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 seen standards

lowered. you mentioned 11 alpha and bravo, mos. places in units. the book that has been referenced multiple times here the war on warriors i spent months talking to active duty service members, men and women. high and low ranks and what each and every one of them told me and with personal instances have shown me is that in ways direct, indirect, overt and subtle standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, infantry battalions to insure that commanders meet. >> please give me an example. >> meeting quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers or enlisted. that disparages those women who are very capable of meeting that standard. >> commanders don't have to have a quota for women in the infantry. it does not exist. your statements are creating the

impression that these exist. they do not. there are not quotas, we want to most lethal force. having been here for 15 years listening to testimony about men and women in combat and the type of operations that were successful in afghanistan and in iraq, women were essential for many of those units. when ranger units went in to find where the terrorists hiding in afghanistan or iraq, if they had a woman in the unit, they could go in, talk to the women in a village and say where are the terrorists hiding and where are the weapons hiding to get crucial to win the battle. you cannot denigrate women in general and your statements do that. we don't want women in the military. especially in combat. what a terrible statement. so please, do not deny that you've made those statements. you have. we take the responsibility of standards very seriously and we will work with you. i'm equally distressed you would not meet with me before this

hearing. we could have covered all of this before you came here so i could get to the 15 other questions that i want to get to. so women you have denigrated and also denigrated members of the lgbtq community. when don't ask don't tell was in place we lost so many crucial personnel, over 1,000 in mission critical areas, we lost 10% of all our foreign language speakers because of a political policy. you said in your statement you don't want politics in the d.o.d. everything you've said in these public statements is politics. i don't want women, i don't want moms. what is wrong with a mom. once you have babies you therefore are no longer able to be lethal? you are basically saying women after they have children can't ever serve in the military in a combat role. it is a silly thing to say. a silly thing to say. beneath the position that you are aspiring to. to den gait lgbtq service members is a mistake. if you are a sharpshooter you

are regardless of who you love, know this to be a true statement. you say -- you say it was a political thing. you say it undermined us social engineering. i don't know why having someone having to publicly say or not publicly say who they love is social engineering. i think having that policy in the first place was highly problematic and as you said in your statement do you agree anybody should be able to serve in the military if this he meet the standards? >> senator, as the president has stated, i don't disagree with the overturn of don't ask don't tell. >> great. i don't want you thinking can't serve if you are a mom, can't serve if you are lgbtq and can't serve if you are a leftist. statements you said about people who have views differently than you that we're the enemy. are you saying 50% of the d.o.d. if they hold liberal or leftist

views or are democrats are not welcome in the military? are you saying that? >> senator, i volunteered to deploy to afghanistan under democrat president barack obama. i also volunteered to guard the inauguration of joe biden but was denied the opportunity to serve because i was identified as an extremist by my own unit for a christian tattoo. >> thank you very much. senator gillibrand, you held up a document and referred to it during your questioning. would you like that entered into the record? okay, >> we'll submit a clean copy. >> without objection that will be admitted at the point of your question and i would like to enter into the record a letter of support from retired air force colonel melissa cunningham. she supports mr. hegseth and maintaining military training standards. without objection both of those

will be admitted and i now recognize senator rounds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all good morning. i would like to thank you for your service to our nation and uniform and also your work on behalf of your fellow veterans and for your willingness to enter into this maelstrom of public service. so many veterans who showed up to support you speaks volumes. want to recognize your family's service and sacrifice. you know as well as anyone that it's not just the man that enters the arena but it is the entire family who also works their way through this process as well. i appreciated our meeting with you and with your wife, jennifer this last month. i thought that we had an excellent conversation and i appreciate your statement and your answers to the advance policy questions especially your desire to bring a renewed focus on war fighting and lethality back to the pentagon.

