Senate seal

Senate · Hearing transcript

Hearing on DOD Budget Request for FY 2027 and Future Years Defense Program

Thursday, April 30, 2026

Summary

  • Pete Hegseth (Secretary of War, U.S. Department of Defense) defended President Trump's $1.5 trillion fiscal 2027 defense request amid scrutiny over Iran war costs and stalemate.
  • Dan Caine (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff) mourned 14 service members killed in Operation Epic Fury and pledged candid nonpartisan military advice.
  • Sen. Jack Reed pressed Hegseth on firing Army Chief Gen. Randy George and alleged disproportionate dismissals of Black and female officers.
  • Sen. Roger Wicker praised Trump's peace-through-strength operations while Sen. Jack Reed condemned the unauthorized Iran war as strategically failing and costly.
  • Hegseth committed to update the committee on reconciliation obligations while Pentagon officials promised Ukraine spend plans and legal opinions expeditiously.

Morning digest

Get hearings like this in your inbox

Free weekday email. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hearing Details

Witnesses

Members Who Spoke

View on Congress.gov

Transcript

Unknown0:00 – 0:41

Gas prices have reached a new high since the start of the Middle East conflict. Triple A's has gas prices have jumped thirty cents in the past week, now averaging four dollars and thirty cents a gallon. That's the highest pump prices since July of twenty twenty two. We're now paying a dollar thirty more per gallon than before the war started. And the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, along with the US continuing its blockade of uranium ports. The stalemate is leading to a longer disruption of fuel supplies from the Middle East. As CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes reports, President Trump had plenty to say yesterday about the Iran conflict.

Nancy Cordes0:41 – 1:05

President Trump said yesterday that he had actually rejected an Iranian proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz get oil tankers flowing again because he said it would have put off an agreement about Iran's nuclear program until later. Trump insisted the US blockade is gonna remain in place for now and that he has the upper hand. He discussed all of this with the crew of Artemis two, arrayed behind him.

Unknown1:05 – 2:37

It takes people like this to make our country great. It was an overall this event meant to celebrate Artemis two's successful mission around the moon. But the conversation quickly veered to pressing issues back here on Earth, including the impasse in Iran. They have to cry uncle. That's all they have to do, just say We give up. We give up. But their economy is really in trouble. The U. S. economy is suffering too, with gas prices jumping seven cents in just one day to an average of four dollars thirty cents a gallon. Global oil prices climbed above a hundred twenty dollars per barrel Wednesday, the highest since twenty twenty two, as investors came to terms with the possibility of a months-long disruption to It hasn't even peaked yet. The Federal Reserve declined to lower interest rates Wednesday, with Chairman Jerome Powell citing the rising cost of gas. Remember, when gas prices go up, um, that's disposable income coming out of people's pockets, so they're gonna spend less on other things. With the US and Iran both claiming to control the Strait of Hormuz, shipping traffic has fallen to five percent of its normal levels. In a social media poll, The blockade has been a hundred percent full. Broke it shows how good our Navy is. I can tell you that. Nobody's gonna play games.

Nancy Cordes2:38 – 2:55

Germany's chancellor has a very different view. He said a few days ago that the Americans obviously have no strategy for exiting this nine-week war. Well, on Wednesday in a what appeared to be a tit-for-tat, Trump announced he's now considering pulling some U. S. troops out of Germany.

Unknown2:56 – 3:54

That's CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes. Happening at this hour, the first direct commercial flight between the U. S. and Venezuela is scheduled to depart and will land in Venezuela's capital of Caracas in a matter of hours. Today's flight from Miami is coming seven years after the U. S. suspended flights there citing safety concerns. The resumption follows the reopening of the U. S. embassy in Caracas and the restoration of full diplomatic relations. It is the next step after the U. S. capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in a stunning nighttime raid back in January. For the past seven years, U. S. passengers had to rely on international airlines and indirect routes through neighboring Latin American countries To reach Venezuela. It's ten eighteen. Traffic and weather on WTOP. Back to the traffic center and Rob Stallworth.

Rob Stallworth3:54 – 5:23

Interloop in Virginia. The main lanes in Annandale at two thirty six, Little River Turnpike, still with a left side block for the broken down tractor trailer. Now attached to a heavy data wrecker, but delays are back to I ninety five in Springfield. The four ninety five express lanes are running with no problems, so you might wanna pay the extra cash if you're running late or impatient. Eastbound three ninety five before the fourteen street bridge. That crash is clear to the right shoulder. All your travel lanes are open, just minor delays as you approach boundary channel drive. I ninety five southbound on the brakes, leaving Lorton headed toward one twenty three as your lanes go from four to three along the right side. No problems really. If you're traveling on sixty six eastbound, leaving Gainesville headed in toward the Beltway. Inside the Beltway though, eastbound near one ten. Excuse me, this is Glebe Road in uh Arlington. That's where the right side is blocked for the work zone. No problems on the Beltway in Maryland through Prince George's or Montgomery County. Two problems southbound on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. The first one is near one ninety eight. That's the report of a crash. Then further southbound near the Beltway after one ninety three is a report of a wreck as well, so watch out for that. If you're in the district, keep in mind southbound DC two ninety five slows, approaching usual spot near Burroughs Avenue headed toward East Capitol Street, but your travel lanes are indeed open and available. The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation has been at the forefront of inflammatory bound disease research and care for over fifty years. Learn more about research, education and support at Crohn'sColitisFoundation.org. I'm Rob Stallworth. Your next traffic report in about ten minutes.

Unknown5:23 – 5:31

All right, let's move to meteorologist Steve Rudin. He joins us live with the seven news, first alert forecast. Nice to have the sun back today.

Steve Rudin5:32 – 6:16

Nice to have the sun. All the wet weather is completely gone, so good news there. The winds are beginning to kick up and we'll see wind gusts today, twenty five to thirty miles per hour, so even though highs will be in the mid sixties to lower seventies, it's going to feel a little bit colder than that. Our skies are going to be clear overnight, upper thirties to middle forties by early tomorrow morning. Should note our sun set tonight, eight o'clock on the dot. Partly sunny, with a chance for a few evening showers tomorrow, sixty five to seventy. We're mainly cloudy on Saturday, a few morning showers, temperatures mid fifties to around sixty. And sunshine is back on Sunday with highs around sixty-five degrees. We'll be in the seventies Monday of next week and perhaps lower eighties by Tuesday. Sixty-two, dollar sixty-four, Capitol Hill and sixty in Silver Spring.

Unknown6:16 – 6:31

Steve's Forecast brought to you by Sonesta awnings by Lednor Home. Your backyard, your comfort. Sonesta retractable awnings by Lednor. Call eight eight eight five hellment or Lednor home dot com. Still to come.

Mike Murillo6:31 – 6:37

Some are raising alarms as DC moves to cut a program that helps boost child care worker pay in the city. I'm Mike Morillo.

Unknown6:37 – 6:39

It's ten twenty one.

Steve Rudin6:40 – 6:43

All right everyone, do what you gotta do. Then we're back on the road in ten.

Unknown6:43 – 6:46

When you make a pit stop, every second counts.

Steve Rudin6:47 – 6:49

Two scratchers, please.

Unknown6:49 – 6:54

So enjoy your break while you can. Because before you know it, it's back to

Mike Murillo6:55 – 6:57

Ever heard of a turn signal?

Unknown6:57 – 8:07

When you stop for gas, fill up on fun. With Virginia Lottery scratchers. Must be eighteen or older to play. Please play responsibly. Eight eight eight, five three two, thirty five hundred. The Virginia Lottery. This message is sponsored by Window Nation. Whatever your real reasons are, getting new windows is a big decision. At Window Nation, when you buy a lifetime warranty, it really is lifetime. You're not just buying the window and you're not just buying it from the people. You're buying the promise behind the product, and that's what Window Nation strives to serve each and every day. Window Nation Regional Sales Director Damian C. Roy told me from their first consults all the way to install day, Window Nation windows are custom, a one of one measurement for your home. Each of our windows are engineered, designed and measured specifically for the opening that we're putting them in. So not only is it the perfect window, it's always the perfect fit. Because they buy in bulk and from a variety of manufacturers, they save you money with discounts right off the bat. And that's not even factoring in the hundreds, even Thousands you could save in energy costs with their lifetime guarantee. Over forty percent of our business now is actually replacing replacement windows that somebody else had done and didn't fulfill the promises. We use the right product every time, not the cheapest.

Neil Augenstein8:07 – 8:08

Sponsored by Windownation.

Unknown8:09 – 9:03

What does one Philly hotel stay get you in twenty twenty six, America's two hundred fiftyth birthday year? Free parking for starters, plus admission to five must-see attractions across the region. See the world premiere Universal Theme Parks, the exhibition at the Franklin Institute. Stroll through the beauty that is. This is WTOP News Happens Here. Ten twenty-three. All right, let's get back to all of the excitement that's going on today in Front Royal, Virginia. The British royals are visiting. King Charles and Queen Camilla will be taking part in a parade a bit later down Main Street. WTOP's Neil Augenstein has been there all morning talking with locals.

Neil Augenstein9:04 – 9:11

Here at the security screening area, this mom is first in line. She got up early to hold the place for her two young sons.

Unknown9:11 – 9:25

As I am a teacher, so this is huge for me as well to be able to tell my middle school students that, oh yeah, I just saw the King and Queen on Thursday. Um, but for them as they learn about history now to make that connection, they've seen royalty, um, when they're learning about it, that's huge.

Neil Augenstein9:25 – 9:33

It'll be crowded on Main Street and the town is saying that not everyone will necessarily get to see the King and Queen.

Unknown9:33 – 9:43

But we might. And like that's just kind of worth standing in line for like a long time, cuz I probably never get to like see them again if they're not. It will be my only chance to ever see a living monarch.

Neil Augenstein9:43 – 9:47

In front Royal Neil Augenstein, WTOP News.

Unknown9:48 – 9:52

DC's mayor is proposing to eliminate funding for a program that boosts

Mike Murillo10:00 – 10:10

In her budget presented to the DC Council, Mayor Muriel Bowser proposes cutting the early childhood educator pay equity fund, which boosts pay for child care workers. Advocates warn if it goes away.

Unknown10:10 – 10:18

Children lose access to the most competent educators. Um, educators, the most competent educators, um, find employment in other places.

Mike Murillo10:18 – 10:23

Marika Cox Mitchell with the Bainham Family Foundation says the impact goes beyond child care centers.

Unknown10:23 – 10:33

Families then have to figure out how they can pay for and access um, quality early childhood experiences for their young children.

Mike Murillo10:33 – 10:48

The Office of the State Superintendent of Education in a statement says the program hasn't led to more child care centers opening and says the district is focusing on subsidies and pre-K to expand access. But Mitchell says the effects could go even further, as other states watch what DC does next.

Unknown10:48 – 10:50

This cutting funding also has national implications.

Mike Murillo10:51 – 10:53

Mike Murillo, WTOP News.

Unknown10:54 – 11:02

Sports on WTOP brought to you by Amentum, delivering advanced solutions for space and defense. What's going on, Dave Preston?

Mike Murillo11:02 – 11:20

Well, the Nationals wrap up their series with the New York Mets this afternoon after getting back on track in last night's win fourteen runs on fifteen hits for manager Blake Butera couldn't have been happier to have bats all night. I think, you know, from the beginning, um, till we got the sizable lead, they just continued definitely good at bats all the way.

Unknown11:21 – 14:40

night. Um, yeah, a lot a lot of good to talk about. These nights are always fun. They might need some of those runs this afternoon. Myles Michael is ERA so far this season. Eight point four nine Mets counter with Freddy Peralta. Orioles play two with Houston after last night's ran out twelve thirty five and four O five. The Nats game begins at one ten on fifteen hundred AM. Men's college hoops. Maryland guard Darius Adams is transferring to NC State as a freshman. Uh, Adams averaged eleven points per game for the Terps. Uh, Oh, well, let's see. Uh, well. Uh, well. It could be mostly cloudy, Yeah. could also be partly sunny, there's scattered showers, Beautiful. uh, a chance of scattered showers. So I'll bring plenty of sunscreen and an umbrella. Dave Preston, WTOP Sports. Thank you, Dave. We will check the forecast for you along with traffic next. WTOP celebrates two hundred and fifty years of health care in America. Presented by Delta Dental. For two hundred and fifty years, America's well-being has relied on innovation in health care. Delta Dental is proud to sponsor this look at the advancements that keep our communities healthy. Today and tomorrow. Menopause care has undergone change recently. After early two thousands research raised alarms about hormone replacement therapy to treat menopause and drove down its use, new evidence is now changing the conversation. As of late last year, the FDA even removed black box warnings for many menopause hormone therapy products Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. For more than two decades, the American medical establishment turns its back on women. Millions of women were told to fear the very therapy that The move is seen as part of a larger correction happening in medicine. For decades, women's health was understudied with research often built around male bodies. Now that's shifting. From pregnancy to menopause, science is catching up to how hormonal changes impact the entire body. And that includes oral health. And policymakers are even pushing for more inclusive care. Mm. Think of all the breakthroughs we've made in medicine across the board, but women have not been the focus. I'm Acacia James. Check out all of WTOP's America two fifty coverage at WTOP dot com. Search America two fifty. Better oral health in America starts with making quality care available to everyone. For years, Delta Dental has supported oral health providers by investing in research, WTOB's Traffic and Weather with Rob Stolwer.

Rob Stallworth14:40 – 15:15

Top trouble spots we're following for you right now. Interloop main lanes in Virginia, past two thirty six, Little River. River Turn, Park the Broken Down, still blocking the two left lanes. Southbound BW Parkway after the overpass for one ninety-three Greenbelt Road, that crash blocks the right side. Then outbound New York Avenue, near West Virginia and Montana avenues as you head toward Blainsburg Road to work again today, is blocking the right lane. For victims of drunk and drug, driving, your grief is unique, but you are not alone, you always have a place at MADD. Call the twenty-four hour victim help line at eight seven seven MADD help, or visit them online at MADD, MADD dot org.

Unknown15:15 – 15:21

I'm Rob Stallworth. Your next traffic report in about ten minutes. Jordan Evans with the seventies, first alert forecast.

Jordan Evans15:21 – 15:44

Tracking your Thursday forecast, partly cloudy skies with temperatures in the upper sixties, a northwest breeze at ten to twenty miles per hour. Then it gets chilly tonight with mostly clear skies. Wake-up temperatures tomorrow at forty to forty-five. Windchill factor in the upper thirties, as we'll still have a breeze out at the northwest. By Friday afternoon, intervals of clouds and sunshine. Temperatures in the upper sixties once again. Then a few showers may appear.

Unknown15:53 – 16:01

Fifty nine right now at DuPont Circle in DC, sixty one in Germantown, sixty two and sunny right now in Annandale.

Jordan Evans16:03 – 49:06

You're listening to WTOP News Happens Here. The W

Sen. Wicker (MS)49:12 – 57:12

All right, the hearing is in order. We completed a productive classified session down in the skiff, and now we will begin the public portion of this hearing. I welcome back Secretary Hegseth, General Kane, and our Acting Comptroller, Mister J. Hurst. Uh, I thank all of them, including their families, for their service. For the dozens of Americans that regularly watch our hearings, my next remarks will be no surprise, but for new viewers, I want to reiterate some context from our remarks. I've said this at almost every hearing. We live in the most dangerous security environment since World War Two. Every uniformed officer who has come before this committee has agreed with that statement. First and foremost, we're locked in a competition with Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. The competition is high stakes, And it is about whether this will be an American-led century, or a century defined by authoritarian, autocratic regimes that care little for the need, needs of their citizens or those in neighboring countries. The Chinese Communist Party has accelerated its historic military build-up, and its predatory economic practices against Americans and countries the world over. Xi Jinping leads not only China, but also an axis of aggressors. This growing alliance cannot be denied. It includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. They're united around this goal, to oppose America's interests and the interest of other like-minded democratic countries across the globe. Vladimir Putin's war of choice in Ukraine has now entered its fifth year. In Putin's objectives, we hear echos of the imperialistic ambitions of World War Two's aggressors, including Adolf Hitler. Um, Vladimir Putin has suffered one point two million casualties and failed miserably in his military objectives, along the way he has transformed Russia's economy into one fueled by war, raising the prospect of an even more aggressive Moscow for the foreseeable future. Most of Iran's leaders are now deceased. But they and those who survived them have consistently sought violence against America, Israel, our Gulf allies, and the Iranian people. We th- we saw this during the October seventh massacre, during their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and in their desire to engage in nuclear blackmail. Iran's ayatollahs have consistently represented a threat to American interest. Kim Jong-un has joined mister Putin's war of aggression. He continues a military and nuclear build-up that threatens South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Ties have never been closer among these four dictators, among these four dictator-ships. They support each other's aggressive endeavors. They prop each other up financially. and they schemed to undermine America's objectives. We should expect them to continue this behavior. This context plays out across every dimension of national power, the economy, technology, diplomacy, and more. But today we're here to talk about the military dimension of this competition. These regimes have regularly tried to take force, take by force what they cannot secure through the political process. For that reason, we must be ready to deter conflicts, and, if necessary, to win them. President Trump has used the US military appropriately and effectively for American interests. He has viewed our adversaries as a united block and has taken action in light of that reality. In Operation Absolute Resolve, an associated state craft the president removed, an aspiring dictator off the board and set up Venezuela for a future aligned with democratic interests. In Operation Midnight Hammer, he sought to eliminate the Ayatollah's nuclear program. When the Ayatollah chose to double down, the president launched Operation Epic Fury. In that mission, he has worked to remove the regime's conventional military capabilities and force it back to the table for a permanent solution. While we all mourn the tragic loss of the fourteen service members who have lost their lives in this conflict, we do so knowing the world is safer without the nuclear Iran. All of these actions are part of a peace through strength strategy. In this approach, we seek first to avoid war, but we take military action when necessary to achieve US interest. And so, Mister Secretary, I'm pleased that you are here testifying today in support of President Trump's historic one point five trillion dollar defense budget request. That sum will go a long way toward rebuilding our military capabilities for a generation. I should say up front that this, um, may be a long hearing. There's much to discuss. This one point five trillion dollar request is chock full of important programs and initiatives that are absolutely necessary to secure American interest in the twenty-first century. I think this funding underpins and accentuates three comparative advantages the United States possesses over the access of aggressors. The first comparative advantage America enjoys over our adversaries is that we have the best innovation and industry in the world. So I hope our witnesses today will cover the progress we've made in just the past year, rebuilding the American arsenal. Last year, Our reconciliation bill, combined with bipartisan appropriation bills, achieved about a trillion dollar defense budget. This year's request would represent a near fifty percent increase. Every penny of it should be money well spent, making down payments on crucial transformational capabilities, such as drone warfare, low-cost munitions, and missile defense. Also last year Congress and the executive branch achieved historic acquisition reforms. Consequently, we are well-positioned to make huge gains on efficiency this year and in the years to come, making it much more flexible and a a more timely process. I look forward to discussing how we might accelerate implementation of these actions. In particular, I'd like to see the Pentagon do more this year to drive competition in the defense industrial base. Competition absolutely drives better outcomes for our service members and taxpayers. Of course, our people are the final comparative advantage we have over our adversaries. We've enjoyed significant improvements in recruitment and retention, but we need to s- solidify a merit-based environment that fully cares for our personnel. I commend you, Mister Secretary. for your efforts over the past year to do just that. That task will never be finished, of course, but we embrace it gladly and we salute the progress. We will always be striving to care for and equip American service members as much as possible. I look forward to more work between this committee and the department this coming year. With that, I turn to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Jack Reed.

