Hearings to examine the nominations of Mark Ditlevson

The meeting will come to order. For the information of members, we do have some nominees who need to be reported, and during the first vote, I really would appreciate it if members would come to the hallway and we can report those. But for now, we welcome our witnesses and nominees and their families and thank them for being here today. We're living through a period of profound strategic uncertainty. You've heard me say this numerous times, but it bears saying. Today is an era marked by great power competition, ongoing conflicts abroad, growing demands on our armed forces. And I say this again because it bears repeating. We face the most dangerous threat environment since World War II. Now more than ever, we need patriots willing to step up and serve our nation. And in that spirit, I welcome the two who are appearing before this committee today. Last year, Congress provided $10 billion to the Department of Homeland Security, funds specifically meant to reimburse DOD for its support in border operations. This money appropriated to Homeland Security Department. I'm disappointed to hear that DHS has significantly delayed implementing this agreement. I look forward to hearing how Mr. Ditlevson plans to coordinate with DHS to ensure this funding is appropriately allocated. If confirmed, Mr. Ditlevson would also serve as the department's civilian head for countering small drones over the homeland. Congress has been aggressive in this area and for good reason. We want to see dramatic improvement in the way executive branch agencies coordinate on the counter-drone efforts. Mr. Brian Birdwell has been nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment. If confirmed, he will be responsible for ensuring that our ships sail, our aircrafts fly, our vehicles move, and our forces remain supplied in both peacetime and conflict. Our warfighters depend on these capabilities. They rely on Congress and the department to give them what they need to deter our adversaries and defend their fellow Americans. However, our ability to do so is under massive strain. Fragile supply chains, skyrocketing global demand for munitions and equipment, and increasingly contested logistics all threaten the readiness of our military. The committee is very aware of the challenges involved in maintaining our forces. We must modernize our industrial base, restore depleted stockpiles, improve installation resilience, and ensure accountability across the enterprise. So I look forward to hearing how Mr. Birdwell intends to approach these challenges in particular and how he intends to work with Congress, as I'm sure he will, to ensure the department remains prepared to sustain the force in any theater. With that, I turn to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Reed. You're recognized, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to our witnesses and congratulations on your nominations. I'd also like to welcome you and your families to this morning's hearing. Mr. Ditlevson, you are nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs. You've served in this position in an acting capacity and principal deputy role over the past year. Today, the committee will consider your plans for this position but also evaluate what you have already done during your current tenure. In that respect, while I appreciate and salute your past service as a naval officer, I have concerns about your nomination. First, I understand you have been personally responsible for planning and implementing the administration's deployment of military forces to American cities. Over the past year, thousands of National Guard troops and active duty personnel have been deployed to Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland. In each of these cities, military forces were ordered to deploy over the explicit objections of governors, mayors, and local law enforcement leaders. Multiple courts have ruled against these operations, and the Supreme Court itself blocked the administration from federalizing the National Guard under the statute you relied upon for the L.A., Portland, and Chicago deployments. Mr. Ditlevson, I want to know how you defend these deployments in light of the repeated court rulings. I also want to know whether you have ever raised concerns within the department about the impact these missions have on readiness, morale, and retention, or the dangerous message that they send to the public. And let me turn now to the situation in El Paso. Two weeks ago, Customs and Border Protection, under the supervision of the Department of Defense, used a high-energy laser to shoot down suspected drones at the southwest border near El Paso. I understand the FAA explicitly warned the department, and you specifically, that deploying this weapon would cause, in their words, "a grave risk of fatalities or permanent injuries" to civilian aircraft. However, public reporting indicates, and you confirmed to me in our office call, that you told the FAA that the department would proceed anyway. After the incident in your communicated intent, the FAA shut down the airspace over El Paso, triggering immediate chaos and confusion. I want to know which legal authorities you relied upon to override the FAA's safety review, and I ask that you provide this committee with the legal authorities and the agreement you used to transfer this weapon to the CPB. Finally, Mr. Ditlevson, if confirmed, you oversee all defense and security policy for Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. As you know, Chairman Wicker and I have repeatedly directed the department to submit basic information required by law to the committee regarding the ongoing boat strike campaign in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. To date, the department has failed to submit to Congress the execute orders and videos related to these operations, and it has refused to make public the legal justifications and intelligence underpinning the strikes. In order for this committee to perform our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on all Senate nominees, it is imperative we have access to relevant information that reflects on your suitability to serve in this senior position. Given that you were the Acting Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs during the buildup of U.S. military forces in the Caribbean, and you continued to hold that position after the Department of Defense launched its campaign of military strikes against alleged drug boats, I expect your commitment today to submit these legally required documents to Congress. Mr. Birdwell, you are nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment. The importance of this position cannot be overstated. If confirmed, you will be responsible for managing all logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and strategic mobility across the Department of Defense to ensure that when American forces are called upon to fight, they can be sustained in the field. If confirmed, your most urgent priority must be addressing contested logistics. The department has studied this problem extensively, but a convincing solution has yet to be presented. In any potential Indo-Pacific conflict, the distance involved are staggering, and our vulnerabilities in supply, fuel, maintenance, and transportation remain serious. I trust that your own experience in combat can lead and lend an important perspective on this issue, and I look forward to hearing how you plan to address it. Additionally, sustainment costs have become a major problem for the department. Platforms like the F-35 are consuming an ever-growing share of our operational budgets, and if we do not build sustainment requirements into acquisition decisions early, we will keep paying for it later. I would like to understand your approach to bringing these costs under control. Finally, I would take a moment to acknowledge and thank you for your own career of service. As an Army officer, you fought in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. And on September 11, 2001, you were in the Pentagon when Flight 77 struck. You survived burns over more than 60 percent of your body and were awarded one of the most respected decorations in the United States military, the Purple Heart. Yet you still returned to public service. This committee owes you its deepest respect. Thank you again to our nominees, and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And hear, hear to that word of commendation, Mr. Ranking Member. We're delighted to have our colleague Senator Cruz with us today. Senator Cruz, I understand you have some particular insights as into the qualifications of Mr. Birdwell, and you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of this committee. I spent six years on this terrific committee. I will say this is an incredibly hard-working committee of the Senate, and y'all do a tremendous job, so it is an honor to be back. And it is not often that you get the opportunity to introduce an American hero, and this morning I have that privilege. I am here to introduce my good friend and fellow Texan, Brian Birdwell, who has been nominated by President Trump to serve as an Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Department of War. Brian was born in Fort Worth, Texas. He attended Lamar University in Beaumont, where he graduated as the distinguished military graduate, and he later obtained his Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He began his career serving our nation as a commissioned field artillery officer in the United States Army. He had a 20-year military career. He served 18 months in the Republic of Korea, including more than 140 days as a battery executive officer on the Army's only active fire base near the DMZ. He later deployed from Germany in support of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, earning the Bronze Star for his service. As part of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment Battle Group, his unit received the Valorous Unit Award for its actions at the historic Battle of the 73 Easting. Brian then transferred to the Quartermaster Branch, serving in key logistics and planning roles, including on the corps staff and in joint operations. In 1998, he deployed to Central America as joint operations officer for Joint Task Force Aguila, leading humanitarian relief efforts across three countries after Hurricane Mitch. Then after graduating from the Command and General Staff College, he was assigned to the Pentagon as a military aide. That's where he was on September 11, 2001. While serving in the Pentagon, Brian was critically injured when American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon just a few yards from his office. He suffered major wounds. He underwent 39 surgeries, months of hospitalization, years of recovery. As you can see today, he came through what can only be called a miraculous recovery. After the 9/11 attacks, Brian was awarded the Purple Heart and the Legion of Merit upon his retirement in 2004. After retiring from the military, Brian and his wife Mel—and I will tell you, Mel's much more impressive than Brian. Brian's a nice guy, but Mel's a rock star—they decided to continue serving those around them. Together, they founded Face the Fire Ministries, supporting burn survivors and wounded service members and their families. In 2010, Brian was elected to the Texas Senate, where he has since been re-elected five times with overwhelming support from his constituents. Over eight legislative sessions, he has built a record of impactful leadership: strengthening border security, expanding access to higher and technical education, supporting veterans and their families, safeguarding Texas's energy sector, and authoring the strongest border security package in Texas history. In 2021, during the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, his fellow senators selected him to serve as President Pro Tempore of the Texas Senate. Today, he chairs the Senate Committee on Border Security and the Committee on Natural Resources, while serving on several additional key committees. His leadership extends beyond the state legislature, including more than a decade as chairman of my U.S. Service Academy nominations board. And in that, I would be remiss if I didn't say thank you. Over 13 years, he has helped me select hundreds of extraordinary young men and women who have gone on to serve our military. It is a board that treats its responsibilities with great diligence, reading every single application from every Texan twice and selecting amazing young men to serve our nation. He has been inducted into both the United States Field Artillery Association Hall of Fame and the United States Martial Arts Hall of Fame. He is a proud Texan, a proud American, a highly decorated military veteran who has served the state of Texas. His love for God and country is evident through his continued work of public service. I will say it will be a real loss to me to have him no longer chairing my Service Academy board, but my loss will be the United States' gain. And I'll tell you, Brian is a man of intellect, of discipline, of hard work, and of impeccable integrity, and I'm proud to introduce him to this committee.