i also respect and appreciate my friend and colleague senator gillibrand in some of her questions. and i know she had a number of them in there. you had an opportunity to respond very briefly. were there any other responses that you would like to make or clarifications you would like to make before i move onto my questions? >> thank you very much for the opportunity to meet and for the question. i would also acknowledge you were mentioning female engagement teams, which have shown a great deal of success on the battlefield. it would be -- and universally acknowledged as such. i've been in iraqi homes where the language and gender barrier was real and the ability to have someone there to help in that process would be a massive accelerant in mission success. i recognize that reality. female engagement teams assigned to the a seal team or green beret team meet different standards also, which is okay

because the duty positions involved in that job. as far as politics, senator, it has been the joy of my life to lead men and women in military outfits. when you are in combat or in training, there are a lot of conversations that happen and you start to realize that a lot of people you are serving with share your political ideas or they don't. you find out there are republicans, democrats, liberals, vegetarians, everything in between. none of that matters. it never mattered in how i led men and women, how i interacted with them. politics has nothing to do with the battlefield which is why president trump has asked me to say let's make sure all of that comes out. this is about war fighting capability. setting standards high and making sure we give our boys, our men and women everything they need to be successful on the battlefield. politics can play no part in that and i look forward to

infusing that as we always have inside our units. >> i appreciate you making that very clear. one of the areas that we want to do our best is to provide for the equipment and the technical capabilities so that no young man or woman enters into a battle what has a fair fight and always has the advantage. i want to start by talking about something that sometimes gets into a weeds but i think it's critical. mr. hegseth, from what i've heard from 24 senior d.o.d. officials in hearings over the last two years, including the secretary of defense, every service chief and eight combatant commanders is that sharing the portion of the spectrum, this is in the weeds i know but i'll ask it to get it on the record. 3.1 to 3.5 gigahertz ban would have serious and costly

consequences on our war fighting capabilities. the department of the navy alone estimated relocating their systems to a different part of the spectrum band would cost them $250 billion. that's just for the destroyers that defend our coasts with the radars they have in them. if confirmed, what will you do to make sure that the department of defense can maintain its access to use and to be able to maneuver within the electro magnetic spectrum at home and abroad and be willing to go to the mat with the interagency to protect warfighter requirements for the use of the spectrum. >> thank you for the question and my job in part will be to go to the mat when necessary for things i believe are an absolute requirement for the department of defense and the men and women in uniform. no doubt about that. in this particular case as far as spectrum, i look forward, as i've said before, getting a full

-- this issue has come up a number of times in meetings. it is critically important with how our war fighters communicate across all services. so i will get a classified briefing immediately about what that would -- how it would impact the spectrum if it were to allow other companies or it to be -- china would -- >> china would have our ability to use that part of the spectrum restricted. >> right. so i will go in with eyes only insuring we have the capabilities we need and no disruption when i take that. >> in your advance policy questions you recognize a cooperative approach by china, russia, iran and north korea to undermine us us influence around the world. as you point out aggression by any one actor would be an opportunity for others to engage in u.s. on multiple fronts along the continuum of the conflict. as we discussed in my office, neither of us wants to send our troops into a fair fight, we

want to make sure they have every advantage the united states can give them and that requires resources and reforms. given the growing potential of a multi-theater conflict involving adversaries, what steps would you take to prepare the department of defense to simultaneously execute and sustain operations across multiple regions while maintaining deterrence globally. i want to make it clear we have language in this fiscal year 2025 national defense authorization act calling for a review of the department's operational plans. i want to make sure that you are aware of that and that we will have -- the chances are good that we'll have two battles or two different battlegrounds at the same time. >> senator, which is why i believe our country is incredibly fortunate to have a new commander-in-chief in donald trump who through the strategic approach he has taken with all

aisles and against foes has been prevented wars and he is 2ker78d to do the same. our job is to deter and prevent wars. my job should i be confirmed as secretary of defense is to insure we have the right prioritization of assets and strategy and then the tools in the tool box necessary, the pointiest spear for president trump to wield if necessary as the last resort. so president trump at the helm will go a long way in making sure our enemies know there is a new sheriff in town. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator blumenthal. >> thanks, mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing. thank you for being here, mr. hegseth and i want to join in expressing appreciation and respect for your service to our country and thanks to all the veterans who are here today and thank you for your service as the ranking member of the

veterans affairs committee. i hope we can focus on doing better for our veterans and doing better in management of the department of defense. there is always room for improvement. i think what we need in that position is not just better, but the best in financial management because those decisions are life and death decisions affecting the 3.4 million americans who serve our national security and our national defense and put their lives on the line. i want to talk about financial mismanagement at the two organizations that you have headed, which are the only test of your financial management that we have before this combaty. the veterans for freedom and concerned veterans for america. you took over the veterans for freedom in 2007. in 2008 you raised $8.7 million