Sen. Reed (RI)57:13 – 1:06:02

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and secretary hexeth uh general kane mister hearst welcome and please convey my appreciation all of our appreciation to our military service members and defense civilians uh we owe them our deepest sense of gratitude mr. secretary this is your first public appearance before this committee in nearly a year since your last public testimony you and president trump have unwisely taken the united states to war with iran you ordered attack on venezuela and have directed ongoing illegal boat strike campaign in the caribbean and pacific at your direction our forces have bombed yemen somalia iraq syria nigeria and ecuador in united states you have deployed thousands of troops to cities like washington los angeles chicago and portland to police american citizens and you have personally intervened to end the careers of dozens of military leaders without explanation. These actions will have significant and long-term consequences. Now you uh now you appear before us to ask for a one point five trillion dollar budget, a forty five percent increase above last year. Uh, I must say I'm skeptical, and such a request demands intense scrutiny. sixty one days ago president trump unilaterally began the war in iran he had no coherent strategy he refused to make a case to the american people or consult congress he failed to present any evidence of an immediate uh threat and he ignored the advice of military and intelligence experts who warned him of the consequences today our nation is in a worse strategic position the straight of removes was open now it is closed thirteen service members have tragically lost their lives and more than four hundred have been wounded we have lost dozens of aircraft sustained significant damage to our bases in the area and expended an alarming amount of our missile inventory morale and readiness across the force especially among over deployed units and vessels like the uss jerry r ford aircraft carrier have suffered gasoline and fertilizer prices throughout the world have surged american families are bearing the cost of a war they wanted nothing to do with and have gained nothing from and yet secretary of health says you declared victory a month ago on april eighth you said in your words operation epic fury was a historic and overwhelming victory by any measure epic fury decimated iran's military and rendered its combat force is ineffective for years to come uh let me be clear tactically the united states military performance against iran has been remarkable and i salute the service members who have executed this mission with skill and bravery the problem with your statements mister secretary is they are dangerously exaggerated iran's hardline regime remains in place it still retains stockpiles of enriched uranium and its nuclear program remains viable. Iran's military retains enough combat effectiveness to keep the conflict at an impasse. Its missiles and drones remain a far greater threat than you'll acknowledge, and the regime has demonstrated it can effectively control the straight-able moves when it chooses. Mister Secretary, I am considering that you have been telling the President what he wants to hear, instead of what he needs to hear. Bold assurances of success are a disservice to both the commander-in-chief and the troops who risk their lives based on them. Our military has performed heroically, but military force without a sound strategy is a path to long-term defeat. I'd like to know what options you are considering now, given the cost from this war and the stalemate President Trump has put us in. More broadly, Mister Secretary, too often you have made dangerous statements that are counter-productive to the mission you boasted about quote no stupid rules of engagement just days after hundreds of iranian school girls were tragically killed in a missile strike you have made troubling statements about showing no mercy and no quarter to the iranians orders that would constitute war crimes as importantly fighting and dying overseas you have focused unduly on your own personal agenda in the past two months alone you have taken upon yourself to overhaul the chaplain corps cancel flu vaccine requirements repeal firearm restrictions on military posts and bar service members from attending certain universities just this week you brought performer kid rock to an army base to go for a joyride in an apache helicopter after dismissing an earlier investigation into the pilots who recklessly chose to hover above his home that runs directly counter to the chain of command and maintaining good order and discipline most disturbingly during your tenure you have fired dozens of our most senior military leaders and personally intervened to block the promotions of many others that is a betrayal of the merit-based system that forms the foundation of our military you are hollering out the military's bench of experience and high highest performing senior officers while making young officers wonder if they should continue to serve my colleagues and i have heard from countless service members throughout the ranks many of whom we'll be watching right now who are confused and disturbed by your actions uh hopefully you can explain them today additionally this committee expects a fulsome update on operation southern sphere this ongoing campaign against suspected drug trafficking boats has resulted in nearly two hundred fatalities the administration has failed to explain the long-term objectives of this mission or provide any evidence of reduced drug flows into the united states i would ask for a credible answer to this most fundamental question what is the operation actually meant to accomplish mrs. exery you are here to promote the president's one point five trillion dollar defense budget while this budget provides funding for necessary programs including shipbuilding and drone manufacturing many other critical programs like barracks repair and aircraft procurement would rely on the passage of a party-line reconciliation bill further this budget slashes research and development provides no funding for ukraine and includes no funding for losses incurred from the iran war yesterday mister hearst testified that operation epic fury has cost twenty five billion dollars if nothing else that help clarifies that we certainly do not need a supplemental anywhere near one hundred billion dollars much less two hundred billion dollars and in this record breaking budget there is no pay adjustments for the civilian workforce and with inflation that is a pay cut after a year of doge layoffs and a hiring freeze across the department this is an insult to the eight hundred thousand men and women who support our war fighters everyday i cannot imagine a faster way to erode readiness and distract from our abilities to deter our adversaries ultimately mr. secretary i believe you are causing lasting harm to the military like many members of this committee i had the and the privilege of serving in the military and every officer knows they are duty bound to give their best professional advice even if it is not what their superiors want to hear because when leaders fear to speak honestly people die missions fail wars are lost the american people's trust in our military took two hundred and fifty years to build you are dismantling it in a fraction of that time and trust once long can take generations to rebuild. Mr. Secretary, today I hope you'll take a step forward toward rebuilding the trust that has been lost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:06:03 – 1:06:08

Mr. Secretary, you are now recognized for your opening statement, sir.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:06:11 – 1:09:56

Well, Mr. Chairman, uh, Ranking Member Reid, Senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of President Trump's historic, as you said, Mr. Chairman, one point five trillion dollar fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget for the Department of War. The President's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing both the deferment of long-standing problems as well as positioning our forces for the current and future fights. I'm honored to appear alongside General Dan Kane, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Jay Hurst, our Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller. I'd like to start by thanking this committee and Congress, for your partnership in securing the investments needed for a stronger, prouder, and more secure military. Your focus on acquisitions, your focus on efficiency are the reflection in our department as well and in this, as well and in this budget. A nation's ability to build, to innovate, and to support the critical needs of its warfighters at speed and at scale, is the foundation upon which its deterrence and survival rests. However, upon taking office on January twentieth, twenty twenty five, President Trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America last policies, resulting in a diminished capacity to project strength. Under the previous administration, we were offshoring outsourcing, beset by cost overruns and degraded capabilities. But under the leadership of President Trump, our Builder-in-Chief, we are reversing this systemic decay and putting our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. Urgency informs everything we do. We're rebuilding a military that the American people can be proud of, one that instills nothing less than unrelenting fear in our adversaries, and inspires historic morale and recruiting in its ranks. We fight to win in every scenario. The one point five trillion dollar budget put forward by the president will build upon a previous one trillion dollar FY twenty-six top line. and will continue to reverse the four years of underinvestment and mismanagement of the Biden administration. The one point five trillion dollar budget will ensure that the United States continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with a complex threat environment across multiple theaters. Not to mention, the budget also includes a historic troop pay increase, seven percent for junior enlisted, And the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget. By supercharging our defense industrial capacity and transforming how the department does business, we are restoring American commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations transforming the defense industrial base from the broken, slow-moving systems of the past. We have flipped the Pentagon acquisition process from a bureaucratic model to a business model, decisively moving from a acquisitions environment paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape into an outcomes-driven organization, focused on delivering the most for taxpayer dollars. Over the past year, through historic multi-year procurement agreements that this committee supported, we've cut smart business deals that have sent unambiguous demand signals to industry to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great American factories and a massive reinvestment in the skilled American workers who serve as the industrial muscle behind our warriors.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:09:56 – 1:10:30

Like, that you're a warrior, Emmanuel. You should be arrested. Like, what you're doing is despicable. The American people do not want to go to the war. We don't wanna fight a war for any people. I mean, this is not, this is not, I mean, yeah. Is um, I don't know, maybe like further um interruptions of our hearing will will be treated in like manner. We appreciate the First Amendment rights of Americans to express uh themselves, but um disruption of this hearing will not be tolerated. So, Mister Secretary, you may continue.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:10:31 – 1:13:58

I'll bre- I'll briefly provide some concrete high-level metrics of what we've accomplished over just the past few months. These are announced new facilities and investments to support American warfighters. The department has helped stimulate more than two hundred and fifty private investment deals in thirty-nine states a hundred and eighty cities in a hundred and fifty companies worth more than fifty billion dollars. It's resulted in two hundred and eighty new or expanded facilities, more than eighteen million new square feet of American manufacturing, and more than seventy thousand new jobs. These fifty billion in investments in new plants, new assembly lines, and new factories are private investments, not taxpayer dollars. By completely transforming our department's business model, American companies are investing in America with their own dollars, a historic demonstration of American manufacturing and defense revitalization, all with their money, not Uncle Sam's. This has never been done before. and is long overdue from a bureaucratic model to a business model. These investments equal great things for America, for American families, and American workers, to ensure that our war fighters have everything they need, all American made. Together with the help of the policy updates and appropriations passed by Congress, President Trump's War Department has begun to turn the lights back on in our manufacturing towns across this country forging a lethal arsenal of Freedom. Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request serves to ensure that this department remains laser-focused on increasing lethality and survivability from the front lines to the factory floor. This is a historic budget, as you said, Mister Chairman. This is a fiscally responsible budget. And this is a war-fighting budget. Speaking of war-fighting, the topic of Iran, I'm sure, will come up often today, which I welcome. I look forward to sharing the incredible success of our military effort achieved in a matter of weeks. President Trump has the courage, has had, unlike other presidents, to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon and that their nuclear blackmail never succeeds. We have the best negotiator in the world driving a great deal. Unfortunately, as I said yesterday and I'll say it again today, The biggest advi- adversary we face at this point are the reckless naysayers and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Defeatists from the cheap seats who two months in seek to undermine the incredible efforts that have been undertaken and the historic nature of taking on a forty-seven year threat with the courage no other president has had to great success and great opportunity for preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Despite this, under President Trump, we are restoring the unbreakable might of American manufacturing. We're providing for our war fighters, and we are putting the people and interests of this country first. May almighty God continue to watch over our troops wherever they are, and may we honor the legacy of those brave Americans that we have lost. This is our sacred mission, and this is what we will continue to execute on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:13:58 – 1:14:01

Thank you for that statement, Mr. Secretary, General Kang, you're recognized.

Dan Caine (Witness)1:14:02 – 1:21:53

Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, members of the committee, and your staff, who we never get to say thanks to. Thanks for having me today. I'm honored to be here alongside the Honorable Pete Hegseth and the Honorable Jay Hurst to testify on the President's fiscal twenty twenty seven budget. I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify today and I'm thankful for continued partnership in support of our warfighters, defending the homeland and our interests around the world. It's a privilege to speak with you today about the foundation of America's strength, the two point eight million members of our joint force. And I am continually inspired by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, coast guardsmen, and civilians, standing the watch for the nation, supported always by their families. They could have chosen a much easier path, any other path, but they volunteered for a life of purpose and passion and service. And every single day they rise to meet the nation's challenge challenges from combat operations to critical support roles with the courage tenacity and grit, that keeps our nation strong and secure. I would also like to express my deep gratitude for the thirty-nine members of the joint force who've passed in operations, combat, and training during my time as the chairman, and specifically highlight the fourteen who've passed in Operation Epic Fury. The secretary and I are deeply grateful for each of them and their families, and their names will never be forgotten. As the chairman, my duty is to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military options and the associated risks required to make the nation's hardest and most complex decisions. I owe the President, the Secretary, and the Congress the truth at every turn. And my blueprint for this role has always been that of General George C. Marshall. His firm commitment to civilian control and nonpartisan and a nonpartisan military remains my constant standard. And I strive to emulate his candor, delivering the facts leaders need to hear, not always what they wanna hear. And once a decision is made, executing it with the absolute dedication, while keeping the joint force precisely where it should be. That's the demand of our profession. As I sit before you today, representing our incredible joint force, I wanna emphasize my commitment to this committee and to the Congress. I will always follow General Marshall's steadfast example by providing clear and candid, non-partisan military advice, working together to ensure the military remains squarely focused on one thing, being prepared to deter and, if called upon, fight and win our nation's war. And that is our mission. America's joint force is operational at its core, purpose-built for the realities in a complex world. We're organized, trained, and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision. And over the past year, our war fighters have consistently demonstrated exactly what it means to be the most capable and most professional force on Earth. Our shared goal is to ensure the joint force remains the strategic - sustains the strategic initiative and advantage an ability to project power to respond to the global challenges on our nation's uh terms. During Operation Rough Rider, Midnight Hammer, Southern Spear, Absolute Resolve, and Epic Fury, the joint force executed globally integrated missions alongside our inter-agency and international partners. And once our leaders made a decision, our forces demonstrated the unmatched ability to seamlessly synchronize actions and activities from the seabed to cislunar space. We're able to accomplish these complex things that we are asked to do because we draw from a deep reservoir of training professionalism and commitment. Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it, rebuilding readiness every day, training professionals every day, and sharpening our edge every day. And I am incredibly proud of this joint and the leaders at every echelon who command it. As the Chairman said, we are living in a complex environment. Today I look forward to discussing how we can sustain America's military advantage. And I know this committee recognizes the challenges and the urgency in the environment that we face. We're operating in delicate and dangerous times, where risk is scaling and the complexity of the modern battlefield demands America's constant adaptation, innovation, and partnership with Congress. As a joint force, we're up to the challenge. We're built for this environment. However, our continued success is not guaranteed by our past achievements. We must continue to be forward-looking and innovate together with the Congress. To drive the pace of change and maintain our superiority requires timely, predictable and sustained investment. And the resources we're going to discuss today are critical to modernizing the joint force and ensuring whatever threats might emerge, we are prepared to defeat them, to protect our interests and defend the nation and wind. This president's budget for twenty twenty seven supports the secretary and the department's goal of re-invigorating recharging the defense industrial base and the national industrial base enhancing our readiness and securing our military advantage, to ensure that our war fighters are properly armed, globally integrated, and ready while always taking care of our people. And that is what truly sets America's joint force apart from each other, especially the one point eight million members, enlisted members of our joint force. It is them, the character, the competence of that force that transforms our capabilities into a decisive advantage. And our enlisted force is represented today by the senior enlisted to the, to uh advisor to the chairman, uh United States Navy Fleet Master Chief Dave Isom sitting behind me, a teammate who I greatly appreciate and many of on, many of you on this committee know from his time in the Indo-Pacific. While we face dynamic and dangerous times, I have absolute trust and confidence in the extraordinary men and women within our joint force, who every day execute the missions we ask them to quietly and with precision. And coupled with the American spirit to out-think, out-compete, and relentlessly innovate, we will maintain our decisive edge. But doing so requires your continued partnership. We stand ready today to answer the nation's call. I humbly ask that as we're here today in this hearing, we remember those deployed service members who are out there right now doing our nation's work. And may we always forget our or for remember our fallen and never forget them or their families who continue to show us what courage looks like. Thank you for your enduring support and I look forward to your questions.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:21:53 – 1:22:20

Uh, thank you very much, General. We appreciate your service. Uh, let's jump right in. Secretary Hegseth, let's talk about the money from reconciliation one point zero last year there been some complaints about the speed but um not everything we hear is actually accurate how much of the one hundred fifty four billion dollars from reconciliation has the pentagon put on contract

