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

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

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

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

basis for any good faith, delay or denial in providing such records. yes, sir. will you ensure that your staff complies with deadlines established by this committee for the production of reports, records and other information, including timely responding to hearing questions? for the record? >> yes, sir. >> will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests? >> yes, sir. >> will those witnesses and briefers be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings? >> yes, sir. >> all right. so. so at this point, mr. hegseth, you are recognized for your opening statement. >> well, thank you, chairman wicker, ranking member reed and all the members of this committee for this opportunity today. i'm grateful for and have learned a great deal from this

advice and consent process. our founders knew what they were doing. should i be confirmed? i look forward to working with this committee, senators from both parties to secure our nation. i want to thank the former senator from minnesota, norm coleman, for his mentorship and friendship in this process, and the incoming national security advisor, congressman, and more importantly, for our purposes, colonel mike waltz for his powerful words. i'm grateful to them both. thank you to my incredible wife, jennifer. who has changed my life and been with me throughout this entire process. i love you, sweetheart, and i thank god for you. and as jenny and i pray together every morning, all glory, regardless of the outcome, belongs to our lord and savior jesus christ. his grace and mercy abounds each day. may his will be done. thank

you to my father, brian and mother penny, as well as our entire family, including our seven wonderful kids, gunner jackson, peter boone, kensington, luke, jack. rex. sorry. it's a lot of them. and, gwendolyn, their future safety and security is in all of our hands. and to all the troops and veterans watching. and here in the room, navy seals, green berets, soldiers, pilots, sailors, marines, gold stars and more. too many friends to name. officers enlisted, black and white, young and old, men and women, all americans, all warriors. this hearing is for you. thank you for figuratively and literally having my back. >> misogynist. not only that, you are a christian scientist

and you perform for god. >> i want to thank the authorities for their swift reaction to that outburst and state that that similar interruptions will be treated in like manner. mr. hegseth, you may continue. >> well, as i'll say again, thank you for figuratively and literally having my back. i pledge to do the same for all of you. it's an honor to come before this committee today as president donald trump's nominee for the office of secretary of defense. two months ago, 77 million americans gave president trump a powerful mandate for change. to put america first at home and abroad. i want to thank president trump for his faith in me and his selfless leadership for our republic. the troops have no better commander in

chief than donald trump. as i've said to many of you in private meetings, when president trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the department of defense. he, like me, wants a pentagon laser focused on lethality, meritocracy, warfighting accountability, and readiness. makes us better prepared to fight their own. >> guys. and. money to try and. >> you may continue, sir. >> returning the pentagon back to warfighting. that's it. that's my job. >> mr. hegseth, suspend your remarks. let me just say this.

the capitol police are going to remove immediately individuals that are disrupting the hearing. i see a pattern of attempted. to be inflicted on the committee. and we're simply not going to tolerate that. you may proceed to bring back warfighting, if confirmed. >> i'm going to work with president trump and this committee to one, restore the warrior ethos to the pentagon and throughout our fighting force. in doing so, we will reestablish trust in our military. addressing the recruiting crisis, the retention crisis and readiness crisis in our ranks. >> members of the security force will remove members. mr. mr.

hegseth, you may. you may. >> the strength of our military is our unity and our shared purpose, not our differences. number two, we're going to rebuild our military, always matching threats to capabilities. this includes reviving our defense industrial base, reforming the acquisitions process. as you mentioned, mr. chairman, no more valley of death for new defense companies modernizing our nuclear triad, ensuring the pentagon can pass an audit and rapidly fielding emerging technologies. and number three, we're going to reestablish deterrence. first and foremost, we will defend our homeland, our borders and our skies. second, we will work with our partners and allies to deter aggression in the indo-pacific from the communist chinese. and finally, we will responsibly end wars to ensure that we

prioritize our resources to reorient to larger threats. we can no longer count on reputational deterrence. we need real deterrence. the department of defense under donald trump will achieve peace through strength and in pursuing these america first national security goals will remain patriotically apolitical and stridently constitutional. unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters. we are not republicans. we are not democrats. we are american warriors. our standards will be high and they will be equal, not equitable. that's a very different word. we need to make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapon system. every pilot is fully qualified and current on the aircraft they are flying. and every general or flag