but spent more than 9 million creating a deficit. by january 2009 you told donors that the organization had less than $1 thousand in the bank and debts of $434,000. by 2010, revenue at the veterans for freedom had dropped to about $265,000. in the next year, it had dropped further to $22,000. you don't dispute these numbers, do you? >> senator, i'm extremely proud of the work me and my fellow vets did at vets for freedom. a bunch of young vets with no political experience, a small group, working hard every single day. we raised donor funds and i took -- we have letters submitted for the record from almost everyone

that worked with me every day including the chief operating officer who will attest that every dollar we raised was used intentionally toward the execution of our mission which was supporting the war fighters. why we're here today. the war fighters in the iraq surge. there was a campaign in 2008, senator, barack obama versus john mccain. we believe john mccain would be the right person to win and we spent more. i'm glad for the record. >> i will ask to be entered into the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> these tax returns are yours. they have your signature. and i'm going to ask that me embers of the committee review them. they're the only documents. i've asked for others. i've asked for the f.b.i. report that would presumably documented and should have documented this kind of financial mismanagement and these are the 990s from that

organization by the year of 2011 donors had become so dissatisfied with that mismanagement they ousted you and merged that organization with military families united and thereafter you joined a second organization as executive director. >> in between i went to harvard university for two years and afghanistan. >> i want to ask you questions about concerned veterans for america. again another set of tax returns. 990s from that organization. i ask they be made part of the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. both of those returns are part of the record. >> 2011 to 2016 at the end of 2013 shortfall of $130,000. at the end of 2014 shortfall of 428,000. you had a surplus the following

year but then another deficit of $437,000 by the time you left that organization had deep debts, including credit card transaction debts of about $75,000. that isn't the kind of fiscal management we want at the department of defense. we can't tolerate it at the department of defense. that's an organization with a budget of $850 billion. not ten or 15 million, which was the case at those two organizations. and it has command responsibility for 3.4 million americans, the highest number that you managed in those two organizations was maybe 50 people. let me ask you, how many men and women now serve in the united states army? >> senator, i would like an

opportunity to respond to the impugning of that organization. concerning veterans of america. i appreciate your service on the v.a. committee. the v.a. accountability act and the mission act were all brain childs of concerned veit veterans for america. used donor money focused to create policy that better evidence the lives of veterans. >> i'm asking you a very simple question. how many men and women currently serve in the united states arm eave? >> the united states army, 450,000 on active duty. >> how many in the navy? >> navy is 425, sir. >> 337 this year. how many in the marine corps? >> 175,000, sir. >> 172,300. those numbers dwarf any experience you had by many

multiples. i don't believe that you can tell this committee or the people of america that you are qualified to lead them. i would support you as the spokesperson for the pentagon. i don't dispute your communication skills. but i believe that we are entitled to the facts here. i have asked for more documents. i assume you would be willing to have an expanded f.b.i. background check that interviews your colleagues, accountants, ex-wives, former spouses, sexual assault survivors and others and enable them to come forward. >> senator, i'm not in charge of f.b.i. background checks. >> you would submit to it and support it. >> i'm not in charge of f.b.i. background checks. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. at this point i want to submit a

letter from captain wade zirkle the founder of vets for freedom and the person who hired pete hegseth to run the organization. although the 2008 financial -- he says and i quote pete responded to this crisis with decisive action by reducing staff and renudgeiateing all debts with creditors until they were fairly resolved. a testament to pete eva's character. pete departed vff in 2010 to take on a new role with concerned veterans for america. pete departed on good terms. without objection that will be added to the record. senator ernst, you are recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter submitted by mr. mark lucas, who is a fellow iowan and iowa army

national guard member. mr. lucas and i served together in the iowa army national guard. he succeeded pete hegseth as executive director of concerned veterans for america and in his letter mr. lucas says that mr. hegseth quote laid a strong foundation that postured cva for long term success, end quote. that mr. hegseth quote continued to be an invaluable asset to both me as a leader and the organization, end quote. so i would ask for unanimous consent to enter this washington times article and the letter from mr. mark lucas into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chair. good morning, mr. hegseth and thank you very much. i appreciate your service to our nation, it is something that i know you are very proud of and it is something that we have in common and that we share. you have and i have had many

productive conversations. and just for our audience, we have had very frank conversations, is that correct, mr. hegseth? >> that is a correct characterization. >> you know that i don't keep anything hidden, pull no punches, my colleagues know that as well. so i do appreciate you sitting down and allowing me the opportunity to question you thoroughly on those issues that are of great importance to me. just to recap those issues, three that are very important, one is the d.o.d. in making sure that we have a clean audit. the second is women in combat, and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment, and the third was maintaining high standards and making sure that we are combating sexual assault in the military. so mr. hegseth, i'm going to