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:22:21 – 1:22:47

my understanding mr. chairman uh first i'd like to say what an important vehicle reconciliation was for us and how how it gave us a chance coming out of fy twenty five to advance the president's priorities whether it's drone dominance golden dome for america ship building the defense industrial base, it was a critical vehicle for us uh the number you're looking for is about what i'm looking at about twenty six billion right now uh but we've got the floodgates about to open and and apply to those priorities.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:22:47 – 1:23:15

ok so um unfortunately you're starting a bit late um through no fault of your own because the money was not sent timely by the office of management and budget to until last month. That's over and done with, but it should be mentioned. Mister Secretary, where are we um on the obligation rates um a- as as far as a uh a normal appropriation bill? Are we a little behind, a little ahead, or what?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:23:16 – 1:23:53

I would say probably a l- a little bit behind as it pertains to reconciliation, but part of that is, as you know, uh, this is a new funding vehicle for the department. Uh, and it twofold one you gotta make sure you do it right and do it in a physically responsible way in conjunction with the congress to ensure that we meet congressional intent but also that we we've been using it to energize our ability to exercise new pathways to get at problems in in in different and more dynamic ways that don't get stovepipers stuck in the bureaucracy we've so yes there's been some some uh some delays but ultimately i think it's it's all goodness on the other side given the the the the new nature of this funding vehicle

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:23:53 – 1:24:14

uh right yes well and and things have been done differently and we appreciate that. But, Mister Secretary, will you commit to us that you'll keep the committee informed frequently of your efforts to get all this money out the door, so our industrial base can start building as you have described in this new, uh, flexibility that we provided them.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:24:15 – 1:24:16

Absolutely.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:24:16 – 1:24:54

Um, and, and you mentioned a few things in, um, in reconciliation that you think have, have been uh, game-changers. Uh, we've um, I do, I don't think we've talked enough about some of the game-changers. Uh, uh, for years we failed to take action on rebuilding America's drone industrial base and critical mineral mineral supply chains. Um, after last reconciliation bill and the National Defense Authorization Act, we're in a very different position on drones and critical mineral mineral supply chains. Are we not?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:24:55 – 1:25:20

Very much so. Uh, mineral supply chains, drones. We went from GIATA-four O one to an autonomous warfare group. We're looking at the concept of a sub-unified command, and you're and you're looking at fifty-four billion dollars in the FY twenty-seven budget dedicated to drone dominance, UAS counter UAS, ensuring we can scale not just exquisite drones, but also the attritable ones that are, uh, proliferating on the battlefield today. We we need to be ahead.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:25:20 – 1:25:27

Are there any other initiatives from last year's bill that you wanna point out. And, and you only have a minute and a half.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:25:26 – 1:25:29

I would, no, I would, I think the, no, the investment in Golden Dome for America,

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:25:29 – 1:25:29

Right.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:25:29 – 1:25:55

the ability to get running on that, and we are on schedule for, to deliver capabilities inside this administration. Uh, minerals and shoring up supply chains on minerals, the office of strategic capital, which, its ability to loan gives ten X to new entrants into the, into the department. The opportunity to fund things that wouldn't normally meet the threshold for the department, but give them the running room to invest. uh in those capabilities and we've already seen fruit from that as well.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:25:55 – 1:26:07

And briefly, General Kane, there's no question that Vladimir Putin's Russia is uh taking serious action to undermine our efforts for success in Iran. Is there any question about that?

Dan Caine (Witness)1:26:10 – 1:26:18

Uh, Senator, uh, um, I think there's actions and activities that are mindful of the hearing room we're in, but there's there's there's definitely some action there.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:26:18 – 1:26:23

Thank you very much. Um, Senator senator reid you're recognized

Sen. Reed (RI)1:26:23 – 1:26:47

alright thank thank you very much mr. chairman uh mister secretary you recently fired the army chief of staff general randy george uh who is one of the most distinguished and decorated officers of this generation general uh george's nomination came before us we reviewed it thoroughly and we concurred uh why did you fire general george

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:26:50 – 1:27:17

Well, as I did then and I'll say now, we thank General George for his service. Uh, and out of respect to him and other officers, we never talk about the nature of - of, uh, why certain officers are asked to step down. Uh, but we all serve at the pleasure of the president. And ultimately, my view in - in, uh, coming into this department, as I stated in my confirmation hearing, was to change the culture of the department. And it's ultimately challenging to change the tarp department, uh,

Sen. Reed (RI)1:27:42 – 1:27:47

i- interesting uh of the two dozen officers that you have fired

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:27:44 – 1:27:44

uh

Sen. Reed (RI)1:27:45 – 1:28:02

two dozen officers that you have fired for reasons unrelated to performance, since you have not indicated any cores, sixty percent are black or females. Uh, now, did the president direct you to single out female and black offices to be dismissed?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:28:05 – 1:28:28

Senator, uh, of course not. And as we've emphasized at this department from the beginning, the only metric is merit. Uh, this, this, members on this committee and the previous leadership of this department were focused on hype, you know, social engineering, race and gender, in ways that we think were unhealthy for the department. Focusing on those things, making decisions based on those things.

Sen. Reed (RI)1:28:28 – 1:28:28

OK.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:28:28 – 1:28:37

In President Trump's war department, we make decisions based on only one thing, merit. And that's how we've made decisions going forward. That's how we've made them and that's how we'll make them going forward.

Sen. Reed (RI)1:28:37 – 1:28:44

Well, let me go back to General George. Uh, what did he fail in terms of his lack of merit to continue serving?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:28:46 – 1:29:05

As i- as i- said, i don't talk about the nature of dismissal out of respect for these officers. No, you you use it use that as an excuse and then you don't talk about it. But ultimately, we wanna take the department in a particular direction, certain services in a particular direction, and we want leadership that's running as fast in that direction as possible. And in some cases we make changes accordingly, uh, but do so out of respect to those officers.

Sen. Reed (RI)1:29:05 – 1:29:27

Well, I think that direction from your behavior is, uh, an intense interest in Christianity uh in nationalism and in uh not uh recognizing the talents of uh women and uh non-white gentlemen and that's the wrong direction

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:29:27 – 1:29:32

uh i don't know what you're insinuating senator but i'm not ashamed of my faith in jesus christ

Sen. Reed (RI)1:29:32 – 1:29:34

well i'm i you shouldn't be ashamed

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:29:33 – 1:29:35

and if you wanna shame me for it go ahead

Sen. Reed (RI)1:29:35 – 1:29:40

i'm not shaming you but are you uh critical of other faiths

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:29:42 – 1:29:51

i am a believer i'm quite open in that and our department allows for a multitude of faiths so i don't i don't know what you're suggesting i've heard the likes of things that people like you suggest

Sen. Reed (RI)1:29:51 – 1:29:53

uh people are thank you

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:29:51 – 1:29:54

uh to try to smear my character and i won't give in to it

Sen. Reed (RI)1:29:54 – 1:29:54

no

Sen. Warren (MA)1:29:54 – 1:29:57

like people like you people like you

Sen. Reed (RI)1:29:57 – 1:31:35

i'm sorry mr. secretary but uh broadcasting before the national uh religious broadcasters stressing the need for more christianity in the military forces doesn't seem like a neutral position in which you tolerate and accept all religions. Let me move on. Uh The strategic aspects of this operation in Iran. Uh the president declared that "we're going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground." And after more than thirteen thousand strikes, unclassified assessments conclude that Iran retains more than forty percent of its drone arsenal, and sixty percent of its ballistic missile launches compared with pre war pre war levels that's one of his objectives the uh second objective was uh regime change to the great proud people of iran i say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand and we will finish take over your government well when we finish we'll take over your government that has not succeeded and then um one of his other things is the onset of the war the president said we will ensure that iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon military operations to iran have not achieved that goal yet and it also seems to uh indicate that his pronouncements about operation midnight hammer obliterating the nuclear uh uh policy and structure of the iranians was false so you have not achieved any of the objectives yet that has the president mentioned

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:31:38 – 1:33:06

Well, in this setting I won't talk about the nature of metrics which are, which are classified, as you know, Senator, but I can say that looking at the objectives we set out to achieve from the beginning, some of which you laid out, uh, our military cap- our military objectives have been uh stunningly effective. Um, look, take for example their defense industrial base. They're completely incapable at scale at any level of reconstituting the capabilities you referred to. which is a devastating result for any country, uh, especially one whose ambitions are as wide as Iran's. Uh, so we've put the president in a very strong position to ensure, uh, Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. That's, that's the takeaway that's been underneath every single aspect of this. For forty-seven years, Iran's trying to blackmail its way to a nuclear weapon. They were closer than ever before because of bad deals under previous administration. President Trump was willing to do something about it and not allow their conventional missile shield. That's the North Korea strategy. That's, to be clear, what Iran was pursuing. Hiding their nuclear ambitions, revealing them over time, and then building a conventional shield of missiles, so powerful that no country would challenge them for fear of what would happen if they unleashed that arsenal. Weekend after the Twelve Day War and Midnight Hammer, which did obliterate their their their sites, President Trump saw an opportunity because their ambitions continued to ensure that umbrella of nuclear blackmail did not allow them to get to a nuclear weapon. And the world is safer because of his bold and historic choice.

Sen. Reed (RI)1:33:09 – 1:33:14

Mr. Secretary, I think that's rhetorical, but not factual. Thank you.

Sen. Fischer (NE)1:33:15 – 1:34:13

Thank you, Senator Reid. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Hearst, General Kane, welcome. Over the last several months I've worked closely with some of the new direct reporting program managers and I've been encouraged by how they're approaching the department's most complexed acquisition systems. General White's pulled forward the next milestone for the sentinel program by at least six months. General Gutlein has completed the initial blueprint for the Golden Dome architecture and is beginning to build it out. For years, this committee has known that we must improve our ability to defend our homeland against a wider variety of threats. And we finally have a partner with the full backing of the department to lead the charge. Mister Secretary, what's the advantage of this new type of program management structure?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:34:15 – 1:35:10

Well, thank you for the question, Senator. It's it's acquisition authority, technical authority, contracting authority. It's consolidating decision-making in one place. under a highly screened highly capable general general white and general guideline who know that terrain extremely well uh and understand what mistakes have been made in the past in programs of that magnitude and then are given the authority to cut through the red tape they that's the key there there's the it's success or failure lands with them and they know it and as a result they're incentivized to insure that program and then given every dollar and authority needed to move it as quickly as possible so whether it's sentinel whether it's F forty seven, whether it's Golden Dome for America, these critical strategic assets, the direct report uh it it construct, along with Deputy Secretary Feinberg, who is a national treasure, uh and is changing the way we do business at this department, is giving us a chance to insure these critical systems are delivered.

Sen. Fischer (NE)1:35:11 – 1:35:26

Thank you. And General Kane, can you uh give us your thoughts on why the Golden Dome received the rec- why they must receive that requested fifteen billion dollars in funding for the fiscal year twenty seven.

Dan Caine (Witness)1:35:26 – 1:35:52

Well, Senator, it's a, as you know, it's a, it's an essential part of our homeland security layered defense. And as, as General Gutlein begins to do the work that you're asking about and frankly helping to advance, um, you know, the the insurance around that down payment, charging the defense industrial base with those capital allocations, will allow them to get after it much much quicker we appreciate the help.

Sen. Fischer (NE)1:35:52 – 1:35:54

And if there's a delay in that funding?

Dan Caine (Witness)1:35:56 – 1:36:00

Well I I hopefully there won't be Senator cuz we got a a leader on that account,

Sen. Fischer (NE)1:35:58 – 1:35:59

Hopefully there won't be.

Dan Caine (Witness)1:36:00 – 1:36:19

twenty four seven three sixty five, but if we do we'll always um of course come back and and talk to the Congress but also figure out what has to be true to uh help that constraint get removed in that production system. And that's really what we're asking these leaders to do is to be able to

Sen. Fischer (NE)1:36:20 – 1:37:08

OK, thank you. Uh, Secretary Haegseth, I agree with your statement on nuclear deterrence, when you said nothing else matters if we don't get this right, so we will. We need a modernized nuclear triad and NC three architecture that can credibly deter multiple adversaries. Instead of an insufficient nuclear force structure based on fundamentally flawed assumptions made sixteen years ago. Our presidents must also have a more diverse set of options so that they can effectively manage more complex nuclear escalation dynamics. So, Mister Secretary, how does this budget request achieve those objectives?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:37:10 – 1:37:53

Well, thank you for your leadership on this issue for a very long time. Uh, first and foremost, it it invests in it. seventy one billion dollars in our our nuclear triad and n c three understanding that if you get that wrong you get everything else wrong frankly it's why the iran effort is so important imagine what the situation in the region would look like if iran also wielded a nuclear weapon and the limits it would put on our capabilities in those situations our adversaries have to deal with that dilemma because of the strength of our nuclear triad so that seventy one billion dollar investment the dirt bombs that have been put over top of it to move those systems left, as you acknowledged, uh, it it's it's just been a priority since we came in into the into the building and we're funding it accordingly.

Sen. Fischer (NE)1:37:55 – 1:38:17

And Chairman Kane, uh, Secretary Haegset, uh, whoever would like to answer this, should our nuclear command control and communication systems, like the SAIC, be given the same level of priority as Congress considers the department's budget request, as our n- as our triad.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:38:19 – 1:38:21

Mm, I I think so, but I defer to the chairman.

Dan Caine (Witness)1:38:23 – 1:38:26

Ye- yeah, yes, ma'am, we gotta be able to see to anything. So, yes, ma'am.

Sen. Fischer (NE)1:38:27 – 1:38:30

Thank you. Senator Shaheen, you are recognized.

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:38:32 – 1:39:19

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Secretary Hegseth, Congress enacted four hundred million dollars to provide security assistance to Now the committee received a notification just yesterday confirming only that the funding would go toward Ukraine. It contained no details about the type of equipment, no delivery timelines, nothing that is typically included in these notifications. And when asked about the delay in funding, the committee was told that Bridge Colby was developing a spend plan, but we've received nothing. So, when can we expect that? the full spend plan for this appropriation. And Madam Chair, can I, if this is not all already part of the record for the committee, can I um enter it into the record?

Unknown1:39:19 – 1:39:20

Without objection.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:39:23 – 1:39:44

We acknowledge and are and are executing on the European capacity-building amount of of four hundred million that you referred to. Uh, Under-Secretary Kolbe's done a great job looking at uh options and worked very closely with our European Commander. uh, General Grinkowitz, so his requests of what makes the most sense will inform what ultimately, uh, is invested in.

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:39:44 – 1:40:08

Well, this notification says that Ucom coordinated on the spend plan in March, but General Grinkovich told this committee on April sixteenth that he had not yet been asked to review any spend plan for this appropriation. So, General Kane, have you received the spend plan for funds in Ukraine? And have you asked the U Comm Commander for his concurrence?

Dan Caine (Witness)1:40:11 – 1:40:16

Uh, I do not believe so, but I will find out, Senator, and get back to you by the end of the day.

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:40:17 – 1:40:51

Thank you. Um, and yesterday, Mister Hurst, you told the House that you needed to seek legal review to appropriate the funds as Congress intended. So, can you share with us what the nature of that legal review is? And seems to me the law was pretty clear. I saw it. It was part of the um defense appropriations bill that we passed in January. And as you know, violating congressional intent on appropriating funds is a violation of the Impoundment Control Act. So what's the nature of the legal review that you have to get?

Jay Hurst (Witness)1:40:52 – 1:41:02

Thanks for the question, Senator. What we're looking at is if we could use the funds in the same manner as USAI. And we had our counsel look at that. Uh, and so they provided us a legal opinion on how the funds could be used to

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:41:04 – 1:41:08

And can you share with this committee what that legal opinion is?

Jay Hurst (Witness)1:41:09 – 1:41:13

Ma'am, I don't have a copy of that, but we can ask the OGC office if they can supply it to you.

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:41:13 – 1:42:00

Um, Madam Chair, can we ask that that um legal opinion is shared with the committee? I believe this is it. Officially? Thank you. Um, also I don't know who can answer this, but it says that um consistent with the President's priority to shift the financial burden of Ukraine's support to European partners, the United States will seek commensurate financial contributions via the prioritized Ukraine requirements list, or PEARL, from the European partners for this program. So, um, what's the justification for using PEARL when there's four hundred million dollars in appropriated funds? Can somebody answer this?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:41:59 – 1:42:03

Pearl, Pearl is a reflection of the President's priority in the belief that any weapons

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:42:02 – 1:42:04

No, I I understand that, but

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:42:03 – 1:42:09

that are supplied are paid for by European partners and used as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or somewhere else.

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:42:08 – 1:42:45

But but that was not the intent of Congress in providing that four hundred million. As I understand the Pearl program, um, the Europeans purchase those weapons from the United States and they pay for them. But this appropriation was four hundred million dollars that Congress expected to be provided to Ukraine, not paid for by the Europeans, but provided from the United States to support Ukraine. So, again, um, I don't understand what the justification is for using Pearl when that's not the intent that Congress provided.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:42:46 – 1:42:46

Uh,

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:42:46 – 1:42:47

So, can

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:42:46 – 1:43:00

we're we're following the intent of European capacity building, uh, and but at the same time recognizing that wherever Pearl can be utilized so that, you, the Europeans contribute to that fight, uh per the burden sharing approach this president takes is important

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:42:58 – 1:43:09

but that was not congressional intent and that's why i'm asking you why you're using pearl to do something that congress intended to go directly to ukraine

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:43:10 – 1:43:11

well we look forward to working with you on that

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:43:10 – 1:43:20

mister hearst can you answer that what was the legal opinion on this have did you ask the attorneys if the four hundred million could be used for the pearl program

Jay Hurst (Witness)1:43:21 – 1:43:23

let's get back to you we'll take it for the record ma'am

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:43:24 – 1:43:36

thank you and What portion of the funding that's committed from the Europeans under Pearl is being used to assist Ukraine rather than restocking our own shelves? Can you answer that?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:43:36 – 1:43:46

Um, that's up to, that's up to Europe. Ultimately, uh, Europe pays for at any weapons that we provide, and they can utilize them as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or otherwise.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:43:47 – 1:43:49

Uh, thank you, Senator Shaheen.

