 2024, you published a book and you say on page 26 of your book, we need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units. page 48 of your book. you claim that women should not be in combat roles meant because men are distracted by women. and then ten weeks ago, you appeared on the sean ryan show and said, i'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. now, i presume you recall making all these statements. >> senator, i'm not familiar with the article you're pointing to in 2013, but it underscores my argument completely, because in that 2013 argument, i was talking about standards. standards are what it's always been about, senator. this same fight has always been about quoted you directly. >> we've got the video. we're happy to show it. but i want to be clear here, for 12 years you

were quite open about your views, and your views were consistently the same. women are inferior soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and guardians. and in case anyone missed the point, and these are your words from ten weeks ago, women. absolutely straight up should not be permitted to serve in combat. and i notice on each of these quotes, those are said without qualification. it's not by how much you can lift or how fast you can run. they don't belong in combat, period. or your words straight up. and then on november 9th, 2024, just 32 days after your last public comment saying that women absolutely should not be in combat, you declared that, quote, some of our greatest warriors are women and you support having them serve in combat. now that is a very, very big

about face in a very, very short period of time. so help me understand, mr. hegseth, what extraordinary event happened in that 32 day period that made you change the core values you had expressed for the preceding 12 years? >> senator, again, i very much appreciate you bringing up my comments from 2013, because for me, this issue has always been about standards. and unfortunately, because of some of the people that have been in political power for the last four years, top priorities other than standards, lethality and meritocracy have driven you. >> i'm quoting you from the podcast. women shouldn't be in combat at all. where is the reference to standards that they should be there if they

can carry, if they can run? i don't see that at all. mr. hegseth what i see is that there's a 32 day period in which you suddenly have another description about your views of women in the military, and i just want to know what changed in the 32 days that the song you sang is not the song. you come in here today to sing. >> senator, the concerns i have and the concerns of many have had, especially in ground combat units, is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed, and that makes the combat more difficult for everybody involved about what happened in that 32 days. >> you got a nomination for president trump. now, i've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the first time i've heard of a nomination conversion. and i hope you understand that many women serving in the military right now might think that if you can

convert so rapidly, your long held and aggressively pursued views in just 32 days, that 32 days after you get confirmed, maybe you'll just reverse those views and go back to the old guy who said, straight up women do not belong in combat. now, mr. hegseth, you have written that after they retire, general should be banned from working for the defense industry for ten years. you and i agree on the corrosive effects of the revolving door between the pentagon and defense contractors. it's something i would have liked to talk to you about if you'd come and been willing to visit with me, but the question i have for you on this is, will you put your money where your mouth is and agree that when you leave this job, you will not work for the defense industry for ten years? >> senator, it's not even a question i've thought about, because it's not about right now. it's not one. my

motivation for this job. >> i understand that i just need a yes or no. come next time is short. i just need a yes or no. >> i would consult with the president about what the policy. >> in other words, you're quite sure that every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for ten years, but you're not willing to make that same pledge. >> i'm not a general senator. >> you'll be the one. let us just be clear. in charge of the generals. so you're saying sauce for the goose, but certainly not sauce for the gander. >> i would want to see what the policy of the. >> oh, i'll bet you would. >> thank you, senator warren. >> senator tuberville, thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your hard work and your committee's hard work. mr. chairman, this is a this has gone well. i'd like to submit this letter. uh. topic conduct at vets for freedom for hegseth. i'd like to submit that for the record, please.

>> without objection. >> general hegseth. i mean, mr. hegseth. >> uh, thank thanks for being here today and with your family. >> i know this is tough. that's what it's all about, though. uh, you're a tough guy. been here for a while. never seen this many people that here for a support of a nominee. that's impressive. i met with a lot of them yesterday, and they are very passionate. so thank you for willing to take this on. and congratulations on your nomination. uh. i'm worried about recruiting. i mean, we can look at everything out there and talk about all these things, these narratives. but at the end of the day, i came from a team sport where you were the people. the players actually won the games. and that's what's going to happen here. you're not going to win the game now. you're going to set the precedent. you're going to get the blame or the or the

credit, but there's going to be people that's going to be under you, that's going to set the precedent for the future of our country. now, uh, the war games that we play on our computers with our adversaries right now, for us, it don't look good because our military, we're in trouble. our whole country is in trouble. thank god president trump got elected on november the 5th. we couldn't keep down this same path. we could not. that could not happen. i met with the general, a couple of generals this summer. coach, we're spending more money on transgender restrooms than we are coverings for $100 million airplanes. that's not acceptable. we can't do that. that's not what this is about. met with a couple of navy seals not too long ago. they just got back from crawling around in the mud and the muck overseas. unknown places. couldn't tell you where they've been carrying a weapon. obviously protecting us and our allies. and the first week they're back. what'd they do? they had to go through a week of dei training. both are

now out. they give it up. it was embarrassing to them of what they had to do. we've lost all sight of what we're doing in our military. lost all sight. it starts with leadership and it starts with recruiting. why would a young man used to when i was growing up, if you couldn't afford to go to college, you had the opportunity to go to the military where you could learn a trade, you could learn, you could make a living for your family and eventually possibly get an education. that was a good alternative. uh, we've forgotten that. we've forgotten it. we can't give up on our young people. young people are our number one commodity in this country, and they're the ones that's going to live and die for the freedom of this country in the future. so again, thank you for taking this on, uh, recruiting. uh, our service academies are meant to serve as our primary commissioning source of officers. it now appears that they are a breeding ground for leftist activists and champions of dei and critical theory. now, not all, but some and some

is way too much. uh, how are we going to eliminate this, mr. hegseth? how are we going to get this back on track to where we we grow our leaders? i had a young man that forever he wanted to go to west point. i got him a nomination. i got him accepted and he turned it down. he says, coach, i'm not getting involved with that mess. how are we going to overcome this? >> senator, thank you for the question. and i think it comes down to leadership, clear leadership from president trump through me. should i be not should i be nominated? uh, and that's what soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardians see is clear. leadership says this is what we believe. this is the mission we're going to give you. here's the equipment we're going to give you, and here's how we're going to support you, because the military, on a lot of levels, senator, has been for generations a family business. you know, my my grandfather served i my father served, i served my daughter served the chain is that chain

has started to break with generations of people my age and older talking to their kids and grandkids, wondering, pondering. do i want them to serve? will my country use them responsibly? when that kind of doubt is cast, you get serious recruiting problems like we do right now. you get questions about whether i want my son or daughter to follow my path in west point, which i've heard multiple times, would i want my. and so you have to rip root and branch the politics and divisive policies out of these institutions and then focus them on creating and preparing actual future military leadership. west point traditionally is focused on engineering, and rightfully so, because in our fighting forces across all services, we need the best and brightest minds in engineering. in addition to military studies. that's what i did at rotc at princeton, military science. that and we need more uniformed members going back into west point, the air force academy, the naval academy, as a tour to teach with

their wisdom of what they've learned in uniform instead of just more civilian professors that came from the same left wing, woke universities that they left, and then try to push that into service academies. when that changes. senator, i truly believe under donald trump, we will have a recruiting renaissance that sends signals to the world, to our enemies and our allies alike that america is back. and thankfully, then we have the men and women of our country willing to want to serve. >> thank you. and it's about attitude, too. and i love your attitude. you've got to be motivated. you've got to understand the people. they will they will hook up with you. they will understand and learn under their leaders. uh. why would you fight for a country that you don't love? that's what i keep hearing from a lot of our college kids that they getting from. they're getting from these woke universities that they go to now. and i worked at a lot of them, uh, that is one of the excuses i get from our kids. we've got to break that. uh, another one, according to the pentagon, between 2001 and 2024, the

number of civilian employees in the office of the secretary of defense has nearly doubled, from 1500 to 3000 civilians on joint chiefs has increased from 191 to almost 1000. our military in strength goes down. our staff numbers are exploding. what are you going to do about that, senator? >> we're going to address that. we won world war two with seven four star generals. today we have 44 four star generals. there's an inverse relationship between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield. we don't need more bureaucracy at the top. we need more warfighters empowered at the bottom. it's going to be my job working with those that we hire and those inside the administration to identify those places where fat can be cut so it can go toward lethality. >> thank you, senator tuberville. senator peters, thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. hegseth, welcome to this

committee. >> thank you. >> you know, we have far too much partisanship in our country right now. i think it's eating away at the fabric of what has always made this country great about bringing people together from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of experiences. and we know that in our motto, together as one, we are strong. and so we and this committee, and certainly i speak for myself, but i think i speak for many of my colleagues, want to take partisanship out of this proceeding as much as we can. i'm not naive. it's out there, i get it. but we've got to try to to take that out. and i want you to know that i was a member of this committee. i have voted in a bipartisan way for secretaries of defense. i voted for two secretaries of defense when donald trump was previously president. we had those two. we had, i think, five total secretaries of defense during that four year period. so we want to keep that