address the issue, because this will tie into some of the financial concerns that have been raised here as well and why you know i trusting my fellow iowan ask for unanimous consent of his record to go into the record. like me, a lot of iowans are concerned and upset about the wasteful washington spending and, of course, in our pentagon. it is an issue that i have been combating for years. so there is significant room for greater efficiency and cost cutting within the department and the d.o.d. is the only federal agency that has never passed an audit. as the senate doge caucus chair and founder, that's unacceptable to me and it should be unacceptable to you as well. so i appreciate that you mentioned that in your opening statement. what are those steps you will

take to insure the pentagon has a clean audit by the year 2028? >> i appreciate your work on this topic. you mentioned concerned veterans for america. i want to clarify. we had generous donors who set a clear budget that we stuck to every year. the latitude there was restricted and we worked very hard and dell gently inside it and a leader on the pentagon audit for a very long time. when we met, senator, i said 2014 was the first year. we discovered a 2013 op-ed i wrote for the need for a pentagon audit because an audit is an issue of nation fall security and respect to american taxpayers who give $850 billion to the defense department and expect that we know where that money goes. if that money is going somewhere that doesn't add to tooth and instead goes to fat or tail we need to do that or wasted we need to know that. previous secretaries of defense

with all due respect haven't necessarily emphasized the strategic prerogative of an audit and myself, my deputy and others already know that a pentagon audit will with the comptroller central to insuring we find those dollars that can be used elsewhere legally under the law inside the pentagon so you have my word it will be a priority. >> thank you. moving on to women in combat and i had the privilege of serving in uniform for over 23 years between our army reserves and our iowa army national guard. did serve in kuwait and missions in iraq and so it is incredibly important that i stress and i hope that if confirmed you continue to stress that every man and woman has opportunity to serve their country in uniform and do so at any level as long

as they are meeting the standards that are set forward. and we talked about that in my office. i do believe in high standards. now, i was denied the opportunity to serve in any combat role because i have a lot of gray hair and the policy has changed since then, okay? i've been around for quite a while. but for the young women that are out there now and can meet those standards, and again i will emphasize they should be very, very high standards. they must physically be able to achieve those standards. so that they can complete their mission. popped i want to know again let's make it very clear for everyone here today, as secretary of defense will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles? >> senator, first of all, thank

you for your service as we discussed extensively as well. >> it is my privilege. >> my answer is yes, exactly the way you caveated it. yes, women will have access to ground combat roles given the standards remain high and we'll have a review to insure the standards have not been eroded in any one of these cases. it will be one of the first things we do at the pentagon is reviewing that in a gender neutral way the standards insuring red'ness and meritocracy is front and. it would be the privilege of a lifetime to be the secretary of defense or all men and women in uniform. they decide to put up their right hand for our country it would be an honor to have a chance to lead them. >> just very briefly. less than a minute left, but we have also discussed this in my office, priority of mine has

been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members are treated with dignity and respect. this has been so important. senator gillibrand and i have worked on this and we were able to get changes made to the uniform code of military justice to make sure that we have improvements and on how we address the tragic and life-altering issues of rape, sexual assault. it will demand time and attention from the pentagon under your watch if you are confirmed. so as secretary of defense, will you appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response? >> senator, as we have discussed, yes, i will. >> my time has expired. thank you for your answers. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. hegseth, welcome. >> thank you. >> i am focused on your fitness to serve including your character and temperament and your overall qualifications to do the job and i do appreciate the comments of ranking member reid with his concerns regarding your nomination because i share those concerns. as part of my responsibility as a member of this committee to insure the fitness of all nominees that come before any of the committees on which i sit i ask the following two initial questions. first, since you became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature. >> no, senator. >> have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct. >> senator, i was falsely accused in october of 2017. it was fully investigated and i

was completely cleared. >> i don't think completely cleared is accurate but the fact is that your own lawyer said that you entered into an nda and paid a person who accused you of raping her a sum of money to make sure that she did not file a complaint. moving on. as secretary you will be in charge of maintaining good order and discipline by enforcing the uniform code of military justice, ucmj. in addition to the sexual assault allegations, by the way the answer to my second question should have been yes. i have read multiple reports of your regularly being drunk at work. including by people who worked with you at fox news. do you know that being drunk at work is prohibited for service members under the ucmj. >> senator, those are multiple

