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 it the

book that has been referenced referenced multiple times here, the war on warriors. i spent months talking to active duty service members, men and women, low ranks, high ranks, a combat arms and not combat arms. and what each and every one of them told me, and which personal instances have shown me, is that in ways direct, indirect, overt, and subtle standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, infantry battalions. >> to ensure that. one example. please give me an example. i get you're making these gender quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers or infantry enlisted, and that disparages those women. >> commanders do not have to meet quotas for the infantry. >> commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry that does not exist. it does not exist. and your statements are creating the impression that there that these exist because they do not. there are not quotas. we want the most

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

that i want to get to. so women you have denigrated. you have also denigrated members of the lgbtq community. did you know that when don't ask, don't tell was in place? we lost so many crucial personnel, over a thousand in mission critical areas. we lost 10% of all our foreign language speakers because of a political policy. you said in your statement you don't want politics in the dod. everything you've said in these public statements is politics. i don't want women. i don't want moms. what's wrong with a mom? by the way, once you have babies, you therefore are no longer able to be lethal. i mean, you're basically saying women after they have children can't ever serve in the military in a combat role. it's a it's a silly thing to say. it's a silly thing to say beneath the position that you are aspiring to, to denigrate lgbtq service members is a mistake. if you are a sharpshooter, you're as lethal regardless of what your gender identity is, regardless of who you love. so please know this to be a true statement. so you say.

you say it was a political thing. you say it undermined 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 they meet the standards? >> senator, as the president has stated, i don't disagree with the overturn of don't ask, don't tell. >> great, because i don't want you thinking can't serve if you're a mom, can't serve if you're lgbtq and then last can't serve if you're a leftist. the statements you said about people who have views differently than you that we're the enemy. are you saying that 50% of the dod, if they hold liberal views or leftist views, or are democrats, are not welcome in the military? are you saying that, senator, i volunteered to deploy to

afghanistan under democrat president barack obama? >> i also volunteered to guard the inauguration of joe biden, but was denied the opportunity to serve because i was identified as an extremist by my own unit for a christian tattoo. >> thank you very much, senator gillibrand. you you held up a document and referred to it during your questioning. would you like that entered into the record without my marks? okay, okay. >> we'll we'll delete we'll submit a clean copy without objection. >> that will be admitted at the at the point of your question. and i would like to enter into the record at this point, a letter of support from retired air force colonel melissa cunningham. colonel cunningham supports mr. hegseth and mentions his warrior ethos, combat effectiveness and maintaining military training standards. so without objection, both of those will be admitted. and i now recognize senator rounds. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

first of all, good morning. i'd like to thank you for your service to our nation in uniform and also your work on behalf of your fellow veterans and for your willingness to enter into this maelstrom of public service. i think the presence of so many veterans who have showed up to support you speaks volumes. i also want to recognize your family service and sacrifice. you know as well as anyone that it's not just a man that enters the arena, but it's the entire family who also works their way through this process as well. i appreciated our meeting with you and with your wife, jennifer, this last month. i thought that we had an excellent conversation, and i appreciate your statement and your answers to the advanced policy questions, especially your desire to bring a renewed focus on warfighting and lethality back to the pentagon. i also respect and i appreciate my friend and colleague, senator gillibrand, and some of her

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

it has been the joy of my life to lead men and women in military outfits. when you're in combat or in training, there's a lot of conversations that happen and you start to realize that a lot of people you're serving with share your political ideals or they don't. you find out there's republicans, there's democrats, there's libertarians, there's independents, there's vegetarians, everything in between. none of that matters. it never mattered in how i led men and women, how i interacted with them, what missions we undertook. politics has nothing to do with the battlefield, which is why president trump has asked me to say, let's make sure all of that comes out. this is about war fighting capability, setting standards high and making sure we give our boys, our men and women everything they need to be successful on the battlefield so politics can play no part in that. and i look forward to infusing that as we always have inside our units. >> i appreciate you making that