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

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

many of my generation, i've been there. i've led troops in combat. i've been on patrol for days. i've pulled the trigger downrange, heard bullets whiz by, flex cuffed insurgents, called in close air support, led medevacs, dodged ieds, pulled out dead bodies and knelt before a battlefield cross. this is not academic for me. this is my life. i led then and i will lead now. ask anyone who's ever worked for me or with me. i know what i don't know. my success as a leader, and i very much look forward to discussing my organization's successes at vets for freedom and concerned veterans for america. i'm incredibly proud of the work that we've done, but my success as a leader has always been setting a clear vision, hiring people smarter and more capable than me, empowering them to

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

recognized for one round of seven minutes to question the nominee out of respect for the time of all members of this committee. the time limits will be tightly enforced. it. 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. hicks, you and your family have endured criticism of your nomination since it was announced in november. let's get into this allegation about sexual assault, inappropriate workplace behavior, alcohol abuse and financial mismanagement during your time as a nonprofit executive. i should note that the majority of these have come from anonymous sources in liberal media publications. but i want to give you an opportunity to respond to these allegations, sir. >> mr. chairman, thank you, mr.

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

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

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

not a perfect person, but redemption is real. and god forged me in ways that i know i'm prepared for, and i'm honored by the people standing and sitting behind me. and i look forward to leading this pentagon on behalf of the warfighters. >> thank you, mr. hegseth. and frankly, i'm sure there are millions of americans watching who would would agree that that they've experienced that same sort of redemption. so i do appreciate that. i realize that it it involves a little baring of the soul. but thank you for that. now let's talk about top line defense spending. i have a plan and i think you've read it. i issued another plan for freedom's forge, which you've also had a chance to look at. and you have noted correctly that the current trend line of defense spending falling below 3% of our gdp is a threat to national security. you also said building the strongest, most powerful military in the world must be done responsibly, but it cannot be done on the cheap. you

still agree with that, do you not? >> yes, sir, i do. >> so tell us what you think about, particularly about my plan to make the defense department less bureaucratic, less top heavy. cut out some of the bureaucracy and layers. make it more. more friendly to startups and to new ideas contained in my 20 or so page white paper defending freedom's forge. >> senator, i've had a chance to review the forged act. that paper. those are precisely the kinds of ideas that need to be pursued. and i look forward to working with this committee to ensure we cut the red tape. we incentivize innovation. we rebuild the defense industrial base, cut out the bureaucracy, all the things that are preventing the platforms and the tools from getting rapidly from our great defense companies here that should and those that want

to compete into the hands of warfighters. but past is prolog on this, sir. and i would just look at what president trump after did after the drawdowns of lead from behind under president obama. president trump rebuilt our military. he didn't start wars. he ended them, and he didn't allow wars to start on his watch. we've had the same kind of defense cuts under the biden administration. and so, look, i would i would present to the committee the reputation of president donald trump and me coming alongside him to ensure we have peace through strength by rebuilding our military, investing as necessary, going under 3%, mr. chairman, is very dangerous. >> okay, we've got 45 seconds. tell us in that point, get us started at least talking about deterring china in the indo-pacific. >> it starts with priorities. the 2017 national defense strategy was the first step in reorienting away from simply entanglement in the middle east, which our generation knows a lot about, and reorienting the

