enemies will fear and it is that warrior ethos that will keep the peace. and ladies and gentlemen, in my humble opinion, our military deserves better than it's getting. our country faces a devastating recruitment crisis, men and women are not volunteering to serve at the levels required. our readiness is down. our costs are up. and it seems like nearly every major weapons system again often discussed in this very room, is costing too much, delivering too little and taking way too long. the bottom line is the status quo is unacceptable. it's not working. and the members of this committee, you all know it. you know it's not working. and the members of the house armed services know it's not working. and we have hearing after hearing year after year and here

we are decades later describinging the same problems. the pentagon has continuously failed audits. businesses that want to do business with the pentagon have to pass an audit but the entity itself fails an audit. innovation is stalled. morale is down. standard weakened and meritocracy is less valued. our adversaries are emboldened all over the world. ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. it is time for change. you all have literally seen thousands of veterans as the chairman cited one amazing medal of honor recipient. we have seen thousands of veterans expressing their support for pete. this is a man who can reinvigorate that warrior ethos and a man that will lead. i can't imagine having a more capable partner in my position as national security advisor. he is a man of family, faith and committed to making our country

strong again and most importantly, but i know this in my core, he will always have as a first principle the service members that are out there on the front lines for all of us at the heart of every decision he makes. so senators, i urge you to support this confirmation. it is critical that president trump has his national security team in place for the challenges ahead and i thank you. >> thank you, mike, for your testimony and i'm guessing that each and every member of this committee will want to have you on speed dial for the next few years. thank you both. our two guests may stay or i know they have other engagements and responsibilities also. but thank you both for your testimony. at this point, mr. hegseth, i am required to ask you as the

nominee a series of questions that the committee asks all civilian nominees who appear before it. if you would, please simply respond in the affirmative or negative to each question. have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest? >> yes, sir. >> have you assumed any duties or taken any actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? >> no, sir. >> exercising our legislative and oversight responsibility this committee, its subcommittees and other appropriate committees of congress receive testimony, briefings, reports, records and other information from the executive branch on a timely basis. do you agree if confirmed to appear and testify before this committee when requested? >> yes, sir. >> do you agree to provide records, documents and electronic communications in a timely manner when requested by this committee, its

subcommittees or other appropriate committees of congress? and to consult with the requester regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing such records? >> yes, sir. >> will you insure that your staff complies with deadlines established by this committee for the production of reports, records and other information including timely responding to hearing questions for the record? >> yes, sir. >> will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests? >> yes, sir. >> with those witnesses and briefers be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings? >> yes, sir. >> all right. so at this point, mr. hegseth, you are recognized for your opening statement. >> thank you, chairman wicker, ranking member reid and all the

members of this committee for this opportunity today. i'm grateful for and have learned a great deal from this advise and consent process. our founders knew what they were doing. should i be confirmed, i look forward to working with this committee, senators from both parties, to secure our nation. i want to thank the former senator from min for his mentorship and friendship in the process and the incoming national security advisor congressman and colonel mike waltz for his powerful words. i'm grateful to them both. thank you to my incredible wife, jennifer. who has changed my life and been with me throughout this entire process. i love you, sweetheart, and i thank god for you. and as jenny and i pray together every morning, all glory, regardless of the outcome,

belongs to our lord and savior jesus christ, his grace and mercy abounds each day. may his will be done. thank you to my father, brian and my penny rick as well as our entire family including our seven wonderful kids gunner, jackson, peter boone, kensington, luke, rex, sorry, a lot of them. and gwen. their future safety and security is in all our hands. to all the troops and veterans watching and here in the room, navy seals, green berets, soldiers, pilots and more. too many friends to name. officers, enlisted black and white, young and old, men and women. all americans all warriors. this hearing is for you. thank you for figuratively and literally having my back.

>> not only that, you are a christian scientist -- [man yelling >> thank the authorities to the outburst and state that similar interruptions will be treated in like manner. mr. hegseth, you may continue. >> as i will say again, thank you for figuratively and literally having my back. i pledge to do the same for all of you. it is not up to come before this committee today as president donald trump's nominee for the office of secretary of defense. two months ago 77 million americans gave president trump a powerful mandate for change. to put america first at home and abroad. i want to thank president trump for his faith in me and his

selfless leadership for our republic. the troops have no better commander-in-chief than donald trump. as i've said to many of you in private meetings when president trump chose me for this position the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the department of defense. he, like me, wants a pentagon laser focused on lethality, merit accuracy and readiness. [people yelling in the background] >> you may continue, sir. >> returning the pentagon back to war fighting. that's it. that's my job.