Senator Cruz, we'll put you down as a yes on this nomination.

Mr. Chairman, do we get to examine this witness? I—

On the advice of counsel, I decline to comment.

Mr. Birdwell, you are recognized for your opening statement.

Thank you, Senator. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished members of the committee, good morning. It's an immense privilege to appear before you today. But since I do not appear here today solely of my own talents, there are numerous people whom I must thank. First, to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who has given me my life three times. To my wife Mel, who has encouraged and on occasion or two dragged me through the challenges of life and career. My son Matt, for being the best legacy I could have. To President Trump for the nomination and his trust to work the sustainment portfolio for the department under his strategic vision. To Secretary Hegseth for his warrior and lethality focus, and Under Secretary Duffy for his trust and confidence as well. To the many officers, NCOs, and soldiers with whom I have served for the professionalism that they have imparted to me. To my fellow state senators of Texas, the staff that have supported me, and my friend and presiding officer, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. The lessons of our nearly 16 years together have prepared me for this opportunity. Finally, let me thank my friend and senator, Senator Cruz, for his gracious introduction and friendship over the past decade plus. I arrive before you today with a varied experience to bring my potential duties, if confirmed. I've served in the DMZ in Korea, stateside in troop units with numerous training rotations across our training centers, in Germany during a time of dynamic change immediately after the Berlin Wall came down, in a logistics billet in the sands of the first Gulf War, combat developments position working at the tactical level of acquisition process at the mid-career schoolhouse at Fort Leavenworth, on First Corps G4 staff as the corps logistics planner working with allied countries in and around the Pacific Rim, the operations officer for humanitarian relief operation across three countries in Central America, and finally on the Army staff just before and in the aftermath of the September 11 attack. While my 20 years of experience began over 40 years ago and there's a bit of mold on the shelf life of that experience, there is no mold on my heart as a warfighter who has served and loves his country and proudly wears the scars of that love and service. I wish to use my experience to support President Trump's vision of peace through strength, and the best way to do that is to keep the peace as being prepared for war. If confirmed, three things will animate my return to federal service. First, mission first, people always. Just as Secretary Hegseth has said, our people are critical to meeting the challenge the president has set before us. The people who manage our materiel and supply chain are just as critical to mission success and lethality as what they manage. Second, bring a warfighter's perspective to the sustainment portfolio, one who has been on the ground in four of our geographic combatant command AORs and fully understands the sense of urgency that Secretary Hegseth has expressed in his message to the force memo. Third, with both my military experience and nearly 16 years of legislative experience in coalition building and collaboration, I commit to working internally with partners across the Office of the Secretariat, the department, the Joint Staff, the services, the combatant commanders, our organic industrial base, and exterior to the department to collaborate with allies and partners to build that deterrence. And I commit that if confirmed, I will work tirelessly to apply these perspectives to prioritize limited resources to enhance the warfighting capacity and lethality that will deter and, if called upon, defeat our enemies. Finally, if confirmed, I will work with this committee and the Congress to provide our armed forces with the capabilities needed to defend and protect our national security, both here and abroad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Senator Birdwell. We appreciate that testimony. Mr. Ditlevson, you are now recognized.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of War for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs. I'd like to start by thanking my family for being here today, especially my wife. Her love and support are the foundation of everything that I do. My entire adult life has been a commitment to serving this great nation, a calling that began on September 11, 2001. The tragic attacks of that day profoundly impacted my life, and they shaped my understanding of what it means to defend the homeland. I've always believed that meaningful service is found in confronting the most difficult challenges, and I have deliberately sought out those roles in my life. After the attacks of September 11, I decided to apply to the United States Naval Academy with the goal of becoming a military officer. After witnessing the horrific effects of improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, I decided to select explosive ordnance disposal as my occupation with the goal of saving American lives. And now, with the many threats facing our nation, I am seeking confirmation to lead one of the department's most challenging portfolios. The prospect of serving as an Assistant Secretary in President Trump's second term would be the highest honor of my professional life and an opportunity to continue advancing the president's vision for a strong and secure America. I am grateful for the trust President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have placed in me. This administration has a clear and decisive vision for the defense of our nation, a vision laid out in our core strategic documents. Our approach is one of hard-nosed realism, grounded in deterrence, focused on securing our homeland by bolstering security at our borders, dismantling narcoterrorist networks, deterring adversary threats, and restoring law and order in our cities. The 2026 National Defense Strategy establishes an undeniable truth: a secure and sovereign homeland is the absolute prerequisite for projecting American power globally and deterring our adversaries. This is not a choice between domestic security and our foreign policy; one enables the other. We will defend the United States and ensure the Western Hemisphere remains a bastion of stability. This mission is fundamental to the safety and security of the American people, and if confirmed, I pledge to continue this vital work with the urgency and seriousness it demands. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, distinguished members of the committee, the threats facing our nation are complex and demand a determined response. If confirmed, I pledge to work tirelessly to execute this vision of a secure homeland and a stable hemisphere. I understand the critical statutory requirement to consult with this committee, and I pledge to maintain an open and honest relationship with you. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to answering your questions today.

Well, thank you both very much, and I will now ask a series of standard questions this committee poses to all civilian nominees, and you could just answer simultaneously yes or no. Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

A yes or no is fine. Have you assumed any duties or taken any actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process?

No.

No.

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.

Yes.

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.

Yes.

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.

Yes.

And there may be questions for the record after the conclusion of this hearing. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests?

Yes.

Yes.

Will those witnesses and briefers be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings?

Yes.

Yes.

And we'll now begin a round of questions, five minutes for each senator on the initial round. So let me begin by both of you, and again a quick yes or no, and I'll ask you first, Senator Birdwell. Much of the funding in the defense reconciliation bill passed last year and signed by the president is unspecific and will technically be at the discretion of the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget, though we have provided detailed instructions for its use. A quick yes or no: do you commit to follow Congress's spending recommendations in defense reconciliation unequivocally, Mr. Birdwell?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

And Mr. Ditlevson.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Now let me begin my substantive questions with you, Mr. Ditlevson, and I'm going to read my question because I want—because I've chosen my words and they need to be understood precisely. Across administrations, the Pentagon has conducted border operations in support of the Department of Homeland Security without being reimbursed. This has been a frustration for this committee, and so in last year's reconciliation bill, a few of us successfully worked to put a $10 billion pot of money at DHS that was expressly to be used for this purpose. And of course, it was done by majority vote in both houses and signed by the President of the United States. I understand DHS reimbursed nothing in FY 25 and only $180 million in FY 26. That seems incredibly low. To your knowledge, are those numbers correct, Mr. Ditlevson?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, those numbers are correct.

Okay. The $10 billion, not $180 million, but $10 billion was calculated to cover four years of border operations. I'm just afraid we're going to lose this money for our national security. It's my understanding DHS has said the Pentagon must continue to pay for border operations in these so-called national defense areas, which will probably average at least $1 billion per year. Mr. Ditlevson, is that—is my understanding correct? And if so, how does this make any sense in light of the explicit statutory language?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start by saying first thank you to Congress for passing this historic legislation and making the investment in protecting our borders. And you're right, Mr. Chairman, you've identified something new. This is a historic change in how we work with the Department of Homeland Security, working in a reimbursable status. And so we have worked through the administrative framework to be able to set up a reimbursement mechanism and process with the Department of Homeland Security that has been recently signed out by the Secretary of Homeland Security and our Secretary Hegseth at the Department of War. So we look forward to the implementation of that framework, and we expect reimbursement will begin to start flowing in earnest in March and April of this year, but we had to work through those administrative requirements first, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, so that's—that can begin in earnest a week from now, March.

That's correct, Mr. Chairman. We are working through that now.

And again, if we do not execute this money, there's a very real chance it will expire. Is that your understanding, Mr. Ditlevson?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, and you have my commitment if confirmed, I will make sure to tirelessly go after this and make sure that this money is spent properly and that reimbursement flows properly to the department.

Okay. Let's talk about small drones. In the reconciliation law, we included a total of $1.3793 billion, over $1.3 billion, for CUAS to help address the threat of drone incursions across our border. This is an area that directly impacts the border mission and requires great attention. We're excited to work with the administration to get these capabilities fielded and in place. The spend plan was sent to Congress only this past week, and it provided very little detail. So who in the department owns the spend plan for this counter-drone program, and how soon can we expect specific details to be provided to the department, to the Pentagon?