very clear. and i one of the areas that we want to do our best is to provide for the equipment and the technical capabilities so that no young man or woman enters into a battle as a fair fight, and that they always have the advantage. those are the types of questions that i'd like to get into right now. and i want to start by talking about something that sometimes gets a little bit into the weeds, but i think it's critical. mr. hegseth, from what i've heard from 24 senior dod officials and hearings over the last two years, including the secretary of defense, every service chief and eight combatant commanders, is that sharing the portion of the spectrum? and this is in the weeds, i know, but i'm going to ask it to get it on the record. the 3.1 to 3.5 gigahertz band would have extremely serious consequences and very costly consequences on our war fighting capabilities. in fact, the department of the navy alone has estimated that relocating their

systems to a different part of the spectrum band would cost them $250 billion. that's just for the destroyers that defend our coasts with the radars that they have in them. if confirmed, what will you do to make sure that the department of defense can maintain its access to end the use, and to be able to maneuver within the electromagnetic spectrum at home and abroad? and would you be willing to literally go to the mat with the interagency to protect warfighter requirements for the use of the spectrum? >> well, senator, thank you for the question. and my job, in part, will be to go to the mat when necessary for things i believe are an absolute requirement for the department of defense and the men and women in uniform. there's no doubt about that. and in this particular case, as far as spectrum, i look forward, as i've said before, getting a full class because this issue has come up a number of times in meetings. it's critically important with how how our

warfighters communicate across all services. so i'm going to get a classified briefing immediately about what that would, how it would impact the spectrum if it were to allow other companies or other to be rest assured, china would to know china would love to have our ability to use that part of the spectrum restricted. >> they would love that. >> absolutely right. and so i will go in with eyes only toward ensuring we have the capabilities we need. and there's no disruption when i take that briefing. thank you. >> in your advanced policy questions, you recognize a cooperative approach by china, russia, iran and north korea to undermine u.s. influence around the world. as you point out, aggression by one or by any one actor would be an opportunity for others to engage the u.s. on multiple fronts along the continuum of the conflict. as we discussed in my office, neither of us wants to send our troops into a fair fight. we want to make sure that they have every advantage that the united states can give them, and that requires resources and reforms. given the

growing potential of a multi theater conflict involving near-peer adversaries, what steps would you take to prepare the department of defense to simultaneously execute and sustain operations across multiple regions, while maintaining readiness and deterrence globally? and i just have to make note, and i want to make it clear, we have language in this year's fiscal year 2025 national defense authorization act, calling for a review of the department's operational plans. and i just want to make sure that you that you're aware of that and that we will have if we have a fight with one, the chances are very good that we're going to have two battles or two different battlegrounds at the same time. >> senator, which which is why i believe our country's incredibly fortunate to have a new commander in chief in donald trump, who through the strategic approach he has taken with allies and against foes, has prevented wars and is determined to do the same. that's our chief job is to deter and prevent

wars. my job, should i be confirmed at the secretary of defense, is to ensure we have the right prioritization of assets and strategy, and then the tools in the toolbox necessary. the pointiest possible spear for president trump to wield, if necessary, as the last resort. so president trump at the helm, i think, will go a long way in making sure our enemies know there's a new sheriff in town. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and thank you very much, senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing. thank you for being here, mr. hegseth. and i want to join in expressing appreciation and respect for your service to our country. and thanks to all the veterans who are here today, and thank you for your service as the ranking member of the veterans affairs committee, i hope we can focus on doing better for our veterans and

doing better in management of the department of defense. there's always room for improvement. i think what we need in that position is not just better, but the best in financial management, because those decisions are life and death decisions affecting the 3.4 million americans who serve our national security and our national defense and put their lives on the line. i want to talk about financial mismanagement at the two organizations that you headed, which are the only test of your financial management that we have before this committee, the veterans for freedom and concerned veterans for america. you took over the veterans for freedom in 2007. in 2008, you raised $8.7 million, but spent more than 9 million, creating a