>> mr. hegseth, i suspend your remarks. let me just say this. the capitol police are going to remove immediately -- i see a pattern, attempted to be inflicted on the committee and we are simply not going to tolerate that. you may proceed. >> to bring back war fighting if confirmed i'm going to work with president trump and this committee to one, restore the warrior ethos to the pentagon and our fighting force. in doing so we'll reestablish trust in our military. addressing the recruiting christ crisis and readiness crisis in our ranks. >> the security force will

remove members. mr. hegseth, you may -- >> the strength of our military is our unity and our shared purpose, not our differences. number two, we will rebuild our military. always matching threats to capabilities. this includes reviving our defense industrial base, reforming the acquisitions process. no more valley of death for new defense companies. modernizing our nuclear triad, insuring the pentagon can pass an audit and rapidly fielding he mernl technologies and establish redearents. first and foremost we will defend our homeland, our borders and our skies. second, we will work with our partners and allies to deter

aggression in the indo-pacific from the chinese and finally responsibly end wars to insure we prioritize resources to reorient to larger threats. we can no longer count on rep eustachianal deterrence. we need real deterents. the department of defense under donald trump will achieve peace through strength. and in pursuing these america first national security goals, will remain patriotically apolitical and strideently constitutional. unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters. we are not republicans, we are not democrats. we are american warriors. our standards will be high and they will be equal. not equitable. that's a very different word. we need to make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapon system,

every pilot fully qualified and current on the aircraft they're flying and every general or flag officer is selected for leadership or promotion purely based on performance, readiness and merit. leaders at all levels will be held accountable and war fighting and lethality and the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only focus. this has been my focus ever since i first put on the uniform as a young army rotc cadet at princeton university in 2001. i joined the military because i love my country. felt an obligation to defend it. i served with incredible americans in guantanamo bay, in iraq, in afghanistan and on the streets of washington, d.c. many of which are with me here today. this includes enlisted soldiers i helped become american

citizens. and muslim allies i helped immigrate from iraq and afghanistan. because when i took off the uniform, my mission never stopped. now it is true and has been acknowledged that i don't have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the last 30 years. but as president trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people on top of the pentagon with supposedly the right credentials whether they're retired generals, academics or defense contractor executives and where has it gotten us? he believes and i humbly agree, that it's time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm. a change agent. someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives. my only special interest is the warfighter. deterring wars and if called upon winning wars by insuring our warriors never enter a fair

fight. we let them win and we bring them home. like many of my generation, i've been there, i've led troops in combat and been on pennsylvania rot for days and pulled the trigger down range. heard bullets, called in close air support. dodged ieds, pulled out dead bodies. and knelt before a battlefield cross. this is not academic for me. this is my life. i led then and i will lead now. ask anyone who has ever worked for me or with me. i know what i don't know. my success as a leader and i very much look forward to discussing my organizations successes at vets for freedom and concerned veterans for america. i'm incredibly proud of the work we've done. my success as a leader has been

setting a clear vision, hiring people smarter and more capable than me and empowering them to succeed, holding everyone accountable and driving toward clear metrics. build the plan, work the plan, and then work harder than everyone else around you. i've sworn an oath to the constitution before and if confirmed i will proudly do it again. this time for the most important deployment of my life. i pledge to be a faithful partner to this committee, taking input and respecting oversight. we share the same goals. a ready lethal military, the health and well-being of our troops, and a strong and secure america. thank you for the time. and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. hegseth. before we begin with member questions, i would like to remind my colleagues that consistent with the bipartisan staff agreement from december,

and in concert with exactly how this committee dealt with the last secretary of defense nominee, each member will be recognized for one round of seven minutes to question the nominee. out of respect for the time of all members of this committee, the time limits will be tightly enforced. we've now been here 45 minutes and i think we've done very well with the time but at this point i will begin my questioning of the nominee. mr. hegseth, you and your family have endured criticism of your nomination since it was announced in november. let's get into this allegation about sexual assault, inappropriate behavior and other things. i should note the majority of these have come from anonymous sources in liberal media publications but i want to give