behemoth that is the pentagon toward new priorities, specifically the indo-pacific. so that strategy has started and was barely followed through on under the biden administration. so we're going to start by ensuring the institution understands that as far as threats abroad, the ccp is front and center, also obviously defending our homeland as well. >> thank you very much. senator reed, you are recognized. >> well. thank you very much, mr. chairman. before i begin my questioning, i would like to make three requests. first, many of my members would like a second round. that has been the custom. senator hagel was afforded three rounds. senator ash carter, two rounds. and that was done by a republican chairman with the consent and the appropriate guidance of democrats. i must say to my recollection, is i've never denied anyone the opportunity to ask the second round of questions. as i chaired, i will

request the second round. and my time is running. i think these are. >> oh, yeah. you're using your time? no. if the timekeeper will will pause the time. i, i must say i think we're going to have adequate time for questioning. and i know democrat members hav, have coordinated their questions as much as we have. and we are we are following the same exact precedent on on all things that we did with secretary austin. so i, i, i respectfully understand what you're saying, but i think we have an agreement. it's been known for quite some time, and i intend to stick with that. that agreement which we made last december. what is your second request? >> second has been publicly reported. you and i have both seen the fbi background investigation that mr. hague said. and i want to say, for the

record, i believe the investigation was insufficient. frankly, there are still fbi obligations to talk to people. they have not had access to the forensic audit, which i referenced to in the person who had access to was quite critical of mr. hegstad. and i think people on both sides have suggested that they get the report. i know your colleagues have asked for it. senator thune assured me personally that he thought it was an appropriate idea. so i would ask and i would say to as a precedent, one of president trump's appointees had similar very complicated personal issues. the report was made available to all the members of the committee. we would be following precedent, and i ask that that be made possible. >> again. we are there's been much discussion about this, and

what i intend to do is follow the exact precedent that we've had for the last two hearings with regard to secretaries of defense, not only secretary austin, but secretary mattis eight years ago. and, and 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 count every hero, which is an organization of retired four star generals and former secretary of defense that is critical of the proposed purge panels, one from the organization for domestic violence, one for a council on american relations, and also, excuse me, and also several letters that raise questions i

would ask that they be submitted for the record. >> without objection, they will be submitted. and mr. reed, your time has now expired. just kidding. yeah, you're recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you. you're very understanding, chairman, i like that, i like that. miss exit, you've written and i quote. oh, yeah. and fire any general who isn't carrying water for obama and biden's extra constitution and agenda driven transformation for our military. clean house and start over. it's come to my attention that current serving military personnel have received emails threatening them with being fired for supporting the current dod policies. one mail that was sent to a military officer with the subject line clean house reminiscent of your specific comment, states, and i quote, with the incoming

administration looking to remove disloyal, corrupt, traitorous liberal officers such as yourself, we will certainly be putting your name into the list of those personnel to be removed. we know you support the woke dei policies and will ensure you never again influence anyone in the future. you and redacted spouse's name will be lucky if you're able to collect your military retirement. end quote. now, i want to remind everyone that these policies that are being referred to date back decades to the 1940s and 50s with respect to racial discrimination, particularly, and administrations of both parties, including the trump administration and their first party, caused those policies to be enforced, mr. head said. are you aware of these emails being sent to officers? >> senator, you mentioned the word accountability, which is something we have not had for

the last four years. >> are you aware of these messages being sent to offices? >> certainly. i'm not aware of that. it's not one of my efforts, but there's been no accountability for the disaster of the withdrawal in afghanistan. and that's precisely why we're here today, is that leadership has been unwilling to take accountability, and it's time to restore that to our most senior ranks. >> you have written publicly that d policy is a distraction and have military personnel walking on eggshells. do you believe that emails like that that are essentially threatening both serving officer and a spouse and claiming that they'll lose their pension will have a distraction and detract from the lethality? >> senator, you mentioned the 40s and 50s. you're precisely right. the military was a forerunner in courageous racial integration in ways no other institutions were willing to do. i served with men and women of all backgrounds because of the courage of people decades and