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to cover this topic because UAS threats are a new emerging threat vector that we need to get after as quickly as possible within the department. We're greatly appreciative of the funding for those particular efforts. Within the department, JIATF 401, Brigadier General Ross leading that JIATF, is primarily responsible for executing that spend plan and would have the details of how it is being spent in the department. We look at him as almost a maestro over the different military services and the different pots and colors of money inside the department. He organizes that and makes sure that it's being spent properly. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to go back and speak with Brigadier General Ross and make sure those records are made available to this committee.

Okay, well we— ...we'll certainly be having conversations about this. Thank you both for your testimony. Senator Reed, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ditlevson, in response to a request for assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense approved the use of Fort Bliss, Texas, for transportation, detention, and removal of immigrants on military aircraft. The Fort Bliss Camp East Montana, as it's called, is fully operational and still expanding to accept up to 10,000 personnel. And there have been more than 3,000 immigrants detained at Fort Bliss at a time. The construction of the Fort Bliss detention facility was 100 percent funded by DOD at the cost of approximately $365 million. Another debt that DHS owes to the Department of Defense in line with the chairman's questioning. But a troubling concern to me is that since it opened in August of 2025, multiple reports of abuse have been filed, including three deaths, one of which was ruled a homicide and is being investigated as a murder of an individual by a guard. Is the Army independently investigating these deaths that occurred at Fort Bliss, in particular the alleged murder?

Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for the chance to speak with you in an office call about the serious allegations and what has occurred at the Fort Bliss facility. I was able to look into this and get information to come back with you tonight. I want to say that if confirmed, this is the type of working relationship I'm committed to, to take feedback from this committee, from the members here, and come back with answers in a transparent and open way. Those three particular deaths, one was due to an accidental death to do with the construction of the facility at the beginning. Army CID did do an investigation into that. We have not been able to get access to the report, but I defer to the Department of Army for any findings related to that particular death. For the other two instances, Army CID did investigate in one case, but that investigation is ongoing. That had to do with a illegal alien detained in the facility. And the second death that you're referring to, the allegation of homicide, sir, that one is with the Federal Bureau of Investigation being investigated now. So I defer to the Department of Justice and the Department of Army in those two particular cases.

Thank you. I appreciate your response to our meeting very much. As we all know, on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, the FAA announced it was closing the El Paso airspace for 10 days following the deployment of one of DOD's high-energy lasers by the Customs and Border Patrol along the border with Mexico. Public reporting on this incident revealed that the Department of Defense was in the process of coordinating the use of this high-energy laser to counter UAS aircraft, but had not completed the coordination process with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Department. The FAA expressed its concerns that the use of the laser could pose, in their words, quote, a grave risk of fatalities or permanent injuries to Americans traveling through the airspace. However, in January, the Secretary of Defense approved the request to allow Customs and Border Protection to use the anti-drone laser. Public reporting also revealed that around the same time, you, in your capacity as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, personally notified the FAA's chief counsel of DOD's intent to operationalize the high-energy laser, telling the FAA that you knew the FAA was still conducting a review of the weapon. The rest is obvious. The question is, why did you not conclude the statutory requirement to fully coordinate with the FAA before authorizing the use of the weapon system?

Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for the chance to address this particular area because it's complex with different statutes involved and protection. The first thing I would like to say is that the Department of War always cares about safety, and we want to defend this country and defend Americans. We don't want to ever do anything that would be unsafe that would affect American lives negatively. The second is as far as coordination requirements in this particular situation, National Defense Area 1, under which Fort Bliss is covered, had Section 130i authorities. And I'd like to commend this particular body for expanding 130i authorities for the department, especially Senators Cotton, Gillibrand, and Senator Peters for their work on the Counter Act and the Safer Skies Act incorporated in the NDAA. So in this situation, Mr. Ranking Member, the statutorily requirement for 130i authorities is to coordinate with the FAA. It does not require approval from the FAA. But I can assure you, most importantly, this system is incredibly safe. We have coordinated with the FAA for over 14 months, sharing technical data back and forth, having our scientists working with theirs so that they know the safety level of this particular system. And we continue to work together. If confirmed, Mr. Ranking Member, you have my commitment, we will continue having this great relationship with our counterparts at the FAA to ensure that our systems that are employed are absolutely safe.

Well, thank you. Just quickly, the coordination failed when the FAA has to order an airspace closed for 10 days, particularly a critical airspace like El Paso, something is wrong. Somebody made a mistake. And it may be the FAA, but I think it's critical to recognize that there was a failure in coordination and successful coordination is required by the statute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Fischer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to both of our gentlemen before the panel today and to your families for your service and your continued service to this country. I'm going to follow up, Mr. Ditlevson, with the ranking member's question. He said that it was a failure, the coordination that we saw on the closing of the airspace at El Paso, Texas. Do you think it was a failure? And if you do, or even if you don't, tell me what you would do to ensure that the department's going to work with federal and state partners on the counter-drone situations that we have.

Senator, thank you for that. And I would agree with the premise there that this was not a failure, that we have coordinated very well with the FAA. But novel technologies always require new testing. And this is something that the FAA has never seen before, and it's something new at the department that we have utilized overseas, but it's a new thing here in the United States as we defend the southwest border and employ technologies to protect our citizens that we need to work through these requirements with the FAA. We have made sure to coordinate them. We had a lot of emails back and forth, telephone conversations, meetings in person with the FAA to make sure that we are doing this correctly. JCO 401 is the technical counter-UAS lead, made sure to work with all of their technical evaluators throughout this process. And we're confident that this will not be a problem in the future. We're going to continue to refine how we work with the FAA. And I defer to the FAA on the judgment decision to put up a temporary flight restriction. But we feel at the department we have been incredibly safe, and that's our commitment to the American people.

Thank you. You know, one challenge that we've seen facing our military installations, including those here in the United States, is the incursion of drones into that airspace. If confirmed, how would you work with services to develop and share best practices and solutions for the counter-UAS initiatives that are out there?

Senator, thank you for the chance to talk about this important, important issue area. In the department up until this point, we have done our best to streamline all of the guidance and authorities for the warfighter so that they're not confused or have a potential situation where they are paralyzed because they don't know what authorities they have. We have decreased the overall field manuals and technical guidance to commanders from over 150 pages of regulation down to under 20, and we're working towards getting even less. But in addition to that, I have to commend the committee because the expansion of 130i authorities has made it very clear to our troops that they have the ability to defend themselves and they know exactly what to do when a drone threat comes over their installation or over their unit. So thank you very much to the committee for that work. And if confirmed, Senator, I will continue to make sure that our processes and procedures are streamlined from a policy perspective and will continue to work very closely with JCO 401 as the technical implementers of counter-UAS in the department.

Thank you. Senator Birdwell, thank you again for your wonderful service and the sacrifices that you have made for this country. As you know, I'm concerned that the department still has a long way to go to prepare to operate in contested environments, particularly with respect to contested logistics and more complex sustainment plans. If confirmed, how would you work to reduce logistic vulnerabilities for these contested environments?

We need your mic. Thank you.

Sorry, Senator. Contested logistics is a center of gravity mission for the department. Our enemies learned a long time ago never let the United States get into theater unopposed. And having learned that lesson, we've got to make sure that we can counterbalance that. I think we do that by fixing forward, sustaining forward, as far forward at the point of need to support the warfighter, whether that's through sealift, airlift, prepositioned stockages, those things that make us have the ability to support the warfighter as close to the point of need as possible. I would work with the counterparts in the J-staff, particularly the theater commanders, because they're the ones that are going to identify the needs that we are there to support. And so I would look forward to working with all of my partners, if confirmed, throughout the department to ensure that the warfighter is our sole focus and what does that person far forward require.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Fischer. Senator Peters.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ditlevson, as ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I recently released a report that found that there were no clear metrics of success for the continued deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, even as taxpayers right now are paying $1.65 million per day. There seems to be no end date for this deployment. When my staff asked the head of the DC National Guard for those metrics of success, he said that it was up to political leadership, that would be you, but that he was driving towards zero crime and zero drug overdoses. Certainly, it's an ambitious goal. I think many people might argue that zero crime and zero overdoses is unrealistic. What my question for you, though, is what metric do you believe will provide or will prove that the deployment has been a success and that the troops no longer need to be in the streets of the capital? When will you say it's a success and we can take them off the street?

Senator, thank you for the question and the ability to address the deployment to Washington, DC. This has been an incredible success, and we have seen crime rates plummet, Senator. And I have to echo the president from the State of the Union address looking at overall homicide numbers in the district. These are incredible results that we've had as crime continues to go down and down. Now, at the department, we are always analyzing and making sure we tailor our responses to the facts on the ground and how things change. In the case of DC, we look forward to the DC Metropolitan Police Department being able to get back on their feet, be able to take back these streets from criminals and make them safe and secure for all Americans and visitors to our nation's capital. And so we make sure to tailor over time. We're always looking at that, Senator. And as the Metropolitan PD can come in and take over the mission, we expect that we can tailor off those numbers. But we always have to make sure we're being aware, cognizant of the threat, and looking at what we can do to help make our streets safe and secure.