you an opportunity to respond to these allegations, sir. >> mr. chairman, thank you for that opportunity. you are correct. we undertook this spoons built with an obligation to the troops to do right by them for our war fighters and what became very evident to us from the beginning. there was a coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media against us. it was clear from moment one. and what we knew is it wasn't about me. most of it was about president donald trump who has had to endure the very same thing for much longer amounts of time and he endured it incredibly strong ways. so we in some ways knew it was coming. we didn't understand the depth of the dishonesty that would come with it. so from story after story in the media, left wing media, we saw anonymous source after anonymous source based on second or third

hand accounts. time and time again stories would come out and people would reach out to me and say i have spoken to this reporter about who you are and i was willing to go on the record, but they didn't print my quote. they didn't print any of my quotes, or i've worked with you for ten years. i was your accountant. i was your chief operating officer. i was your board member, or i was with you on 100 different tour stops for concerned veterans for america. no one called me. no one asked about your conduct on the record or off the record. instead a small handful of anonymous sources were allowed to drive a smear campaign, an agenda about me because our left wing media in america today sadly doesn't care about the truth. all they were out to do, mr. chairman, was to destroy me. and why do they want to destroy me? i'm a change kth and a threat to

them because donald trump was willing to choose me to empower me to bring the defense department back to what it really should be, which is war fighting. i am willing to endure these attacks but what i will do is stand up for the truth and for my reputation. false attacks, anonymous attacks, repeated ad nauseam and printed like that as facts, we have provided to the committee, mr. chairman, i know you will share on the record statement after on the record statement for people who served with me, worked with me at fox news, vets for freedom. you name it from the top of the chain to the bottom who will say i treat them with respect, with kindness, with dignity, that's men, that's women, that's black, that's white, that's every background. i have prided myself as a leader of respecting people, being professional. that's the balance of my -- i'm not a perfect person as has been

acknowledged. saved by the grace of god by jesus and jenny. i'm not a perfect person but redemption is real. and god forged me in ways that i know i'm prepared for. and i'm honored by the people standing and sitting behind me and i look forward to leading this pentagon on behalf of the war fighters. >> thank you, mr. hegseth. frankly i'm sure there are millions of americans watching who would agree they've experienced that same sort of redemption. i do appreciate that. i realize that it involves a little bearing of the soul but thank you for that. now let's talk about top line defense spending. i have plan, i think you read it. i issued another plan, freedoms forge which you have also had a chance to look at. and you have noted correctly that the current line of defense spending falling below 3% of our gdp is a threat to national security. you also said building stronger

and most powerful military in the world must be done responsibly. but it cannot be done on the cheap. you still agree with that, do you not? >> yes, sir, i do. >> so tell us what you think about particularly about my plan to make the defense department less bureaucratic, make it more friendly, cut out some of the bureaucracies, more friendly to start-ups and new ideas contained in my 20 or so-page white paper defending freedoms forge. >> i have had a chance to review that paper. those are precisely the kinds of ideas that need to be pursued and look forward to working with this committee to insure we cut the red tape, we incentivize innovation and rebuild the defense industrial base, cut out the bureaucracy. all things preventing the

platforms and tools from getting rapidly from our great defense companies and those that want to compete into the hands of war fighters. past this prologue on this i would just look at what president trump did after the draw downs of lead from behind under president obama. president trump rebuilt our military. he didn't start wars, he ended them. he didn't allow wars to start on his watch. we have had the same kind of defense cuts under the biden administration and so look, i would present to the committee the reputation of president donald trump and me coming alongside him to insure we have peace through strength by rebuilding our military, investing as necessary, going under 3%, mr. chairman, is very dangerous. >> we have 45 seconds. tell us in that point -- get us started talking about deterring china in the indie pacific. >> starts where priorities, the 2017 national defense strategy was the first step in going away

from simply entanglement in the middle east and reorienting the pentagon toward new priorities, specifically the indo-pacific. it was started and barely start evidence by the biden administration. as far as threats abroad, the ccp is front and center. also obviously defending our homeland as well. >> thank you very much. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to make three questions before my questioning. first, many of my members would like a second round. that has been the custom, senator hagel was afforded three rounds. senator carter two rounds, and that was done by republican chairman with the consent and appropriate guidance of democrats. i must say, too, my recollection is i've never denied anyone the