in mind as to what we might see in this coming administration. but i voted and we voted by a big margin for those folks as well. but part of that was the process and having an opportunity to get to know the person and understand their qualifications and to understand the standards. you know, i made repeated requests to to meet with you prior to this meeting. i know many of my other colleagues also wanted to meet with you. i did that with the other nominees that i was happy to vote for. i thought they were highly qualified individuals and and true professionals, and yet i could never get a meeting with you. was there a reason you were afraid to have one on one meetings with some of my colleagues before the hearing? >> uh, senator, i know there was a great deal of outreach to multiple offices. schedules get full. there's a lot going on. i was ready, and i welcome the opportunity. i was sending my schedule to to have an opportunity to sit down. >> i was ready, it would have been so much better to have that opportunity to talk beforehand. i think that's a big mistake and it doesn't set us on a good course. when you

refuse to meet with people and have a professional conversation about the huge challenges that we face at the department of defense, my colleagues, the folks who introduced you and others the chairman has mentioned about the management of the dod as a concern, cost overruns, delays on weapons systems. we need strong management at the department of defense. first and foremost, we've got to have someone who's going to grab the reins and give the taxpayers value for having the most lethal fighting force in the world that defends freedoms, but we've got to do it in an efficient way. i've heard about the jobs you've had in the past. let's just talk about qualifications. i know you had two previous positions. how many people reported to you in those positions? >> senator at vets for freedom. we were a small upstart. our focus was just just the numbers working on capitol hill, going back to the battlefield, just the number warfighters. >> just the number, please. >> uh, we probably had 8 to 10 full time staff and lots of volunteers.

>> so has there been any other we've heard about the two, and certainly there's been a lot of talk about the mismanagement. et cetera. et cetera. i'm just i'm just curious. i won't go into that. just curious. so you had eight there, have you? what's the largest number of people you've ever supervised or had in an organization in your career? >> not 3 million. >> so i don't expect that no one, very few people have ever had that experience. but how many? it's a straight up question. >> i think we had over 100 full time staff at concerned veterans vets for america, roughly with thousands of volunteers. so 100 people was also a headquarters company commander, which would have been okay, that's fine. a couple of hundred, a couple, nothing, nothing remotely near the size of the defense department. >> i would acknowledge that actually not remotely near even a medium sized company in america, let alone a big company in america, especially a major corporation. and you're basically we're hiring you to be the ceo of one of the most complex, largest organizations in the world. we're the board of directors here. i don't know of any corporate board of directors that would hire a ceo

for a major company if they came and said, you know, i supervised 100 people before they'd ask you, well, what kind of experiences you had? we need innovation. can you give me an experience or your actual experience of driving innovation in an organization? give me an example of where you have done that. >> oh my goodness, senator. absolutely a concern. veterans for america. we created the fixing health care veterans health care task force, a bipartisan task force that's never been done before, to create policy to drive policy change on capitol hill, that organizations fought ferociously against. we got the va accountability act passed and the mission act passed in a way that a nonprofit of our size veterans organization has never done, and that's testified in all the letters that we put forward to the committee, which are on the record. >> i have limited time. thank you for that. give me an example of where you've driven down. costs. i've heard the examples that senator blumenthal gave. the cost was a real problem for you in your 50 person organization, that you actually raised a lot less than what you actually spent. did you drive costs down if in a 50

person organization, let me tell you, we've got to drive costs down dramatically in a organization of 3 million people and hundreds of billions of dollars, you don't have that experience that that you can talk about. to me, this is our acquisition reform, acquisition reform. you bring that up. have you had experience in acquisition reform? >> i've written about and studied on acquisition reform. have you actually done it? because what we need in the hands of our warfighters better change because we're not doing it well right now. >> better. and we need people who have experience actually doing that. you know, you talk about standards. again, i'm going to go back to ceo of the most complex organization in the world. i don't think there's a board of directors in america that would hire you as a ceo with the kind of experience you have on your resume. you talk about standards, you talk about raising or lowering that. we have a problem of standards in the dod, and we have to raise standards for the men and women who serve. do you think that

the way to raise the minimum standards of the people who serve us is to lower the standards for the secretary of defense, that we have someone who has never managed an organization? more than 100 people is going to come in and manage this incredibly important organization and do it with a professionalism and has no experience that they can tell us that they have actually done that. i have real problems with that. this is not about other issues that are brought up. they're all very important. i'm just about trying to get things done, managing efficiently and having the best people who have demonstrated that in a large organization. and i'm sorry, but i don't see that in your background. there are a lot of other things you can do very well. you're a capable person, but i'm not, i do not. you have not convinced me that you're able to take on this tremendous responsibility with a complex organization, and having little or no significant management experience. >> senator, i'm grateful to be hired by one of the most

successful ceos in american history. should i be confirmed um, mr. hegseth, that it it seems to me that you've supervised far more people than the average united states senator supervises. >> typically. >> and except for except for former governors. >> mr. chairman, senator mullen, i understand you are yielding back your time and do not wish to ask questions. >> i was i was misinformed, am i, senator mullen? you're right. >> you caught me totally off guard there. uh, i'd like to submit for the record signatures by 32 members of the house of representatives who are veterans. the signatures call on the senate to honor the constitutional duty of advise and consent by conducting a fair, thorough confirmation process that evaluates his nomination solely on the

substance and merits. his distinguished military service, academic credentials, and a bold vision for revitalizing the national defense. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record without objection. um, you know, there's a lot of talk going about talking about qualifications and then about us hiring him if we are the board. but there's a lot of senators here i wouldn't have on my board, because there is no qualifications except your age, and you got to be living in the state and you're a citizen of the united states to be a senator. other than the fact we got to convince a lot of people to vote for us, and then when we start talking about qualifications, um, for if you're qualified for it, could the chairman tell me what the qualifications are for the secretary of defense? mr. chairman, could you tell me what the qualifications are for the secretary of defense? >> i'd be happy for. i'll read it for you to to do that. >> let me let me read it for you, because i, i was getting some advice from my second in command, but i'm just i'm just making a point because there's

a lot about qualifications. and i think it's so hypocritical of senators, especially on the other side of the aisle, to be talking about his qualifications not to lead the secretary or to be the secretary of defense. and yet your qualifications aren't any better. you guys aren't any more qualified to be the senator than i'm qualified to be the senator. except we're lucky enough to be here. but let me read you what the qualifications of the secretary of defense is, because i googled it and i googled it and went through a lot of different sites. and really, it's hard to see. but in general, the u.s. secretary of defense position is filled by a civilian. that's it. if you have served in the u.s. army forces and have been in the service for, you have to be retired for at least seven years and congress can can weigh that. and then there's questions that my that the that the senator from, uh, from massachusetts brought up about serving on a on a board inside the military industry. and yet

your own secretary that you all voted for, secretary austin, we had to vote on a waiver because he stepped off the board of raytheon. but i guess that's okay, because that's a democrat secretary of defense but we so quickly forget about that. and then senator kaine, or i guess i better use the senator from virginia, starts bringing up the fact that what if you showed up drunk to your job? how many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night? have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign from their job? and don't tell me you haven't seen it, because i know you have. and then how many senators do you know have gotten a divorce before cheating on their wives? did you ask them to step down? no, but it's for show. you guys make sure you make a big show and point out the hypocrisy, because the man's made a mistake, and you want to sit there and say that he's not qualified. give me a

joke. i mean, it is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself to this higher standard and you forget you got a big plank in your eye. we've all made mistakes. i've made mistakes. and jennifer, thank you for loving him through that mistake. because the only reason why i'm here and not in prison is because my wife loved me to. i have changed, but i'm not perfect. but i found somebody that thought i was perfect, and for whatever reason, you love pete. and i don't know why. but just like our lord and savior forgave me, my wife had to forgive me more than once, too. and i'm sure you've had to forgive him, too. and so thank you. so before i go down this rabbit hole again, tell me something about your wife that you love. >> um, she's the smartest, most capable, loving, humble, honest person i've ever

met. and in addition to being incredibly beautiful. >> and don't forget about your kids. >> i'm supposed to talk about my kids. >> no, no. well, she's also the mother. oh, an amazing mother. >> yes. of our blended family of seven kids. >> i'm pulling you along. i'm trying to help you here you know, um, do you believe that you're going to be running the secretary or the department of defense by yourself? >> senator? absolutely not. just as president trump is assembling his cabinet. i look forward and already am, in the process of building one of the best possible teams you can imagine. with decades and decades of experience outside of the pentagon driving innovation and excellence, and also inside the building knowing how to make it happen. yes, sir. >> so, um, in your organizations that you did have the privilege of running, did you have a board that you in

both organizations? >> we had a board, yes. >> okay. and what what did you do with that board? what kind of decisions did you make with them? >> uh, those boards provided oversight and insight into decision making. >> they all have special, unique sets that maybe filled gaps that you're not the expertise in. >> yes, sir. >> so do you believe you're capable of surrounding yourself with capable individuals, that you're going to be able to run those same ideas by and surround yourself with people that are smarter and better equipped, and maybe areas that you don't you don't necessarily carry those expertise with. >> senator, the only reason i've had success in life to include my wonderful wife is because of people more capable around me, and having the self-confidence to empower them and say, hey, run with the ball, run with the football, take it down the field. we'll do this together. i don't care who gets the credit. and in this case, that's how the pentagon will be run. >> let me let's end with this, mr. chairman, about the