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

raised was used intentionally toward the execution of our mission, which is supporting the warfighters. exactly why we're here today. the war fighters in the iraq surge. there was a campaign in 2008, senator, it was barack obama versus john mccain. you and i believe john mccain would be the right person to win. and so we spent more from that organization. i'm glad they're in. >> for the record, i'm going to ask to be entered into the record, mr. chairman, without objection, these tax returns are yours. they have your signature. and i'm going to ask that members of the committee review them, because they're the only documents i've asked for others. i've asked for the fbi report that would presumably document it should have documented this kind of financial mismanagement. and these are the nine 90s from that organization. by the year

of 2011, donors had become so dissatisfied with that mismanagement, they, in effect, ousted you. they merged that organization with military families united. and thereafter you joined a second organization as executive director. >> in between. senator, i went to harvard. >> i want to ask you questions. i want to ask you questions about concerned veterans for america. again, another set of tax returns, the nine 90s, from that organization. i asked they be made part of the record, mr. chairman, without objection, both of those returns are now part of the record 2011 to 2016. at the end of 2013, shortfall of $130,000 at the end of 2014, shortfall of $428,000. you had a surplus the following year, but then another deficit of $437,000. by the time you left,

that organization had deep debts, including credit card transaction debts of about $75,000. that isn't the kind of fiscal management we want at the department of defense. we can't tolerate it at the department of defense. that's an organization with a budget of $850 billion, not 10 or 15 million, which was the case that those two organizations and it has command responsibility for 3.4 million americans, the highest number that you managed in those two organizations was maybe 50 people. let me ask you, how many men and women now serve in the united states army? what is the end strength? >> senator, i would like an opportunity to respond to well, i'm impugning of my leadership

of a veterans organization, concerned veterans for america. you're on the va committee, sir, and i appreciate your service there. the va accountability act and the mission act were all brainchild of concerned veterans for america. we used our donor money very intentionally and focused to create policy that bettered the lives of veterans. >> mr. hegseth, i'm asking you a very simple question. how many men and women currently serve in the united states army? >> senator, the united states army, 450,000 on active duty, sir. >> and how many in the navy and the navy is 425, sir. well, it's 337 this year. how many in the marine corps? >> 175. 175,000, sir. >> 172,300. those numbers dwarf any experience you had by many multiples. i don't believe that you can tell this committee, or

the people of america that you are qualified to lead them. i would support you as the spokesperson for the pentagon. i don't dispute your communication skills, but i believe that we are entitled to the facts here. i've asked for more documents. i assume you'd be willing to submit to an expanded fbi background check that interviews your colleagues, accountants, ex-wives, former spouses, sexual assault survivors, and others and enable them to come forward. >> senator, i'm not in charge of fbi background checks, but you would submit to it and support it. i'm not in charge of fbi background checks. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. i at this point want to submit a letter from captain wade zirkle, the founder of vets for freedom, and the person who hired pete hegseth to run the

organization. although the two 2008 financial crisis dried up, fundraising for non-profits, captain zirkle says, and i quote, pete responded to this crisis with decisive action by reducing staff and renegotiating all debts with creditors until they were fairly resolved, an impressive feat and a testament to pete's character. pete departed vf in 2010 to take on a new role with concerned veterans for america. pete departed on good terms. without objection. that will be added to the record. senator ernst, you are recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair, and i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter submitted by mr. mark lucas, who is a fellow iowan and iowa army national guard member. mr. lucas and i served together in the iowa army national guard. he

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

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

concerns that have been raised here as well. and it's why, you know, i trusting my fellow iowan, asked for unanimous consent of this letter to go into the record. but like me, a lot of iowans are really, really concerned and upset about the wasteful washington spending. and of course, in our pentagon, it's an issue that i have been combating for years, so there's significant room for greater efficiency and cost cutting within the department. and the dod is the only federal agency that has never passed an audit. as the senate doge caucus chair and founder. that's unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to you as well. so i appreciate that you mentioned that in your opening statement. what are those steps that you will take to ensuring the pentagon has a clean audit by the year 2028? >> senator, i appreciate your work on this topic, which you've