false, anonymous reports peddled by nbc news that run directly contradictory to the dozens of 34e7b and women at fox news channel who went on the record and said they've never seen that. >> do you commit to holding leaders accountable at all levels? that includes you, of course. frankly as secretary you will be on the job 24/7. you recently promised some of my republican colleagues that you stopped drinking and won't drink if confirmed, correct? >> absolutely. >> will you resign as secretary of defense if you drink on the job? which is a 24/7 position. >> i have made this commitment on by half of -- >> will you resign as secretary of defense. >> i have made this commitment on behalf of the men and women i'm serving. it is the important deployment of my life. >> i will move on. while you have made that commitment you will not commit

to resigning if you drink on the job. as secretary of defense you will swear an oath to the constitution and not an oath to any man, woman or president, correct? >> senator, on multiple occasions including as a young second lieutenant i've sworn and oath to the constitution and i'm proud to do so. >> in june of 2020 president trump said -- order second traores per refused to comply with. would you carry out such an order from president trump? >> senator, i was in the washington, d.c. national guard unit in lafayette square holding a riot shield. i saw 50 secret service agents get injured by rioters trying to jump over the fence. set a church on fire and destroy a statue. >> you will shoot protestors in

the leg. moving on. president-elect has attacked our allies in recent weeks refusing to rule out using military force to take over greenland and the panama canal and threatening to make canada the 51st state. would you carry out an order from president trump to seize greenland, a territory of our nato ally, denmark, my force or would you comply with an order to take over the panama canal? >> senator, i will emphasize that president trump received 77 million votes to be the lawful commander-in-chief of the country. >> would you use our military to take over greenland or an ally of denmark? >> senator, one of the things that president trump is good at is never tipping his hand so i would never in this public forum give one way or another direct

what orders the president would give to me. >> it sounds to me you would contemplate carrying out such an order to invade greenland. take over the panama canal. current d.o.d. policy allows service members and eligible dependents to be reimbursed for travel associated with non-covert reproductive healthcare including abortions. will you maintain this common sense policy? >> i've always been personally pro-life. i know president trump has as well. we'll review all policies but our standard is whatever the president wants on this particular issue i will take a look at. i don't believe >> if the president tells you the policy will not be maintained you will not enable our service members to seek reproductive care. >> i don't believe the federal government should be funding travel for abortion. >> i just want to note that the other area that of serious concern to me is president trump

saying he wants to use the military to help with mass deportations which will cost millions of dollars and what will that will do to red' niese is very concerning. i have noticed a disturbing pattern. you previously have made a series of inflammatory statements about women in comment. lgbtq service members, muslim-americans and democrats. since your nomination, however, you have walked those back on tv and interviews and most recently in your opening statements. you are no longer on "fox & friends", mr. hegseth, if confirmed, your words, actions and decisions will have real impacts on national security and our service members' lives. there are close to 3 million personnel in the department of defense. $900 billion budget.

i hardly think you are prepared to do the job. thank you. >> thank you. that wasn't a question, mr. hegseth. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. hegseth. congratulations on your nomination and thank you and your family for your service and sacrifice. >> thank you, senator. >> now for the most important question you'll receive all day. in 1935 before the congress the father of the united states air force, general billy mitchell, was testifying about a certain place in the world. he said quote, i believe that in the future whoever holds this place will control the world. this location is the most strategic place in the world. what place was billy mitchell talking about and let me give you a hit? it wasn't greenland. >> i believe he was talking about the great state of alaska. >> the great state of alaska.

if confirmed will you commit to come with me to the great state of alaska and meet our warriors who are on the front lines every day? >> senator, i have and as i mentioned to you in the past i did a brief training exercise up at fort wainwright in a previous part of my military life. i look forward to returning. >> i will say we are on the front lines with this new era of authoritarian aggression. in alaska the last two years we have had chinese and russian naval task forces, joint strategic bomber task forces in our eez, in our area and after his election president trump put out an extensive statement onalaska which included the following statement. we will insure alaska gets even more defense investments as we fully rebuild our military, especially as russia and china are making menacing moves in the pacific. mr. hegseth, if confirmed will you work with me, this committee