decades ago is incredibly important. however, the dei policies of today are not the same as what happened back then. they're dividing troops inside formations, causing commanders to walk on eggshells, not putting meritocracy first. that's the indictment that's made by those serving right now. excuse me and why we're having this conversation. >> all of your public comments don't talk about meritocracy. they talk about liberal democratic efforts that are destroying the military, that those people are our enemies. that's not meritocracy. that's a political view. and your goal is, i see emerging is to politicize the military in favor of your particular positions, which you've outlined extensively, which would be the worst blow to the professionalism of the united states military and would undercut readiness, undercut retention, because i can see

officers receiving these emails beginning to wonder very seriously if they should continue. let me change subjects for a moment here. you've been instrumental in securing pardons for several convicted war criminals, and at least two of these cases, the military personnel who served in combat with these convicted servicemembers were not supportive of the pardons. they did their duty as soldiers to report war crimes. your definition of lethality seems to embrace those people who do commit war crimes, rather than those who stand up and say, this is not right. so what's your response to service members who personally witnessed these and took courageously reported them to their superiors? >> senator, as someone who's led men in combat directly and had

to make very difficult decisions, i've thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close to the enemy, and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way. i'm not talking about disavowing the laws of war, or the geneva conventions or the uniform code of military justice. sir, i'm talking about restrictive rules of engagement that these men and women behind me understand they've lived with on the battlefield, which has made it more difficult to defeat our enemies. in many of the cases you're talking about in particular, sir, there was evidence withheld. there was prosecution, 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, dc. excuse me, i look case by case and was proud to work with president trump to understand those cases and ensure that our warriors are always looked out for. >> those cases were adjudicated

or adjudicated by who people in washington or fellow noncommissioned officers who had also served to sacrifice and believed in the ethic of the military, who were the who were the court martial senator in multiple cases, they were actually acquitted, but charges lingered. >> yes, regardless of where those competing authorities were. >> yes, sir. some were, but others were convicted. and you asked for pardon? that's the only reason you asked for a pardon. because they were convicted. but the other factor, too, is you've already disparaged in writing the geneva convention the rules of law, all of these things. how will you be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principal elements is discipline, respect for lawful authority? you have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a jag officer. or by the way, would you explain what a jag off is? >> i don't think i need to, sir.

>> why not? >> because the men and women watching understand. >> well, perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand. >> it would be a jag officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the warfighters, their promotions, their medals, in front of having the backs of those who are making the tough calls on the front lines. >> thank you senator. >> interesting. >> thank you, senator. thank you very much, senator fischer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, mr. hegseth, to you and to your family. thank you for the meeting that we had. we talked about a number of things. first and foremost was that nuclear weapons are foundational to our national defense. and having a safe, effective and credible nuclear deterrent underpins our alliances. and as you know, it deters our adversaries. nuclear deterrence has been and you and i, i believe, agreed on this. it must continue to be unequivocally the

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

capability, the perception and the reality of the capability of our nuclear triad. we have to invest in its modernization for the defense of our nation. >> while former secretaries of defense have stated that nuclear deterrence is the highest priority, we haven't really seen that translated into budget requests or using the tools like the defense production act. you've spoken about increasing lethality. you've spoken about getting programs done faster. how would you actually implement a culture change so that we can see these delivery schedules move forward, be rewarded? i can tell you in most every briefing we have, the schedules we're on are too late. so what would you do? >> well, ultimately, ultimately focused first on the things that are most important. as we have discussed, senator, the nuclear triad, understanding whether it's the b-21 or the minuteman

two, the sentinel, all, all aspects of the columbia class submarines, ballistic missiles, what are the priorities that need to be focused on and ensure that in those particular cases, you mentioned it, senator. the defense production act emergency powers, if we're at a place where our nuclear capabilities are perceived to not be what they are, that is an emergency, and we have an ally in our incoming commander in chief in president donald trump, who has spoken about these things, understands the power and strength of nuclear deterrence will not allow. >> it's the existential threat. it's the existential threat to this nation. how do you change the how do you change the culture? it's not just the production act that's going to be able to do it. how are you going to move forward faster? >> competition, senator, is important, critically important. the death valley that was talked about leveraging the innovation of silicon valley, which for the first time in generations has shown a willingness, desire and capability to bring its best technologies to bear at the pentagon, a pentagon that has