opportunity to ask the second round of questions. i would request a second round. >> my time has run out. >> you are using your time. >> the time keeper will pause the time. i must say i think we'll have adequate time for questioning. i know democrat members have coordinated their questions as much as we have but we are following the same exact precedent on all things that we did with secretary austin. so i respectfully understand what you are saying, but i think we have an agreement. it has been known for quite some time and i intend to stick with that agreement which we made last december. what is your second request? >> second has been before you

and i have both seen the f.b.i. background investigation of mr. hegseth. i believe the investigation was insufficient, frankly. there are still f.b.i. obligations to talk to people. they have not had access to the forensic audit which i have reference to and the person who had access to was quite critical of mr. hegseth. i think people on both sides have suggested they get the report. senator thune thought it was an appropriate idea. so i would ask and i would say, too, as a precedent, one of president trump's appointees has similar very complicated personal issues. the report was made available to all members of the committee. would would be following precedent. i ask that be made possible.

>> again, we are -- there has been much discussion about this and what i intend to do is follow the exact precedent that we have had for the last two hearings with regard to secretaries of defense. not only secretary austin but secretary mattis eight years ago. and that was for the chair and the ranking member to see the report and so that is my intention as chair of this committee. >> finally, mr. chairman, i have several letters that i would include for the record. one from an organization of retired four star generals and former secretaries of defense that is critical of the proposed. one from an organization for domestic violence, one from a council on american relations,

and also several letters that raise questions. i would ask they be submitted for the record. >> without objection they will be submitted and mr. reid, your time has now expired. just kidding. you are recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you. you are a very understanding chairman. i like that. mr. hegseth, you have written and fire any general who hasn't carried water for obama and biden and a transformation for our military. clean house and start over. it has come to my attention that current serving military personnel have received emails threatening them with being fired for supporting the current d.o.d. policies. one sent to a military officer with the subject line clean

house, reminiscent of your specific comment, states and i quote, with the incoming administration looking to remove disloyal, corrupt, traitorous liberal officers such as yourself, we will certainly be putting your name into the list of those personnel to be removed. we know you support the woke dei policies and will insure you never again influence anyone in the future. you and redacted spells his name will be lucky if you are able to collect your military retirement, end quote. i want to remind everyone, these policies being referred to date back decades to the 1940s and 50s with respect to racial discrimination particularly and administrations of both parties, including the trump administration in the first party caused those policies to be enforced. mr. hegseth, are you aware of these emails being sent to

officers? >> senator, you mentioned the word accountability. which is something we have not had for the last four years. >> are you aware of these messages being sent to officers? >> certainly i'm not aware of that. it's not one of my efforts. there has been no accountability for the disaster of the withdrawal in afghanistan and why we're here today is that leadership has been unwilling to take accountability and time to restore that to our most senior ranks. >> you have written publicly that dei policy is a distraction and has military personnel walking on egg shells. do you believe that emails like that essentially threatening both serving officer and a spouse and claiming that they will lose their pension will have a distraction and detract from the lethality? >> you mentioned the 40s and 50s and you are precisely right. the military was a forerunner being courageous with racial

integration in ways no other institution else were willing to do. i served with men and women of all backgrounds because of the courage of individuals. however, the dei policies of today are not the same as what happened back then. they are dividing troops inside formations, causing commanders to walk on egg shells not putting meritocracy first. the indictment made by those serving now and why we're having the conversation. >> they don't talk about meritocracy. they talk about liberal democratic efforts destroying the military, that those people are enemies, that the meritocracy, that's a political view and your goal, as i see emerging, is to politicize the military in favor of your particular positions which you have outlined extensively which would be the worst blow to the professionalism of the united states military.