qualifications. you got a man who has literally put his butt on the line, who served 20 years in the service, multiple deployments. has heard the bullets crack over the top of his head, has been willing to go into combat, been willing to sing. friends die for this country and he's willing to still put himself through this. his wife is willing to still stand beside him, knowing he wasn't perfect, knowing that all this was going to be brought up and he still willing to serve the country. what other qualifications does he need? that i yield back? >> thank you, senator mullen. senator duckworth, and again, we we really are going to strictly enforce the rule about no, uh, no demonstrations or noise. uh, the, uh, distinguished ranking member, just a point of

personal privilege to make a correction. >> the reason that general austin required a waiver was not because of his participation in a corporate enterprise. it was because he did not have seven years of interruption between his service and his appointment. second point is that if any of us were appointed as secretary of defense, we would be subject to the same types of questions. and the case in point is, senator john tower was nominated for secretary of defense. uh, it was discovered by his colleagues that his behavior was not commensurate with the responsibilities, despite his service. and he was voted down. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator duckworth, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and also, secretary mattis had to have this waiver as well. um, mr. hegseth, this hearing is about whether you are qualified to be secretary of defense and one of the qualifications to answer my colleague's question is to actually win the votes of

every member of this committee and to be confirmed by the united states senate. and you need to convince us that you're worthy of that vote, because the people of the state of illinois voted for me to be their senator, so that i could cast that vote. when it comes to picking who is going to be the next secretary of defense, this hearing now seems to be a hearing about whether or not women are qualified to serve in combat, and not about whether or not you are qualified to be secretary of defense. and let me just say that the american people need a secdef who is ready to lead on day one. you are not that person. our adversaries watch closely during times of transition and any sense that the department of defense that keeps us safe is being steered by someone who is wholly unprepared for the job, puts america at risk. and i am not willing to do that. with that in mind, mr. hegseth, i want you to try to explain to the american people this committee who have to vote for you and to our troops are deployed around the world. why you are qualified to lead the department of defense. we already know that you've only led the largest, a 200 person

organization. we already know that you so badly mangled a budget that after you left, they had to bring in a forensic accountant to figure out what went wrong and that the largest budget you ever managed was about $18 billion. you know, that is about 51,560 times fewer, lower than the department of defense budget of $825 billion. $16 million is 51,568 times smaller than the defense budget. please describe to me, mr. hegseth, you talk about dod passing an audit, please describe to me a time or an organization when you that you led underwent an audit because you said you're going to hire smarter people than you

>> oh, did you add an odd and the way that's should be the not 18, yes or no completely missed. can't answer this yes or no? >> did you lead an audit? do you not know this answer? senator, yes or no? my leadership of these organizations. yes or no? misrepresented. i will take that as a no. what were the findings? so there were no findings. you've never led an audit. what guidance did you give the auditors? none. because you've never led an audit. nobody expects you to be an accountant, mr. hegseth. what we expect is for you to understand the complexity of this pentagon budget process. that is absolutely necessary to outfit our war fighters. look, the secretary of defense is required to make quick decisions every single day that will, with high level information that's being provided for them as secretary of defense has to have breadth and depth of knowledge. right now, i am concerned that you have neither. mr. hegseth, what

is the highest level of international negotiations that you have engaged in that you have led in? because the secretary of defense does lead international security negotiations? there are three main ones that the secretary of defense leads and signs. can you name at least one of them? >> could you repeat the question, senator? >> sure. what is the highest level of international security agreement that you have led? and can you name some that the secretary of defense would lead? there are three main ones. >> do you know i have not been involved in international security arrangements because i have not been in government other than serving in the military. so my job has been to know the answers. >> can you name one of the three main ones that the secretary of defense arrangements? >> i mean, nato might be one of them, one that you're referring to. >> status of forces agreement would be one of them. state of force. >> status of forces agreement. i've been a part of teaching about status of forces agreement. but you don't remember to mention it. >> you're not qualified, mr. hegseth. you're not qualified. you talk about repairing our defense

industrial complex. you're not qualified to that. you could do acquisition and cross-servicing agreements, which essentially are security agreements. you can't even mention that you've done none of those. you talked about the indo-pacific a little bit, and i'm glad that you mention it or mention it. can you name the importance of at least one of the nations in the asean, in asean, and what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations, and how many nations are in asean, by the way? >> i couldn't tell you the exact amount of nations, because i know we have allies in south korea and japan and in aukus with australia trying to work on submarines with them. >> mr.. hegseth, none of those countries are allies, and none of those three countries that you mentioned are in asean. i suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations. listen mr. hegseth, this is can you we ask our troops to go into harm's way all the time. we ask them to go into harm's way. and this

behind me is a copy of the soldier's creed, a copy that usually hangs over my desk here in the senate. and you should be familiar with it. it's the same copy that hung over my desk at walter reed. every single day that i woke up and fought my way back, because i wanted to go back and serve next to my buddies who saved my life. these same. the same copy. these words are repeated over and over and over again. and let me read out two things to you. two sentences i will always place the mission first, and i am disciplined physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior task. mr. hegseth our troops follow these words every single day and they man up and they pack their rucksacks and they go to war. and they deserve a leader who can lead them, not a leader who wants to lower the standards for himself while raising the standards for other people. and by the way, our troops already meet the standards. we asked troops who manned that ship, fight that fire, fly that helicopter until their very last breath. and they do that every single day.

they cannot be led by someone who's not competent to do the job. how can we ask these warriors to train and perform the absolute highest standards? when you are asking us to lower the standards to make you the secretary of defense, simply because you are buddies with our president elect. and by the way, he has filed for bankruptcy six times. i'm not quite sure he's the kind of ceo you want to refer to as a successful businessman. let me make it clear, you can't seem to grasp that there is no u.s. military as we know it without the incredible women that we serve. women who've earned their place in their units. you have not earned your place as secretary of defense. you say you care about keeping our armed forces strong and that you like that our armed forces meritocracy. then let's not lower the standards for you. you, sir, are a no go at this station. >> thank you. senator duckworth, i would like to submit for the record a letter submitted by mr. brian marriott that says anyone who would

claim that pete mismanaged funds at vets for freedom is ignorant of the facts. without objection, it will be admitted to the record. senator bud. >> thank you, chairman wicker, and congrats on your chairmanship of this committee. >> i want to thank you for your leadership and your handling of this today. i think you're doing a great job. so i want to also submit for the record a letter submitted by mr. daniel catlin, the former operations manager at vets for freedom. mr. catlin's letter states that mr. hegseth and mr. catlin conducted weekly meetings to meticulously review every dollar that the organization spent. pete's hands on approach and dedication to financial responsibility ensured that vets for freedom operated within its budget. mr. catlin's letter also states that pete treated his staff with the utmost respect, regardless of race or gender. so i ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. mr. chairman. without objection. so

ordered. thank you, mr. hegseth. congratulations on your nomination. thank you for appearing before the committee today. i enjoyed meeting with you in my office before christmas, and i've enjoyed our friendship before that. you know, you stated in your advanced policy questions that the american people need to be informed, engaged and inspired to join our military. i wholeheartedly agree with that. and we also have a problem though, with obesity and falling academic standards. it's very concerning and we've talked about that before. so if confirmed, how would you approach increasing the number of americans eligible to serve in the military, but without lowering standards? >> well, senator, i think there are already, to the credit of, i believe, the army and other services have now caught up to that which have piloted programs that have had some success, that have allowed young americans who want to serve in the military but can't necessarily pass the asvab or pass the apft to get

into basic training and opportunity to get caught up or preparatory class. um, unfortunately, yes, we do have a problem of obesity in our country. not necessarily something that the if i'm confirmed, secretary of defense is able to address. but i do think leading from the front matters. i do think having a secretary of defense that will go out and do pt with the troops matters that has been out there and done that before, and hopefully that's a motivating factor for young people. but it the reality of obesity and criminal backgrounds and medical problems have long been an issue of recruitment in america. unfortunately, what changed is the perception of military service because of the condition of the services and frankly, because of, in some ways, the way our schools don't teach young people to love the country anymore. and if you don't love the country, why do you want to serve that country? that's a deeper problem. but all of those things need to be addressed to revive recruiting. and obesity is certainly a part of it.