Sen. Shaheen (NH)1:43:47 – 1:43:49

So Thank you.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:43:49 – 1:44:06

There've been a number of times when our witnesses have uh, stated both in the closed hearing and up here that they would get back to us. And we, we certainly hope that will happen, um, very expeditiously. So thank you very much and thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Cotton.

Sen. Cotton (AR)1:44:07 – 1:45:05

Thank you gentlemen for your appearance today. Um, Mister Secretary, you provided us with a chart here entitled the arsenal of freedom, um, which includes a lot of sites that you visited. My, my favorite one is down here in South Arkansas. Camden, where you and I had a chance to visit just a couple months ago, um, highlighting the great work that the people there are doing to help rebuild, um, our arsenal of freedom. Um, thank you, first off, for being there, and for your kind words for the workforce of the people of South Arkansas. Uh, i- isn't it fair to say that - that the war in Iran, just like the Ukraine war, uh, before it and still today, hasn't caused any challenges with our munitions, the way some of our democratic's colleagues would say. But it's exposed a decades-old problem of brittleness and fragility in our defense industrial base before you and General Kane took over and that we're trying to address right now.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:45:06 – 1:45:54

Um, in many ways that's precisely what we're trying to address. We also have a situation where President Trump rebuilt our military in the first term and a lot of those munitions and a lot of those capabilities were sent to Ukraine previous administration to the point where when we ask our commanders or when we look at old plans, the answer often is that was sent to Ukraine. So the recognition of those two things has, as the president gave us a charge from day one to rebuild the arsenal of freedom, to fast-forward, not to provide a little bit more of each thing, but two X, three X, four X, the number of exquisite munitions that we need. The expenditures that we've seen under this administration, we can we can account for them and we ensure that other old plans and elsewhere are well taken care of. So on the munitions front, we're in really good shape. But we need to accelerate and that's exactly what we're doing.

Sen. Cotton (AR)1:45:54 – 1:46:15

And I, and I, I think that's an important point you make, is that we're not just trying to fill a hole that was created by epic fury or, or by support for Ukraine. We're gonna fill that, and then go much beyond that for our needs in the future. So we're never caught where we were, um, over the last several years, uh, with wor- wor- these worries about munitions running short. Is that right, Mr. Secretary?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:46:15 – 1:46:31

That's exactly right. The president has charged up with not just replacing anything, but filling it up, as he might say, to the tippy top, and make sure that the remainder of this term and future presidents have all the munitions they need for any level of contingencies especially considering the dangerous world we live in.

Sen. Cotton (AR)1:46:31 – 1:47:02

Um, I wanna turn now to Operation Epic Fury. It's been a smashing military success. Um, unfortunately we have suffered casualties to include soldiers killed in the line of action. Um, obviously our military takes the greatest steps possible to protect our troops, whether they are in action or whether they are on bases in the region. Um, no war though is antiseptic. Uh, Mister Secretary, could you explain some of the steps we've taken to try to minimize to the greatest extent we can uh the number of casualties we've taken in the Middle East?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:47:03 – 1:48:18

First of all, every um, every day we live to ensure that we follow through on the legacy of those who gave everything. So that's front and center for us. But I can also say, and I, and the Chairman may wanna weigh in, from the beginning of looking at the the the possibility of this contingency, setting the defense and ensuring that Admiral Cooper and everyone throughout CENTCOM had every possible measure they could to ensure that our troops' protection and force protection was maximized was the top priority. Moving assets to the region, we integrated our air defenses with local Gulf C- with Gulf countries to ensure our shot doctrine was maximized whether it's, ballistic missiles or on drones, uh, flowing in the most recent uh, capabilities to ensure we can intercept drones, moving troops off the X. I think what people mostly don't know is that a massive effort was undertaken before this conflict to move as many humans off of targets to other places, and maintain operational security about where they might be, to minimize the space with which Iran could hit. We always knew something getting through was - was a possi- was a tragic possibility. But I can assure you from our perspective, That was priority number one as it was Admiral Cooper's to ensure that fortification and missile defenses were right there when we went on offense, if we had to.

Sen. Cotton (AR)1:48:19 – 1:48:20

General Kane, do you have anything to add?

Dan Caine (Witness)1:48:21 – 1:48:44

Well, in addition to just again mourning our fallen from the hundred and third, what I'll add to the secretary's comments is after every tragic loss, commanders at every echelon within our joint force are gonna go back and look at what was our plan and what lessons we can learn from this so that we protect and defend uh our soldiers sailors and other members of the joint force the next time.

Sen. Cotton (AR)1:48:45 – 1:49:01

Thank you, and I know you do, and I just wanted to give you the opportunity to speak to what you've done to try to prevent um casualties and and minimize them. Obviously again no war is antiseptic. One final question, I understand you've been accused of lying to the president. Uh, Mister Hexeth have you lied to the president at all uh about what's happening in Iran or Epic Fury?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:49:02 – 1:49:04

No, only tell the truth to the president.

Sen. Cotton (AR)1:49:04 – 1:49:08

General Kane, have you lied to the president about what's happening in Iran or Operation Epic Fury?

Dan Caine (Witness)1:49:08 – 1:49:09

Never.

Sen. Cotton (AR)1:49:09 – 1:49:20

I suspected that would be your answer, but since you're accused of it and deep-staters are leaking to the media about it as well, I just wanted to give you a chance to answer on the record that of course you've always given the president a completely accurate picture of what's happening. Thank you, gentlemen.

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:49:20 – 1:49:23

Thank you very much, Senator Cotton. Senator Gillibrand and then Senator Rounds.

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:49:24 – 1:50:58

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before this committee, and thank you for the closed session prior to this. I don't know if you fully appreciate how much the American people do not support this war. It is an unauthorized war. Normally when you come to Congress, it's a way for the American people to be part of that discussion. The American people, particularly in this, my state of New York, are upset for a lot of reasons. First of all, this war is costing so much money. Over twenty-five billion dollars already, estimates a billion dollars a day, and they're feeling it every single day at the gas pump with higher prices, for both fuel, for diesel, for gasoline for their cars. They're also feeling it with higher grocery costs, and they're exhausted. They are truly exhausted. On top of that, on top of that, they have so many grave concerns about how this war is being prosecuted. They read in the paper that twenty-two schools have been hit. They read in the paper about a girl's school, hundreds getting killed. We have a debate going on in this country about AI. A serious debate about AI. And I haven't heard yet from you that you will not allow AI to make final de- targeting determinations even when nuclear weapons are being used. That's a huge issue that we need to discuss. So I want to start from the top, Secretary Hegseth. Why do you continue to prosecute a war that the American people aren't behind?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:51:01 – 1:51:11

Uh, first of all, I appreciate the opportunity for that closed session where we had a unsurprisingly very different discussion than we have here with the cameras on. Um, we support this.

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:51:10 – 1:51:24

I'm here because my job is to represent New Yorkers and I can tell you when I talk to them all across my state they are furious and they expect me to explain to them why they are furious.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:51:24 – 1:51:47

And, Senator, when I talk to Americans, and especially when I talk to the troops, they are grateful for a president who has the courage to take on this threat after forty-seven years of what Iran has done targeting and killing Americans. and what it would mean to the world if Iran's nuclear ambitions were actually achieved. So the question I would ask to you and to others is, what is the cost of a nuclear-armed Iran? What is the cost to the American people if the

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:51:45 – 1:51:49

You know that that is a rhetorical question that you are asking everyone.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:51:47 – 1:51:49

world's most dangerous regime has a nuclear weapon?

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:51:50 – 1:52:11

But the truth is, they don't want war coming to this shore, and when you do a decapitation operation, the likelihood is going to be exchanged in the United States. There's no evidence that we are safer because of this war. We did not have any evidence that Iran intended to imminently attack this country in any way, shape or form. So I disagree with your assessment that we are under threat.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:52:11 – 1:52:13

Do you not believe them when they say death to America?

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:52:11 – 1:52:29

And you have not e- Listen, our adversaries use rhetoric all the time. What I'm concerned about is we are not safer, and I would just like to know why you have not sought the support of the American people and three out of five Americans are against this war today.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:52:31 – 1:53:05

Um. I believe we do have the support of the American people, and we have briefed regularly what this mission looks like, and why it's critically important that we undertake it. And I would remind you and this group that we're two months in to an effort. And many congressional Democrats, as I pointed out, want to declare defeat two months in. Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? And they were nebulous missions that people went along with. This is different. This is a defined mission set. that we have had great success in pursuing against a determined enemy who seeks nuclear weapons.

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:53:02 – 1:53:04

So you don't care, you don't care.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:53:05 – 1:53:08

And I'm and I'm I'm proud of the opportunity to remind the American

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:53:06 – 1:53:10

So, Mister Hegsath, you don't care that the American people are not supporting this war.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:53:08 – 1:53:10

people cause they believe in it as well that they can't have it.

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:53:11 – 1:53:14

You don't care whether the American people support this war.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:53:12 – 1:53:22

But the American people and their the American people are quite smart. They understand and see through spin. They know that a regime that says death to America, that seeks nuclear weapons,

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:53:22 – 1:53:23

And at what cost?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:53:22 – 1:53:25

and the ability to deliver. Did they lie about the range of their missiles?

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:53:25 – 1:53:26

How much more?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:53:25 – 1:53:27

Cuz I I saw four thousand

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:53:27 – 1:53:31

How much more will you ask American people to pay for this war?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:53:27 – 1:53:32

kilometer missile get shot at Diego Garcia.

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:53:31 – 1:53:39

Right now, do you want it a billion dollars a day? Do you want two billion dollars a day? You're asking for two hundred billion dollars more to fund this war, and to make sure we have a we-

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:53:39 – 1:53:45

We didn't ask for two hundred billion dollars. I don't know where you got that number from, Senator. I think you got it from the news, which you should be careful where you, what you read in the news.

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:53:46 – 1:54:22

OK, Mister Hegseth, here, Secretary Hegseth, here's a few more. Let's talk about how you're prosecuting the war. What is your response to targeting has resulted in the destruction of schools, hospitals, civilian places, why did you cut by ninety percent the division that's supposed to help you, not target civilians? And do you know the impact of a strategic failure at a war, when you have so many civilian casualties? You may have tactically completed a mission well, but strategically is not meeting your goals because of the harms to civilians. What is the cost of that?

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:54:20 – 1:54:23

Let let's leave time for an answer.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:54:24 – 1:54:37

Uh, no military, no country works harder at every echelon to ensure they protect civilian lives than the United States military. And that is a ironclad commitment that we make, no matter how, no matter what systems we use.

Sen. Gillibrand (NY)1:54:36 – 1:54:38

And why did you cut the department by ninety percent?

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:54:39 – 1:54:44

Thank, thank you, Senator Gillibrand. There'll be other rounds of questions. Um, Senator Rounds, you are now recognized.

Sen. Rounds (SD)1:54:45 – 1:55:04

Thank you, mis- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, first of all, thank you to all of you for your service to our country. Um, let me just, I'll allow you to finish the answer a little bit with regard uh to the Senator from New York. Does the United States military ever target a civilian center?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:55:05 – 1:55:26

Well, thank you, Senator. Unlike our adversaries, unlike radical Islamists, unlike those that target civilians or use civilians as shields, the United States military ab- never target civilians and puts constructs in place to ensure that the maximum extent possible, we do not harm or or hit civilians.

Sen. Rounds (SD)1:55:27 – 1:55:27

Do you still have

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:55:27 – 1:55:34

Is war is war a difficult place with a lot of complexities? Absolutely right. But no country does more and no department does more than than our department.

Sen. Rounds (SD)1:55:35 – 1:55:51

Do you still have all of the resources necessary to assure that every uh uh uh opportunity to eliminate that as a threat in terms of that happening? Do we still have the resources available in the department to make sure that we do the best we can never to hit a civilian target.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:55:51 – 1:56:20

Every resource necessary at every echelon is available, legal, intel, and otherwise, to ensure that we minimize at every extent possible civilian casualties. And the suggestion was made that somehow AI might be used without a human in the loop, which is a classic anthropic talking point, which is half of what uh we talked about previously. Uh, there is a human in the loop on decisions that are made. Uh, and the suggestion otherwise is to suggest that somehow AI is running targeting.

Sen. Rounds (SD)1:56:20 – 1:57:37

Thank you. Um. Right now, part of what we're also talking about is isn't not just are we engaged right now, in terms of trying to eliminate the threat from Iran, in terms of being a nuclear-armed country, but we've also got staring with us as well. The fact that we have an ongoing principal threat with regard to a pacing threat with China. The dual capable b-twenty one raider will be a critical part of both our conventional and our nuclear deterrence against china and russia as you know the air force's program of record includes plans to procure one hundred b-twenty ones but many national security experts and leaders including stratcom commander admiral karell and indopay comm commander admiral paparo are calling for a greater number of b-twenty ones admiral paparo testified here last week that he would favor buying two hundred b twenty ones uh secretary hagseth and chairman kane could you speak to the progress and the importance of the b twenty one program and if you agree with the growing sentiment that the us needs to revisit the b twenty one program of record and assess the requirement for at least two hundred b twenty ones to match the global threat would you would you speak just to exactly what that would mean and what the probability of that is

Pete Hegseth (Witness)1:57:39 – 1:58:20

thank you for the question and and i appreciate the fact that you're listening to and hearing from combatant commanders, because that's who we listen to as well, who are looking at the operational plans and what would be required to ensure we deter an if necessary defeat. Assets like the B-twenty-one or the F-forty-seven are critical to that. That's why we're funding them and increasing the funding, and where necessary would increase the allocation. Uh, and I think you see a a budget that reflects the the the reality that we have to invest in more capabilities to include the B-twenty-one. uh, which is ahead of schedule, uh, and will, uh, we will be funding to the tune of six billion and we believe, uh, will be require a lot more over a hundred in the future, but I'll defer to the chairman.

Dan Caine (Witness)1:58:20 – 1:59:09

Hey, sir. Uh, thank you for the question. Working working through the the JROC and the and the Vice Chief, so I'll absolutely stack hands around assessing the requirement. And we're glad to see B-twenty-one on the on the flight path, no pun intended, uh, uh, that it's on through through operational testing. Um, on the, on the specific numbers, the one sort of big picture strategic thing I wanna say is we, we'll ma- we wanna make sure as we think through what does air power of the future look like based on the evolving threat that we're staying well in front of it. And so that's the only thing we'll look at in the assessment. But I, I'm on board with assessing the numbers. Um, I wanna make sure we're buying ahead of the technology development curve so that we give all those young war fighters out there, the capabilities that we need well into the future.

Sen. Rounds (SD)1:59:09 – 1:59:14

Is there any question at all that we're gonna need more than one hundred B B B twenty-ones?

Dan Caine (Witness)1:59:15 – 1:59:30

Uh, I wanna go back, here's how I'll look at it, Senator, I wanna go back and look at the old plans right now that we have, uh, to make sure that we allocate those numbers, so I I I don't believe so, but I I do wanna take the due diligence time if you'll allow me to look at that, Senator.

Sen. Rounds (SD)1:59:30 – 1:59:37

Good, I'd appreciate the opportunity to visit with you and to uh, clarify what what that number should look like in the near future

Dan Caine (Witness)1:59:34 – 1:59:38

yes sir absolutely yes sir thank you very much

Sen. Rounds (SD)1:59:37 – 1:59:38

thank you very much

Sen. Wicker (MS)1:59:37 – 1:59:40

thank you very much senator Brown senator blumenthal

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)1:59:41 – 2:01:08

thank you mr. chairman uh thank you for being here today i wanna talk about the cost of war the cost of war include caring for our veterans we've had an estimate from mister hearst yesterday that the cost to date in dollars for this war has been twenty five billion dollars which i believe is well below the actual cost based on everything that i've heard everything available to us in various kinds of settings and i'm gonna ask for a more accurate assessment but we also know that about four hundred service members have been wounded as a result of this war when they retire when they come home their retirement pay will be docked dollar for dollar for every disability benefit dollar they receive. Secretary Hegseth, I'd like your commitment that you will support the Major Richard Starr Act that will eliminate this wounded warrior tax. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Tens of thousands of servicemen and women now are reduced in their retirement pay, literally, for every dollar of disability benefits they receive.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:01:09 – 2:01:25

Well, I appreciate your focus on this issue, and I will tell you of the, you - you mentioned roughly four hundred that - that have been injured, thankfully over ninety percent are returned to duty. Uh, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have a residual challenge. Uh, and we're tracking that at point of injury to ensure that that is noted, even though they're returned to duty.

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)2:01:25 – 2:01:28

But - but what I'd like is your commitment that you will support

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:01:26 – 2:01:26

But -

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)2:01:29 – 2:01:30

the major richard starr act

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:01:30 – 2:01:34

as i have said in the past to other organizations we support the richard starr act

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)2:01:34 – 2:02:03

thank you uh on the issue of cost uh mister hearst uh does that twenty five billion dollar estimate include all of the cost in terms of damage to our bases the need to replace planes and munitions and the costs of injuries to our servicemen and women.