and would undercut readiness, undercut retention, because i can see officers receiving these emails beginning to wonder seriously if they should continue. let me change subjects for a moment here. you've been instrumental in securing pardons for several convicted war criminals. at least two of these cases the military personnel who served in combat with these convicted service members were not supportive of the pardons. they did their duty as soldiers to report war crimes. your definition of lethality seems to embrace those people who do commit war crimes rather than those who stand up and say this is not right. so what is the response to service members who personally witnessed these and courageously reported this emotion to their

superiors? >> senator, as someone who has led men in combat directly and had to make very difficult decisions, i thought very deeply about the balance between legal agent and lethality insuring the men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to close the enemy and lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way. i'm not talking about disavowing the laws of war on the geneva conventions or the uniform code of military justice. i'm talking about restrictive rules of engagement that these men and women behind me understand they've lived with on the battlefield which has made it more difficult to defeat our enemies. inment of the cases you are talking about in particular, sir, there was evidence withheld. prosecutorial misconduct and as someone who looks case-by-case and defaults to the warfighter, to the men and women with dust on their boots, not the second guessers in air conditioned offices in washington, d.c. i look case-by-case and proud to work with president trump to

understand those cases and insure that our warriors are always looked out for. >> those cases were adjudicated by who, people in washington or fellow non-commissioned officers who had also served to sacrifice and believed in the ethic of the military? who were the court marshall? >> in multiple cases they were acquitted but charges lingered. >> some were but others were convicted and you asked for a pardon. that's the only reason you asked for a pardon because they were con factoid. the other factor, too, is you've already dispar aged in writing the geneva convention, rules of law, all these things. how will be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principle elements is discipline, respect for lawful authority. you have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a

jag officer, would you explain what a jag officer is? >> i don't think i need to, sir. >> why not? >> the men and women watching understand. >> perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand. >> it would be a jag officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the war fighters. their promotions, their medals in front of having the backs of those making the tough calls on the front lines. >> thank you. interesting. >> thank you very much. senator fisher. >> welcome, mr. hegseth to you and to your family. thank you for the meeting that we had. we talked about a number of things. first and foremost was that nuclear weapons are foundational to our national defense and having a safe, effective and credible nuclear deterrent undermines our alliances and deters adversaries. nuclear deterrence has been and

you and i believe agreed on this, it must continue to be unequivocally the highest priority mission of the department of defense. but deterrence only works if our adversaries believe our nuclear forces are effective and credible. all three legs of our triad are undergoing that generational recapitalization programs and we cannot afford anymore delays in those programs. sir, do you believe and agree with president trump's 2018 nuclear posture review that preventing adversary nuclear attacks is the the highest priority of the united states? >> senator, yes, i do. >> if confirmed will you commit to supporting all three legs of the nuclear triad and to using every tool available to deliver these systems on schedule? >> senator, yes, i do, because

ultimately our deterrence, our survival is reliant upon the capability, perception, and the reality of the capability of our nuclear triad. we have to invest in its modernization for the defense of our nation. >> former secretaries of defense have stated that nuclear deter earns is the highest priority. we haven't seen that translated into budget requests. or using the tools like the defense production act. you've spoken about increasing lethality. you have spoken about getting programs done faster. how would you actually implement a culture change so that we can see these delivery schedules move forward, be rewarded? i can tell you in most every briefing we have, the schedules were on or too late. what would you do? >> focus first on the things that are most important, as we

have discussed, senator, nuclear triad, understanding whether it's the b-21 or minute man to the sentinel. columbia class, submarines, ballistic missiles. what are the pry or tifs that need to be focused he on and insure in those cases the defense production act, emergency powers. if we are at a place where our nuclear capabilities are perceived to be not what they are, that's an emergency and we have an ally in our incoming commander-in-chief in president donald trump who has spoken about these things. understands the power and strength and nuclear -- >> it's the threat to this nation. how do you change the culture? it is not just the production act that will be able to do it. how are you going to move forward faster? >> competition, senator, is critically important. leveraging the invasion of silicon valley. for the first time in generations has shown a

willingness, desire and capability to bring its best technologies to bear at the pentagon that has become too insular. tries to block new technologies from coming in. we have to embrace that, provide there is some great office of strategic capital, diu initiatives that provide loans to companies to participate. you have to invest in the defense industrial base for the longer-term projects. we have the capability. missiles and munitions but rapidly field emerging tech noll goelz we need on the battlefield right now. as we learn things from the war in ukraine those technologies, find ways to field those using off the shelf technologies or standard designs. modular designs. another easy one e senator that became evident is digital designs. the pentagon often builds entire system without first using a digital design. which means you build prototypes and scrap them and start over