>> thank you for that. so i've had multiple conversations with young folks back in north carolina. young men, young women. and we get to meet a lot of them. but, you know, i hear from some of these folks who i encourage to join the military that they say that they're concerned that it's become politicized. and if confirmed, would you commit to working with my office to address the military recruiting crisis and ensuring the military is focused on war fighting? >> senator. absolutely. a number one from day one with a mandate from the commander in chief. um. who received that mandate when americans spoke out loudly and said, we want peace through strength. we want america first foreign policy, and we don't want political ideology driving decisions inside our defense department. that was clear. it's an it's an infection that the american people are acutely aware of, which the men and women in this room have lived firsthand. i've lived it firsthand, and that's why it will be a priority. and

i truly believe, and i'm humbled by this. the response we've already seen from young men and women who have decided to join the military when they had said i wasn't going to, but seeing a commander in chief, donald trump, reassured them, seeing the possibility, if confirmed, of a secretary of defense, that would have their back reassured them. and so in the first couple of months after president trump's election, we have already seen the numbers. are there a recruiting surge in all the services that i would welcome, the opportunity to continue? and it's humbling to think that families across this country would have confidence in us to deliver for their young men and women. there's no more important task. >> thank you for that. so shifting gears a bit, i want to hear some of your thoughts on the growing fighter aircraft capacity gap with china and what this means for a potential fight in the indo-pacific. so if confirmed, what policy recommendations will you make to the president on procurement and maintenance of fourth and

fifth generation fighters while we continue to research and develop sixth generation and collaborative combat aircraft? >> senator, that's a very important conversation, one that i've been looking at a great deal. a lot of it, just to be clear, involves classifications and understanding precisely cost and capabilities, including capabilities of enemy systems, both not just fourth and fifth, but potential sixth generation, which we've already seen a prototype released from the chinese. that's a dangerous development, considering at least the publicly understood condition of ngad, which i look forward to the opportunity to looking underneath the hood on that, but ensuring fourth and fifth are capable and upgraded as necessary will be a part of our contingency. but when you look at what's happening in the indo-pacific, say, operability range is going to matter because it's such a large battle space, that would all, will all factor in decisions that are made. and

that's where i feel, frankly, a little bit liberated is that i didn't work at lockheed or any number of pick a defense contractor. i didn't mean to point one out in particular, pick any, i haven't i don't have a special interest in any particular system or any particular company or any particular narrative. i want to know what works. i want to know what defeats our enemies, what keeps us safe, what deters them, what keeps our enemies up at night, whatever that is. i want more of it, and i want to invest in it. and i know that's the view that president trump has as well. >> thank you. you know, some have commented recently about the need to eliminate immediately a manned, manned aircraft. so i'd say maybe one day. but that day is not now and certainly not before 2027, especially in the indo-pacific. so if confirmed, will you commit to work with my office in this committee to ensure the proper mix of fighters, manned and unmanned? >> i look forward to working with you on that, senator, because unmanned will be a very important part of the way

future wars are fought. um, just just the idea of survivability for a human being drives cost and time in ways that unmanned systems do not. but i look forward to that conversation. thank you. >> thank you, senator bud. i now recognize senator reed for a unanimous consent request. >> mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent that two letters be submitted for the record, one letter signed by numerous organizations, including the government accountability project, the other signed by several organizations, including the truman national security project, without objection, so ordered. >> now, senator kelly, um. senator rosen got here after the gavel went down. do you really want to go ahead of her? >> i am going to defer to my good friend and colleague, senator rosen. that is a really great state of nevada. >> really good decision. senator rosen, you are recognized. >> and thank you, senator kelly. i owe you one. thank you. chairman wicker, ranking member reid, for holding this

hearing. and mr. hegseth, i appreciate your service and your willingness to serve again. however, i am deeply disappointed that you would not agree to meet with me. as other members have said on this committee prior to this hearing, as is the precedent for this committee and others. so let me tell you a little bit about what i would have talked about had you made yourself available prior to the hearing. nevada is home to the premier aviation training ranges for both the air force and the navy. the largest ammunition depot in the world and the only place in the country where we are able to verify the reliability of our nuclear stockpile without the need for explosive testing. the nevada national guard is one of the only few units across the country with the mission of fighting wildfires. that's for another hearing and currently activated to fight the devastating fires around los angeles. in support of our neighbors. we therefore play a critical role in our national security and the person who holds the position of secretary of

defense matters greatly to nevada service members and our military equities. but every single person who serves in the military, we've talked about my colleagues, esteemed colleagues have talked about recruitment and retention. one day they will become a veteran. so my veterans and the folks who are serving active duty now are concerned about what you think. dod does not have jurisdiction over nevada's 200,000 plus veterans. but i am interested in your views about the service members once they've transitioned out of the military. given the influence you would have while they're in service, if confirmed in 2019 on a segment of fox and friends, you said that veteran service organizations vsos, i'm going to, quote, encourage veterans to apply for every government benefit they can ever get after they leave the service. you stated you don't want to, quote, be dependent on government assistance from the va based on injuries or illnesses that might have arisen from your military

service. so i'm just going to ask you a few yes or no questions about veterans understanding. you don't have jurisdiction, but this is important to our morale. it's important to our recruitment, and it's important to our retention. and it is important to how we respect others in this country. so yes or no, please. do you believe that vsos are wrong to support veterans in obtaining the benefits that they have rightfully earned and deserved when they sign that line like you did for your service? senator? >> yes or no? veterans deserve the benefits they've earned. i have been in many battles with traditional veterans service organizations over differences of opinion about how to deliver those services. yes or no veterans, do you believe vsos are wrong? vsos is a very broad term. we were a vso also, ma'am, but so some of those services took a to help the veterans obtain the benefits that they have earned? >> yes or no? should anyone be able to help? >> every veteran should have rapid access to all the benefits. >> veterans should be ashamed for having sought and obtained the benefits that they have

earned. do you think veterans should be ashamed to seek out benefits? >> senator, i think we should be ashamed as a nation of the amount of veterans that commit suicide because they hit a brick wall, they hit they commit suicide because they hit a brick wall of the bureaucracy of the va. take that. and reformers are not courage enough. >> how about veterans who suffer lasting injuries or illnesses due to their military service? do you do you think they deserve our support and assistance? i mean, your your your answers to these are too broad. people want to know, are you willing to support our veterans organizations that will help our veterans get every thing that they deserve, because they signed on the dotted line to keep us safe, just like you did? i respect that, will you, senator? >> with all due humility, i don't know that there's anyone in this room over the last 20 years that have worked harder to ensure that our veterans are taken care of. it has been a passion of my life alongside with so many on this dais, to make sure that veterans receive. and it is a recruiting

crisis when veterans are dependent on the government they don't want said veterans, sons and daughters to government. >> do you believe that veterans getting these benefits are dependent on the government, or do you believe it's a benefit they've earned and deserve through their service? >> it's a benefit they've earned and a hand up to these are your words then. >> so you have again changed your position where you believe the veterans are dependent now, you believe they've earned and deserved it. >> i just think it's disrespectful to change that position. these are these are benefits that people may need throughout their life and may not know when they need them or how they're going to need them, and they need to be there when they do. thank you. i'll move on to my next question. um, america's role in the world. uh, our alliances, the threats america is facing. they're serious. they're wide ranging from china to russia to iranian backed terrorism. so do you agree with the national defense strategy that the u.s. cannot compete with china,

russia and their partners alone and certainly cannot win a war that way? and this is a quote from the national defense strategy. it's your interpretation that america first foreign policy is america alone. does that include abandoning our allies and partners such as nato, taiwan, israel and others? and if we can't win alone and we don't strengthen our strategic partnerships, i would say that position, your position places on a strategic path to lose to our adversaries. so maybe you're okay with choosing that path for america. i want to know how you square that position with the positions you articulated in your book, where you wrote that nato is at relic at best, a distraction and should be scrapped and remade. are you okay with sending us down a path where we can't win? >> senator, the world has had our friends in the world have had no better ally. our allies and partners have had no better friend than president donald trump, who's reinvigorated a nato alliance. >> donald trump, who's stood behind israel in every way, in

ways this administration has not. >> he has ensured that the nato alliance has become far more robust. >> he worked donald trump, worked with allies in the pacific, as well as donald trump going to stand behind ukraine. >> are you going to stand behind ukraine? you say he's the strongest president. president elect trump said he will end the war in ukraine before he takes office. okay. it's a less than a week before he's inaugurated. to the best of your knowledge, do you have knowledge of a plan that he's going to use to rapidly end the war with ukraine? do you believe it's feasible that it does not make unacceptable concessions to vladimir putin, who is a brutal dictator? and are you going to give president-elect trump the military advice that you have given others to achieve the objective, um, of us winning the war in ukraine? how do you think a rapid end to the war that vladimir putin started will affect the united states, standing across the world? >> senator, i will always give clear guidance, my clear guidance, best guidance to the president of united states on

matters like that. >> do you think that if we concede to vladimir putin that that will hurt our credibility with our allies and partners? and do you not believe that our adversaries are watching? >> perhaps you can take that for the record, mr. hegseth, uh, senator schmidt, thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'd like to submit for the record a letter submitted by mr. christopher on the former director of operations for vets for freedom. mr.. on his letter states that thsuesti, quote the suggestion that funds were misused for personal gain, lavish parties or other improper purposes is categorically false. throughout my time working with pete hegseth, he consistently demonstrated exceptional integrity in leadership. i asked unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record without objection, so ordered, senator schmidt. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hegseth, good to see you here today. thank you for your service. thank you and your willingness to serve. i also want to thank you for your clarity in articulating the vision you have for the department of defense in restoring an ethos, um, a warrior ethos, uh, which