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:02:05 – 2:02:14

Senator, so, uh, for the MilKon facilities replacement cost, that's probably the hardest thing to estimate right now, because we don't know what our future posture is going to be or the future construction of those bases.

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)2:02:14 – 2:02:20

Well, you owe it to us. You're here to ask for appropriations.

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:02:20 – 2:02:20

Of course.

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)2:02:20 – 2:03:58

And, uh, I would like a more accurate estimate of what has been done that will require replacement and renovation as well as the other costs and i think twenty five billion is probably less than half maybe less than a quarter of the total cost of war which is the reason why the supplemental request is much higher so i think you owe it to the american people to give us the straight talk about what the costs have been mr. secretary um i know you have characterized this war as a astonishing military success to use your words yesterday but the american people aren't buying it and i know you feel the american people are seeing through the abstruse stuff that is thrown at them but one point is irrefutable which is america never succeeds in war unless the american people are behind it and if what you're seeing is success now is winning i would hate to see what losing looks like because none of the shifting and contradictory objectives of the war so far have been achieved likewise let me ask you yesterday the president said that ukraine has been quote militarily defeated i assume you don't agree with that assessment.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:04:00 – 2:04:19

um the negative nature in which you characterize the incredible and historic effort in iran is part of the reason senator why the american people view it the way they do it's why i looked out at our press corps at the pentagon and called them the pharisees in the press is cause they look for every problem they you look for every problem that exists and you miss

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)2:04:15 – 2:04:21

well i'm asking you about ukraine do you believe ukraine has been militarily defeated

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:04:22 – 2:04:23

you miss the plank

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)2:04:22 – 2:04:32

i would submit based on my nine trips to ukraine that is a false narrative that the president is buying from vladmir putin i hope that

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:04:30 – 2:04:43

we are two months into a historic military success in iran and you wanna call it a defeat and it's defeatist democrats like you that cloud the mind of the american people and would and would otherwise fully support preventing iran from having a nuclear weapon

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)2:04:33 – 2:04:59

he will dispute it because it is the people of ukraine who are fighting for their survival fight no doubt from the administration and they are bravely fighting our fight and that is the reason that i'm pursuing the russian sanctions bill which is bipartisan along with senator graham and why I hope we will recognize our obligation to release that four hundred million dollars,

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:04:59 – 2:05:00

Thank you.

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)2:04:59 – 2:05:00

which we've appropriated.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:05:00 – 2:05:03

Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Ernst.

Sen. Ernst (IA)2:05:04 – 2:08:30

Thank you, Mister Chair, and and thank you gentlemen for being here today. I'm really do appreciate your time to be with us. Um, I before I I begin some of my questions, I do wanna start with something personal, and both to you, uh, Secretary Hegseth and to, uh, the Chairman, I wanna thank you both. uh, for the time that you take to recognize our fallen and those that have given, uh, of course during this administration, given they're all. Uh, you have traveled to Dover and have been there to greet those families and to welcome home the fallen. Uh, I've been there with you, and Iowa has been hit in particular very hard. Uh, we lost two of our Iowa National Guardsmen from the second brigade combat team thirty-fourth infantry division. Secretary Hegseth, you know full well the thirty-fourth. Um, but, uh, we also lost six members from the one O third Systema command expeditionary, uh, based out of Des Moines, Iowa, during this current conflict. And again, uh, your presence there meant a lot to the families, um, it also meant a lot to me. So, uh, thank you very much for taking the time to do that. Um, Secretary Hegseth, you and I have had many discussions, um, over the course of many months now regarding general officer positions. And, you know, I I believe that we were operating in good faith as we talked through a couple of those, in particular, two Iowans, General Mingus and General Randy George. Um, I was disappointed to see that their retirements were hastened, um, over what I I believed, uh, had been had been set out by you and the administration. So I just wanna take the time to list out some of General Randy George's accomplishments as Army Chief of Staff. Uh, he pulled the army out of its worst recruiting crisis since the Vietnam era, exceeding fiscal year twenty twenty-four recruiting goals and welcoming more than sixty-one thousand new soldiers. Um, recruitment numbers that both you and the president talk a lot about, and rightfully so. He cut five percent of general officer positions. twelve positions that were deemed as nonessential in the army. And he reduced the army headquarters by one thousand personnel. He co-authored the Army Transformation Initiative, which is a comprehensive response aligned with your directives. And he testified here in front of Congress and took a lot of heat defending that army transformation. Um, he was suddenly let go at the beginning of April. twenty twenty six um general georges merits which i firmly believe in he enlisted at the age of seventeen he is a west point graduate he had four combat deployments he served in desert storm iraq and afghanistan he had thirty eight years of honorable service he achieved the greatest army recruitment and modernization effort in a generation so i want to thank him uh for his service and i would like to enter into the record mister chair uh the speeches that i did honoring general randy a george on his retirement and general james j mingus on his retirement as well

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:08:30 – 2:08:32

without objection that'll be admitted

Sen. Ernst (IA)2:08:32 – 2:09:24

thank you very much um i'd like to to talk a little bit about the audit mister secretary um i saw the video that you posted this week calling on the department to pass a clean audit. And thank you for doing that. It's something that we talked about during your confirmation hearing. Uh, fiscal responsibility at the department has been a priority of mine for a very long time. And I think it's time that we build on that momentum. It's extremely important. And that's why I'm pushing for my receipts act in this year's NDAIA. It's focused on improving financial traceability and accountability across the department. And if you could talk a little bit more about the efforts in making sure that we are being much more accountable to our taxpayers. What is that effort going to entail? When will we see a clean audit?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:09:25 – 2:09:48

Uh, well, as I said, Senator, thank you for your work on on the audit. Uh, that has been a priority of our department from day one. Uh, and we put in place, uh, goals and benchmarks to get to FY twenty eight, get to twenty eight for a clean audit. The joint task force audit which we announced was a reflection of even more capabilities we wanna push forward and centralize authority to make sure it happens. Uh, Jay's been involved from the beginning.

Sen. Ernst (IA)2:09:48 – 2:09:48

Mm.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:09:48 – 2:09:49

We also have a new IG who,

Sen. Ernst (IA)2:09:48 – 2:09:49

Thank you.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:09:50 – 2:10:00

uh, the new IG's focus, one of his focus points is precisely this, and he he's prepared, uh, to work with us to ensure we reach it. So, I think at every level and through this budget, it's a focus.

Sen. Ernst (IA)2:10:00 – 2:10:04

OK. Thank you. We look forward to seeing a clean audit. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:10:03 – 2:10:05

Thank you, Senator. Senator Hirono.

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:10:07 – 2:12:25

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. before i begin my questions i'd like to take a moment to highlight the true costs of this war both for the military and everyday americans uh and the true cost of the president's illegal war with iran and since the start of the war thirteen fourteen brave us service members have been killed and more than four hundred have been wounded we burned through over twenty five billion dollars in taxpayer money with no end in sight and the fiscal year twenty seven budget request is a massive forty two percent increase from last year hundreds of critical munitions have been expended and the deployments have been extended directly impacting service members quality of life military readiness and our ability to deter our adversaries the relationships with our allies some of our closest allies and partners have been fractured and the closure of the state of hormuz which somehow caught the president by surprise even though uh he had to have been warned uh is directly contributing to the affordable crisis that americans are facing energy costs are skyrocketing with the price of gas now at its highest level in almost four years instability has driven interest rates to its highest level since september of last year the cost of fertilizer is spiking which will have a direct impact on the cost of food this illegal war is driving up costs undermining readiness and alienating our allies with neither a clear rationale for starting this war nor an exit strategy and when the president was asked how long he'll let this war continue he said do not rush me i have a question for uh general kane relating to women serving in combat and i'd like to hear your best military advice does the mere fact of women being in combat arm units lower standards are readiness if they meet the physical standards

Dan Caine (Witness)2:12:26 – 2:12:45

oh ma'am the the standards are uh are are set by the civilians we have examples of women leading well um across the joint force um i'll highlight uh some of our current commanders engaged in the fight in epic fury uh specifically one of our bomb squadrons were led by a

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:12:45 – 2:12:46

excuse me

Dan Caine (Witness)2:12:45 – 2:12:48

extraordinary female leader who is doing great work and

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:12:48 – 2:12:50

i'm ok no i

Dan Caine (Witness)2:12:49 – 2:12:52

uh but those standards are set by i'm sorry i didn't mean to step on you

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:12:51 – 2:13:09

pretty much i think your answer is that it in fact it does not lower standards of readiness uh second question should every service member regardless of gender be permitted to serve in any role including the combat arms if they meet the standards established yes or no

Dan Caine (Witness)2:13:09 – 2:13:10

is that to me ma'am

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:13:11 – 2:13:17

over the last decade since combat arms have been opened to women have you personally

Dan Caine (Witness)2:13:11 – 2:13:12

the

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:13:17 – 2:13:24

seen any instance where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness

Dan Caine (Witness)2:13:24 – 2:13:29

uh apologies i didn't hear your first question the the you know people

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:13:25 – 2:13:25

yes

Dan Caine (Witness)2:13:29 – 2:13:33

policies are all set by the civilian uh leaders in the government.

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:13:31 – 2:13:33

No, I'm I'm asking you personally,

Dan Caine (Witness)2:13:33 – 2:13:35

Could you repeat the question again?

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:13:33 – 2:13:34

in this question.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:13:35 – 2:13:35

I'm sorry ma'am.

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:13:35 – 2:13:47

Over the last decade since combat arms have been opened to women, have you personally seen any instance where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness?

Dan Caine (Witness)2:13:47 – 2:13:51

Um again I'll highlight that the standards are set by our civilian leaders.

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:13:51 – 2:13:51

Thank you.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:13:51 – 2:13:58

Women continue to perform uh well across a range of of m. o. s.'s and jobs and a.

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:13:58 – 2:13:59

your answer is

Dan Caine (Witness)2:13:58 – 2:14:00

f. s. c.'s that are out there

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:13:59 – 2:14:51

our experience no i do need to get to a question for secretary hicks prior to your nomination hearing you said women shouldn't serve in combat arm units at your confirmation hearing you reverse course and excuse me and you basically said as long as the women meet the standards they should be able to serve but on recently you ordered a review of the of women in combat roles and i am concerned you are laying the groundwork to reverse the policy allowing women to serve in these units because uh right now current law if you wanna change this policy uh current law requires you to submit a report to congress justifying such a change so uh uh did you order the review to support a potential decision to overturn the policy of uh having women in combat roles

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:14:53 – 2:15:09

Uh, we are laser focused on standards. The highest male standard for every combat arms position should be the standard. And ten years into this, we are reviewing it, which is what the American people would expect. Also, there's nothing illegal about a war that defends the American people and prevents Iran from having a nuclear bomb.

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:15:07 – 2:15:24

Uh You know, you didn't answer the question because the the reason that you're asking for this review I think has to do with the your earlier position that you don't think women, she's serving combat roles. so now we have the study and i'd like to ask you will you uh let's

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:15:23 – 2:15:25

sen- senator uh well we'll take

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:15:24 – 2:15:30

will you reveal the study to the public to the american people will you make the study public

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:15:31 – 2:15:33

will you make that study

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:15:33 – 2:15:34

yes or no

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:15:33 – 2:15:34

uh public

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:15:34 – 2:15:39

we're we're doing the study for that very reason to insure that real science is applied to this

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:15:37 – 2:15:38

make the study public

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:15:39 – 2:15:42

this question and not social engineering like the previous administration

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:15:39 – 2:15:46

we we appreciate it we appreciate your uh assurance that that will be made public

Sen. Hirono (HI)2:15:46 – 2:15:49

yeah i think it's really critical that this study be made

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:15:47 – 2:15:52

thank you Thank you, ma'am. You're very welcome. Uh, Senator Scott. Thank you.

Sen. Scott (FL)2:15:53 – 2:16:01

Well, first thanks, thank each of you for being here. Secretary Hitchcock, can you talk about, you've had the job for a little bit, what's your, what are you most proud of, and uh, what are your biggest challenges?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:16:03 – 2:17:47

Well, I appreciate the question, and what I'm most proud of is the incredible men and women who serve in our nations in in uniform and what they are capable of when they're given a clear mission and unleashed to do it. And I think the best reflection of the success of President Trump and this War Department is the historic recruiting success and the historic morale amongst our ranks. I would encourage every member of this committee, Democrat or Republican, go into the formations, go into the Air Force formations, the Army formations, the Marine Corps formations, and talk to corporals, talk to sergeants, talk to lieutenants, talk to captains, talk to colonels. And what you will find are men and women more inspired to serve in the military than they have been in a generation. And you see that in the young Americans who are rushing to rec- to recruiting stations i- at historic numbers, thirty year highs across the force. We're hitting our recruiting numbers halfway through the year. Why is that? Because the American people look at what we're doing at the war department by getting back to basics and they're attracted to that. Same with our retention rates, which are now merit-based. our best sergeants, our best leaders are staying. That's exactly what we want. So we've made changes to change the environment. Uh, the renaming of the department to the War Department is not just a name. In fact, it's restoring it to the original name of the department, set by George Washington. But it's an ethos as well, that that warrior ethos lives inside the heart of each one of these men and women and we're unleashing it. Uh, I'm proud of, of the, I mean, you name it, the border, the missions, yes, those are all incredible demonstrations of that, but it's the people, and the urgency of Americans to wanna be a part of it, that is the best affirmation, Senator.

Sen. Scott (FL)2:17:48 – 2:18:02

Thank you. So we've talked about the importance of not, um, relying on Chinese drugs, uh, for our military. Can you just talk about what, um, the, um, what you're doing to make sure that we don't continue to rely on China for anything, including our, our drugs?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:18:03 – 2:18:04

Oh, drugs.

Sen. Scott (FL)2:18:04 – 2:18:04

Yeah.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:18:05 – 2:18:06

Um, absolutely.

Sen. Scott (FL)2:18:05 – 2:18:05

I'm sorry.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:18:06 – 2:18:49

Um, we can't be dependent on China on anything that's critical to our supply chain, even if it's the national industrial base and not just the defense industrial base. Uh, and you've been a leader on that. This committee's been a leader on that. On-shoring, man- bringing manufacturing here, bringing critical capabilities here, uh, is central to the inter-agency and the NSC, but also our department. Uh, if any critical weapon system is reliant upon something China could change at a moment's notice, then we have a s- uh, a a true challenge to our ability to produce for the American people. And so we're finding all of those, changing them, onshoring it, reviving the invest- the defense industrial base allows us to ensure we're separated from China on anything that's critical.

Sen. Scott (FL)2:18:50 – 2:19:08

Thank you. Can you talk about the importance of foreign military sales to our allies and our partners and what you're doing to make sure that that um that whether it's what you're doing right now in Iran or any potential conflict in in Asia, you, our partners have the best um uh assets to be able to be a great partner?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:19:09 – 2:20:05

Absolutely. Foreign military sales, uh, has been a huge problem for a long time because the department didn't prioritize it and organize to deliver efficiently on it. So we're working with the State Department. We've changed the way we do business internally. The executive order, the America First arms strategy prioritizes what we sell into whom, a catalog approach. But it took us, you, you, this committee would be astonished to, to, to know how long it took us just to get our arms around who we're selling to what and by processes, which means there was no strategy behind ensuring we're sending the proper demand signal to industry and delivering those systems on time and under budget to those countries which you can imagine is frustrating to partners who are relying on those to be able to step up and burden share. So foreign military sales is critical to our own defense industrial base, more customers, more customers for our companies that employ more American workers to ensure our allies are properly armed for the fights and they can stand alongside us so FMS is a is a big one for us Senator.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:20:05 – 2:20:05

Thank you.

Sen. Scott (FL)2:20:06 – 2:20:25

General Cain, um, I just wanna commend you and, uh, everybody in the military for, um, the what you did in in Is- um, Venezuela and then what you've done in Iran. Um, can do the willingness of the American military to to fight and win, uh, do you think it's changed the calculus for, um, Beijing and Moscow?

Dan Caine (Witness)2:20:26 – 2:20:49

Well, Senator, I'm I'm I know they're watching, um, and I'm incredibly proud, uh, of the joint force, um, and their ability to integrate and synchronize a range of activities and i suspect that my counterpart in china is watching very closely and envious of uh what our joint force is capable of doing if ordered to do so

Sen. Scott (FL)2:20:49 – 2:20:52

right well thank each of you and thank everybody that serves under you

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:20:53 – 2:20:55

thank you senator scott senator kain

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:20:55 – 2:21:18

thank you mr. chair mr. hearst i want you to just confirm something for me about the president's submitted budget one point five trillion dollars is about a forty plus percent increase from FY twenty six. Am I right that not a penny of that is to go to a pay raise for the eight hundred thousand civilians who work for the Department of Defense?

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:21:19 – 2:21:28

We have a four two point, or four point two percent of a civilian salary set aside for bonuses, uh, to make sure we can recognize high performers in the civilian workforce in our department.

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:21:27 – 2:21:35

But you have guaranteed pay raises. for the active duty in the guard and reserve component, but no guaranteed raises for uh civilians as extra.

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:21:33 – 2:21:39

There are guaranteed raises for the military, but, you know, in the last year this department's given out more civilian bonuses.

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:21:36 – 2:22:19

And Well, I, you know, if we're if we're gonna increase the defense budget by that much, I would hope the committee would take a look at this. Um, Chairman Kane. Man, I like the sound of that, Chairman Kane. Um, General Kane, I wanna ask you a question about Southern Spear. It's an operational question. I know from your background that you carefully act to keep military actions within the rules of war. What legal justification could there possibly be that would allow the US military to strike boats in international waters and kill the occupants of those boats without a showing of evidence that there's narcotics on those boats?