been involved in for a long time. you mentioned concerned veterans for america. i just want to clarify, we have very generous donors who set a very clear budget that we stuck to every single year. so the latitude there was was restricted. and we worked very hard and diligently inside it. you've also been a leader on the pentagon audit audit for a very long time. i think when we met, senator, i said 2014 was the first year we discovered a 2013 op ed. i wrote about the need for a pentagon audit because an audit is an issue of national security and, frankly, respect to american taxpayers who give $850 billion over to the defense department and expect that we know where that money goes. and if that money is going somewhere that doesn't add to truth and instead goes to fat or tail, we need to know that. or if it's wasted, we need to know that. so i think previous secretaries of defense, with all due respect, haven't necessarily emphasized the strategic prerogative of an

audit. and myself, my deputy secdef and others already know that a pentagon audit will be the controller, others central to ensuring we find those dollars that can be used elsewhere legally under the law inside the pentagon. so you have my word it will be a priority. >> okay. thank you. okay. moving on to women in combat. and i had the privilege of serving in uniform for over 23 years between our army reserves and our iowa army national guard 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. so i've been around for quite a while, but for the young women that are out there now and can meet those standards, and again, i'll emphasize they should be very, very high standards. they must physically be able to achieve those standards so that they can complete their mission. but i want to know, again, let's make it very clear for everyone here today as secretary of defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles? >> senator, first of all, thank you for your service. as we discussed extensively as well, it's my privilege and my answer

is yes, exactly the way that you caveated it. yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, combat roles, given the standards remain high and will have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded in any one of these cases. that will be part of. one of the first things we do at the pentagon is reviewing that in a gender neutral way. the standards ensuring readiness and meritocracy is front and center. but absolutely, it would be the privilege of a lifetime to, if confirmed, to be the secretary of defense for all men and women in uniform who fight so heroic, they have so many other options. they decide to put their right hand up for our country, and it would be an honor to have a chance to lead them. >> thank you. and just very briefly, we only have less than a minute left, but we have also discussed this in my office. a priority priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members

are treated with dignity and respect. 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, okay. >> and my time is expired. thank you for your answers, dr. hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hicks, 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 ensure the fitness of all nominees to come before any of the committees on which i sit, i ask the following two initial questions. first, since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? >> no. senator. >> have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct? >> senator? i was falsely accused in october of 2017. it was fully investigated and i was completely cleared. >> i don't think completely cleared is accurate, but my the

fact is that your own lawyer said that you entered into an nda and paid a person who accused you of raping her a sum of money to make sure that she did not file a complaint. moving on, as secretary, you will be in charge of maintaining good order and discipline by enforcing the uniform code of military justice, ucmj. in addition to the sexual assault allegations. and by the way, the answer to my second question should have been, yes. i have read multiple reports of your regularly being drunk at work, including by people who worked with you at fox news. do you know that being drunk at work is prohibited for service members under the ucmj? >> senator? >> yes or no? >> multiple. false anonymous reports pedaled by nbc news. do you know that directly contradictory to the dozens of men and women at fox news

channel who i work with, i'm not hearing on the record my question and said in your opening statement, mr. hegseth, you commit to holding leaders accountable at all levels. >> that includes you, of course. and frankly, as secretary, you will be on the job 24 over seven. you recently promised some of my republican colleagues that you stopped drinking and won't drink if confirmed. correct. >> i absolutely. >> will you resign as secretary of defense if you drink on the job, which is a 24 over seven position? >> i've made this commitment on behalf of. >> will you resign as secretary of defense? >> i've made this commitment on behalf of the men and women i'm serving. i'm not because it's the most important deployment, not hearing an answer to my question. >> so i'm going to move on. while you have made that commitment, you will not commit to resigning if you drink on the job as secretary of defense, you