is in stark contrast to the ethos we've seen the last four years, which is of weakness and wokeness. and i want to drill down on a few things specifically and exactly how we've gotten to where we've gotten with recruiting and morale die. there's been a little bit of discussion about this, but for those watching at home, die is not about giving everybody opportunity. it is rooted in cultural marxism. the idea that you pit the room, any room with oppressor versus oppressed, it's race essentialism, and it is poison. it has no business whatsoever in our military. i think the american people have spoken loudly and clearly about this. they're tired of this. they're tired of woke ideology. and to my democrat colleagues on the other side, if you haven't picked up on that, you miss the plot, because that's what november 5th partially was about. and so let's talk specifically about some of

these dei programs that have been funded in our academies, specifically the air force academy. it was advised as disfavored language to refer to your mom and dad as mom and dad. okay. dear mom and dad, i'm writing home. don't say that. that's insane. um, we're all just people. you can't say that either. and in an effort to police this in a 1984 orwellian novel, there was actually an eyes and ears program to rat on your fellow students who might say, mom and dad, or just say, in a tough situation, you know what? we're all just people can't say that this wasn't limited, by the way, to our academies. um, the secretary of the air force, our current secretary of the air force, in a memo from august of

2022, thought we had too many white officers, advocated for quotas. and if you crunch the numbers, that meant that 5800 white officers who worked really hard should be fired in the united states of america. i don't know how we got here. and by the way, the air force isn't alone here. the navy sort of touted a drag queen influencer. um, this stuff is insane. and people wonder why recruiting has dropped off. and let me just go through a few numbers, and i want to get your comments on how we fix this, because it's gone completely off the rails in 2022. the army missed their recruiting goal of 60,000 soldiers by over 15,000. in 2023, the navy missed their recruiting goals by over 7000. in 2022, the air force couldn't only couldn't meet their standards, their numbers, even though they lowered their standards.

they've lowered their standards to meet numbers. they still can't get to mr. hegseth. we got to fix this. i think what you've demonstrated today is that you have the talent and the ability and the desire to fix it. how are you going to fix it? >> well, senator, thank you for the question. um, first and foremost up front, you have to tear out, di and crt initiatives root and branch out of institutions 100%, and then you have to put in army, navy and air force secretaries and others civilian positions at the helm who are committed to the same priorities that the president of the united states is. and if confirmed, the secretary of defense will be. send a clear message that this is not a time for equity. equity is a very different word than equality. equality is the bedrock of our military men and women duty positions in uniform. black, white doesn't matter. we treat you equally based on who you are and the image of god as an individual.

and we all get the same bad haircuts. you're not an individual. you're part of a group. equity prescribes some sort of an outcome based on differing attributes that we have that divide us. what skin color are you? what what gender are you? and then infuse that into institutions which manifest in things like quotas, formal or informal, which does what to morale, sends it in the tubes, and it makes people feel like they're being judged by something other than how good they are at their job, which is poisonous inside institutions. >> so on top of this recruiting crisis, that wasn't enough for this administration during the covid hysteria. and in their attempt to fire 100,000 people who worked for bigger companies because they didn't get the covid shot, or to mask five year olds, they decided also to make this a central plank in their policy at the pentagon. 8000 well-trained. so we got a

recruiting crisis, 8000 well-trained men and women were fired, were fired. will you commit today, mr. hegseth hegseth to recruit these folks back, to give them back pay and give them an apology from the united states government for how they were disrespected? >> senator, i will commit to this because the commander in chief has committed to this, that not only will they be reinstated, they will receive an apology, back, pay and rank that they lost because they were forced out due to an experimental vaccine. >> thank you. and i'm a limited time, but i just want to say for all the talk of experience and not coming from the same cocktail parties that permanent washington is used to, you are a breath of fresh air. and again, if you weren't paying attention to what this election was all about, it was about the disrupters versus the establishment. the american people have had enough

of business as usual for the same people that we line up for these same jobs who give us the same results. we need somebody who's going to go in there and fight for innovation, fight for change. i think you're that person, and i appreciate your willingness to sit here and listen to some of these undignified attacks. it's ridiculous. >> thank you. captain mark kelly, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on your chairmanship. um, i want to make a request to the committee that we have a second round of questions. >> pursuant to the bipartisan staff agreement that we reached, uh, late last year. um, this will be one round of seven minute questions. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'll be happy to recognize my colleague. mr. reid. >> uh, i think it's important to note for the record that when secretary hagel was here, we had three rounds of questioning when secretary carter was here, we had two rounds

of questioning, and i cannot recall any time where i have denied, as a chairman, a member to ask for a second round and receive the second round. so we are, i think, violating the the principles of the committee. and i just want to go on the record and your your comment is noted. >> thank you. thank you. >> mr. hegseth. thank you for being here today. thank you for your service to this country. thank you. senator, few nominees come into this room with all the necessary experience to do this job, to be secretary of defense. we get that. it's a reflection on just how big of a job this is. what i want to understand is whether or not you bring any of the necessary experience that this job requires. and here's where i'm concerned, senator coleman, introducing you. and this is a quote he said he has struggled and overcome great

personal challenges, unquote. you walk in here saying that you've had personal and character issues in your past, including heavy drinking, which you wrote about, and you said, and this is a quote from you that you said, i sit before you as an open book, yet you haven't actually said what personal challenges it is that you've overcome when you've been asked about them. so i'm going to give you an opportunity here to be as forthright as you say you want to be so while leading concerned veterans of america, there were very specific cases cited by individuals about your conduct. i'm going to go through a few of them, and i just want you to tell me if these are true or false. very simple. a memorial day 2014 at a cva event in virginia, you needed to be carried out of the event for being intoxicated.

>> senator. >> anonymous smears just true or false? very simple. summer of 2014, in cleveland. drunk in public with the cva team. >> anonymous smears. >> i'm just asking for true or false questions. true or false answers. an event in north carolina drunk in front of three young female staff members. after you had instituted a no alcohol policy and then reversed it. true or false? anonymous smears december of 2014 at the cva christmas party at the grand hyatt at washington, dc, you were noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to your room. is that true or false? >> anonymous smears. >> another time, a cva staffer stated that you passed out in the back of a party bus. is that true or false? >> anonymous smears. >> in 2014, while in louisiana on official business for cva, did you take your

staff, including young female staff members, to a strip club? >> absolutely not. anonymous smears. >> so. this is it accurate that the organization reached a financial settlement with a female staffer who claimed to be at a strip club with you, and there was a colleague who attempted to sexually assault her. was there a financial settlement? >> senator, i was not involved in that. i don't know the nature of how that played out, but you understand there was a financial settlement for a young female staffer who accused another member of the organization, not you, of sexual assault in a strip club. we have multiple statements on the record referring to that. >> but you claim you were not there when that occurred?

>> absolutely not. >> now, the behavior i cited, if true, do you think that this behavior of intoxication going into these type of establishments, women on your staff being so uncomfortable that they have to file these sort of harassment claims? do you think this is appropriate behavior for a leader, senator, senator, the overwhelming majority of anyone who has worked for me, including the on the record statements that have been submitted to this with their name on it, on the record, men and women who worked with me every day are the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that testify to my leadership and professionalism in leading vets for freedom and concerned veterans for america. >> my leadership has been completely impugned on these veterans organizations that did fantastic work. >> mr. hegseth, i'm not even going to go overseas. >> i'm not even going to go into the accusations. >> financial books with

integrity across the board. how many people everybody who runs a campaign. >> i have limited time. i'm not going to get into the accusations that come from fox news. i know you have some of your fox news colleagues here. there are multiple instances of accusations against you about drinking on the job. >> all anonymous, all false, all refuted by my colleagues who i worked with for ten years at 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. and the challenge here for me, mr. hegseth, i've only seen me be professional is when there is discussion about personal challenges and you admittedly had issues with heavy drinking. >> it's hard to kind of square this, to square the circle here. it's it's kind of a difficult thing to do. let me ask you if i have about a 90s left here if, if you had to answer these questions about sexual assault against you and your drinking and your personal conduct, would it have been different if this if you were under oath?