and the incoming commander-in-chief an continuing to build up our military assets and infrastructure in alaska to reestablish deterrence in the arctic and in the indo-pacific? >> if confirmed, senator, it would be a pleasure to work alongside you and this entire committee to recognize the very real threat in the indo-pacific. the very real ways even these past couple weeks that russia has attempted to probe and push in and around alaska and the very real strategic significance of alaska and shipping ways through the arctic. with a shift toward a necessary shift toward -- alaska by necessity will play an important role in that. >> thank you, mr. hegseth. i appreciate your focus on lethality in war fighting. we desperately need it . i want to provide a few examples of the biden woke military which is not focused on readiness or

lethality and want to get your comments on it. nobody wants an extremist or racist in the military but one of the moves disgraceful and shameful things i've seen over the past four years as a senator on this committee and a marine corps reserve officer was on day one the biden administration played up a false and insulting narrative that our military was chock full of racists and violent extremists. this reached a pinnacle in this committee when biden's undersecretary of police, the number three guy at the pentagon testified one of his top goals would be to quote ending violent extremism and systemic racism within the ranks of the military. he had no data on this. the media loved it. fan the flames, throw baloney stories on this false narrative. disappointingly some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here reinforced this

ridiculous narrative, one even suggesting it almost 10% of our uniform military was extremists, 200,000 members, ridiculous. by the way, from this committee. on the other side of the aisle. mr. hegseth, unlike undersecretary carl you have a lot of experience with our military. do you believe the military is a systemically racist organization? and if confirmed will you commit to defend, not denigrate, our troops? >> senator, i was also offended by those comments because anyone who has been on active duty in the national guard, man, woman in units understand that is fundamentally false. >> there are three studies to his credit secretary austin put out one of them that said exactly what you just said. fundamentally false. >> senator, the knew it. anyone who was in a unit knew it. would could argue that if not the least, one of the least racist institutions in our

country is the united states military. being a racist in our military has not been tolerated for a very long time. >> would you agree the u.s. military is one of the most forward leaning greatest civil rights organizations in american history? >> no doubt. >> let me turn to another one. last year at a hearing before this committee i called on the biden secretary of the navy to resign because he is failing in his ability to build ships. we are being completely out built in terms of ships by the chinese and yet this secretary of the navy has been focused on climate change, not building ships in lethality. mr. hegseth, if your secretary of the navy focuses on climate change and lethality will you commit to me to fire him? >> my secretary of the navy should i be confirmed will not

be focused on climate change in the navy. the secretary of the air force won't be focused on lg power fighter jets or secretary of the army won't be focused on electric powered tanks. we're focused on lethality and defeating our enemy. >> i appreciate that. the other thing president biden did his first executive order as president was to focus on transgender surgeries for active duty troops. this is all i'm describing the woke military under biden over the last four years. if confirmed and you issue an order saying we are going to rip the biden woke yoke off the neck of our military and focus on lethality and more fighting how do you think the troops will react? >> senator, i know the troops will rejoice. they will love it and we've seen it in recruiting numbers. there has already been a surge since president trump won the

election of recruiting the army will surpass its goals. >> do you think our military will follow that order gladly because they want to focus on lethality and war fighting and get all the woke political prerogative and politically correct stuff out of the military. >> thank you, senator sullivan. senator kaine. >> thank you, mr. hegseth. looking forward to this opportunity to talk. i want to return to the incident that you referenced a minute ago that occurred in monterey, california in october of 2017. at that time you were march eft to your second wife, correct? >> i believe so. >> you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later became your third wife, correct? >> i was falsely charged. fully investigated and completely cleared. >> so you think you were completely cleared because you committed no crime. that's your definition of cleared. you had just fathered a child two months before by a woman not

your wife. i am shocked that you would stand here and say you are completely cleared. can you so casually cheat on a second wife and cheat on the mother of a child born two months before and you tell us you are completely cleared? >> senator, her child's name is gwen hope hegseth a child of god, seven years old and i'm glad she is here. >> you cheated on the mother of that childless than two months after that daughter was born, didn't you? >> those were false charges. fully investigated and i was completely cheered and i am grateful for the imagine i have to this outstanding woman behind me. >> you admitted you had sex on that hotel in october of 2017. you said it was consensual. you were still married and just had a child by another woman. how do you explain your judgment? >> false charges against me.