will swear an oath to the constitution and not an oath to any man, woman or president. >> correct senator. on multiple occasions, including as a young second lieutenant, i have sworn an oath to the constitution, and i'm proud to do so. yes, ma'am. >> in june of 2020, then-president trump directed former secretary of defense mark esper to shoot protesters in the legs in downtown d.c, an order. secretary esper refused to comply with. would you carry out such an order from president trump? >> senator, i was in the washington, dc national guard unit that was in lafayette square during those. >> would you carry out an order to shoot protesters in the legs? >> i saw 50 secret service agents to get injured by rioters trying to jump over the fence at a church on fire and destroy what? >> that sounds to me that you will comply with such an order. you will shoot protesters in the in the leg. moving on. president elect has attacked our allies in recent weeks, refusing to rule

out using military force to take over greenland and the panama canal and threatening to take to make canada the 51st state. would you carry out an order from president trump to seize greenland, a territory of our nato ally denmark, by force? or would you comply with an order to take over the panama canal? >> senator, i will emphasize that president trump received 77 million votes to be the lawful commander. >> we're not talking about the election. my question is, would you use our military to take over greenland or an ally of denmark? >> senator, one of the things that president trump is so good at is never strategically tipping his hand. and so i would never, in this public forum give one way or another, direct what orders the president gives to me in any context. >> that sounds to me that you were contemplating carrying out

such an order to basically invade greenland and take over the panama canal. current dod policy allows service members and eligible dependents to be reimbursed for travel associated with non-covered reproductive health care, including abortions. will you maintain this common sense policy? >> senator, i've always been personally pro-life. i know president trump has as well, and we will review all policies, but our our standard is whatever the president wants on this particular issue. >> so our advice i will take, if the president tells you that this policy will not be maintained, you will not enable our service members to seek reproductive care. >> so i don't believe the federal government. >> i'm not hearing answers to my questions, mr. chairman, i just want to note that the other area that is of serious concern to me is president trump saying that he wants to use the military to help with mass deportations, which will cost billions of

dollars, and what that will do to readiness is very, very concerning. mr. hicks, i have noticed a disturbing pattern. you previously have made a series of inflammatory statements about women in combat, lgbtq service members, muslim americans and democrats. since your nominations, however, you have walked those back on tv in interviews and most recently in your opening statements. you are no longer on fox and friends, mr. hicks said. if confirmed, your words, actions and decisions will have real impacts on national security and our service members lives. there are close to 3 million personnel in the department of defense, $900 billion budget. i hardly think you are prepared to do the job. thank you, mr. chair.

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

warriors who are on the front lines every day. >> senator, i have, and as i mentioned to you in the past, i did a brief training exercise up at fort wainwright at a previous part of my military life. i look forward to returning. >> great. and i will say we are on the front lines with this new era of authoritarian aggression in alaska. the last two years we've had chinese and russian naval task forces, joint strategic bomber task forces in our eez. in our 80s. and after his election, president trump put out an extensive statement on alaska, which included the following statement. we will ensure alaska gets even more defense investments as we fully rebuild our military, especially as russia and china are making menacing moves in the pacific. mr. hegseth, if confirmed, will you work with me? this committee and the incoming commander in chief on continuing to build up our military assets and

infrastructure in alaska to reestablish deterrence in the arctic and in the indo-pacific? >> if confirmed, senator, it would be a pleasure to work alongside you and this entire committee to recognize the very real threat in the indo-pacific, the very real ways, even these past couple of weeks, that russia has attempted to probe and push in and around alaska, and also the very real strategic significance of alaska vis a vis shipping lanes through the arctic. there are many, many ways in which alaska is strategically significant. and with a shift toward a necessary shift toward indopacom, alaska, by necessity, will play an important role in that. >> thank you, mr. hegseth. i very much appreciate your focus on lethality and war fighting. we desperately need it. i want to provide a few examples of the biden woke military, which is not focused on readiness or lethality, and want to get your comments on it. nobody wants an extremist or racist in our

military, but one of the most disgraceful and shameful things i've seen over the past four years as a senator on this committee and as a marine corps reserve officer, was on day one, the biden administration played up a false and insulting narrative that our military was chock full of racists and violent extremists. this reached a pinnacle in this committee when biden's undersecretary of policy, colin kahl, the number three guy at the pentagon, testified that one of his top goals would be to, quote, ending violent extremism and systemic racism within the ranks of the military. he had no data on this. the media loved it, fanned the flames, wrote baloney stories on this false narrative. disappointingly, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here reinforce this ridiculous, ridiculous narrative, one even suggesting that almost 10% of our uniformed military was extremists, 200,000