Well, if confirmed, I'd like to have further conversation and have you take a look at the report we put out. Crime rates were actually going down before the National Guard deployment. They've been steady since that time. So taking credit for what occurred prior to the DC National Guard coming in is really not realistic. And those numbers are outlined, and I'll have that discussion with you if confirmed. If we look at some of the success and metrics, it was repairing fences and picking up trash, things of that nature, which had nothing to do with public safety. And it also took out of the DC Police Department some police officers who are also part of the National Guard, and it took them off their patrols and put them onto beautification projects, which seems to be counterproductive, particularly for that kind of money. So I'd like to, we'll continue to have those conversations if confirmed. My second question for you, sir, is if you are confirmed, under what circumstances would you support sending troops into states in advance of an election?

Senator, for any situation where we would be utilizing National Guard, the first objective is always to make sure that people are safe and secure. The premise of the question, I can't really speculate on why that would ever have to occur, but I would say if there is a security threat or something of that nature in a city, this is why we have National Guard able to deploy to defend our people against threats. So I can't speculate as to that particular situation, but if there was a threat in this country, of course, we'd want to make sure our people are safe.

Are you familiar with the US Code and what it says about this?

Senator, I believe you're referring to the deployment of troops around polling places. Is that correct?

Correct.

Yes, Senator, I am aware of that particular statute.

So given that, I'll read it for folks for the committee. It's 18 US Code Section 592. It prohibits the deployment of any troops. And it says, quote, at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force is necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States. So I just want to ask you again, in what instance would you support sending troops in advance of election? So this would be armed enemies of the United States. How would you define that?

Senator, I appreciate the concern, and I would point to past precedent in a lot of cases. For example, during the COVID pandemic, we did have to utilize National Guard to assist with all the logistics around these things. Now, we do a lot of logistics support in certain situations, and that would be a situation that wouldn't qualify. And I just want you to know, if confirmed, Senator, I commit to following or making sure that we analyze this, provide the best recommendation up to the secretary. We talk to the Office of General Counsel to make sure everything that we're doing is legal and lawful before that advice gets to the secretary. I can make that commitment to you, and if confirmed, I look forward to working with you on this issue.

Well, just quickly, would you agree that this is an extremely high bar to meet?

Yes, Senator, I would agree it's an extremely high bar, and that's why we will provide the most robust analysis and best advice to the secretary on this issue.

Very well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator Rounds.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, first of all, thank you for your service to our country. Mr. Ditlevson, I've heard from 58 senior department officials that vacating the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz and the 7.4 to 8.4 gigahertz bands of the electromagnetic spectrum or sharing of them in a suboptimal manner would degrade or disrupt our critical national security systems operating on those bands. Our homeland defense missions rely on radars and communication systems operating on those lower three and seven and eight bands. We know that China would love to have us inundate that part of the band with commercial operations. We know that they have been working on that for a number of years, and they continue to work on that on an international scale. If confirmed, will you defend and advocate for defense spectrum allocations that protect our homeland? And if confirmed, will you push back on foreign influence campaigns in the Americas that are targeting our US spectrum allocations?

Senator, thank you very much for your work on this issue. And I really appreciated our office call where we were able to go over this in depth. And what you presented to me for information and findings, I went back to the department, tried to pull some additional reports to see what's out there. You're absolutely right. It's very concerning, Senator. And so you have my firm commitment, if confirmed, I will make sure to provide the most robust analysis that's reflective of this potential danger to the spectrum and provide that to senior decision-makers for them to understand exactly what the pros and cons are of giving away or using the spectrum in a different way than for the military.

I note that one part of our laws, which we've just most recently done in the Reconciliation Act, we made it very clear that the operations within those spectrums would be for DOD purposes. But I do think that there is one area that I would draw attention to, and that is that there may be attempts to take other government operations, NASA and others, and to move those portions of their electronic spectrum that is currently outside of those areas and to push those into the areas that we currently use for military operations, thus creating more space outside for commercial operations. I draw your attention to it because what it would do would be to continue to compress the availability of that part of the spectrum for some very specific needs that we have within the department today. Mr. Birdwell, in my office, we discussed an additive repair technology called cold spray, which multiple military services are using to get equipment up and running in days or weeks rather than months while waiting on back-ordered parts. It's basically 3D printing. The services have had varying levels of interest and commitment to employing this technology, but it has proven extremely successful and effective at saving costs and time everywhere that it has been adopted. This technology is being used in INDOPACOM and is critical to supporting forward-deployed forces that are operating in a contested environment. If confirmed, will you commit to thoroughly exploring how the department can more broadly adopt cold spray technology and normalize its use as part of our sustainment plans?

You want to turn your mic on, please? If you could move the mic closer. Sure, Mr. Chairman, you bet. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to visit with you. Any opportunity across the services that allows the warfighter to be more properly sustained, more rapidly sustained, I'd be more than pleased to work with you and the committee on any particular technology that increases the warfighting capability of our service men and women.

Thank you. One other item, Mr. Birdwell. Three years ago, the Department of Defense estimated that the inability to detect and isolate electronic faults resulted in over 383,000 non-mission capable days each year and over $5.5 billion in non-value added sustainment costs. In response to this readiness and sustainment challenge, the Office of the Secretary of Defense proposed funding for the purchase of a readily available, effective, and proven technology to address this issue. The Senate Armed Services Committee fully supports this technology, and the fiscal year 2024 defense appropriations included $35.2 million for it. My concern is that under the previous administration, the Army has, instead of acquiring this readily available, proven, and extremely cost-effective technology, despite its powerful support from the department and SASC, decided to continue to only study the issue. Meanwhile, the Navy has outright resisted acquisition of the technology. If confirmed, would you commit to working towards resolution of this issue?

Senator, if confirmed, I commit to working toward that resolution.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Rounds. Senator Birdwell, is there really anything to this cold spray idea? Do you think it's actually practicable?

Mr. Chairman, a 3D printing opportunity to mature our industrial base internally, domestically, for 3D printing that can sustain the warfighter overseas is something we ought to explore. To the particulars of that technology, I don't have the granularity that you seek. But I think any opportunity to support the warfighter, greater speed, greater accuracy at point of need is always something to explore.

Okay. And neither do I. So if you could supplement your answer on the record, that might be helpful. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Warren, I believe you're yielding back your time, is that correct?

No, sir. Nice try.

I was grossly mistaken. Senator Warren, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So service members enlist to protect our country from foreign adversaries, but President Trump seems hell-bent on deploying our troops to American streets and against our own neighbors. This is extremely dangerous for our communities and for our democracy, and it is costly for the DOD and for our service members as well. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Trump has already spent half a billion dollars on domestic deployments. And my investigation found that DOD spent over $2 billion in taxpayer money on immigration enforcement in 2025. Now, that is money that is coming straight from the military's budget for things like repairing military barracks, training our soldiers, repairing schools for service members' children. DOD took this money from our service members even though the agency that is responsible for immigration enforcement, ICE, is swimming in a budget that is bigger than most other countries' entire military's budget. Now, Mr. Ditlevson, you're nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs, and you're serving as a deputy in that office right now. How much of the $2 billion do you expect to get back from DHS?

Senator, I appreciate your concern on this issue, and it's something that we're working towards on a daily basis.

How much do you expect to get back?

At the beginning of this fiscal year, FY 26, the secretary worked out a policy, issued a policy saying that all support was on a reimbursable basis. And on a day-to-day basis, Senator, that's what we prepare up to the secretary for decision.

Do you expect to get it all back?

Senator, everything is on a reimbursable basis, so we expect to chase that down.

Well, I have to question your everything. DOD and DHS have no reimbursement agreement in place for FY 2025. So it appears that DOD won't get back the billions of dollars it handed over to ICE that year. Money meant to fix barracks with sewage overflows is just gone. Now, in December, when asked about domestic deployment, you told this committee, quote, I can say without a shadow of a doubt this is not having a negative effect on the military's readiness or budget. But an internal National Guard study of the deployment in DC noted, quote, fatigue, confusion, and demoralization, a quote, wedge between citizens and the military. National Guard members have told reporters that this is, quote, not what I signed up to do, and that they feel ashamed to wear the uniform, and that they plan to quit. So Mr. Ditlevson, do you still think, quote, without a shadow of a doubt, that deploying the military in American cities has no negative effect on readiness?

Senator, I'm unfamiliar with the report, but I'm going to take that back with me and dig into it. And if confirmed, I absolutely will be looking at that seriously because we always want to make sure that our support is appropriate for the mission.

You haven't heard any of this? None of this in your role? You've been sitting there in the office every day since the deployment. You haven't heard any of this?