again. no private sector business could survive doing business that way. so there is a lot of innovation and i will hire a lot of smart people. already have to help with that. >> in the 2025ndaa it was established to a new position the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear programs and that was established so we could cut through a lot of the bureaucratic stove pipes that we see in the office of the secretary of defense. if confirmed, will you direct the department of defense components to expeditiously implement this reform? >> it sounds -- i would want to look directly at exactly what that reform is. i take your word is a great. i will review it robustly and look forward to implementing it. >> during the first trump

administration, the 2018 nuclear posture review the u.s. needed to once again develop and deploy a nuclear arms sea launch cruise missile known as slickium to-off set russia and chinese nuclear capability. since then congress, on a strong bipartisan basis, has directed the navy and the national nuclear security administration to continue this separate. do you support that program? >> as of right now, senator, based on what i know, i do. but one of my answers i will have repeatedly throughout this morning is getting an opportunity to look under the hood, classified material. get an understanding of true capabilities vis-a-vis enemy capabilities. what we know right now on the -- russia and china are rushing to modernize and build arsenals larger than ours.

we need to match threats to capabilities and the systems we elevate will be tied to whether those capabilities are needed based on the adversaries we face. >> would you insure that this program is executed according to law? >> absolutely. absolutely, senator. >> what -- short here. what is your plan to revitalize the industrial base in this country? >> needs to be real short. >> serious investment targeted at systems that we truly need and also incentivizing competition and laser focus from the office of secretary of defense to all the particular strategic initiatives to revive them so it's not just one system but multiple systems. >> you may want to expand on that on the record. at this point my colleagues, i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter

organized by a group called flag officers for america which has 120 retired generals and admirals offering their support for mr. hegseth's nomination. i ask unanimous consent without objection. it is entered into the record. senator shaheen. >> good morning, mr. hegseth. >> i was pleased when i was contacted on your behalf about meeting before this hearing. i've been on this committee since 2011 and during that time i voted to confirm six nominees to be secretary of defense from three administrations, two democratic and one republican. the first trump administration. every one of those nominees met with me and my democratic colleagues on this committee before the hearing. so as you can imagine i was disappointed when no one ever followed up, when we followed up with your office, you were not

able to meet. do you understand that if you are confirmed to be secretary of defense, that you will have a responsibility to meet with all members of this committee rick not just republicans? >> senator, i very much appreciate and understand the traditionally bipartisan nature of this committee. their national defense is not partisan, should not be about republicans or democrats. i look forward to working together with you and your colleagues on priorities facing this nation, yes. >> i think we would expect that. one reason i wanted to meet with you was because i thought it would be really helpful to better understand your views on women in the military. because you have made a number of surprising statements about women serving in the military. as recently as november 7th of 2024 on the sean ryan show, you said and i quote, i'm straight up saying that we should not have women in combat roles. it hasn't made us more effective. the quote went on a little

longer but that was the gist of it. that was before you were nominated to be secretary of defense. mr. hegseth, do you know what percentage of our military is comprised of women? >> i believe it's 18 to 20%. >> almost 18% and in fact d.o.d.'s 2023 demographic report indicated that there are more women serving now and there are fewer separations so they make up a critical part of our military, wouldn't you agree? >> yes, ma'am. women in our military as i have said publicly have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield. >> you always write in your book the war on warriors with a chapter the deadly obsession with women warriors that quote not only are women comparatively less effective than men in combat roles, but they are more likely to be objectty filed by the enemy in the more all realms

of war. should we take it to believe that you believe that the two women on this committee who have served honorably and with distinction made our military less effective and less capable? >> i'm incredibly great women for the two women who served our military in uniform and including the central intelligence agencies, contributions on the battlefield. indecember pensible. when i talk about that issue, i would like to clarify. not the about the capabilities of men and women and about standards. this committee talked about standards. standards that we over time have seen eroded in certain duty positions, certain schools, certain places, which affects readiness, that is what i care about the most. readiness. so my comments -- time and time again to standards. >> your statement publicly have not been to that effect. after your nomination you did state to a group of reporters