Dan Caine (Witness)2:22:20 – 2:22:38

Well, sir, as as you know, our our job is to show the range of options, the associated risks, and then take those execution uh orders transmit them down to the co-coms on legally appropriate and legally backstopped actions um i i

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:22:37 – 2:22:40

could you could you give me a a legal justification

Dan Caine (Witness)2:22:41 – 2:22:43

well so the execution or i don't have a

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:22:41 – 2:22:47

that would that would authorize striking boats that do not have evidence that they're carrying narcotics

Dan Caine (Witness)2:22:47 – 2:22:54

i don't have i apologize i didn't mean to interrupt you i i don't have a copy of the the the order issued to south com with me today it's

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:23:20 – 2:23:21

And and m- and and General Cain,

Dan Caine (Witness)2:23:20 – 2:23:21

Um.

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:23:21 – 2:23:24

I would encourage again my colleagues I am at a disadvantage.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:23:24 – 2:23:24

Wow.

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:23:25 – 2:24:58

I've seen the legal opinion, but I can't talk about it cuz it's classified. I've seen the targeting criteria, but I can't talk about them because they're classified. I've seen the secret list of DTOs against whom we have declared war that even they haven't been informed of, but I can't talk about it because it's classified. But I would urge all of my colleagues to go to the SCIF and read the targeting criteria and get briefed about it. and then also look at all of the files of all the strikes that have taken place. I've done that with the first forty-six strikes or so. And I think there's a profound mismatch between what is occurring and the underlying assumptions in the legal opinion. And I would just encourage my colleagues to dig into this. To Secretary Hegseth and General Kane, the War Powers Resolution specifies that a war initiated by a president without congressional approval, must be concluded within sixty days. It can be extended by an additional thirty days if, quote, the President determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the U. S. armed forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. We're right at the sixty-day deadline. Is the President intending to either seek congressional authorization for the war in Iran, or send us the legally required certification that he needs an additional thirty days to remove US forces from the war.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:24:59 – 2:25:06

Just briefly on the previous question, we do know that these are designated terrorist organizations, so we treat them like the Al Qaeda of our hemisphere,

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:25:06 – 2:25:09

That that but but that was not the question I asked.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:25:06 – 2:25:07

just as a note.

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:25:09 – 2:25:14

I asked whether there was I asked whether there was evidence of narcotics on the

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:25:09 – 2:25:18

I know I know there's more to that question, I just think it's important for the public to understand that. There's no n- willy-nilly targeting of of drug boats. We know exactly who these people are affiliated with.

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:25:17 – 2:25:19

I was asking about what's on the boats.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:25:19 – 2:25:32

On the, on, on, on Iran, uh, ultimately, I would, I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that. However, we are in a cease-fire right now, which our understanding means, uh, the sixty day clock pauses or stops in a cease-fire.

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:25:31 – 2:25:33

I, I, I, I do, yeah.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:25:32 – 2:25:35

So, they're not in. That's, it's our understanding, just so you know.

Sen. Kaine (VA)2:25:35 – 2:25:53

OK, well, I, I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the sixty days runs maybe tomorrow, and it's gonna pose a, a, a really important legal question for the administration. There we have serious constitutional concerns and we don't wanna layer those with additional statutory concerns. I yield back, Mister Chair.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:25:54 – 2:25:56

Uh, thank you very much. Senator Sullivan.

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:25:56 – 2:26:34

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, thank you gentlemen for your testimony. Uh, Mister Secretary, I'm I mentioned in the classified hearing today, but I do think the one point five trillion dollar top line is historic, it's meets the needs. And the other thing is I mentioned in our earlier meeting, um, you know, the president's done a really good job of getting other allies, NATO and Asian allies, to step up, meet a five percent GDP of defense spending and, um, in many ways that's what this is doing as well. So isn't that important as well in terms of our global leadership, what you and the president are, uh, providing as that example as well?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:26:36 – 2:26:42

I think, uh, the more we step up, the more the world should look at the American leadership and example and step up as well. We think

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:26:42 – 2:26:43

And they're gonna do that.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:26:43 – 2:26:44

Um,

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:26:43 – 2:26:44

It helps.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:26:44 – 2:26:50

we will, it remains to be seen whether some of our allies actually step up to their commitments, but that is, that is the hope.

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:26:50 – 2:28:30

Let me uh go to an element of that budget that I I mentioned in the classified hearing. You know, I always like to put this uh chart up in different hearings. We have the the examples. So we a lot of our uh adversaries, the Chinese, the Russians, in my uh AOR in the Arctic and the North Pacific. These are the numbers just recently, AIDIS incursions, EZ incursions. by the Russians, by the Chinese. By the way, the green ones are joint Russian-Chinese strategic bomber task forces, joint Russian-Chinese naval task forces. Uh, this is America, right? This is a a really important part of, uh, our national defense. So I was pleased to see that one of the elements in the budget was what's, uh, referred to by the Air Force as the J-Bear fighter town recapitalization. given how strategically important that Air Force base is. Um, General, can you talk a little bit about that recapitalization? It's uh, uh, for uh, building out what is a very strategic base, but old. Lot of these, uh, facilities are from the nineteen fifties. The goal of, in the Air Force's language, was to have a recapitalization to provide a new state of the art fighter facility capable of supporting multiple platforms now and well into the future six point nine billion dollar total authorization two point two billion dollar approachs for this year can you talk about the importance I was glad to host you at JBAIR recently can you talk about the importance of this element of the president's budget

Dan Caine (Witness)2:28:28 – 2:29:28

sure yes senator thank you thank you for uh for that mmm you know our investment up at JBAIR is essential to modernize in the nation's ability to project power and capabilities and really bolsters uh our effort in not only the Indo-Pacific, but also in the high north in the Arctic, which I know is something that's passionate to you. The Ar- the Arctic is certainly becoming more operationally and strategically valuable, and we need to be thinking proactively around how we're gonna set the conditions for us to offer a range of options to the secretary and the president about power projection. uh, across a range of capabilities and fighters is certainly one of them in the recap effort that's there. Um, you know, it is, uh, it is our ability to protect that flank is a national imperative and something that we wanna keep, uh, focused on and we appreciate the efforts, uh, across this committee, uh, and the rest of the Congress to help us with that.

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:29:28 – 2:30:39

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Secretary, one of the things that I've I've been talking about and I think is really important now is American energy. and us being a energy dominant. President put a recent executive order out highlighting highlighting the need to accelerate uh the ability to produce LNG uh in America. Uh we have a huge LNG project that we're getting close to getting off the ground in Alaska. It would be huge for our military in terms of uh energy for our military, huge for our allies. And can I get your commitment to work with me in this committee? You mentioned in your testimony the office of strategic capital. This to me is one of these uh projects uh that I think would be absolutely critical for our national security. We talked about this just in uh Admiral Paparo's testimony last week. He was talking about the Alaska LNG project is hugely strategic, kind of a private sector American counter to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. i think it'd be a great opportunity to work with the office of strategic capital can i get your commitment mr secretary to do that on this project

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:30:39 – 2:30:45

yes very aware of that project and i think it's uh the office of strategic capital is a is a great place to look at partnering

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:30:45 – 2:31:10

great i appreciate that uh finally i'm just gonna ask um forty seven years of war that we've had with iran um my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did you know they talk about um the civilian uh, casualties, these are all horrible, horrible, whenever there's any civilian casualties, but just general, um, do our forces target civilians ever?

Dan Caine (Witness)2:31:12 – 2:31:23

Uh, sure, not, never intentionally, and I don't know in any particular case of unintentional, but we don't do that, that's not core to our American values or how we approach things,

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:31:20 – 2:31:20

And do our

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:31:21 – 2:31:22

Hey, thank you.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:31:23 – 2:31:23

but sure.

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:31:23 – 2:31:26

Does one one, do our adversaries target civilians?

Dan Caine (Witness)2:31:26 – 2:31:27

Yes, sir.

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:31:27 – 2:31:28

Like the goods force? Yes, sir.

Sen. King (ME)2:31:29 – 2:31:35

I think it's really important, as we keep bringing this topic up, uh, to remember who we are and who our adversaries are.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:31:33 – 2:31:41

Thank Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Uh, Senator Sullivan, d- d- do you uh ask unanimous consent to have the two exhibits added to the record?

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:31:41 – 2:31:42

Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:31:41 – 2:31:43

It's uh without objection that will be done.

Sen. Sullivan (AK)2:31:42 – 2:31:42

Thank you.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:31:44 – 2:31:45

Senator King.

Sen. King (ME)2:31:46 – 2:32:44

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've had a lot of discussion about Iran. I'd like to talk about several other aspects of the budget. The first is the way the budget's been constructed. Um, ever since i've been here until last year we've had bipartisan budgets and bipartisan national defense authorization acts and uh passed by uh majorities i voted for all of them and all of a sudden in this year twenty five percent of the budget is essentially out of the process and will be passed presumably through some kind of reconciliation which is by definition a partisan exercise uh mister secretary why not what all those items, uh housing or golden dome whatever, why aren't they in the in the regular budget? Why do we suddenly have a two-part budget where the this committee and the congress generally has oversight and and and input to a process where a a quarter of the budget is is essentially a a slush fund?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:32:45 – 2:32:55

Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. I wouldn't characterize a quarter of it as a as a slush fund, but I recognize that we see it as a in totality as a one point five trillion dollar budget,

Sen. King (ME)2:32:55 – 2:32:57

But why why the separation, why the two pieces?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:32:55 – 2:33:01

multiple. Multiple as you know there are multiple dynamics uh that play into why there are

Sen. King (ME)2:32:57 – 2:32:59

Why not just a regular budget?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:33:01 – 2:33:10

multiple vehicles but we are fully committed with working to the committee to insure the the right vehicles are utilized to get precisely this amount, one point five trillion.

Sen. King (ME)2:33:09 – 2:33:21

Why why should we why you didn't answer my question, why are there two pieces? Why why not for time immemorial we've done budgets here, we've never to my knowledge we've never used this reconciliation process for a defense

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:33:25 – 2:33:33

Um, my understanding of the reason for the vehicles is to ensure we actually get to one point five trillion, which is the most important bottom line.

Sen. King (ME)2:33:33 – 2:33:34

So what you're, we're gonna

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:33:33 – 2:33:40

The most important bottom line is that top line of one point five trillion to fund what we need and we think this process is the most effective way to get there, Senator.

Sen. King (ME)2:33:40 – 2:34:06

Well, uh, it What you're really saying is we don't wanna deal with that pesky Congress and their appropriation process. Uh, I I think it's, I think this is significant, Mister Chairman, that we're we're basically abdicating a quarter of our responsibility in terms of this budget. Let me move on. Um, one of the factors of this budget that hasn't gotten any publicity is uh, the, there's zero funding for Ukraine, that's correct, isn't it, Mister Hurst?

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:34:07 – 2:34:09

That's correct, there's no USAIA funding in this budget.

Sen. King (ME)2:34:09 – 2:34:23

And there was four hundred, uh, four hundred billion, four hundred million that was appropriated last year by a bipartisan, bicameral act of Congress. What's become of that money? My understanding is not a dollar of it has been dispersed.

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:34:26 – 2:34:39

It was released, uh, very recently, and, and again, we got these funds, I believe, in March. Uh, and it takes time for funds to flow through the department, uh, but it's gonna get put to work very shortly. We're gonna work with the Ucom commander to make sure we use these funds in the most appropriate way possible.

Sen. King (ME)2:34:39 – 2:35:33

I didn't want Senator Sullivan to be the only one with an exhibit. Uh, this indicates what's happened to our support for Ukraine. over a period of years. The orange bars are US support, uh the blue bars are Europe, as you see. Europe is ninety nine percent in the year twenty twenty six, same thing with humanitarian and other aid uh to Ukraine. And yet this is uh, I believe, an existential struggle for uh the future of democracy where we had an aggressive country invade a neighboring country without any justification whatsoever. And by the way, That invading country is the major winner so far of the war in Iran. Uh, they've gotten, uh, the estimates are forty to eighty billion dollars of additional revenues from oil and the relief of sanctions as a result of the war in Iran. Uh, uh, Secretary Hexath, why are we abandoning Ukraine?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:35:34 – 2:35:36

Senator, if if you would hold that chart back up.

Sen. King (ME)2:35:36 – 2:35:36

Yep.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:35:36 – 2:36:12

I I think that's a beautiful chart. I think that's exactly what we want. We want Europe. stepping up and funding and shouldering the burden they are rich countries worth twenty trillion versus economy of two trillion europe can step up europe can fund it and they have through our pearl initiative and through our european command that's exactly what the american people want to see is other countries stepping up and funding that if it's but does but does that do do we have no do we have if it's that important to europe which i understand why it is in the incursion of russia and the bravery of the ukrainians then european countries should pay for it and that's exactly what that chart says and that's the administration policy so we don't have any

Sen. King (ME)2:36:12 – 2:36:16

we don't have any interest in what happens in ukraine is that what you're saying it's only the europeans

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:36:17 – 2:36:24

i'm saying the threat is far closer to rich and capable countries in europe and they should step up to lead the charge and that's why that charge is a good thing to see

Sen. King (ME)2:36:23 – 2:36:32

and they have and they have they have stepped up but i think the american people should understand that we've stepped back in fact stepped back to the point of abandoning

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:36:32 – 2:36:37

this is a war that never would have happened under president trump and he supports ending it through a deal and he has pursued that

Sen. King (ME)2:36:33 – 2:36:46

you know our country to so far it hasn't happened uh i'm out of time i wanna talk about dto's who designates but uh we'll take that up later thank you mr. chairman

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:36:45 – 2:36:50

thank you thank you senator king uh um senator schmidt

Sen. Schmitt (MO)2:36:50 – 2:39:42

thank you mr. chairman and uh it's a proposal that i'm following my friend from maine missouri and maine came into the union at the same time but we couldn't disagree more on this particular point we may have to separate here um i actually think it's interesting that ukraine just came up because we've heard uh from my colleagues on the other side um discussion about the cost of what the ongoing American effort. There was never a, never a discussion about the two hundred billion dollars we were sending to a foreign country that's not even in NATO. Never. In fact, when amendments were offered for independent audits of how that money was spent, there was bipartisan opposition to that kind of oversight. So I find it really rich now that there's a complaint that we're not spending money on Ukraine. And by the way, thirty billion for salaries for bureaucrats, pensions, and social safety net programs, and government operations to keep the state functioning during wartime. That's where American tax dollars were going, thirty billion dollars for bureaucrats in Ukraine. And we just heard a a a speech for more money for Ukraine, yet the one point five trillion for this country is being balked at. I mean, I've seen Ukraine flags all over this capital for three years. At the same time, the same people call the President of the United States of this country a Nazi. So I've, forgive me if, if I, if I feel like we've lost our bearings a little bit. So, I'm all for the America First agenda. I'm all for us realigning our priorities. I'm all for the national defense strategy that says our core strategic interests are the homeland the Western hemisphere and the rising threat in China. And that means our European allies should step up. If Vladimir Putin is truly some existential threat, and the next Hitler that's gonna roll through Europe, you would think, by the way, he can't take Kiev. So you can't have it both ways. He hasn't made it to Kiev. But they would step up. And we better start demanding that, cuz if we wanna meet the challenges of the twenty-first century and China, our priorities, our focus has to be somewhere else. It doesn't mean abandonment, it just means a true partnership with our European allies, who for very, very long time have, have not stepped up. I wanna ask you, um, Mister Secretary, in your first year, one of the things I think that's really gone towards this morale and recruitment boom that we've seen through your leadership and President Trump was finally taking on the sort of cultural Marxism that had taken hold from the highest levels of leadership from the President of the United States to your predecessor, this obsession with DEI. Could you just walk through maybe, maybe a, a, the worst example that you saw and a way that you addressed that and how it was affecting morale?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:39:43 – 2:41:34

Well, thank you, Senator. First of all, I wanna, uh, fully associate myself with the first two and a half minutes of your comments, and I appreciate that perspective very much so. I, I would note thirty billion dollars for bureaucrats in Ukraine is more than the bill that we've talked about today uh for a existential and critically important war, to ensure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. That's worth noting. uh i i haven't talked about it as much in these hearings um because this is a budget hearing about one point five trillion that's historic and significant but underwriting the the change that we've seen in our department was a laser focus on getting back to basics and the the the key word to that is merit uh we had a department that was that was uh obsessed with gender ideology and race diversity equity and inclusion in fact the mantra you would hear dripping from the lips of generals and with a serious look on "our diversity is our strength", which is the single dumbest phrase in military history. Of course, our diversity is not our strength, our unity is our strength, our shared purpose, the flag we wear and who we and the constitution we serve to defend. And when you clear that debris away, whether it's Marxist ideologies or social engineering or political correctness or quotas based on gender and diversity, you get the best of the best rising up regardless of gender, regardless of race, motivated by that environment where merit reigns, it's accountability, standards, lethality, readiness, training, all the debris wiped away. Uh, that is the secret sauce of the revival of the War Department, and why Americans are attracted to serving in it, and why those inside it, why morale is sky-high. And any insinuation that it is not are coming from folks who haven't been in our units recently. Go visit the troops at every level and their morale is at record levels.