>> senator, all i'm pointing out is the false claims against me. >> okay. i take it you do not want to answer that question. i walked in, walked into into this hearing this morning, concerned that you haven't demonstrated adequate leadership in your civilian roles. and this is a dangerous world we're living in here, and america cannot afford a secretary of defense who is unprepared for that mission. i'm going to leave with concerns about your transparency. you say you've had personal issues in your past, yet when asked about those very issues, you blame an anonymous smear campaign. even when many of these claims are not anonymous. which is it? have you overcome personal issues or are you the target of a smear campaign? it can't be both. it's clear to me that you're not being honest with us or the american people because you know, the truth would disqualify you from getting the job. and just as concerning as each of

these specific disqualifying accusations are, what concerns me just as much is the idea of having a secretary of defense who is not transparent. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my two seconds. >> thank you, senator kelly. i would at this point ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record, uh, letters by tina kingston, louisiana state director of concerned veterans for america and holly talley, louisiana local director of concerned veterans for america, attesting to the appropriateness of mr. hecht's conduct with regard to female staffers. without objection, that is added to the record, and, senator banks, you are now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. hegseth. you have conducted yourself very well today. in fact, so well that i believe it's incumbent upon

this committee to confirm you asap to get you on the job to clean up the mess that we have at the pentagon ongoing at this moment because of the leadership there over the last four years, that's failed us in president biden's first year in office. the department of defense spent over 5 million man hours on, quote, unquote, counter extremism and diversity training. what you and i might call woke training or die. the administration has refused to provide us any more recent data than that first year, but we know that it's exponentially more man hours wasted on dni over the last four years. and i wonder, what do you make of that? what could those 5 million man hours in that first year of secretary austin and president biden's administration? what could those five hours, 5 million man hours have been used for? >> senator, that's a lot of

service members sitting in a lot of briefs, hearing about a lot of threats. or uh, political perspectives that might be dangerous, that comport do not comport to threats that actually exist inside the force, or ideas that introduce critical race theory or dei or climate change initiatives that they and their commands have to conform to. and every time one of those happens, it gets pushed down the chain of command that also includes new layers of leadership that have been created under this administration, committed to enforcing those types of dei. and. crt, um, initiatives. so we hear 5 million man hours, and that sounds like a lot. the more troubling aspect is how many training hours that takes away from a company commander or battalion commander, or a wing commander who's out there trying to maintain their force, which is already constrained because of what the biden administration has done to the defense budget and defense capabilities. so they're having to choose between the political prerogatives of the civilians

who are demanding more dei and crt and gender quotas and the readiness of their forces. and i believe this pentagon is prepared because of our commander in chief for a secretary of defense. should i be confirmed? that focuses laser focuses on these issues and they're ready to respond. they want to pack their rucksacks and go train because they understand we live in a dangerous world. >> i think that's an important point, a key point, because months later, while the priority of the biden austin led pentagon was on dei and woke training, one of the biggest embarrassments in american history happened when we lost 13 of our heroes in botched withdrawal from afghanistan. secretary austin testified before the house armed services committee a couple of years ago, and, responding to a question from me, said he had, quote, no regrets about what happened in afghanistan. i wonder, what do you make of

that, senator? >> it's shameful um, they still tout it as the most successful airlift in american history, when what the rest of us all saw was true, laid before our eyes, utter failure, a destruction of of a military legacy, their abandonment of our allies, death of american troops, detriment to our reputation, and then no answers and no accountability on the other side. and then what was unleashed because of what happened in afghanistan, the october 7th attacks and invasion into ukraine. the world recognized weakness for what it was and who bore the brunt for it. the troops on the front lines at abbey gate doing an impossible job, whose external security was the taliban because there was no actual plan for this under the biden administration. and yet not a single person, the only person held accountable in those moments was a marine corps lieutenant colonel, who had the courage to stand up and say someone should be held accountable for that. his name is stu schiller. no one else involved has ever taken

accountability for it. and when that microcosm becomes the reality of the perception of the american military or america's commitment to victory and success and positive outcomes, the world responds to that. president trump is going to restore real deterrence by bringing a real warrior culture back, rebuilding our military and ending wars properly. and if we have to fight them, winning them decisively. >> i served in afghanistan. you served in afghanistan 70, 75% of our nation's veterans disagree with how the withdrawal from afghanistan was handled. the embarrassment of it. what that's done, i believe, has directly impacted our historic recruitment crisis in this country, without a doubt. and you've already talked about that. but how do we fix it? how do we bring pride back to wearing the uniform for the next generation, to inspire them to do what you and i did to raise our right hand and take that oath and serve this great country? >> i really do think it it comes

back to strong, clear leadership, patriotic pro leadership that says we're not going to focus on all the other political prerogatives. that's why we all have political perspectives. i said this before, and i'll say it again in uniform, none of that matters. you wear green, you wear blue, you bleed red. that's it. who you vote for doesn't matter. but when the perception of that changes, then you don't want people deciding whether to serve based on a political party in power. that's a dangerous thing for continuity inside your military. and it's fragile right now. president trump and if i'm confirmed with my leadership, we're going to restore the continuity of an apolitical military that acts decisively and only based on merit. >> i, you and i may sound basic, but they're fundamental. >> you and i agree that wokeness is weakness. mr. hegseth, do you support racial quotas in recruitment or promotions in the united states military? >> senator, i do not support any form of racial quota.

>> do you support affirmative action in our nation's military academies? >> senator, i only support hiring and promoting and admitting the best and brightest, whatever their background is. >> i think that's very important. mr. hegseth lloyd austin, the secretary, later went awol. he disappeared for days and never told the president, didn't even inform the president's chief of staff that he was going into the hospital. would that ever occur on your watch? uh, no. >> senator, i know in any one of my jobs, if i had decided to go awol for even a day or two in, in uniform or around that, that would have been a concern. >> i believe accountability matters. no one to this day has ever, as you've said, been held accountable for what happened in afghanistan. it was embarrassing to this country. it's impacted this country greatly. and i applaud you and president trump for bringing accountability back to our pentagon. with that, i yield back. >> uh, chair recognizes the distinguished ranking member for unanimous consent request.

>> uh, mr. chairman, i would like to submit an article discussing some of the issues of, uh, readiness and. die, uh, there has been a comment that 5.9 million man hours have been used for die jenin. i clarified that that is an estimate out of more than 2 billion man hours that the department of defense, uh, invested during the time period. >> where is this published, sir? >> this is published by meghan myers, and i will get the okay that i. military.com. >> i'm sorry. without objection, it will be admitted to the record and, uh, senator slotkin, welcome to the committee. thank you. >> thank you, senator, and thank you for referencing the great carl levin as you introduced me. we miss him in michigan. um, for those who i haven't met in my one week

that i've been sworn into the senate, i'm a cia officer recruited after nine over 11. i did three tours armed in iraq alongside the military. um, and, uh, have worked for four different secretaries of defense, both democrat and republican, proudly, and watch them make decisions that literally determine the life and death of americans in the dark of night. i'm also a democrat representing a state that trump won, right? we both won on the same ballot. so i understand that president trump has the the right to nominate his people. we are going to have policies that we disagree with. all of that, to me comes very standard. what i think i'm most concerned with is that no president has the right to use the uniform military in a way that violates the u.s. constitution and further taints the military as that apolitical institution that we all want. right. um, and our founders designed the system so that, um, you know, we had posse comitatus that we weren't going to use active

duty military inside the united states and make american citizens potentially scared of their own military. we went through our own experience with that, with the british as the secretary of defense, you will be the one man standing in the breach. should president trump give an illegal order. right? i'm not saying he will, but if he does, you are going to be the guy that he calls to implement this order. um, do you agree that there are some orders that can be given by the commander in chief that would violate the u.s. constitution? >> senator, thank you for your service. um, but i reject the premise that president trump is going to be giving illegal orders. >> no, i'm not saying he will. but if do you believe there is such a thing as an illegal order that joe biden or any other president donald trump could give, is there anything that a commander in chief could ask you to do with the uniformed military that would be in violation of the u.s. constitution, senator? >> anybody of any party could give an order that is against the constitution or against the

law. >> right? okay. so and are you so are you saying that you would stand in the breach and push back if you were given an illegal order? >> i start by saying i reject the premise that president trump. is giving any illegal orders at all. >> mike, this isn't a hypothetical. okay? your predecessor in a trump administration, secretary esper, was asked and did use uniformed military to clear unarmed protesters. he was given the order to potentially shoot at them. helos flew low in washington, dc as crowd control. he later apologized publicly for those actions. was he right or wrong to apologize? >> senator, i was there on the ground and i saw the i saw i understand and i respect that i've been there. >> i understand the level of threat of defense involved in that moment. >> i was he right? >> so he was. wrong. >> and the constitution, was he right or wrong? >> you have to apologize. >> i'm not going to put words in the mouth of secretary esper or anybody else. >> he said them himself. you don't have to. what are you

scared of? did he do the right thing by apologizing? >> i'm not scared of anything, senator. >> and say yes or no. you can say no. >> the laws and the constitution. okay. in any particular. >> donald trump asked for the active duty 82nd airborne to be deployed. during that same time. secretary esper has written that he convinced him against that decision. if donald trump asked you to use the 82nd airborne in law enforcement roles in washington, d.c., would you also convince him otherwise? >> i'm not going to get ahead of conversations i would have with the president. however, there are laws and processes inside our constitution that would be followed, president trump said in november that he is willing to consider using the active duty military against the, quote, enemy within. >> have you been personally involved in discussions of using the u.s. military active duty inside the united states? >> senator i'm fine. i'm glad we finally got to the topic of border security equaling national security, because it's been abdicated and ignored for the last four