Senator, I've not heard any feedback like that from the National Guard Bureau. I work closely with General Nordhaus, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, and he has not expressed concern over the deployments to Washington, DC.

And that's your only source of information right now?

Senator, he's the person I engage with most on this particular issue, Brigadier General Blanchett.

You may want to widen your aperture for getting information here. Look, the stakes are high, and I fear they're only going to get higher. President Trump recently said that he should have used troops to seize ballot boxes in 2020, and many Americans worry that he'll deploy the military to intimidate voters this fall. Mr. Ditlevson, do you think it would be appropriate to station troops next to polling stations? A simple yes or no?

Senator, I'm aware of the statute that governs the deployment of troops next to polling stations, and I want to emphasize that our focus is always to protect American citizens. And so for any deployment of the National Guard, no matter what that may be, that is always going to be our number one objective is to make sure that people are safe and secure.

So you are nominated for this position. I'm just asking, do you think it would be appropriate to station troops next to polling stations? Simple yes or no?

Senator, it's speculative, the question, and I don't want to speak about what threat levels may exist during an election cycle.

I have to say, if you're not willing just to say no, it is not appropriate, then I have real concerns about you in this job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under the statute, would that be your call, Mr. Ditlevson?

Mr. Chairman, we would provide policy advice after speaking with the National Guard Bureau and the Joint Staff looking at the threats in the United States, and then of course going to the Office of General Counsel to ensure that anything we provide to the secretary is lawful. We absolutely will make sure that the Office of General Counsel is heavily involved and they are there every step of the way.

It would not be your call, though, would it?

No, Mr. Chairman, that would go up to the secretary and he'd be advised by legal counsel on what he can do lawfully.

Thank you. And thank you, Senator Warren. Senator Sheehy.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Ditlevson, are you familiar with what the Sunni-backed insurgency in Iraq did to polling stations during the attempt to rebuild Iraq in the elections of 2010?

Senator, I'm familiar with that roughly.

What did they do to the polling stations?

Senator, it was disastrous, just like a lot of the violence in Iraq back at that time.

Yeah, they blew them up and killed hundreds of people. And the point was to suppress voter turnout because they didn't want a democratically elected government. So you as an EOD officer, and I was there as part of a task force, and I was carrying around a gallon-sized Ziploc bag of fingers and eyes... ...eyeballs and ears to conduct biological analysis to figure out who was killed in these explosions because they were so detrimental when you have hundreds of people packed into a small place. So to your point, your highest calling is to protect the American people with the National Guard, with other forces. And if there is direct terrorist threats against a polling station, do you think it's appropriate to use all resources available to protect our citizens?

That's absolutely right, Senator. We should do everything to protect American citizens.

Thank you. Mr. Birdwell, Senator Warren and I may disagree on polling stations. We do agree on right to repair. How we buy our military platforms, how we support and sustain those is focused on low quantity, exquisite quality. That's fantastic in some cases. It's now coming back to bite us in the ass because we don't have enough bullets, planes, ships, submarines, trucks, or missiles to fight a large-scale war, especially one half a world war, especially one against a country that manufactures ships 230 times faster than we do. How do you intend to reform our sustainment infrastructure so we can rapidly acquire parts at scale on affordable basis so that when our exquisite systems become outnumbered 50 to one, 100 to one, 1,000 to one, we can quickly and affordably at scale replace those platforms in a forward environment?

Senator, you've identified the daunting task ahead of the department. There are a number of places that I believe the department, if confirmed, I'll be able to participate with partners across the spectrum of the department and the services. Everything from championing the organizational industrial base, it's had significant amount of neglect that it needs to be championed across each of the respective services, Army, Navy, Air Force. All those need to be advanced. Our personnel in those in the organizational industrial base also needs to be supported, whether that's workforce development, physical plant development. And then contested logistics is a center of gravity mission as well to support forward, ensuring that the theater commanders have what they need, that we are customer-friendly to those theater commanders, and then to make sure that particularly I would say military sealift and Air Force lift because of that tyranny of distance, particularly in the Pacific, but anywhere else in the world if other hotspots pop up, to make sure we've got that capacity to move what needs to be moved and the capacity to build and develop what needs to be developed, so not only in the industrial base but then also in the organic base and work with my counterparts in acquisition, industrial policy base to ensure that the commercial base is as robust and revitalized as the President has said he would like it to be.

Have you explored the concept of changing our treatment of the leasing of both infrastructure and platforms as an option to expand our portfolio, such as leasing sealift ships, leasing of base infrastructure so that we can bring more private capital to bear?

Senator, I've looked at or I have some degree of knowledge on the fact that the Navy is renting some vessels. My assessment of that is I think it's a patch wanting more domestic production. So it's a patch in a temporary circumstance waiting for a better solution of a more robust organic industrial base, whether it's our shipyards up in New England, the Gulf Coast, wherever it may be, to have a more robust internal domestic capability so they don't have to go do those patch operations. But it's certainly if the mission and the warfighter require that patch for the immediacy of the need, that's what the services are doing. But we want to get beyond that and have it in our own industrial base.

Well, I think you'll find this committee has empowered the department. Ranking Member Reed and Chairman Wicker have been great at empowering this committee and your department to think outside the box. We can't talk about adjustments around the margins to fix our acquisition supply chain or industrial base. We talk about 5 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent changes. We need to be willing to have radical discussions about how to see order of magnitude changes when it comes to sustainment, acquisition reform, and platform production procurement and sustainment. And therefore, I would encourage you and I think I can speak for most of the committee that you have our support to consider any and all options to prepare for the next fight that we hope never comes but probably is. Thank you.

Well said, Senator Sheehy. Senator King.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to emphasize Senator Sheehy's comments. It disturbs me when you talk about exploring 3D printing. Man, 3D printing is here. And not having a 3D printer in a depot or on a ship is like not having a screwdriver these days. We have the world's largest 3D printer at the University of Maine. Two years ago, they printed a house. So I think we can print parts. And we should be, by the way, you should talk to the procurement people, we should be buying the IP with every platform so that we don't have to go back to the manufacturer for a particular part. And clearly there are limitations, but this should be accelerated, not explored. So I hope you'll take that back to the department. We are woefully slow on right to repair and keeping an exquisite weapon doesn't work if it doesn't work in the field. It's not serving its functions. So we've got to really work on that. I appreciate your emphasis and I hope you'll follow up, Senator Birdwell.

Senator...

Do I need to wait for the chair or did you ask a question, Senator?

No, because my time's slipping off. I'm not waiting for him.

Okay. I didn't. Then let me respond if I may, Senator. You're absolutely right on right to repair. It is an area that we've got to do a very good job to make sure that we've got the necessary...

A way better job.

Way better job. Certainly 3D printing is here. Yes, Senator, you are correct. We want to do right to repair particularly because we want to be able to repair in theater closest to the point of need. And certainly as new acquisition comes on board, having the ability to have...

Okay. I want to appreciate that. Mr. Ditlevson, were you involved in the decisions involving the boat strikes in the Caribbean? Were you in the chain of command of that discussion?

Senator, in my capacity as the principal deputy, I work on the policy around that, but the particular preparation of the strikes is primarily...

But you weren't in the room that day helping to make those decisions about the strikes.

Senator, those would be the special operations low-intensity conflict office and policy and the Joint Staff that'd be involved.

Have you seen the second video from September 2nd?

Yes, Senator, I have. I'm aware of that particular...

What possible justification is there for the classification of that video where the first video 45 minutes earlier was on Fox News the next day along with the Secretary? Why is the second video classified? I've seen it and I don't understand why the American public is being denied the opportunity to see it. What is the justification for its classification?

Senator, I appreciate the concern on the video and what it shows, but I can't speak to the releasability of a video when it's classified.

How come? You're the policy guy. What's the policy that says this should be a classified bit of information?

Senator, that'd be outside the purview of my particular office. We were not the classification authority for that particular video and the process and procedures governing declassification I can't speak to.

Well, I would appreciate it if you would take this question back because I have not yet, I've asked the Secretary directly, I'd not yet gotten a justification for why that video is classified except that it's embarrassing. That's what it looks like to someone who has seen it. The designated terrorist organization, who defines a designated terrorist organization? That's the basis of the strikes in the Caribbean.

Senator, the ability to designate a group as a terrorist organization is outside of the Department of War's purview. I would defer to the Department of State.

I understand that. I'm just asking you who makes that decision.

Well, Senator, it's outside of our office. It would be with Department of State and it would be with Department of Justice as they advise the President on what groups should be a terrorist organization.

I'm surprised you're not giving me a direct answer. Isn't this a presidential decision? Doesn't he or she make the final decision as to what is a quote designated terrorist organization?

Senator, I believe you're correct in they are advised, the President is advised by Department of State and Department of Justice as it concerns...

And do you know what the definition is, what the criteria for a designated terrorist organization? Is it written down anywhere? I don't believe I've ever seen it.