Sen. Schmitt (MO)2:41:34 – 2:41:57

And I wanna talk about morale with the fifteen seconds that I have left. I wanna thank you for um coming to St. Louis for your Arsenal Freedom Tour where the next generation aircraft, the F-forty-seven, is being built by the hardworking men and women of Missouri who take a tremendous amount of pride uh for that aircraft that's gonna go further, see, see further, go faster, have a bigger payload, and I know there's another decision coming with the FAXX, but really appreciate your leadership and thanks for coming.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:41:57 – 2:41:58

Thank you, Senator.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:41:58 – 2:42:07

Yep. Uh, thank you, Senator Schmidt. Senator King, do you wish to ask unanimous consent to include your exhibit in the record?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:42:08 – 2:42:08

Yes, please.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:42:08 – 2:42:10

Without objection, that will be done. Senator Warren.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:42:11 – 2:43:48

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. So, Americans are paying a high price for Donald Trump's war with Iran. We've got fourteen service members who are dead, over four hundred more, who are wounded, uh, prices rising for nearly every American family. But someone is profiting off Trump's war, insiders who know what's going on and who place bets on that inside information. On March twenty third, just fourteen minutes before Trump unexpectedly posted about, quote, very good conversations on ending the war, traders suddenly bet five hundred million dollars on the price of oil, which, once Trump made his announcement, immediately dropped. It happened again on April seventh, and then again on April twenty-first, a surge in oil bets, then a Trump post, and then a huge shift in oil prices in just the space of minutes. It looks like insiders have been making out like bandits, using secret information about the war. Now, one US soldier has been charged, but that was for betting on capturing Maduro months ago. Not a single person has been charged in the many, many, many trades over the Middle East war. So, Secretary Hegseth, do you have any explanation for these perfectly timed spikes in trading activity other than insider trading?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:43:50 – 2:43:59

Um, Senator, all I can tell you is that everything we've done in our department, everything we've done with information in working with the White House and across the inter-agency has been completely above board.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:44:00 – 2:44:14

Well, so what does it mean? Do you have any other explanation other than insider trading? Do you have a story for why just minutes before there's an announcement, there's a surge in trading activity?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:44:16 – 2:44:28

Uh, Senator, I'm more than focused on doing my job and ensuring we execute properly, which thankfully, under this administration, uh, our troops have done incredible things in all these missions. My job in all of those moments is to make sure we're prepared.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:44:28 – 2:44:28

No.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:44:29 – 2:44:34

And that's part of the reason why we've been so successful in these raids, in these efforts, is that this joint force is prepared.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:44:33 – 2:44:42

So you're s- you're saying you're not paying any attention to this insider trading. Is that what you're telling me? That you've paid no attention to this, you haven't noticed it, you haven't done anything about it?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:44:43 – 2:44:52

What I'm saying is we're focused on our mission of executing for the American people and what happens in in markets is not uh, uh, in betting markets is not something we're involved in.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:44:51 – 2:44:59

What happens in betting markets doesn't matter to you, even if the information may be coming from insiders in your office?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:45:00 – 2:45:25

Senator, it's not something we're involved in at all, and of course we take operational security at every level very seriously. In fact, no one's taken operational security more, uh, seriously than us. If you look at what it required to keep secret Midnight Hammer and Operation Maduro the the, uh, absolute resolve with Maduro and the steps we've taken no one's been tighter about ensuring that operational security is insured

Sen. Warren (MA)2:45:20 – 2:45:28

so have you have you taken any steps to deal with insider trading out of your office

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:45:29 – 2:45:34

i mean we have we we would insure at every level that inside information is

Sen. Warren (MA)2:45:32 – 2:45:35

ok i i take that as a no

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:45:34 – 2:45:36

properly safeguarded

Sen. Warren (MA)2:45:35 – 2:45:58

alright well obviously you're not uh i'm also concerned about recent reporting on your own financial dealings with regard to profiting from the war in iran the financial times reported that your broker tried to buy hundreds of shares in a Black Rock fund invested in defense companies just before the war began. The law clearly prohibits the secretary of the state.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:45:57 – 2:46:00

That entire story is false, has been from the beginning,

Sen. Warren (MA)2:45:59 – 2:46:01

My weapon finished, my club.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:46:00 – 2:46:08

and was made up out of whole cloth. And anybody that looks at it sees how it was worded from the beginning to make it look like I was involved in something I had

Sen. Warren (MA)2:46:04 – 2:46:05

The law.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:46:08 – 2:46:09

nothing to do and never have.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:46:09 – 2:46:10

The law.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:46:09 – 2:46:26

So any insinuation that I've ever profited other than serving this nation, what what i give what you give what others give i'm not looking for money i don't do it for money i don't do it for profit i don't do it for stocks and that's part of the reason why i'm able to be effective in this job cause no one owns me no one owns this department,

Sen. Warren (MA)2:46:23 – 2:46:27

then let me ask my question secretary of defense

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:46:26 – 2:46:30

no one owns this president and we can execute for the american people and we do

Sen. Warren (MA)2:46:27 – 2:46:57

let me ask my question the law clearly prohibits the secretary of defense from owning stock in the ten biggest defense contractors other senators and i sent you a letter with detailed questions about this and you have not given us a response. So I'd like to hear you say, did you, through your broker at Morgan Stanley or otherwise, seek to invest in any defense related funds right before Trump started the Iran war?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:46:59 – 2:47:03

I'll give it to you as a big, fat negative.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:47:03 – 2:47:12

Then let me ask you a second question. Is your broker getting your personal sign-off on any investment in individual stocks or

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:47:11 – 2:47:14

Bigger negative.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:47:14 – 2:47:18

He's not getting your sign-off before he makes investments in defense stocks.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:47:14 – 2:47:15

Be-

Sen. Warren (MA)2:47:18 – 2:47:21

Can I refer you to your ethics agreements?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:47:19 – 2:47:22

I'm not making investments, Senator.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:47:22 – 2:47:27

I am asking, does he know that he has to get your sign-off before he does that?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:47:27 – 2:47:28

Of course.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:47:28 – 2:47:30

The time of the, Senator, has expired.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:47:28 – 2:47:30

I don't know what you're looking for, but you ain't gonna find it.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:47:31 – 2:47:33

Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

Sen. Warren (MA)2:47:32 – 2:47:46

Uh, s- I would like to enter into the record the ethics agreement that the Secretary of Defense has signed, that he will sign off personally before his broker makes any attempt to buy defense stocks.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:47:46 – 2:47:47

Is there objection?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:47:48 – 2:47:48

Thank you.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:47:48 – 2:47:54

Without objection, it will be admitted. Uh, Senator uh Banks.

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:47:54 – 2:48:53

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hexeth, um, you're doing a great job. I I've I've been in Washington for ten years, several secretaries of defense, now secretary of war. You're you're the best that we've had since I've been in Washington, what you've done to restore readiness. uh restore military recruitment get the pentagon focused on war fighting is is second to none and i i i appreciate what you and president trump and general kane are doing very much in fact uh general kane according to the department's twenty twenty five china military power report quote china believes the next revolution in military affairs will occur when military is transitioned to intelligentized warfare and fully integrate artificial intelligence, big data, advanced computing, and other technologies into the joint force." Can you describe, general, in greater detail how the PLA is using AI to enhance its military capabilities?

Dan Caine (Witness)2:48:54 – 2:49:43

Uh, you bet, Senator. Um, you know, they are attempting to integrate, uh, AI across the range of their war fighting functions, which extends to, uh, command and control, information advantage, intelligence, um certainly kinetic uh and non-kinetic uh capabilities and to a certain extent sustainment. I'll note that that so are we, and in many cases we are out in front of them. I want to commend our chief digital uh and artificial intelligence officers inside the joint force, at the co-coms, with the services, who are also leaning very far in as we uh march towards digitized joint force that allows us to cease and uh see in a command and control of force better

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:49:44 – 2:50:07

uh the china military power report also goes on to note that the chinese ai sector remains quote constrained by its limited access to high performance ai chips general kane how big of an advantage is it for the american warfighter that america's arsenal of compute is bigger than china's

Dan Caine (Witness)2:50:09 – 2:50:28

so it's a it's a it's critical to us and you know while i acknowledge there's there's all kinds of chip issues in this it is important to us to uh to continue to scale at that and i'll highlight a lot of the work going on up at fort meade that the committee's helped to advance in the cyber capability so we appreciate the help with that

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:50:28 – 2:50:39

if that advantage were eroded and china were able to develop more advanced ai capabilities as a result what are some of the potential consequences for american war fighters

Dan Caine (Witness)2:50:39 – 2:51:04

well sure it could it could certainly put us at risk and that's why we're leaning in so hard um there's always a balance between commerce and uh and and protection i acknowledge those are policy matters i think is what you're uh starting to get towards um but on a pure military only standpoint um, we we would that we would see some defense in depth eroded from that.

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:51:04 – 2:51:11

Secretary Hegstaff, do you agree that enhanced Chinese AI capabilities put could could put American service members at risk?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:51:13 – 2:51:39

Um, Senator, we absolutely have to stay ahead. Uh, the advantage that AI provides w- apply to any number of capabilities, whether it's, uh, domain awareness, targeting cycles, you name it, uh, AI and leveraging it, and that's why we've made it the forefront I mean, it's AI first with everything that we do, integrating it at every potential echelon to ensure we can respond faster. And if, if we're, if we're better at that than any adversary is, it's gonna give us an advantage and we have to maintain that.

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:51:39 – 2:51:52

Uh, I agree. Do you agree that we should do everything in our power to ensure that American service members go into battle with an overwhelming and fear-inducing technological advantage, particularly with AI?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:51:53 – 2:51:57

Always. Uh, overwhelming is, is the goal in every scenario.

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:51:58 – 2:52:14

Uh, earlier this year the Pentagon issued updated guidelines that prohibit department funds from supporting grants and contracts involving fundamental research collaboration eh with blacklisted Chinese entities how important are those restrictions to safeguarding our technological leadership?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:52:17 – 2:52:27

Have to have them. Uh, well, especially when you look at the power of models and all of those things, and you you you have connections to entities that could have connections to your adversary, and you can uh you can have degradation of your advantage.

Jay Hurst (Witness)2:52:27 – 2:52:58

again this is where i appreciate your leadership mister secretary uh which has been second to none and i know that you will work with congress to help codify those restrictions and encourage taxpayer dollars that to to never advance the capabilities of our enemies, our and our and our adversaries i appreciate both of your leadership um we've come a long way in a couple of years from i mean the night and day difference between the last administration and this administration is apparent to every hoosier that i talk to so i appreciate your leadership i yield back

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:52:58 – 2:53:01

thank you very much senator banks senator peters

Sen. Peters (MI)2:53:02 – 2:56:09

thank you mr. chairman thank you member gentlemen uh welcome uh to the uh committee i appreciate uh this uh discussion i'll just start off uh the the number one question i get when i'm back home from people uh is basically very simply when when will this war end uh we know the cost are uh that the american people are paying both a higher fuel cost our farmers are paying because the fertilizer cost we we know that the uh the whole world economy is paying a a great uh deal for this war and basically when i as i think that through and this is what i wanna talk to you about is that we we all know that it's a whole lot easier to go to war than it is to get out of war uh that's uh always the tough question uh and we've gotta figure that out uh and there are some folks who have written quite a bit about this uh one one text on war by karl von kleswitz uh mister secretary i'm sure you're familiar uh with with the book uh i know all of the men and women in uniform are it's the most widely read most influential military strategy book in western history which is uh pretty pretty broad and it is the core curriculum that is read uh in all the war colleges uh i read it when i was uh with the navy war college uh taking courses uh uh it's part of what the us military thinks about when they go to war and then how to get out of the war And one of those, uh, core principles, uh, it starts with is, uh, basically, war is the continuation of politics by other means. That everybody knows that quote, who's, uh, worn the uniform and others too. And basically, means there's two things about that. It's politics to get in the war and it's politics to get out of the war. And in between, we rely on the men and women in the military to carry out those policies. So I want to be clear, and I think I speak for all of my colleagues, is that we know, uh, the military plays an important part. They need to do the job. And nobody, nobody questions the amazing work that our men and women in the US military have done and continue to do. They have performed absolutely brilliantly, and we applaud all that they have done. However, what we do question is the politics part. It's a continuation of politics. So it's our political leaders that get us into war and our political leaders who have to get us out of that war, which falls on on you, Mister, uh, Secretary Hexhoff and others, uh, in the administration, including president and his commander uh in chief so secretary are you familiar with the uh the concept in that book of center of gravity sure so center of gravity is is basically as you know is it's the basically the hub of all the power uh and movement everything depends on it and philosophers will say if you don't take out the center of gravity it's very difficult to win the war you can have tactical successes you can have military successes but if you're not focused on that you're not gonna be able uh to win. Basically, he talks about military strikes are tactical and and tactical success doesn't necessarily create the political conditions necessary to get the parties to the table, to negotiate and get it done. So we've gotta focus on that. So my question for you, Mister Secretary, what is the center of gravity for Iran?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:56:10 – 2:56:17

Well, the center of gravity as the President has seen it and as I see it, and he's talked about for thirty years, is is their pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Sen. Peters (MI)2:56:23 – 2:56:24

I-

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:56:27 – 2:56:31

The prophetic ideology they profess alongside the most dangerous

Sen. Peters (MI)2:56:29 – 2:56:30

Yeah.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:56:31 – 2:56:33

weapon in the world would be the center of gravity of the rationality

Sen. Peters (MI)2:56:34 – 2:56:34

No, I appreciate that.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:56:34 – 2:56:36

of this undertaking which you understand.

Sen. Peters (MI)2:56:35 – 2:56:48

I appreciate it. I'll ask you, I'll elaborate more. I appreciate it. General Kane, you know more about, uh, Clausewitz, uh, and strategy than I will ever know, including all the folks behind you. What would you consider the center of gravity as defined by Clausewitz in this type of war.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:56:49 – 2:56:57

Well, sir, I I'll I uh you you're not gonna love this answer, but I hope you'll respect it. War is politics by any other means.

Sen. Peters (MI)2:56:58 – 2:56:58

Right.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:56:58 – 2:57:18

And the political side of that necessitates that our political leaders determine, what is the center of gravity associated with that. From a military-only perspective, there's a variety of things academically that we could look at for center of gravity, from leadership to will to capabilities to intent. But I'll defer to our political leaders to determine what they.

Sen. Peters (MI)2:57:17 – 2:57:20

Well, okay, that's fine. But that's fair. I don't like it. You're right, but okay.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:57:20 – 2:57:21

I know, I know, sir.

Sen. Peters (MI)2:57:21 – 2:57:23

And I know you know the answer to that and you're just not telling me.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:57:23 – 2:57:23

Well,

Sen. Peters (MI)2:57:23 – 2:57:24

I get why you're doing that.

Dan Caine (Witness)2:57:24 – 2:57:25

my inner marshal.

Sen. Peters (MI)2:57:24 – 2:59:02

But I would say, you know, other observers say that basically it's the, it's not the leader, uh, usually if you take out a leader that doesn't necessarily, uh, take, make the changes, that in an, Iran's case it's probably the Islamic, uh, revolutionary guard. It's the, that's the center of gravity. They're the ones that control the country and they're very diverse to do that. Uh, the Americans' uh center of gravity is probably our economy and our ability to maintain public opinion support. We already know the public isn't there. We know the impact to our economy. And central to that is the leverage. And I'm running out of time here, but the central of leverage is the Strait of Hormuz. But that is bottom line. We have to open that up. We have to take that away from Iran. The fact that we haven't done that yet and we're sixty days in, we're just now bringing minesweepers from the Pacific in there. We have some unmanned of of the uh opportunities, but we've gotta have the capacity to do that. It was clear even if there was a plan to keep the straits open, it was not gonna be implemented because the assets were not positioned in a place to actually open the straits. If they were, it would have been, we would have seen those happening right now. We're not. So we're missing the point here. The center of gravity is gonna be bringing down the government of Iran in a way that they will wanna have a peace treaty so we can protect our country from having nuclear weapons pointed our way. But the center of gravity is gonna be, in a lot of ways, is gonna be focused on what happens on the Straits. And, ma- Mister Secretary, we've gotta see action a whole lot sooner in the Straits. The world community needs it. We're not gonna bring this war to an end until we seize control of the Straits in a way that will pull some back up.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:59:01 – 2:59:10

Which in part is why we have a blockade that has been impenetrable for the Iranians, because they don't have a conventional navy to contest it. Which means we control the streets.

Sen. Wicker (MS)2:59:09 – 2:59:51

Well. The time, the time of Senator Peters has expired. Let me, let me um observe that I very much appreciate the, the senator from Michigan uh suggesting ways in which our effort in Iran could be more successful. I do appreciate that. And let me also observe, Senator Kaine, that, that civilian control um goes back well beyond uh, Marshall. It goes back to, to George Washington, who was wise enough to resign his commission to the elected, uh, membership of, of the government at that time. Uh, Senator Sheehy, you are recognized.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)2:59:54 – 3:01:21

Uh, I think it's important to note that, um, the objective is not to get out of the war, the objective is to win the war, not to get out of it. And I think we've allowed the narrative to shift so off target here, President Trump did not start this war. We did not start this war. These radical barbarian savage clerics who have started killing Americans forty-seven years ago in a unilateral campaign of terror, murder, treason, kidnapping, torture, have been murdering our countrymen all over this world, almost every single year, hijacking airplanes, hijacking cruise liners, taking our embassies, blowing up our embassies, blowing up our barracks, blowing up our ships. capturing our soldiers and murdering them in brutal ways. They started this war. And it would be a lot easier to beat them if we didn't have administrations shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars into their pockets while they're actively fighting our own people. While our own uniformed service members have been fighting this murderous regime, and we have presidents quite literally shipping pallets of cash to pay these terrorists off. It's been a disgrace. It's been an embarrassment to this country for far too long. But back to the point, General Cain, I have a specific question for you. I think in this day and age we all know that basically every single operation that we partake in, whether it's stealth bombers, whether it's a blockade, our special operations forces are a fundamental uh shaping and priority component to all those. Would you agree?