that you quote support all women snefshg our military today. they do a fantastic job across the globe including combat. so what i'm confused about, mr. hegseth, which is it? why should women in our military if you were the secretary of defense believe they would have a fair shot and equal opportunity to rise through the ranks if on the one hand you say that women are not competent and make our military less effective and on the other hand you say now that i've been nominated to be the secretary of defense i've changed my view on women in the military. what do you have to say to the almost 400,000 women who are serving today about your position on whether they should be capable to rise through the highest ranks of our military? >> senator, i would say i would be honored to have the opportunity to serve alongside you shoulder to shoulder, men and women, black, white, all backgrounds with a shared purpose. our differences are not what

define us. our unity and shared purpose is what define us and you will be treated fairly and dignity, honor and respect like any man and woman in uniform, like the men and women i've worked with in my veterans coordination and commander in the minnesota national guard we had women in our ranks as well. >> mr. chairman i want to submit chapter five, the deadly obsession with women warriors for the record. >> without objection it will be submitted. >> are you familiar with the women, peace and security agenda at the department of defense? >> yes, ma'am, i am. >> a law signed during trump's first term. legislation that i sponsor evidence with republican senator capito of west virginia co-sponsor evidence by marco rubio and helped by kristi noem.

it mandates that women be included in all aspects of our national security including conflict resolution and peace negotiations. at the department of defense it has been the law for eight years under both the trump and biden administrations, the dod has incorp rafted women throughout its decision making as a result. every single combatant commander across two administrations has told this committee and thaw this law price them a strategic advantage. based on your comments it appears the example you want to set not only for women in the country but across the globeo lead the most combat credible military in the entire world is that women should not have an equal opportunity in our military. so will you commit to preserving

the women peace and security law at d.o.d. and including in your budget the requisite funding to restore and resource these programs throughout the d.o.d.? >> senator, i will commit to reviewing that program and ensuring it aligns with america first national security priorities, meritocracy, lethality and readiness. if it doesn't it is something we would look at. >> former president trump signed the law. i hope that he agrees with you. >> thank you, senator shaheen. at this point i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record five letters of support from female service members and combat veterans who support mr. hegseth's nomination. these women represent diverse viewpoints from a retired colonel with over 25 years of service to an active duty navy

surface warfare commander to a senior airmen who support mr. hegseth and comment on his talking about military training, status and the warrior ethos. so without objection it will be entered into the record. now i am honored to recognize senator cotton for seven minutes. >> mr. hegseth, let's continue on this line of questioning about what is sometimes referred to as women in com bat. i think take phrase is something of a misnomeer. many members of this committee have served in combat in the last 25 years to include women and men. i'm sure all those men served with women whether military police officers or they were pilots or whether they were intelligence analysts, what have you. you served. i assume you served in women on the front lines. were those women skilled, brave

and honorable. women have been serving in combat for a long time and been serving in combat units for a looking time and roles like medics or mechanics. what we're talking about here specifically is women in ground combat roles in jobs like infantrymen, artillery men or special forces. ten years ago that wasn't the case. under secretary pennetta those roles were opened up to women to serve in. has president trump indicated that he plans to rescind or alter that guidance? >> you are correct to point out, senator, these are the decisions the commander me chief will have the prerogative to make. he has not indicated to me he has plans to change whether or not women would have access to these roles. however, i would point out ensuring that standards are equal and high is of importance to him and great importance to me.

in the ground combat roles what is true is that the weight of the rubbing on your back doesn't change. the weight of the round you have to carry doesn't change. the weight of the machine gun you might have to carry doesn't change. whether it is a man or a woman, they have to meet the same high standards and senator in any place where those things have been eroded or in courses criteria have been changed in order to meet quotas, racial quotas or gender quotas, that's putting a focus on something other than readiness, standards, meritocracy and lethality. that's the review i'm talking about. not whether they have access to combat roles. >> in these specific jobs, they are irreducible physical demands. we expect intelligence analysts and mechanics to be physically fit in the military.