completely investigate evidence. >> you admitted that. if it had been a sexual assault that would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it snow >> it was a false claim then and now. >> if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it? >> it was a false claim. talking about a hypothetical. >> you can't tell me whether someone who has committed a sexual assault is disqualified from being secretary of defense? >> senator, i know in my instance, talking about my instance only, it was a false claim. and it was fully investigated. >> you acknowledge you cheated on your wife and cheated on the woman by whom you had just fathered a child. you admitted that. >> i will allow your words to speak for themselves. >> you aren't retract being that today. in each of your wedding you pledged to be faithful to your

right. >> as i have acknowledged to everyone on this committee not a perfect person. not claiming to be. >> you have taken on oath like you would take an oath to be secretary of defense to be filth faithful to your right. >> i have failed in things by my life and i am redeemed by my lord and savior jesus christ. >> when rn non-disclosures agreements in connection with your divorces. >> not that i'm aware of. >> if there were would you agree to release the first and second wives from a confidentiality agreement. >> it's not something i am aware of. that's not my responsibility. >> did you ever engage in any acts of physical violence against any of your wives. >> absolutely not. >> you agree with me if someone committed physical violence against a spouse that would be disqualifying to serve as secretary of defense, correct? >> absolutely not have i ever done that. >> you would agree that would be

a disqualifying offense, would you not? >> senator, you are talking about a hypothetical. >> i don't think it's a hypothetical. violence against spouses occurs every day. if you as a leader are not capable of saying that physical violence against a spouse should be a disqualifying fact, for being secretary of the most powerful nation in the world you are demonstrating an astonishing lack of judgment. the incident in monterey led to a criminal investigation, private settlement and cash payment to the woman who filed the complaint. there was also a non-disclosure agreement, correct? >> it was a confidential settlement agreement off a nuisance lawsuit. >> during an interview you claimed he settled the matter -- >> were you blackmailed >> i maintained false claims were made against me and those false claims i had the

opportunity to attest my innocence in those false claims. >> you didn't reveal any of this to president trump or the transition team as they were considering you to be nom knelted for secretary of defense. you didn't reveal the action, you didn't reveal the criminal complaint. you didn't reveal the criminal investigation. you didn't reveal the settlement. you didn't reveal the cash payment. why didn't you inform the commander-in-chief in the transition team of this very relevant event? >> senator, i have appreciated every part of the process with the transition team. they have been open and honest with me and we have had great conversations between the two of us and i appreciate the opportunity that president-elect trump has given me. >> you chose not to reveal this, right? you knew it would hurt your chances. so you chose not to reveal this really important thing to the commander-in-chief in the transition team because you were worried about your chances rather than trying to be candid with the future president of the united states.

are there any other important facts that you chose not to reveal to the president-elect and his team as they were considering you? >> i sit here before you an open book as everyone who has watched this process. >> with multiple non-disclosure and confidentiality agrees tying the hands of many people who would like to comment to us. much has been made of your workplace behavior as leader of nonprofit veterans organizations and fox news contributor. were you fired from either of the leadership positions with the nonprofits? >> i was the leader and ceo and those though -- >> were you fired? >> i was never fired. >> do you have non-disclosure agreements with any of those organizations? >> not that i'm aware of. >> many work colleagues say you show up to work drunk. you have denied that. you would agree with me if that was the case it would be disqualifying. >> those are all anonymous false

claims and the totality. >> they are not -- they >> on the record names tact to them. -- working hard every day. >> one of your colleagues said you got drunk at an event at a bar and chanted kill all muslims. another colleague not anonymous. we have this said that you took co-workers to a strip club. you were drunk and tried to dance with strippers and had to be held off the stage. one of your employees in that event filed a sexual harassment charge as a result of it. i know you denied these things. isn't that the kind of behavior if true would be disqualifying for somebody to be secretary of defense? >> senator, anonymous false charges. >> they aren't anonymous and i will conclude and say this to the chairman. you claim that this was all anonymous. we have seen records with names attached to all of these

including the name of your own mother so don't make this that some anonymous press thing. we have seen multiple names of colleagues consistently throughout our career that talked about your abusive actions. >> i think he is way over his time. >> i now yield. >> thank you very much. i now ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a family court order concerning the appointment of parenting time between mr. hegseth and mrs. samantha hegseth. it states that there were no claims of domestic abuse or probable evidence of abuse in the relationship. without objection that will be added to the record. we now move to senator kramer. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. hegseth for your