members. ridiculous, by the way, from this committee on the other side of the aisle, mr. hegseth, unlike undersecretary coll, you have a lot of experience with our military. do you believe the military is a systemically racist organization? and if confirmed, will you commit to defend, not denigrate our troops? >> senator, i was also offended by those comments because anyone who's been on active duty in the national guard, man or woman in units, understand that is fundamentally false. >> by the way, there's three studies to his credit. secretary austin put out one of them that said exactly what you just said. fundamentally false, senator. >> they knew it. anyone who'd been in a unit knew it. the one could argue that, if not the least, one of the least racist institutions in our country is the united states military. being a racist in our military has not been tolerated for a

very long time. one of the greatest civil rights organizations in america. >> would you agree? the u.s. military is one of the most forward leaning, probably one of the greatest civil rights organizations in american history? no doubt. let me turn to another one. last year, at a hearing before this committee, i called on the biden secretary of the navy to resign because he's failing in his ability to build ships. we are being completely out built in terms of ships by the chinese. and yet this secretary of the navy has been focused on climate change, not building ships in lethality. mr. secretary, mr. hegseth, if you're secretary of the navy, ends up focusing on climate change more than shipbuilding and lethality, will you commit to me to fire him? >> my secretary of the navy, should i be confirmed, sir, will not be focused on climate change in the navy. just like the

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

will follow that order, senator, gladly, because they want to focus on lethality and war fighting and get all the woke political prerogative, politically correct social justice, political stuff out of the military. >> thank you, senator sullivan. senator kaine, thank you, mr. hegseth. >> i'm looking forward to this opportunity to talk. i want to return to the incident that you referenced a minute ago that occurred in monterey, california, in october 2017. at that time, you were still married to your second wife, correct? i believe so. >> and you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your third wife. correct? >> senator, i was falsely charged. i fully investigated and completely cleared. >> so you think you are completely cleared because you committed no crime? that's your definition of cleared. you had just fathered a child two months before by a woman that was not your wife. i am shocked that you would stand here and say you're

completely cleared. can you so casually cheat on a second wife and cheat on the mother of a child that had been born two months before? and you tell us you were completely cleared? how is that a complete clear. >> senator, her child's name is gwendolyn hope hegseth. and she's a child of god. and she's seven years old. and she was. and she. >> and you cheated on the mother of that child. less than two months after that daughter was born, didn't you? >> those were false charges. well, not fully investigated. and i was completely cleared. and i am so grateful for the marriage i have to this. >> now, you've admitted me. you've admitted that you had sex at that hotel on october 2017. you said it was consensual. isn't that correct? anything. you've admitted that it was consensual and you were still married and you just had a child by another woman. again, how do you explain your judgment? >> these false charges against me? you know, i investigated, and i was completely clear. >> you have admitted that you had sex while you were married to wife two, after you just had

fathered a child by wife three you've admitted that now, if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it? >> it was a false claim then, and a false claim now. >> if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it? >> that was a false claim. >> so you're talking about a hypothetical, so you can't tell me whether someone who has committed a sexual assault is disqualified from being secretary of defense? >> senator, i know in my instance, and i'm talking about my instance only it was a false claim. but you acknowledged it, but you acknowledged that you cheated on your wife and that you cheated on the woman who by whom you had just fathered a child. >> you have admitted that. >> i will allow your words to speak for them. >> you're not retracting that today. that's good. i assume that in each of your weddings, you've pledged to be faithful to your wife. you've taken an oath to do that, haven't you? >> senator, as i've acknowledged to everyone in this committee, not a perfect person i'm not claiming to be, but i just asked