different in the artillery and infantry. artillery shell weighs 100 pounds. tank round weighs 50 pounds. m240 machine gun with tripod weighs almost 50 pounds. average weight of a full kit, ammo, water, camo, body armor for a soldiers is over 100 pounds. nothing you can do can change any of those things. that's physical reality. >> yes, senator. i would say the requirements to handle those things in a ground combat unit as far as standards can look different than those of a medic or drone pilot. not it has to be the same standard throughout. it is standards to maximize efficacy of that particular position. >> a quote from one army officer. it may be difficult for a 120 woman to lift or drag 250 pounds the army can't ob solve women of

that responsibility. the purpose of creating a gender neutral test was to knowledge the reality each job has objective physical standards to which all soldiers should be held regardless of gender. the intent was not to insure that women and men will have an equal likelihood of meeting those standards. i assume you agree with that army officer. >> absolutely. the standards need to be the same and they need to be high. then you be set to the people closest to the problem set. closest to the understanding of what is required by that job. commanders commanding oafsers and elsewhere who understand the reality of what they face is the feedback we should get and what should be enforced and no other set of political prerogatives. when i talk about removing politics, ideological or political prerogatives should contribute to those determinations. nothing other than the execution of the mission. >> thank you, for the record that army officer was captain

kristin greist. one of the first ranger school graduates. one final point they need to be objected, gender neutral and high. the demands are, in fact, very high. the current physical fitness test for the army has a minimum two mile run of 22 miles. run. i want the reporters to know i put run in air quotes. 22 miles at two miles is not running. it may be jogging, probably walking fast. let's move on. you have a big 22 minutes. we've got a big audience here. many of them seem to be patriotic supporters of you, mr. hegseth. some seem to be liberal critics of you. i note it is only the liberal critics that have disrupted this hearing. as was my custom during the biden administration, i want to give you a chance to respond to

what they said about you. the first one accused you of being a christian zionist. i don't know that is a bad thing. the jewish people deserve a homeland is a zionist in the ancient holy land where they lived since the dawn of history. do you consider yourself a christian zionist. >> i am a christian and support the state of israel and its defense and the way america comes alongside them. >> another protestor i think this one was a member of code pink which is a chinese communist front group these days. said that you support israel's war in gaza. i support israel's war in gaza, i assume, like me and president trump, you support that war as well, don't you? >> i do. i support israel destroying and killing every last member of hamas. >> and the third protestor said something about 20 years of

genocide. i assume that's the wars in iraq and afghanistan. do you think our troops were committing genocide. >> i do not. our troops as so many on this committee know did the best they could with what they had. tragically the outcome we saw in afghanistan put a stain on that but not a stain they did in uniform. as you know full well. >> at this point i ask unanimous consent to offer into the record a letter submitted by omar obassa former president of iraq who worked with mr. hegseth in iraq. without objection that will be entered. senator gillibrand. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. hegseth. thank you for your service and i want to thank you for your willingness to serve in this

capacity. i have many concerns about your record and particularly your public statements because they are so hurtful to the men and women who are currently serving in the u.s. military. harmful to morale, harmful to good order and discipline. if you are saying that women shouldn't be serving in the military -- i will read your quotes. the quotes themselves are terrible. you will have to change how you see women to do this job well. i don't know if you are capable of that. i want to press on these issues that my colleague jean sheehan brought up. she said it so well. you answered your questionnaire do you believe that any american who wants to serve their country in the military and can meet objective standards set by the military should be allowed to serve without limitation. you said yes. in all these other circumstances you have denigrate i had active duty service members. we have hundreds -- hundreds of women who are currently in the

infantry. lethal members of our military serving in the infantry but you degrade them saying we need moms but not in the military. especially in combat units. specific to senator cotton's question. he was giving you lay-ups to differentiate between different types of combat and specifically as secretary would you take any action to reinstitute the combat arms exclusion for female service members? knowing full well you have hundreds of women doing that job right now. and the standards, your two mile run, tom, is about the army combat fitness test. not the requirements to have an mo7, one bravo, infantry. these are the requirements today for people serving in the industry, men and women. gender neutral and they are very difficult to meet. they have not been reduced in any way and our combat units and

infantry is lethal. please explain specifically. because you will be in charge of 3 million personnel. it is a big job. and when you make these public statements. i get you were not secretary of defense then. i get you were on tv. i get you were helping veterans and it was a different job. most recently you said this in november of 2024 knowing full well you might have been named as secretary of defense. please explain these types of statements because they are brutal and they are mean and they disrespect men and women who are willing to die for this country. >> senator, i appreciate your comments and i would point out i have never disparaged women serving in the military. i respect every single female service member that is put on the uniform past and present. my critiques recently and in the past and from personal experience have been instances where i've see