years. >> that wasn't my question. i'm just asking, have you been involved? you're about to be the secretary of defense, potentially. have you been involved in discussions about using the active duty military inside the united states? >> senator, i am not yet the secretary of defense. if confirmed, i would be party to any number of things. >> so you haven't been in any of these? >> i would not reveal what i have discussed with the president of united states. >> have you been in conversations again? you're going to be in charge of 3 million people. the active duty that i know you care about, i believe you care about. so have you been in conversations about using the active duty in any way, whether it's setting up in detention camps, policing dangerous cities. have you been involved in any of those conversations? >> certainly. i have been involved in conversations relating to doing things. this administration has not, which is secure. the southern border and not allow floods of illegals. so are your country through an invasion that threatens the american people. okay. and there are ways in

which the military is already playing a role in that, to include 5000 national guardsmen from indiana and the u.s. who are at the border right now, allowing for border security. so there is plenty of precedent. duty military, military staff, detention centers, border. >> our u.s. military is not trained in law enforcement roles. i think you know that, right? we've seen how that mission is difficult for them in places like iraq and afghanistan, because that's not the training a uniformed military comes with. do you support the use of active duty military in supporting detention camps? >> senator, everything we will do would be lawful and under the constitution. but i recognize that this administration has abdicated its responsibility. president trump is going to restore order at the border, preserving our enemies from invading. and yes, he has said, sir, i get your filibustering, i get it, i get it. >> part of what happens in the spirit of preserving the institution that i think we both care about legitimately, the uniform code of military justice. i've heard a couple of different things. one, you said you will not change the uniform code of military justice, which is what governs justice system in the military.

yes or no? you said that earlier. >> those are laws, senator, set by congress. >> okay. so you will not go to to change it. you're not attempt to change it. you also said that jag officers are potentially people who put their own interests in their own medals and promotions ahead of the troops. senator lindsey graham was a jag officer for most of his life. is that what you believe about those who implement our justice system in the u.s. military? >> senator, i was speaking about particular jag officers i've had to deal with in my military career. are you going to get involved? a member of the united states senate? >> are you a secretary of defense going to get involved in the implementation of the u.s. military code of justice? >> senator, ultimately, it will be a big part of my job to evaluate decisions vis a vis. okay, so uniform code of military justice, have you seen the fairly is cq brown on your list in the warrior boards to be removed from his position? senator. uh, every single senior officer will be reviewed based on meritocracy standards

and lethality and commitment to lawful orders. they will be given. >> thank you. senator slotkin. i now recognize senator shaheen for a unanimous consent request. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a request from a former general who served 35 years, dennis lynch, who most recently was the commander of the 94th regional readiness command at fort devens, mass. who has asked that his letter opposing mr. hegseth nomination be entered into the record? >> is there objection? without objection, it will be entered. um, also, i present a, uh, a host of letters and op eds from former coworkers at vets for freedom and concerned vets for america, as well as fox news channel. um, i also have letters and op eds from many veterans and iraqis and afghans, um, who were helped by mr. hegseth. um,

i ask unanimous consent to introduce these letters and op eds without objection, is so ordered. senator sheehy, you've been very patient thank you, mr. chairman. >> entering a support letter in for mr. hegseth submitted by nearly 90 former soldiers who served with pete in combat. i would like to submit a statement from 86 of them who support his nomination, although they come from different units and ranks. the signatories commend mr. hegseth for his selfless leadership, love of his soldiers and commitment to our country. >> two items. >> sorry, one item i ask unanimous consent to enter this. >> without objection, it will be entered. >> thank you, mr. chairman. pete, i'm actually going to ask you questions because i want to hear your answer. how many genders are there? tough one. >> uh, senator, there are two genders. >> i know that. well, i'm a sheehy, so i'm on board.

what is the diameter of the rifle round fired out of an m4a1 rifle. >> that's a five, five, six. >> how many push ups can you do? >> i did five sets of 47 this morning. >> what do you think? what do you think? our most important strategic bases in the pacific are in the pacific. >> guam is pretty strategically significant. >> how many rounds of five, five, six can you fit into the magazine of an m4 rifle? >> depends on the magazine, but standard issue is 30. senator. >> and what size round is the m9? beretta standard issue sidearm for the military fire a nine millimeter. >> senator. >> what kind of batteries do you put in your night vision? goggle? >> duracell. >> so right there you're representing qualifications that show you understand what the warfighter

deals with every single day on the battlefield. you understand what happens on the front line where our troops will be and what happens unfortunately in this country is decisions made in rooms like this, bad decisions end up in dead 17, 18, 19 year old americans. and those americans rarely come from families that sit in rooms like this. they come from lower middle income families who sometimes the military is their only way out, and they join because maybe they want to go to college, maybe they had no other choice. maybe they love this country, but for whatever reason, they joined and they sign on the dotted line. and when people like us screw up, they don't come home. and that's the one thing that i care about, is you remember when i shut the door when you came with your entourage? senator coleman, i've known for a long time, and you and i sat together. i asked you one question. you know what that question was? >> are you going to have the backs of the war fighters? exactly. >> what is going to be your number one priority? and i don't care, frankly, what all these letters and articles say. i've been a part of a smear campaign, too, i get it. i care

that you're going to have one thing in mind when you sit in that chair in that five sided building, and you told me what that was. so with that, you have my support. i'm sorry you have to go through a process like this, but it is one of the most important jobs in the world. we've got to make sure you're ready for it. i thank you for your answers. i got one final question that's very important to me. this is more of a of a technical question, but i think it's to fix the army in this country is a 1 or 2 year problem. we can make bullets, we can make rifles, fix the air force might be a five year problem to fix. our navy is a decades long pursuit. how are you going to fix our national? you don't have all the power. we're not. we're not china. unfortunately, you can't snap your fingers. but how are you going to lead an initiative within the dod to reinvigorate our national shipbuilding industry? so we were able to compete with china because freedom of navigation is critical to our economy and the global economy. it's going to be a very important task for you to complete. >> it's a critical question, senator, and that's why i'm

grateful that president trump has said definitively to me and publicly that shipbuilding will be one of his absolute top priorities of this administration. so a lot of it does go into pulling things up into the osd office, secretary of defense's office to shine a spotlight on it, to make sure the bureaucracy bureaucracy doesn't strangle important initiatives that need to happen. you need to we need to reinvigorate our defense industrial base in this country to include our shipbuilding capacity. some of it is on the east, some of it is on the west, some of it's on the great lakes, the invest the workforce problems that our shipyards are facing are significant. and there's been a big investment from this committee. i know in a lot of those places, because of the shortfalls. of manpower issues, everything else. but we also see adversaries that have been able to innovate themselves in ways that their shipbuilding capacity is. i won't reveal it at this hearing. multitudes and multitudes beyond our capabilities. so it needs to be a rapid investment, a rapid fielding, and then we need to incentivize outside entities to

fill the gap. um, we've talked a lot about uavs. um, uavs are very important, but there's also a future of uav's unmanned underwater vehicles that will be a part of, uh, amplifying the impact of our navy because our this administration has allowed our number of ships to drop below 300. it sets a projection of 340 or 350, but doesn't create the capacity to actually address it. and so if we're going to defend our interests, our allies, and put america first, we're going to have to be able to project power. that means shipbuilding. it means historic investments in our defense industrial base there. and then also driving innovation and cost savings, uh, in ways that only business leaders inside the pentagon can do when i'd add, i don't think any board in the world would have hired steve jobs or elon musk or mark zuckerberg when when they founded their companies either. >> so this country was founded by by young people who had a great vision. thank you for

being willing to serve your country again. and thanks for coming here today. i yield back, chairman. >> thank you, senator sheehy. you yield back the balance of your time. uh, mr. ranking member, can we agree that you and i will? um, um, notify members of a specific time? uh, until which the record will remain open for submission of questions. for the record, yes, mr. chairman, that that will be a day or two. um, this concludes today's hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for, um, and their families. and this hearing is adjourned. thank you, thank you, thank you. >> and that wraps up a four hours and 15 minutes of questions, many times very heated questions from democrats. some very direct questions from republicans. but a all in all,

pretty partisan showing for a role that has not always been that way. but pete hegseth has been under it, under the spotlight and being. really peppered on questions about everything from his view of women in combat, particularly based on what he has said in the past. his. personal experience with alleged drinking, drinking too much on the job. we'll get into that alleged sexual assault, which he denied. again, questions about him recommending to donald trump, pardoning convicted war criminals. tattoo that he has that has been suggested that is