Senator, I would defer to those particular agencies advising the President through that process. I don't want to speak on their behalf.

Could you supply because you're in the policy business at the Department of Defense, could you please supply to the committee the definitions or criteria that are used to have a designated terrorist organization?

Senator, if confirmed, I pledge to work with you on these issues in the Caribbean and I hope to have a great working relationship with you and your office.

Well, you mentioned the Caribbean. I'm running out of time, but I've got to tell you in in your list of sort of priorities focused on securing our homeland by bolstering security at our borders. No objection, no problem. Dismantling narco-terrorist networks. No objection, 100 percent. Deterring adversary threats. No problem. But your final one is restoring law and order in our cities. That's not the role of the Department of Defense. We have state police, we have local police. It's not the role of the military to restore order in our cities. And what concerns me is if indeed it's the President that designates a designated terrorist organization, what are the limits of that and what's to keep this President or a different President from saying that some group that they don't like inside the country is a designated terrorist organization and therefore could apply military forces? I hope you'll come back to me with the answers to my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And yes, that was a rhetorical question. Mr. Ditlevson, you were not involved in making the decision about designating a terrorist target, were you?

That's correct, Mr. Chairman. I was not involved in that process.

Okay. So now we have Senator Sullivan and then Senator Slotkin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen, thank you for your service and your desire to serve your country further. Very much appreciate. I want to thank the families as well. It's not always a sacrifice for both the people involved in serving but also their families. So I want to thank all of you as well. Mr. Ditlevson, I appreciated our meeting the other day in my office. As you and I talked about, I focus a lot on the Arctic, but we've been focusing a lot on the Arctic as a country now, discussions on what's happening up there. I was, as I mentioned, a little bit disappointed that the NDS, despite having spoken to the Pentagon leadership about making sure we had a strong Arctic component, it wasn't that strong. I was actually disappointed by the limited focus, particularly given what's going on in the Arctic. As you and I talked about, we have this chart. These are the ADIZ and EEZ incursions. I'll get the specifics here. This is Russian and Chinese incursions into the Arctic, also known as Alaska, my state. That's in the last three or four years. Look at that map. By the way, we had one just last week. This is updated. Last week we had five Russian aircraft enter our ADIZ, two strategic bombers, prompting NORAD to dispatch two F-16s, two F-35s, four KC-135s, and an E-3 to go intercept those Russian bombers. And the real concerning one, when you look at this chart, the green, the green is joint Russian-Chinese task forces. So those are strategic bomber task forces, Russia-China, and naval task forces. One as big as 12 ships. They don't do joint strategic task forces anywhere else as I can tell, certainly in the United States but in the world. But they're doing it in my neck of the woods, which is America's neck of the woods, which is what you're going to be in charge of. So how important do you view the Arctic in your overall defense strategy and how are you going to make sure it's more seriously reflected in the strategy documents? Again, in my state, it's big news. The Russians are in our ADIZ last week and by the way, a shout-out to the great men and women who serve in the military in Alaska. They go up and intercept these guys every single time. Those are tough missions, right? When you're flying above the Arctic Ocean in February and it's 40 below zero and you're flying an F-16 with a single engine, you lose that engine, you're punching out over the Arctic Ocean in the middle of the night. It's usually night there anyway because it's still dark. Those are tough missions and our military does it every time. But help me out here. I was disappointed as I said in the NDS, especially because there's so much going on. I mean, yeah, we got to protect the southern border, but damn it, the northern border's pretty busy. Just ask the Russians and the Chinese. What are we going to do on that and I need your commitment in a big way to step up the focus?

Senator, first, I want to commend your work on this issue area because this is vitally important to homeland defense, to U.S. national interest.

This is the definition of homeland defense when the Russians and Chinese are probing our airspace and our waters. I don't know if there's any more higher priority to get them the hell out of there.

I completely agree, Senator. And Alaska is vital to the defense of the other 49 states. Alaska is our homeland. So I understand the disappointment as far as not mentioning Alaska by name in the National Defense Strategy, but I want to assure you, Senator, as we create implementing frameworks and further on guidance to our forces, we absolutely want to make sure that Alaska is a part of that because it's a pillar of what we're looking at for a regional strategy. If confirmed, Senator, I would love to work with your staff, receive input from you directly on how we can better write that framework to reflect the importance of Alaska.

Great. I appreciate that and thank you. I want to give another shout-out. This committee actually a number of years ago worked on setting up, you know how the Department of War has regional centers of expertise. We have them all over the world, Europe, Latin America. We have now the regional center for the Ted Stevens Center, named after the late great U.S. Senator from Alaska, for Arctic security issues. They're doing a great job. They're at JBER. They built up, but that is a, that's under your purview. It's part of the Department of War. So can I commit, can I get a commitment from you to use that resource, the Ted Stevens Center at JBER, to help you on this? They're a great convening force and really becoming the center of gravity on national security in the Arctic for the whole world.

You're absolutely right, Senator. Mr. Church Key, the director of the center, we speak regularly. He's done fantastic work and his team is great. And if confirmed, Senator, you have my commitment to continue using them as a resource and having their inputs into our different strategy documents.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll have additional questions for the record.

Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Without objection, a copy of that poster will be placed in the record. So ordered. So we have Senator Slotkin and then Senator King.

Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Ditlevson, I want to talk about some reports we had this week coming out of the Pentagon about the use of artificial intelligence. And you know, we all know or many of us know we're in a classified race against the Chinese on artificial intelligence. Reports came out this week that Secretary Hegseth was negotiating a contract with an AI company and this AI company says, look, we just have two conditions. We're not going to allow our AI to be used to develop weapons that can kill without a human being in the kill chain. And then number two, we're not going to allow our AI to be used for mass surveillance of American citizens. And that Secretary Hegseth got very upset about those two conditions, that he refused those those conditions. And now I think that this is, you know, if we were a healthier country politically right now, we would be putting up left and right limits around the use of AI. We have really no guidelines for you all, really no law that that's not your fault, that's on us on a bipartisan basis that we haven't done it. And I would argue we should be doing some of that for you all in this committee, setting up those left and right limits. Because I think the average person does not think we should allow weapon systems to get into war and kill people without a human being overseeing that in some way. And I certainly don't think any American, Democrat or Republican, wants mass surveillance on the American people. So I guess my plea is for us as a committee to deal with this in the NDAA. But because you're up for the job on homeland issues, I have to ask about this mass surveillance. Why wouldn't Secretary Hegseth say, no problem, we're never going to use AI at the Pentagon to conduct mass surveillance of American citizens? You've been the number two over there. You're now gunning for the number one job, up for confirmation. To your knowledge, is the Assistant Secretary role of Homeland Security, do you have any programs currently going on involved in the mass surveillance of American citizens?

Senator, I can't speak to the specifics of that meeting with Secretary Hegseth.

No, no, of course not. I'm not asking that. Just for you, you've been in the number two job, you're in the seat. Don't deflect. To your knowledge, is the purview of the position you're trying to get, is there any mass surveillance programs of the American people going on right now in that Assistant Secretaryship?

To my knowledge, Senator, not within that Assistant Secretaryship. We focus on policy writing, not the...

That's fine. I want the answer to be no. I'm gunning for a no. I want you to say no. Are you aware and can you confirm that it is illegal under U.S. law for the Department of Defense, particularly intelligence community assets, to surveil or target American citizens for their views?

Senator, I'm not intimately familiar with the exact language in different statutes. I would always defer to the Office of General Counsel to make sure any policy advice that we provide is lawful before it can be implemented.

Okay. It is the law, right? Executive orders, the National Security Act of 1947, and then everything that came out of Watergate. American citizens don't want to be surveilled by their government. You do criminal activity, go for it, you should be brought down. But mass surveillance, targeted surveillance of domestic terrorist organizations is a very sensitive subject that you're going to be in the hot seat for. So I would offer that instead of just deferring, you should get to know the law really quickly because you're going to be asked at some point whether the actions of this government are okay by you. And when it comes to targeting American citizens using assets of the intelligence community using AI to surveil American citizens, I want you to answer no, that you will uphold the values that I hope we all share, which is that the U.S. government should never target its own citizens. Department of Defense especially should be focused on foreign threats and the things that are coming at us from abroad. You should be focused on cyber threats, things that are important to protecting American citizens, not surveilling our own people. And I will just say along the same lines of what you will be asked, Senator Sheehy was in Iraq, I was in Iraq too. Do you know of any credible threats of violence against U.S. polling locations that would ever require the National Guard to be deployed? Any actual credible threats, yes or no?

Senator, in this particular forum, I can't speak about any threats that may or may not exist and need to maintain operational security.