a simple question. >> you've taken an oath like you would take an oath to be secretary of defense and all of your weddings, to be faithful to your wife, is that correct? >> i have failed in things in my life, and thankfully i'm redeemed by my lord and savior jesus christ. >> and finalizing divorces from your first and second wives. were there nondisclosure agreements in connection with those divorces? >> senator, not that i'm aware of. >> if there were, would you agree to release those first and second wives from any confidentiality agreement? >> senator, it's not something i'm aware of, but. >> but if there were, you would agree to release them from a confidentiality. >> senator, that's not my responsibility. >> did you ever engage in any acts of physical violence against any of your wives? >> senator? absolutely not. >> but you would agree with me that if someone had committed physical violence against a spouse, that would be disqualifying to serve as secretary of defense, correct? >> senator? absolutely not. have i ever done that? >> you would agree that that would be a disqualifying offense, would you not? >> senator, you're talking about a hypothetical.

>> i don't think it's a hypothetical. violence against spouses occurs every day. and if you, as a leader are not capable of saying that physical violence against a spouse should be a disqualifying fact for being secretary of the most powerful nation in the world, you're demonstrating an astonishing lack of judgment. the incident in monterey led to a criminal charge, a criminal investigation, a private settlement, and a cash payment to the woman who filed the complaint. and there was also a nondisclosure agreement. correct? >> it was a confidential, confidential settlement agreement off of a nuisance lawsuit. right. >> during an interview, you claimed that you settled the matter because you were worried that if it became public, it might hurt your career. do you maintain that you were blackmailed? >> senator, i maintain that false claims were made against me and ultimately your attorney. >> false claims? >> you have the opportunity to attest my innocence in those false claims. >> but you didn't reveal any of this to president trump or the

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

secretary of defense? >> senator, i sit here before you, an open book, as everyone who's watched this process with with multiple nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements tying the hands of many people who would like to comment to us, much of much has been made of your workplace behavior as a leader of nonprofit veterans organizations and as a fox news contributor, were you fired from either of the leadership positions with the nonprofits? i was the leader. i was the ceo of america and the executive director. were you fired? were you fired from me? i was never fired from a non organization. >> you have nondisclosure agreements with either of those organizations. >> not that i'm aware of. >> senator, many of your work colleagues have said that you show up for work under the influence of alcohol or drunk. i know you've denied that, but you would agree with me, right? that if that was the case, that would be disqualifying for somebody to be secretary of defense. >> senator, those are all anonymous false claims. >> and the totality, they're not they're not anonymous. >> the letters on the record here, they're not anonymous on

the record. we've seen records with names attached to them. concerned vets for america and fox news. >> one of you to one of your colleagues working hard every day on behalf. one of your colleagues said that you got drunk at an event at a bar and chanted kill all muslims. another colleague, not anonymous. we have this, said that you took coworkers to a strip club. you were drunk. you tried to dance with strippers. you had to be held off the stage and one of your employees, in that event filed a sexual harassment charge as a result of it. now, i know you denied these things, but isn't that the kind of behavior that, if true, would be disqualifying for somebody to be secretary of defense? >> senator? anonymous false charges, they're not anonymous. >> and i'll just conclude and say this to the chairman. you claim that this was all anonymous. we have seen records with names attached to all of these, including the name of your own mother. so don't make this into some anonymous press

thing. we have seen multiple names of colleagues consistently throughout your career that have talked about your abusive actions, and i think he's over his time. >> he's way over his time. >> i now yield, and thank thank you very much. i now ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a family court order concerning the appointment of parenting time between mr. and mrs. samantha hogsett. it states that there were no claims of domestic abuse or probable evidence of abuse in the relationship. without objection, that would be added to the record. and we now we now move to senator cramer. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. hegseth, for your service, for your willingness to endure this. and i'm sorry for what has been happening to you, particularly