become too insular tries to block new technologies from coming in. so we have to embrace that, provide. there's some great offices of strategic capital d icu initiatives that provide loans to companies to participate, because you have to invent, you have to invest in the defense industrial base for the longer term projects. we have the capability, the missiles and the munitions, but also to rapidly field emerging technologies that we need on the battlefield right now. so as we learn things, say, in the war in ukraine, those technologies, as we look at threats we're going to face, find ways to rapidly field those using off the shelf technologies or standard designs, modular designs. another easy one, senator, that became evident in the process is digital designs. the pentagon often builds entire systems without first using a digital design. okay, which means you build prototypes and then scrap them and start over again. no private sector business could survive doing business that way. so there's a lot of innovation,

and i'm going to hire a lot of smart people already have to help with that in the 2025 ndaa, it was established to a new position. >> the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear deterrence, chemical and biological defense policies and programs. and that was established so we could cut through a lot of the bureaucratic stovepipes that that we see in the office of the secretary of defense. if confirmed, will you direct the department of defense components to expeditiously implement this reform? >> i it sounds i would i would want to look directly at exactly what that reform is. it is i take your word that it's great, senator. i will review it robustly and i look forward to implementing it. >> okay. thank you. during the first trump administration, the 2018 nuclear posture review concluded that the u.s. needed to once again develop and deploy

a nuclear armed, sea launched cruise missile known as slocum to offset significant russian and chinese advantages in theater range nuclear capabilities. since then, congress, on a strong bipartisan basis, has directed the navy and the national nuclear security administration to continue this effort. do you support the slocum program as of right now? >> senator, based on what i know, i do, but one of my answers i'll have repeatedly throughout this, this morning is getting an opportunity to look under the hood classified material, get an understanding of true capabilities vis a vis enemy capabilities, because what we know right now on the nuclear sorry, senator, what i know on the nuclear side is that russia and china are rushing to modernize and build arsenals larger than ours. we need to match threats to capabilities, and the systems we elevate will be tied to whether those

capabilities are needed based on the adversaries we face. >> would you would you ensure that this program is executed according to law? >> well, absolutely. absolutely, senator. >> what short? short here. what is your plan to revitalize the industrial base in this country? >> it needs to be real short. real short. >> serious investment targeted at systems that we truly need. by also incentivizing competition and laser focus from the osd, from the office of secretary of defense, to all the particular strategic initiatives to revive them. so it's not just one system, it's multiple systems. >> you may want to expand on that. on the record, at this point, 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. hecht's nomination. i ask unanimous consent. without objection, it is entered into the record. senator shaheen. >> good morning, mr. hegseth. >> good morning, senator. >> i was pleased when i was contacted on your behalf about meeting before this hearing. i've been on this committee since 2011, and during that time i voted to confirm six nominees to be secretary of defense from three administrations, two democratic and one republican. the first trump administration. every one of those nominees met with me and my democratic colleagues on this committee before the hearing. so, as you can imagine, i was disappointed when no one ever followed up. when we followed up with your office, you were not able to meet. do you understand that if you're confirmed to be secretary of defense, that you will have a