service and willingness to endure this. i'm sorry for what has been happening to you particularly the very idea that you should have to sit there and answer hypothetical potential in somebody's imagination crimes that may take place at some point and wouldn't that disqualify you if you were a murderer or a rapist? unfair, unfair. i'm embarrassed for this behavior. first i want to say thank you for your strong proclamation unapologetic of faith in jesus christ. i sat here and listened to your opening statement and thought wow, this is a guy who in today's culture is willing to stand up and say the first thing is first faith in jesus christ. and i was reminded of what christ said in matthew, seek ye first the kingdom of god and his righteousness and these things shall be added unto you. you will have a great future as

our secretary and look forward to that day happening. i also want to get back. you mentioned and it got dismissed quickly pivoted as a lot of things do. you mentioned that you were not able to serve with your national guard unit in the protection of the august ration of joe biden because of a christian tattoo. what is that extremist racist tattoo you have? >> it is a tattoo i of here called the jerusalem cross, historic christian symbol. in fact, interestingly recently i attended briefly the memorial ceremony of former president jimmy carter on the floor of our national cathedral on the front page of his program was the very same jerusalem cross. it is a christian religious symbol and when the events

happened preceding the biden inauguration, i was a part of the mobileization to defend that inauguration as a proud supporter ever donald trump but also a members of the military. had orders to come to washington, d.c. to guard that inauguration. at the last minute the orders were revoked. i had never had that done before. i wasn't told why. later when i wrote my book i was able to get information it was because i had been identified. someone who served in iraq and afghanistan in guantanamo bay holding a riot shield outside the white house, i had been identified as an extremist. someone unworthy of guarding the inauguration of an incoming american president. if that's happening to me, senator, how many other men and women, how many other patriots how many other people of

conscience? we haven't talked about covid and the tens of thousands of service members who were kicked out because of an pecks per mental vaccine. they will be reinty -- centering on extremism feels political. those types of things will change and senator sullivan you mentioned the study. after a whole study was held. extremism working group study, 100 were adent filed in the ranks of 3 million. most of them were gang related. it was made up. >> you are not the extremist. the people deny your expression of faith are the extremists, they're the racists, they are oaf the bigots, you are the one protecting their right to be one. thank you for that. i want to go to your -- another

point in your opening statement and summarized in this beautiful one sentence paragraph you said. leaders at all levels will be held accountable and war fighting and lethality and the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only focus. at that moment in my mind's eye i heard soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors, guardians from the pentagon to the pacific and everywhere in between applaud, you applaud and they are thinking it's about time. i can get on board with that idea. and quite honestly. i want to get to this because i think it's so important. i would say -- i don't know, just about -- maybe everyone, i'm trying to think of an exception to this that wears the uniform that has come before this committee or meth with privately and publicly and been on tours with and traveled with that where the uniform with four stars or no stars agrees with

that statement. i just want to caution you and interested in your feedback on this. a lot of talk about firing woke generals, creating the purge group and all those things we've talked about. i would say give those men and women a chance under new leadership. my favorite painting in the rotunda is of george washington retiring his commission, establishing on day one a man who could have been king, chose to be a civilian leader of this country and i just -- i just would encourage you to trust them first and look forward to them saluting the civilian leadership of this country. so just maybe if you could spend a minute just elaborating a little bit about the wokeness, where it comes from, and who will be held accountable. >> the who it comes from. >> it comes from not the rank

and file. but the political class. donpresident donald trump will issue lawfully orders. and the leadership can follow the lawfully orders or not. and they are not based on politics, but based on accountable, standards, and leithality, and accountability is coming. everybody knows in this room if you're a rifle man and you lose your rifle, they're throwing the book at you. but if you're a general who loses a war, you get a promotion. that's not going to happen in donald trump's pentagon. there will be real standards for success. everyone from the top -- from the most senior general to the most local private ensured they are treated fairly, both men and women, in the system. >> and i want to give you a chance to defend your thoughts

on the deterrence, and you project an attitude of deterrence. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cramer. senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hegseth, welcome to the committee. >> thank you, senator. >> you made several references to your religion today. i share that devotion to christianity. but i just say i'm reminded of saul on the way to damascus, and you seem to have been converted over the last several weeks and several months. you wrote in your book just last year -- this is the book "war on warriors," but if we're going to send our boys to fight, and it should be boys, we need to unleash them to win. they are on our -- boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men. which is is it? is it only boys can fight? you've testified here today that you believe women in