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

back to you mentioned and it got rather dismissed quickly pivoted as a lot of things do you mentioned that you were not able to serve with your national guard unit in the protection of the inauguration of joe biden because of a tattoo, a christian tattoo? can you elaborate just a little bit on what what that what is this very offensive, extremist, racist tattoo that you you have? >> it's a tattoo i have right here, senator. it's called the jerusalem cross. it's a historic christian symbol. in fact, interestingly, recently we 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 on before preceding the biden inauguration, i was a part of

the mobilization to defend that inauguration. as someone who had been a proud supporter of donald trump, but also a member of the military, had orders to come to washington, dc to guard that inauguration. and at the last minute, those orders were revoked. i never had orders revoked before. i'd been on orders to a lot of places to do a lot of difficult and dangerous things. they were revoked and i was not told why. later, when i wrote my book, i was able to get information. it was because i had been identified as someone who had served in iraq and afghanistan, in guantanamo bay, holding a riot shield outside the white house. i'd been identified as an extremist, as someone unworthy of guarding the inauguration of an incoming american president. and if that's happening to me, senator, how many other men and women, how many other patriots, how many other people of conscience? we haven't even talked about covid and the tens of thousands of service members who were kicked out because of an

experimental vaccine in president trump's defense department. they will be apologized to. they will be reinstituted, reinstituted with pay and rank, things like focusing on extremism. senator, have created a climate inside our ranks that feel political when it has hasn't ever been political. those are the types of things that are going to change. and, senator sullivan, you mentioned that study, after a whole study was held, extremism working group study, 100 extremists were identified in the ranks of 3 million, and most of those were gang related. this was a made up boogeyman to begin with. >> you, mr. hegseth, are not the extremists, the people who would deny you your expression of faith are the extremists. they're the racists. they're the bigots. you're the one that is protecting their right to be one. thank you for that. i want to go to your another point in your opening statement, and it's summarized in this beautiful one sentence paragraph. you said, quote, leaders at all levels

will be held accountable. and war fighting and lethality and the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only focus at that moment. in my mind's eye, i heard soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors, guardians from the pentagon to the pacific and everywhere in between applaud, applaud. and they're thinking it's about time i can get on board with that idea. and quite honestly, and i want to get to this because i think it's so important. i would say not i don't know, just about every maybe everyone. i'm trying to think of an exception to this that wears the uniform that has ever come before this committee or that i've met with privately, publicly that i've been on tours with, that i've traveled with, that wear the uniform, whether it's with four stars or no stars agrees with that statement. and i just want to caution you, and i'd be interested in your feedback on this. you know,

there's been a lot of talk about firing woke generals. you're creating the purge group and all those things you and i have talked about. i would say give those men and women a chance under new leadership. you know, my favorite painting in the rotunda is of george washington retiring his commission, establishing on day one, a man who could have been king chose to be a civilian leader of this country. and i just i just would encourage you to trust them first and look forward to them saluting, saluting the civilian leadership of this, of this country. so just maybe if you could spend a minute, just elaborate a little bit about the wokeness, where it comes from and who will be held accountable. >> the wokeness comes not from the uniform ranked senator, but from the political class. on day one, on january 20th, when president trump is sworn in, he will issue a new set of lawful orders, and the leadership of

our services will have an opportunity to follow those lawful orders or not. those lawful orders will not be based on politics. they will be based on readiness, accountability, standards and lethality. that is the process by which leaders will be judged. and accountability is coming because everybody in this room knows if you're a rifleman and you lose your rifle, they're throwing the book at you. but if you're a general who loses a war, you get a promotion. that's not going to happen in donald trump's pentagon. there will be real standards for success. everyone from the top, from from the most senior general to the most lowly private, will ensure that they're treated fairly, men and women inside that system. >> i also just want to commend you for your answers to senator fischer's questions about nuclear deterrence. but i also appreciate the fact that you emphasized reputational deterrence because deterrence is not a weapon system. it is an attitude, and you project an attitude of deterrence. thank

you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cramer. >> senator king thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hess, welcome. welcome to the committee. >> thank you. >> senator, you've made several references to your religion. today. i share that devotion to christianity. but i must say, i've been reminded somewhat of saul on his way to damascus. you seem to have been converted over the last several weeks and several months. you wrote in your book just last year that. but if we're going to, 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 later on. our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men. which is it? is it? is it? only boys can fight. i mean, you've you've testified here today that you believe in women in combat, but you didn't just last year. how do you explain your