responsibility to meet with all members of this committee, not just republicans? >> senator, i very much appreciate and understand the traditionally bipartisan nature of this committee there. national defense is not partizan. it should not be about republicans or democrats. and so i look forward to working together with you and your colleagues on on priorities facing this nation. >> yes, i think we would expect that. and one reason that i wanted to meet with you was because i thought it would be really helpful to better understand your views on women in the military, because you've made a number of surprising statements about women serving in the military. as recently as november the 7th of 2024 on the sean ryan show, you said, and i quote, i'm straight up saying that we should not have women in combat roles. it hasn't made us more effective. the quote went on a little longer, but that was the gist of it. 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%, senator. >> it's almost 18%. and in fact, dod's 2023 demographic report indicated that there are more women serving now and there are fewer separations. so they make up a critical part of our military. wouldn't you agree? >> yes, ma'am. women in our military, as i have said publicly, have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield. >> well, you also write in your book the war on warriors, with the chapter the deadly obsession with women warriors, that quote, not only are women comparatively less effective than men in combat roles, but they are more likely to be objectified by the enemy and their own nation in the moral realms of war. mr. hegseth, should we take it to believe that you believe that the two women on this committee

who have served honorably and with distinction, made our military less effective and less capable? >> i'm incredibly grateful for the for the two women who've served our military in uniform and including in the central intelligence agency, contributions on the battlefield, an indispensable contribution. senator, i would like to clarify, when i'm talking about that issue, it's not about the capabilities of men and women. it's about standards. and this committee has talked a lot about standards, standards that we unfortunately, over time, have seen eroded in certain duty positions, certain schools, certain places, which affects readiness, which is what i care about the most, readiness. i appreciate that. and so my comments, however, time and time again to standards, your statements publicly have not been to that effect. >> after your nomination, you did state to a group of reporters that you quote, support all women serving in our military today who do a fantastic job across the globe,

including combat. so what i'm confused about, mr. hegseth is which is it? why should women in our military, if you were the secretary of defense, believe that they would have a fair shot and an equal opportunity to rise through the ranks? if, on the one hand, you say that women are not competent, they make our military less effective. and on the other hand, you say, oh, no, now that i've been nominated to be the secretary of defense, i've changed my view on women in the military. what do you have to say to the almost 400,000 women who are serving today about your position on whether they should be capable to rise through the highest ranks of our military? >> senator, i would say i would be honored to have the opportunity to serve alongside you, shoulder to shoulder, men and women, black, white, all backgrounds with a shared purpose. our differences are not what define us. our unity and our shared purpose is what defines us. and you will be

treated fairly and with dignity, honor and respect, just like every man and woman in uniform. just like the men and women that i've worked with in my veterans organizations to include when i was a headquarters and headquarters company commander in the minnesota national guard. >> well, i appreciate your 11th hour conversion, but, mr. chairman, for the record, i would like to submit chapter five, the deadly obsession with women warriors, for the record, mr. hegseth, 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. >> this is a law that was signed during president elect trump's first term. it was legislation that i sponsored with republican senator capito of west virginia. it was co-sponsored by marco rubio, the nominee to be the president elect's secretary of state. it was led in the house of representatives by kristi noem, the president elect's nominee to be the secretary of homeland security. it mandates that women be included in all aspects of our national security, including conflict

resolution and peace negotiations. and at the department of defense. it has been the law for eight years under both the trump and biden administrations. the dod has incorporated women throughout its decision making. and as a result, every single combatant commander across two administrations has told this committee that this law and its implementation at the department of defense provides them a strategic advantage operationally. based on your comments, it appears that the example that you would like to set not only for women in this country, but for women across the globe, 50% of the world's population, as the nominee that women should not have an equal opportunity in our military. so will you commit to preserving the women, peace and security law at dod and including in your budget, the

requisite funding to continue to restore and resource these programs throughout the dod? >> senator, i will commit to reviewing that program and ensuring it aligns with america first national security priorities, meritocracy, lethality, and readiness. and if it advances american interests, it's something we would advance. if it doesn't, it's something we would. >> since former president trump signed the law. i hope that he agrees with you. >> thank you, senator shaheen. at this point, i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record five letters of support from female service members and combat veterans who support mr. smith's nomination. these women represent diverse viewpoints from a retired colonel with over 25 years of service to an active duty navy surface warfare commander, to a senior airman, they support mr. hegseth and comment on his focus