associated with extremist groups, which again, he denied. and really important questions about how he sees a job as secretary of defense vis a vis the commander in chief, particularly that commander in chief being donald trump. and questions about what he views as the role of the secretary of defense. when and if the president asks for military intervention in places that are not supposed to happen. we have a lot to talk to, a lot to get to. i want to go first to kaitlan collins, who is on capitol hill. caitlin, you were in the hearing room. anything that we should know about the vibe in there that we just couldn't see during these four plus hours on television? >> yeah. dana, you can always see the questioning from these senators and the answers and of course, those who are seated right behind the the nominee in this case, pete hegseth. but in

that room in the rows behind him, i should note that as he entered the room, there was a large round of applause. initially, that's because the room was filled with donald trump's republican allies on capitol hill. they were also filled with veterans from different organizations supporting mr. hegseth and people from the maga media orbit there to support him. clearly engineered and structured to to show a level of support from him. as soon as he walked into the room here, and just as you were in there listening to the questioning, at times you would hear those in the room respond to certain lines of questioning whether it was from senator elizabeth warren or from certain republican senators as they were going. but it was the level of questions that i should note. pete hegseth team and donald trump's team, for that matter, was expecting him to get when he came into that room today in terms of grilling over the past allegations of sexual assault, excessive drinking and financial mismanagement of those veterans organizations that he ran. and those were all questions, you know, starting with jack reed, initially, the chairman, the ranking chairman on the committee, as he was saying, you know, talking about all the

other cabinet nominees that had come before him, but particularly defense secretaries that he has supported, while making very clear that he does not plan to support pete hegseth. now, there was a lot of aggressive questioning from these democratic senators, in particular, senator tim kaine himself really was drilling down on those allegations against pete hegseth and his acknowledgment that he did have a sexual relationship with the woman who later accused him of sexual assault, that it was at the center of that agreement. he has denied that it was sexual assault. but really, the outcome of that hearing that you just watched there play out for a few hours, rises and falls with the republicans on that committee. so i was paying very close attention to their questioning. and senator joni ernst, who maybe was the most watched republican senator on this committee, started her seven minutes by entering into the record a letter that had a very positive recommendation of pete hegseth. now, she did ask him about sexual assault in the military and a promise to appoint someone to essentially have a senior role in the

pentagon to oversee that issue, that she herself has personally worked on. but then it was when senator elizabeth warren was asking her questions, and she was asking pete hegseth how he could so quickly change his position on something as women being in the military, which we heard from him just in november after his book came out saying he doesn't believe women belong in combat positions in the military. elizabeth warren was asking how he could change his mind on that so quickly, obviously seeming to suggest that it was because simply that he was nominated by president elect trump to be his defense secretary. i was watching senator joni ernst during that time. she was watching very closely, staring straight ahead with a bit of a stone faced expression on as senator elizabeth warren was conducting that questioning. but judging by the pretty warm reception he got from republican senators, that gives you a pretty good indication of how that hearing went from hegseth team's perspective. >> yeah, no question about it. and i think you're right about joni ernst. the fact that she made a point of entering a

positive story or an op ed in her hometown paper that was a tell and a signal back home, certainly, that maybe she's listening to the conservatives, who were part of a very, very aggressive campaign to try to get her to support pete hegseth. we'll talk a little bit more about that and play some of that exchange in a bit. caitlin, thank you so much. now i want to go to manu raju, who i believe is outside the hearing room. there you are, manu. manu, your takeaway. >> how do we that now? yeah, actually, in fact, joni ernst just walked out of the hearing room and was asked by reporters about what she would do. she did not respond to questions about her, whether she will back him. this actually could be the decisive vote on this key committee that she's been closely watched. she had been moving closer to backing pete hegseth. of course we expect, excuse me, most, if not all of those democrats especially, particularly given that aggressive line of questioning from democrats to vote against hegseth. so that means the

republican support will be essential to getting him across the finish line. and if ernst is on board, probably we expect every single republican there to be on board. and the question ultimately will be on the full senate, the senate floor itself, where he hegseth can only afford to lose three republicans senator, senator wicker, senator wicker, can you respond? can you respond to the criticism? can you respond to the criticism that the fbi background check was incomplete and did not interview enough of these accusers from decades past? and why aren't the why isn't the full committee have access to the fbi background check? >> well, let me just say from the outset, though, that this was a tour de force, a takedown, a triumph. i think mr. hicks has had three audiences the committee, the united states senate and the american general public. i think it was a magnificent display of

his knowledge and his ability to communicate, his leadership abilities. and i feel very good about this hearing today. i don't think it could have gone any better. what about the fbi background check? >> specifically complete the question. the criticism from jack reed, the criticism from jack reed that was not a complete background check that you hear from a lot of democratic senators. this was not a complete background check. what do you say to them? >> well, of course, an answer to your question. um, we followed the precedent from the committee for the last two nominations by a democratic president and a republican president. um, i don't have any complaints about the fbi investigation. they did a thorough interview of. persons at all the places where mr. hegseth has lived and worked, and i don't have any objection to the why didn't

they interview the accuser of that sexual assault from 2017? i don't think she wanted to to speak and, um, they interviewed um, some, uh, 60 or more, um, witnesses and three asked not to be identified. >> and what about the ex-wives or the ex-wives or the ex-wives interviewed? >> committee should have heard from the accuser and hegseth ex-wives. >> i think the committee has has been adequately advised. and i think basically, um, it seems that the committee members have made up their minds. i think the significant thing about this hearing today is that the american people got to see what a talented advocate, um, mr. hegseth is. and and what a knowledgeable secretary of defense he will be. now, let me run. i have only a i have

only a few more minutes for john tower, though. >> you allowed this this committee allowed the full committee to review the fbi background check. >> i was in tennis shoes and knee pants when that occurred. >> when will the vote be? when will the vote be in the committee? when will the vote be in the committee? senator, i do not know. no. okay. all right. well, if you're still with me, dana. um, a couple of headlines out of this. you hear that? okay, so i don't know if you heard that last part. he, of course, is the chairman of the committee. sets the votes on when their actual the armed services committee would take this up. he said they have. he doesn't know yet when they will have the vote. but you heard his effusive praise of pete hegseth. he had not said a whole lot, tipped his hand on how he may view this nomination, or how he did view this nomination. until we heard this hearing, he was very supportive coming out of there, but also, significantly, he and jack reed, the top democrat, are the only two members who have reviewed this fbi background check. you heard that complaints from the democrats throughout this hearing, there's some criticism from democrats that this is a, quote, incomplete

investigation. it didn't go into a lot of those allegations from his past. and one of the things is that apparently not interviewing the accuser of that 2017 episode where he was accused hegseth was of sexual assault back in monterey, california. why didn't that happen? that was a question wicker suggested that perhaps the accuser did not want to be interviewed. we'll see where how that bears out. but that was interesting the first time we heard him there. he also said there were about 60 witnesses or so who were interviewed, didn't seem to have any issues whatsoever about the incomplete nature. democrats say it was incomplete. that's not how roger wicker says they are. and also, i tried to ask him about there is precedent in this committee to allow the full access of all the members who sit on this panel to review a background check that happened with john tower. he was the last cabinet nominee, defense secretary nominee to be rejected by the full senate over allegations of excessive drinking. members did review at that time. i said, well, why not now? and he said he was in tennis shoes and wasn't a member of the senate back then. that was for some time ago. so

you can see a push by the republican chairman to get this nomination done. and if he's got republicans in line, which he appears to have at the moment, he will get this done. despite the democratic complaints from this very tense hearing. dana. >> yeah, we were we were all in tennis shoes and knee pants, whatever. he said when the john tower thing happened. but we also have history books, so we know what went down. and i'll be interested to see what jack reed, the top democrat on that committee, who has been a member of that committee for a very long time, who mentioned the tower situation during the hearing. what he has to say about the fbi. background check, whether or not other members will see it, and also, about that point that really struck us here, that senator wicker, chairman wicker said to you, manu, which is he alleged that the accuser from that alleged sexual assault encounter, which hegseth denies, didn't want to talk to the fbi. that's definitely

something that everybody is going to follow up on. appreciate it. let us know if you see anybody else. manu, i want to now go over to oren lieberman, who covers the pentagon for us. oren, of course, there has been so much and certainly bore out during this committee. the confirmation process about his personal background, about the questions about allegations. there also were and are very important questions about policy, defense policy and his qualifications. there. you see, pete hegseth is walking out of what we believe will likely be his one and only confirmation hearing. what was your takeaway on what he said about some of those policies? i mean, we're going to talk a lot about women in combat. so you can mention that if you want. there's lgbtq members in the military. we heard a lot of republicans talking about die in the ranks, but also

some questions to him about. uh, specific roles, specific treaties, for example, like asean and coalitions, international coalitions that he will have to lead the u.s. on and in. and it wasn't clear whether or not he gave the senators asking those questions satisfactory answers there were a number of points here on which his lack of experience was very much on full display for the committee, and essentially the reaction to that broke down on on partisan lines. >> democrats, effectively appalled by it and said that it showed he didn't have the experience to do the job of defense secretary. republicans, however, focused on something completely different his commitment to war fighting and said he's exactly the right guy, but on the point you make. he was asked about three