I just think the idea that the President of the United States is saying that we should deploy National Guard and potentially others around polling locations when there is no credible threats. You should bring them up here if there are credible threats. We all have clearances. But the idea that we could be deploying law enforcement and National Guard around a polling location without a credible threat should send a shiver down your spine and you are going to be in the hot seat to say, no, I'm sorry, that just fundamentally cuts against who we are as Americans and I hope you're willing to uphold your oath when it comes down to it. Yield back.

Mr. Ditlevson, if Senator Slotkin got on a classified phone with you from the SCIF, you could answer that question. Is that correct?

That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

All right. Okay. Thank you very much. And now we have Senator Kelly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ditlevson, just to follow up on Senator Slotkin and the Chairman, I think you would be able to say just yes or no if there's a credible threat. That's not classified information. I mean, saying what the threat is would be the classified part of a response. So could you just say if you know of a credible threat? Easy answer, yes or no.

Senator, today I can't say anything in this particular forum, but if confirmed, I look forward to engaging with you and making sure that we're operating in a transparent manner with the committee.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Birdwell, different subject. The decline of domestic shipbuilding and the industrial base that supports that, it's not just an economic concern for our country. This is a national security issue, a significant one. In a potential contingency with a near-peer adversary competitor like China, our ability to sustain sealift across a 5,000-mile ocean, repair battle damage, support forward-deployed naval forces is going to depend on the strength of our U.S. shipyards. It's going to depend on our suppliers. And it's going to depend on having a robust commercial U.S.-flagged fleet. The President's Maritime Action Plan and my bipartisan Ships for America Act recognizes the urgency of reversing this trend through a whole-of-government approach. We have to revitalize domestic maritime building here at home. The theory of the case behind both of these initiatives, the Maritime Action Plan and my legislation, is that rebuilding our maritime industrial base cannot rely exclusively on the Navy. We need a competitive commercial market that supports robust supply chains if we want to be able to deliver critical capability to the Navy and have critical Navy programs that are on time and on budget. So Mr. Birdwell, do you agree that the Navy would benefit from more commercial competition in the maritime industry?

Senator, I've not made an evaluation of a competitive role between the Navy and our commercial. I do agree with you that we need a more robust organizational industrial base across the services, specifically the Navy and shipbuilding, but also additional capability commercial. I could give you an anecdotal issue specifically related to Texas, but we need both lanes robust simultaneously in my view.

So you don't think there's synergy between having a robust commercial sector and a robust military shipbuilding? What I'm getting at is those supply chains for Navy ships. If you look at things like pumps and valves and piping and engines, the supply chain for the naval vessel is very similar to the supply chain for the commercial vessel.

Yes, sir, Senator. You would need whatever increases we have in the force structure in the Navy, you would need to have a parallel increase in the service support ships that would support those. But you...

But I'm not talking about just the support ships. I'm talking about, so we have about 80 U.S.-flagged ocean-going merchant ships. China has over 5,000. They have more than 50 percent of the shipbuilding capacity worldwide. What I'm getting at here is by revitalizing the commercial shipbuilding sector, it helps us build more Navy ships because you have more robust supply chains. So if confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, how would you align the department's sustainment strategy with the broader maritime initiatives to ensure that we have the industrial capacity that the Navy depends upon for its sealift?

Senator, I want to make sure that the industrial base, both commercial and organic, that I get to be a champion, particularly for the organic, work with my counterparts in industrial base policy for the commercial side to ensure that both of those capabilities are growing robustly to ensure that we meet the strategic needs that you've addressed in your question.

Okay. Yeah, there is a strategic need for commercial sealift. I mean, that's without question. But I do want to just make it clear again that that actually helps us build the amphis, build the aircraft carriers, the destroyers, the frigates, the submarines that we need for our national defense. So I hope you'll work with us here on this committee. I've got strong legislation. It's bipartisan. It touches every aspect of the maritime industry so we can flag more U.S. ships with U.S. crews built in U.S. shipyards with U.S. suppliers. That's what I think we need not only to revitalize the commercial sector, but at the same time we get the added benefit of having a bigger industrial base for shipbuilding across the country. So look forward to working with you on that.

Senator, if confirmed, I look forward to working with you in the committee on that very topic.

Senator Birdwell, I think Senator Kelly has made a profound point here. This is not the first time this has been discussed among this committee, but he's onto something that might give us the quantum leap that is vitally needed to do what needs to be done. So thank you, Senator Kelly. Senator King, you have finally lived long enough to be recognized. It's your turn.

That's a good allusion to a special day. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the witnesses. Mr. Ditlevson, you were here before us on the 11th of December for the National Guard hearing and I asked two questions for the record that I submitted right after the hearing...

...that you have not yet answered. Is there any reason why you have not yet answered them two and a half months later?

Senator, from my particular position, submitted questions, but they need to go through legal review and make sure that they get over to you with the proper notations from different components for their input. But I made sure that we've submitted those and we're going to get them to you ASAP, Senator.

Well, I'd like to submit the unanswered questions for the record two and a half months after I submitted them. The two questions are a total of six lines of text. They're very short questions and I'm not impressed with the response time if I could submit those for the record, Mr. Chair.

Without objection. So ordered.

Mr. Ditlevson, I was not here when Senators Reed and Fischer were asking about the El Paso incident because of a HELP Committee hearing I had, but I understand that your testimony was that there was no lack of communication between the federal agencies. Is that your testimony?

Yes, Senator, that's correct. Robust communication over a period of 14 months is what was occurring between the FAA and the Department of Defense.

Then what was the breakdown that caused the closure of the airspace for that number of hours and the significant cancellation of flights?

Senator, I can't speak to the FAA's determination to set up the temporary flight restriction and why they did it the way they did for the length of period of time, but I can say that we provided notification when this system became fully operationally capable and then we also provided notification with our intent to fire the system.

The news accounts suggest that insufficient notice was provided to the FAA. Do you dispute those accounts?

I would dispute those accounts and I don't think they had the totality of our communication. It was only a selective piece.

Because it's one thing to say you provided notification. If you provided notification just minutes before something happened, that would have been insufficient and that's what the suggestion is. And look, the reason I ask about this, you'll get the El Paso thing straight. We had a crash at DCA Reagan a little bit over a year ago. 67 people, including three members of the United States Army, lost their lives because of inadequate communication between the DOD and the FAA. And this was a danger that we had repeatedly warned about. The National Transportation Safety Board has come out with a report assessing a number of things that went wrong. And so when we see something like this at El Paso, and thank goodness flights were cancelled but there were no injuries or deaths, and then we hear that, no, there was adequate communication between the parties, forgive us for being skeptical. We don't want to be complacent and see significant other challenges. And so that's why we ask about this and we will continue to follow up on it. In response to my colleague Senator King, you said with respect to boat strikes in the Pacific, you have been involved in policy, not like the determination about particular operations. Have you been involved in the discussion around the policy of which boats should be struck or what should the targeting criteria be?

Senator, from our particular policy office, we're not involved in the target preparation and the engagements that are briefed up to the Secretary. That granularity is the purview of, I believe General Braga was over here and briefed the committee in Special Operations Office.

How about separate from individual instances? Have you been involved in discussions about what the criteria should be that should warrant potential kinetic action?

Senator, I have not been involved in what criteria constitutes a threat that they can engage legally under that framework. Our office has not been involved in that.

So you're not aware of what the requirements are for assessing which boats can be targeted in these operations.

Senator, for those specific requirements, I would defer to the Special Operations Low Intensity Conflict Office and their staff.

That's not the question I asked you. I asked you, sitting here today, are you aware of the targeting criteria that render a craft eligible to be stricken by kinetic activity?

Yes, Senator, I'm aware of the criteria that would constitute a threat that allows for engagement under constructs that the Office of General Counsel has reviewed and provided to the Secretary.

Is one of those criteria demonstrable evidence that a craft contains narcotics?

Senator, I want to make sure that I provide you the absolute correct answer and so, if confirmed, I will make sure to answer that question, but that's one that I'd like to take back to get you the exact...

And how long will that take?

ASAP, Mr. Chairman.

And as I hand it back to the chair, I have been given the answer to that question in a classified setting and have some significant concerns about it. But that concerned operations that had happened before January 1, September to January 1. And I'm asking for a classified briefing on each operation since January 1 to see if their criteria may have changed. But we'll pose the question in a very precise way in a written QFR and we would love to get a prompt response. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And again, Mr. Ditlevson, that's not exactly your call.

That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

But you're the one sitting here in front of this committee. Thank you very much, Senator Kaine. Senator Gillibrand, welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to pronounce your name right. Could you pronounce your name for me?

Ditlevson, Senator.

Ditlevson. Got it. Mr. Ditlevson, while the AHI cross-functional team now falls under the Under Secretary Michael, during your time as Acting Assistant Secretary, you were the DOD interagency lead for AHI and responsible for overseeing the CFT. In your conversations within the department about the future of AHI CFT, what role did care for victim cohort play in your discussions and how are you ensuring a smooth transition for the cohort in the new structure?