on merit, warfighting readiness, military training status, and the warrior ethos. so without objection, it will be entered into the record. and now i'm honored to recognize senator cotton for seven minutes. >> mr. hegseth, let's continue on this line of questioning about what sometimes referred to as women in combat. i think that phrase is something of a misnomer. many members of this committee have served in combat in the last 25 years to include women and men. i'm sure all those men served with women, whether they were military police officers or they were pilots, or whether they were intelligence analysts or medics or what have you, you served, i assume you served with women who were on the front lines as well, is that correct? yes, sir. and were those women anything other than skilled, brave and honorable in their service? >> they were some of the best soldiers i worked with. >> so women have been serving in

combat for a long time. women have even been serving in combat units like infantry battalions for a long time, in roles like medics or mechanics or what have you. so what we're talking about here specifically is women in ground combat roles in jobs like infantrymen or artillerymen or special forces. until about ten years ago, that wasn't the case under secretary panetta. those roles were opened up to women to serve in, just as president trump indicated at all that he plans to rescind or alter that guidance. >> you're correct to point out, senator, that these are the decisions that the commander in chief will have the prerogative to make. he has not indicated me to me that he has plans to change whether or not women would have access to these roles. however, i would point out ensuring that standards are equal and high is of importance to him and great importance to me, because in those ground combat roles, what is true is that the weight of the ruck on your back doesn't change the weight of the 155 round that you

have to carry, doesn't change the weight of the 240 bravo machine gun you might have to carry doesn't change. and so whether it's a man or a woman, they have to meet the same high standards. and senator, in any place where those things have been eroded or in courses, criteria have been changed in order to meet quotas, racial quotas or gender quotas. that is, putting a focus on something other than readiness standards, meritocracy and lethality. so that's the kind of review i'm talking about, not whether women have access to ground combat. okay. >> so thank you, senator. you expect no change to that guidance. but as you point out in these specific jobs, there are irreducible physical demands. we expect our intelligence analysts and our mechanics to be physically fit in the military. but it's different when you're in the infantry or the artillery. you just mentioned a few things. let me point it out. an artillery shell weighs almost 100 pounds.

an abrams tank round weighs around 50 pounds. the m240 bravo machine gun, with its tripod, weighs almost 50 pounds. the average weight of a full kit, ammo, water, camo body armor for a soldier is over 100 pounds. nothing you can do can change any of those things, right? that is physical reality. >> go ahead. yes, senator. and i would say the requirements to handle those things in a ground combat unit, as far as standards can look different than those of a medic or a drone pilot. and so it's not that it has to be the same standard throughout it's standards to maximize efficacy of that particular position. >> let me read a quote here from one army officer. while it may be difficult for a 120 pound woman to lift or drag 250 pounds, the army cannot artificially absolve women of that responsibility. it may still exist on the battlefield. the entire purpose of creating a gender and gender neutral test was to acknowledge the reality

that each job has objective, physical standards to which all soldiers should be held, regardless of gender. the intent was not to ensure that women and men will have an equal likelihood of meeting those standards. i assume based on your testimony, you agree with that army officer? >> absolutely. the standards need to be the same, and they need to be high, and they need to be set by the people closest to the problem, set closest to the understanding of what is required by that job. commanders, commanding officers and cocoms and elsewhere who understand the reality of what they face. that's the feedback we should get. that's what should be enshrined and enforced, and no other set of political prerogatives. when i talk about removing politics, ideological or political prerogatives should contribute to those determinations. nothing other than the execution of the mission. >> thank you. for the record, that army officer was captain kristen griest, the army's first female infantry officer and one of its first female ranger school graduates. one final

point. you said they need to be objective, gender neutral and high. that's because the demands are in fact very high. the current physical fitness test for the army has a minimum two mile run of 22 miles, run, and i want the reporter to note that i'm putting run in air quotes, because 22 miles at two miles is not running. it may be jogging. it's probably walking fast. let's move on. we've got a big 22 minutes. thank you. we've got a big audience here. many of them seem to be patriotic supporters of you, mr. hegseth. some of them seem to be liberal critics of you. i would note that it's only the liberal critics that have disrupted this hearing, as was my custom during the biden administration. i want to give you a chance to respond to what they said about you. i think the first one accused you of being a christian zionist.

i'm not really sure why that is a bad thing. i'm a christian. i'm a zionist. zionism is that the jewish people deserve a homeland in the ancient holy land, where they've lived since the dawn of history. do you consider yourself a christian zionist senator? >> i support i am a christian and i robustly support the state of israel and its existential defense and the way america comes alongside them as a great ally, because another one, another protester and i think this one was a member of codepink, which, by the way, is a chinese communist front group these days, said that you support israel's war in gaza. >> i support israel's existential war in gaza. i assume, like me and president trump, you support that war as well, don't you, senator? >> i do. i support israel destroying and killing every last member of hamas. >> and the third protester said something about 20 years of genocide. i assume that's our wars in iraq and afghanistan. do you think our troops are

committing genocide in iraq and afghanistan? >> senator, i do not. i think our senator, our troops, as you know, as so many in this committee know, did the best they could with what they had. we're not the outcomes. and tragically, the outcome we saw in afghanistan under the biden administration put a stain on that. but it doesn't put a stain on what those men and women did in uniform, as you know full well, senator. >> thank you. mr. >> thank you, senator cotton. at this point, i offer i ask unanimous consent to offer into the record a letter submitted by omar abbasi, son of former city council president of samarra, iraq, who worked with mr. hegseth in iraq. without objection, that will be entered. senator gillibrand. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. mr. hegseth. i do want to thank you for your service, and i want to thank you for your willingness to serve in this capacity. >> thank you, senator, i have many concerns about your record and particularly your public statements, because they are so

hurtful to the men and women who are currently serving in the u.s. military, harmful to morale, harmful to good order and discipline. >> if you are saying that women shouldn't be serving in the military, and i'm going to read you your quotes because the quotes themselves are terrible, you will have to change how you see women to do this job well. and i don't know if you are capable of that. so i want to press on these issues that my colleague jeanne shaheen brought up because she said it so well. so first of all, you answered your questionnaire. do you believe that any american who wants to serve their country in the military and can meet objective standards set by the military, should be allowed to serve without limitation? you said yes to that question, but then in all of these other circumstances, you've denigrated active duty service members. we have hundreds, hundreds of women who are currently in the infantry, lethal members of our military, serving in the infantry. but you degrade them.

you say, we need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units. so specific to senator collins question, because senator cotton was giving you layups to differentiate between different types of combat and specifically as secretary, would you take any action to reinstitute the combat arms exclusion for female service members, knowing full well you have hundreds of women doing that job right now, and the standards your two mile run, tom, is about the army combat fitness test. it is not the requirements to have an mos 11 bravo, which is the infantry. these are the requirements today for people serving in the industry, men and women. they are gender neutral and they are very difficult to meet. they have not been reduced in any way and our combat units, our infantry is lethal. so please explain specifically because you

will be in charge of 3 million personnel. it is a big job. and when you make these public statements and i get you are not secretary of defense, then i get you are on tv, i get you are helping veterans. i get it was a different job. but most recently you said this in november of 2024, knowing full well you might have been named as secretary of defense defense. so please explain these types of statements because they're brutal and they're mean, and they disrespect men and women who are willing to die for this country. >> well, senator, i appreciate your your comments. and i would point out i have never disparaged women serving in the military. i respect every single female service member that has put on the uniform, past and present my critiques, senator, recently and in the past and from personal experience have been instances where i've seen standards lowered. and you mentioned 11 alpha, 11 bravo, mos places in units and