Senator, I'm happy to discuss this topic because our warfighters that have been affected by anomalous health incidents absolutely deserve care and treatment for this particular issue. And care for veterans is one of the pillars of the AHI CFT. It's part of their mandate. And so it's a large part of their work has to do with healthcare concerns and how we can better treat folks that have been affected. And during their day-to-day, that's something that they focus on and what I saw in my purview when I was over the top of the AHI CFT. To ensure continuity during this transition period, we have made sure to have a robust coordination effort with the Research and Engineering Office and we've transferred employees so that they have all of that experience and expertise continuing on in its new form with Under Secretary Michael.

Thank you. If confirmed, will you resume your role as DOD interagency lead for AHI or will that be moved to Research and Engineering?

Senator, it is my understanding that it will be transferred to Research and Engineering.

What do you see as the most important AHI-related work over the next year?

Senator, I believe taking care of our warfighters and making sure that they are getting the healthcare they deserve and that they need. I think that would be the principal focus.

Earlier this month, the FAA shut down airspace in Texas after a DOD-provided counter-UAS system was operationalized without completed FAA coordination, creating potential risks to civil aviation. Reporting indicates that the FAA coordination under Section 130i and Section 124n had not been completed and that DOD proceeded despite FAA objections. DOD has not yet briefed members of this committee or provided detailed information about this incident to our offices. When can we expect this information?

Senator, first I want to say that if confirmed, I commit to a policy of transparency and I believe that some of our staff members briefed earlier this week with staff members of the committee and if confirmed, I look forward to engaging to make sure that you get all the information from this incident.

Given that the 130i package was not completed with the FAA, why did you write that DOD felt it had met statutory requirements to coordinate with the FAA?

Senator, in this particular situation in National Defense Area 1, they had been issued 130i protections and as per the statute, it requires coordination with the FAA but not the approval of the FAA to fire these systems.

Who made the final decision to proceed with operationalizing the system prior to the FAA coordination? Are you saying you did do FAA coordination, just not FAA approval? Is that what you're saying?

That's correct, Senator. We had been coordinating over a period of 14 months prior to this incident.

Okay. And was that decision made by your office, Under Secretary Colby, NORTHCOM, DHS, or another entity?

We provided this decision up the chain of command giving our best policy recommendation and making sure that we maintain coordination with the FAA for senior leadership's decision.

I understood. Does DOD believe that it has the authority to operationalize counter-UAS systems in domestic airspace without FAA concurrence so long as DOD believes coordination requirements have been met?

Senator, I want to emphasize that we want to protect American citizens. Includes our troops but includes civilians as well. So we always take that into consideration. I can assure you these systems are safe. They've gone through a robust testing process and we're still working through testing processes with the FAA to make sure the standards are even higher just because we want to make sure we are staying true to our mission of protecting American citizens.

When you allow DHS to use DOD equipment, what requirements does DOD place on its operational use? Does DOD require affirmative confirmation that DHS has completed all statutory coordination requirements, including FAA coordination, before allowing DOD counter-UAS systems to be transferred, activated, or used?

Senator, in that particular situation when the transfer of the equipment happens, I'd have to defer to the folks that actually own the equipment and whether they had done the proper coordination process with the Department of Homeland Security. So I'd turn that question to NORTHCOM and JTF Southern Border.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Senator Duckworth.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. As someone who bled for this country, I'm horrified that President Trump continues to thrust our troops into irresponsible, open-ended campaigns with no clear authorities, no set timeline, no transparent end state, and that extends to President Trump's misuse of the military on American soil. In December, this committee held the hearing that I pushed for on this administration's misuse of the National Guard in American cities. Mr. Ditlevson, our exchange during that hearing was very worrisome to me. I gave you the opportunity to clarify to the American people that this administration would not deploy troops across state lines contrary to the desires of that state for any mission beyond protection of federal property. You said, and I quote, "I can't commit to that." So you would not commit to not deploying troops across state lines for anything mission other than to protect federal property. So this is where I want to pick up because I think the American people deserve to know this administration's plans for using the military in their backyards. And in fact, when you tried to activate the Illinois National Guard for law enforcement functions and were denied by our governor, whom the people of Illinois elected and have the opportunity to kick out of office if we want to, you sent in the Texas National Guard to try to do law enforcement functions and were stopped by the courts. Mr. Ditlevson, you are nominated to be the senior defense official who will approve use of the military within the United States territory. And during this hearing, this hearing, you've indicated to my colleagues that there are circumstances that you would advise deploying forces near polling places. And I want to read to you 18 U.S. Code 593, interference by armed forces. And I quote, "Whoever being such officer or member," and this is of the armed forces of the United States, "prevents or attempts to prevent by force, threat, intimidation, advice, or otherwise any qualified voter of any state from fully exercising their right of suffrage at any general or special election." So in light of 18 U.S. Code 593, please consider that as you're answering my questions. In answering Senator Peters, you said you could see troops deployed in logistics support capacities near election sites. What distance from a polling place would make you feel comfortable advising the Secretary of Defense to deploy forces near sites to stay consistent with not intimidating voters? I also would like to know if those, if you would be advising that those military troops be in full battle dress uniform, would they be wearing body armor, would they be carrying their rifles, would they be carrying their sidearms, would they be carrying ammunition? Because are you expecting logistical functions to be like those we encountered in Iraq where you actually had to fight your way in and fight your way out, or are you just talking about logistical support? Maybe you can define what you mean by that. So how far from the polling places, what are they going to be doing, would they be wearing battle dress uniform, body armor, Kevlar, sidearms, and have ammunition nearby?

Senator, thank you for the chance to address this and appreciate our exchange in December and your concern for this issue. It's very important that we do it right. And my commitment to you is, if confirmed, whatever we advise to the Secretary is always going to be through the Office of General Counsel to make sure that is a lawful recommendation going up to him for any deployment of National Guard. As per your questions for the specific distance and what equipment people would wear on any deployment, we always look at what the threat scenario may be and tailor that for whatever they may have to deal with. And so in, as you pointed out, for logistics, it'd be a very different footprint than some other type of mission. But we always want to make sure we tailor, we provide everything that a soldier may need before they would go out and do a mission. That's just across the board for the department and we always want to make sure that whatever they go do is lawful by having an Office of General Counsel thorough review of our recommendation to the Secretary.

So you're saying that there's a mission other than logistics? You just said. So you can see deploying troops to polling places in a capacity other than the logistics mission that you just in this hearing said that that would be why you would put them there. And now are you saying that there are potentially other reasons to send them to polling stations beyond logistics? And that they may actually be fully up-armored, fully combat equipped depending on what you decide is the situation on the ground in the United States of America at polling places?

Senator, it's speculative, so I can't speak to that at this point.

Then let me give you another chance to reassure all of us. If the President labeled a United States-based organization, say the American Civil Liberties Union, a domestic terrorist organization, which by the way is a list with no statutory basis in the United States or international law, would you consider that to be sufficient authority to use military force or resources against any American who affiliates with the ACLU on U.S. soil?

Senator, I can't speculate on that. What I can assure you is that anything that we do...

All of these should be easy commitments, but apparently for you they are not. And I just need to make something very clear on the record. If the administration was serious about working with blue governors to combat what courts have found to be baseless claims of lawlessness, President Trump would have given Governor Pritzker more than a two-hour window on Saturday, October 4, to respond to his official request to call up the Illinois National Guard under Title 32 before he federalized those troops. He gave the governor two hours to respond. That is not a serious effort to work with our governors. That is using the military to intimidate political rivals. President Trump is diverting dramatic amounts of troops, military assets, and resources to support federal law enforcement agencies, which are not always trained properly or prepared to use those resources, as the incident of the closing of the El Paso airspace shows. I am concerned. I am concerned that you can't make basic reassurances to this committee as to how you would advise on the calling up of the National Guard to be there at polling places at an election on United States soil. First you say, "Oh yeah, I can see doing that for logistical purposes." So when I asked you if they're doing logistical support, are they going to be in battle dress uniform with ammunition, you say, "Oh well, we're going to let the lawyers decide that." I'm asking you what would you advise and you can't commit to your advice. You're just saying we're going to let the lawyers decide that. And if they decide that we need to blow up the streets of Chicago or any other city of this, of this great nation, in order to provide logistical support, then we're going to do that. That is not reassuring to the American people. You cannot intimidate Americans when they go out to vote. It is against the law. It is against code. I just read that code to you. I am at a loss. The American people will not stand for this. I will not stand for it. And my colleagues in Congress should not stand for this administration's attempts to use our nation's military to intimidate Americans from exercising their fundamental right to cast a vote in elections. I yield back. I actually yield more than my time.

Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Your statements will be included on the record. Are there follow-up questions? If not, the how long should we hold the record open, Mr. Clark? Two days for questions for the record. I want to thank our witnesses for their thoroughness today and I express my appreciation. This hearing is adjourned.