Dan Caine (Witness)3:01:22 – 3:01:24

Uh, yes, Senator, I would.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:01:24 – 3:02:30

And I think for the last about fifteen years, the special operations community budget has been largely flat, even adjusted for inflation. And yet continuously we call on those warriors, uh, to deliver the impossible. And they pretty much do. We s- we were reminded just a few weeks ago, even after the amazing Maduro raid when we had to rescue one of our F-fifteen crewmen, yet again our community came up and did something that probably most people thought was impossible, and - and they did an amazing job. But we cannot continue to call on a tiny fraction of our military to carry such a heavy load. and to have such an uptempo without the appropriate resources. So, um, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can not just increase the budget, but make sure we're shaping their budget in a way that ensures that those warriors are getting the the direct support for training and sustainment but also the platforms that they need from mini-submarines to unmanned aircraft to manned aircraft, and the platforms that are very unique for their mission are furnished and deployed uh uh rapidly. So I'd like to talk about the percentage increase as SOCOM's budget how we affect that and how fast we can do it.

Dan Caine (Witness)3:02:30 – 3:03:10

Well, sir, I'll just I'll just highlight my gratitude and appreciation for the entirety of the SOCOM joint force at at Echelon and the work that they do. You know, I'll I'll leave the budget numbers and the increased percentages to to my civilian leadership but echo to your point, the exponential return on whatever investment they give. These are incredible entrepreneurial leaders at every echelon. uh who do who do great great things um as the light's dim uh as i say that so hopefully they'll see that as a nod uh towards them but i'll defer on the budget allocation numbers to the to the comptroller sir

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:03:11 – 3:04:41

uh first of all i i wanna second completely your opening remarks uh and that's certainly our view uh as well on the on the socom budget i'm gonna i'm gonna say i think uh we need to increase what's in this budget and i've heard from multiple people about that In fact, that if there is a supplemental, I actu- I sh- just wrote a note to Jay about it. I think SOCOM, given the uptempo, given the, given their direct uh participation in so many of these historic historic aspects, SOCOM should be part of that supplemental as well. Makes complete sense. Who's been shouldering a huge part of the burden? Special Operations Command. So whether it's a supplemental or or this budget, I I fully agree and I think we need to invest more. Great, and I'd ask that particular care be given uh the era of of beards and guns and kicking in doors as much fun as that was for all of us. Um, it's coming to a close and we're we're gonna be going back to our roots as specialized, uh, commandos, whether it's undersea, arctic, airborne operations. And, uh, as we all became kind of one joint soft force during GWAT, uh, quite frankly, that was an easier problem to resource for, to budget for, and acquire for. Uh, it's gonna be a lot harder now when our operators go back to their service corners and need s- platform-specific technologies and training. Uh, submersibles, aircraft, take years to acquire, years to specify. It's not just buying more ARs and body armor and ammo and sending them down range. So I think we have to think about the SOCOM budget a little differently than we have for the last twenty-five years, and make sure we're programming in a way that it's, it's sustained, um, and it's protected. Thank you.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:04:42 – 3:04:48

Thank you, Senator Schmidt, for, for that, um, insightful exchange. Senator Kelly.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:04:49 – 3:05:15

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, thank you for being here, Secretary Hegseth. Safe to say that our weapons, like SM-threes, Tomahawks, Patriot missiles, have capabilities that are unmatched. That's why they cost a lot, take a long time to produce. Your budget requests thirty-one point eight billion dollars to expand production capacity for critical missile stockpiles. Is that correct? Thirty-one point eight?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:05:16 – 3:05:22

Uh, I'm looking at fifty-three billion for munitions acceleration over fourteen critical munitions of which the ones you,

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:05:23 – 3:05:24

Okay, fifty-three.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:05:23 – 3:05:25

So I believe more than that. Yes, sir.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:05:26 – 3:07:16

More than twenty billion more. So, we've been working together to grow the industrial base because we're all worried about how our stockpiles would hold up in a conflict against China. Since the start of this war, you've made it a point to highlight the number of strikes the US military is carrying out, citing that more than thirteen thousand targets had been struck as of April eighth. On March second you said, and this is a quote, this was a massive overwhelming attack acr- across all domains of warfare, striking more than a thousand targets in the first twenty-four hours. On March tenth you said, yet again our most intense day of strikes inside of Iran. On April sixth you said, and this is another quote, the largest volume of strikes since day one of this operation. Your department has released video after video of things blowing up. None of us doubt the strength of the US military and their ability to do hard things. I understand that better than anybody. The questions we should be asking and answering are what does this cost us and what does it achieve for the American people? Many of these strikes use our best weapons, and we're using a lot of them, and a lot of interceptors. Open source reporting has estimated that the military has use an outrageous number of Patriots, I'm not even gonna say the numbers, but a lot of Patriots, a lot of Thoud rounds, Jasmine ER, Tomahawks, very expensive, exquisite. We can't make these munitions overnight and it's clear from your budget request, that you know that. Can you tell us how many years, specifically, is it gonna take to replace these systems?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:07:18 – 3:07:28

Senator, thank you for the question. I would defer to the comptroller on the amount, because I think it's a lot higher than fifty-three. If you look at uh long-range fires, JASMs, LRASMs, Tomahawks, we're looking at two hundred and thirty-eight billion.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:07:28 – 3:07:29

OK, a lot.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:07:28 – 3:07:33

We're looking at forty billion for hypersonic. So I actually think it's closer to three hundred and thirty billion in munitions.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:07:34 – 3:07:35

OK, how many years to replenish?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:07:34 – 3:07:34

Uh, ultimately

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:07:36 – 3:07:36

That's the question.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:07:36 – 3:07:42

I think that's exactly the right question too, Senator, because the time frame we were existing under was unacceptable.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:07:42 – 3:07:43

OK, well, tell me

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:07:42 – 3:07:45

And what this budget does, uh, I mean, months and years.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:07:45 – 3:07:46

What if

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:07:45 – 3:07:49

Fast. Years. in real time that will

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:07:49 – 3:07:51

so just to replace what we have expended

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:07:50 – 3:07:52

two x, i said months

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:07:52 – 3:07:54

and then you said years

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:07:54 – 3:08:00

bo- it depends on the weapon system but two to three four x of what we have today so yes we're dealing with the reality

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:07:58 – 3:07:58

ok

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:08:00 – 3:08:06

under the previous administration of what they sent to ukraine and what they allocated elsewhere and we're rapidly doing it quickly

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:08:03 – 3:09:17

ok i got it so we fired years worth of munitions and it is clear that we're these are being expended to try to achieve some objectives. That was the plan. But, Mister Secretary, this war is stuck. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The uranium regime is in place. The nuclear material, still in their hands. Americans are being crushed by higher costs. And it's not clear to them at all what the goal of this war is. So. I've got about a minute. And, I wanna go to another topic. I saw your hearing yesterday. And I'm gonna give you one more chance to address a question here. It's my understanding that the definition of no quarter is that legitimate offers, offers of surrender will be refused, or that detainees will be executed. Is that your understanding of the definition?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:09:19 – 3:09:25

Well, the only entity that would kill detainees or target civilians is the Iranians, and they're the ones being crushed.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:09:25 – 3:09:26

So you

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:09:25 – 3:09:29

It's the Iranian uh, military and their military capabilities.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:09:28 – 3:09:31

The question is, do you understand

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:09:29 – 3:09:32

So you I disagree completely with your articulation.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:09:32 – 3:09:41

No, do you understand the definition that I just read you? Because that's the definition from your department's law of war manual. Is that your understanding?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:09:42 – 3:09:42

Ah.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:09:42 – 3:09:43

And I'm gonna I'm gonna just get to the point here.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:09:43 – 3:09:46

We we fight to win and we follow the law, Senator.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:09:45 – 3:10:08

OK, so your c- your quote was, " we will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies." And yesterday you did not clarify whether you stand by this statement. So, I'm gonna give you another opportunity to clarify if that is what you meant. Do you stand by that statement you made on March thirteenth?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:10:10 – 3:10:16

we have uh untied the hands of our war fighters, we fight to win, and we follow the law.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:10:16 – 3:10:32

OK, so you're not clarifying. So you stand by that statement. So, you're the Secretary of Defense, the things you say matter, and your response here, right now, makes it clear to the American people exactly why you are not right for this job.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:10:32 – 3:10:33

It makes it clear to our enemies, Senator.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:10:35 – 3:10:36

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:10:36 – 3:10:58

Um, thank you um uh senator sheehy has left the room but it's been whispered to me that i just referred to him uh in the last exchange as senator schmidt i don't know if he considered that a compliment or an insult but i would do correct that for the record senator slotkin i think you are next

Sen. Slotkin (MI)3:10:58 – 3:14:42

thank you um gentlemen you're here to ask for one point five trillion dollars uh forty percent more than what we gave you last year, a trillion dollars. Um, and I agree with the chairman of this committee that the world has never been more dangerous and complicated. Um, and regardless of whether we disagree on the reasons for getting into this war, I think we can all agree that we want our military to come out of it safely and successfully, and as, you know, soon as feasible. Uh, the military has taken uh you all the the administration has taken military action in ten different places in the world in fifteen months more than any president in US history. Um I I think President Trump has really become a foreign policy president and many of those operations you know were on the news for a couple of days, but then the American public didn't feel them and I think the difference with this war with Iran is that the American public is feeling it in their pocketbooks. Uh, gas in Michigan is four ninety-nine today, the cost of fertilizer, of airline tickets, things that are real to people. Um, Secretary Hegseth, the president said that you were most keen, um, on this war. He, he said that you were the most gung-ho about it. Um, and, um, I, I think despite, um, us all wanting to come out of this successfully, it is hard to miss that we are at the stalemate, there, that we don't control the Strait of Hormuz because shipping is not getting through. Um, and we can block what they're trying to get through, but it, nothing is moving and it's costing the American public. Um, and I think that's a fundamentally different moment than the rest of the military action we've taken. Um, even in like Middle East one O one class, we used to talk about and run war games on the Strait of Hormuz. It's a strategic geography that the Iranians have. Um, and I think it's, it's just concerning to me that we, you know, we can try and tell the American people that it's going great and we're killing it, but until the Strait of Hormuz is open, I don't think we can credibly say that with any seriousness. Um, I, I think the question I have for you, though, is future-looking, and it's our twenty twenty-six elections. Um, the President has been very clear. He said in the State of the Union that essentially, his side doesn't win, then the election was rigged. He said that before the twenty twenty election. He's asked for voter rolls for twenty nine different states. He just asked for Detroit's votes, um, or ballots. Um, and we know that in twenty twenty he wrote an executive order that he didn't sign, um, that said, um, to the US military, to the secretary of defense, you should go and seize ballots and voting machines. A few months ago he said that he regretted that he ever, that he didn't sign that executive order. So m- the US military has never been deployed. Uh, you mis-correctly uh, uh, incorrectly said yesterday that they were deployed during different elections. Governors deployed them under their authorities, but the federal um, government has never put the uniformed military at our polls during World War Two, right after nine eleven. Um, we've never had to do that. So, Secretary Hegseth, If the president, who regrets not signing that executive order to the then SECDEF in twenty twenty, asks you to seize ballots or voting machines in states during the twenty twenty six election, will you stand up for the constitution and say no, or will you salute and do his bidding?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:14:44 – 3:14:52

Um, Senator, I didn't get a chance to answer the front part of your question, which uh, you know, there was a lot of deferred maintenance under the Biden administration that needed to be addressed.

Sen. Slotkin (MI)3:14:50 – 3:14:51

I understand. I I

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:14:52 – 3:14:56

cuz the world was in chaos when President Trump was elected because of,

Sen. Slotkin (MI)3:14:54 – 3:14:56

Just address the election issue, please.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:14:56 – 3:14:58

well, again, that's another,

Sen. Slotkin (MI)3:14:57 – 3:14:59

It's the most important thing. It's what's happening.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:14:59 – 3:15:03

it's a yet another gotcha hypothetical, which is your specialty.

Sen. Slotkin (MI)3:15:03 – 3:15:08

It's not. We had an executive order from you that your predecessor had to hold.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:15:04 – 3:15:08

And ultimately, under the Biden administration in twenty twenty four.

Sen. Slotkin (MI)3:15:09 – 3:15:42

It's not a hypothetical. I refuse to accept. You give that answer all the time. You and I have done this dance before. Get over it, OK? In twenty twenty, he he's the president, your boss, the guy you're performing for right now. told the journalists this year that he wished he signed that executive order to your predecessor, and your predecessor said publicly, thank God, uh he, we didn't actually go forward with it. What are you gonna do? You're the guy here in the seat. It's not hypothetical. Tell the American people, will you deploy the uniformed military to our poles to collect voter rolls or machines?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:15:43 – 3:15:46

Are y- are you accusing me of performing? Cuz you're performing for cable news right now.

Sen. Slotkin (MI)3:15:46 – 3:15:48

Dude, dude, just answer the question.

Unknown3:15:46 – 3:15:50

But, but, Mister Secretary, we have a very low It's a hypothetical.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:15:50 – 3:15:55

By the way, in twenty twenty four, under the Biden administration, fifteen states did deploy troops to polling stations.

Sen. Slotkin (MI)3:15:54 – 3:15:57

Under their governor's authority, when their governors asked for it,

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:15:57 – 3:15:58

What did Joe Biden say about that?

Sen. Slotkin (MI)3:15:57 – 3:16:17

that's fundamentally, I don't think, anything because he needed them for cyber security and for COVID. Trump did it too, it w- under Trump, but it was not the federal decision, it was those governors of the states under their authorities, OK? It's never been done in our history. Please stand up for the constitution. Do not send uniformed military to our polls.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:16:18 – 3:16:23

Do you have a response to that portion of the question, mister secretary?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:16:23 – 3:16:28

I've I've never been ordered to do anything illegal and I won't. That's goes without saying.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:16:27 – 3:16:31

Thank you. Thank you for Thank you for the answer. Senator Duckworth, you're now recognized.

Unknown3:16:33 – 3:18:24

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, um, despite his campaign promise of no new wars, President Trump has been obsessed with using the military any chance he gets, from deploying troops to American cities, to propping up Maduro's Chosen number two in Venezuela, to an endless war of boat strikes in the Caribbean sea, and now in an illegal war with Iran, where hundreds of thousands of our troops are in harm's way every day with no exit strategy in sight. This administration hides bad policy behind the exceptional military operations and the valor of our uniformed personnel. I've long said Iran is a malign actor, but the responsible administration would have managed this short of conflict, instead of starting a war of choice. There was no imminent threat to the United States or our troops, The military was not the most effective tool to get Iran to capitulate, as we're already seeing too clearly now. And using force has made Americans in the Middle East less safe, while spiking costs for Americans here at home, all through the tune of fourteen service members dead, hundreds wounded, billions of taxpayer dollars, and untold costs to our military readiness. This administration claims to be focused on the warfighter, but President Trump told us when he announced a war from his luxury resort, that he expected service members to die. Now sadly, it's clear how unserious Trump is about his role as the Commander-in-Chief. His war within Iran has already reminded us how important it is to prevent a war, how serious it is to ask the military to wage one under poor strategic direction, how destructive a wide-ranging war can be for Americans, for our service members, and how difficult it is to actually end one once you start it. The incompetence and casual disregard for our service members' professionalism and sacrifice is in my opinion a scandal general kane general kane can you tell us the status of the iranian revolutionary guard corps navy the entity actively closing the strait

Dan Caine (Witness)3:18:26 – 3:18:33

uh there uh senator apologies i was uh listening to you i was just trying to write it down uh there uh um

Unknown3:18:31 – 3:18:32

no worries

Dan Caine (Witness)3:18:33 – 3:18:38

uh mostly destroyed san com continues to watch them uh they

Unknown3:18:37 – 3:18:39

not not the iranian navy

Dan Caine (Witness)3:18:39 – 3:18:40

no no the

Unknown3:18:40 – 3:18:41

the ircg thing

Dan Caine (Witness)3:18:40 – 3:18:53

yes ma'am the the the smaller i won't get into any classified materials but the smaller uh fast uh and you know smaller boats boston whaler size boats there are still some out there yes ma'am

Unknown3:18:53 – 3:20:35

so this administration and the secretary of defense has been boasting about sinking the ships of the iranian navy but let's call this what it is it's misdirection they want us to focus on the impressive number of large iranian ships underwater to distract from the fact that they had no plans For the second navy that Iran owns, that has always been a hard problem to address by military force. The IRCG navy, not the Iranian navy, has been Iran's tip of the spear at the Straits of Hormuz, seizing vessels and threatening target to target US assets. Iran has long invested in this second asymmetrical navy, specifically to develop capabilities that would be difficult to for a conventional US military forces to target. Iran's advantage is well known to anyone paying attention. I've no doubt that competent planners in the Pentagon raise their concerns about quagmire in the straight to leadership. The question is why their leadership did not pay attention to the sound advice. Hubris is not strategy, and in war it costs lives, even if the straight reopens. This administration has created a new less safe world by initiating and then bungling this crisis and teaching Iran that it can charge a million dollars a ship to transit the straight. It will take a long time for the global economy to bounce back to normal trade flows. And Iran has learned again that they can charge a million dollars per ship creating a new funding line for their malicious activity against Americans for years to come. And in the Indo-Pacific, I don't doubt that if the worst day comes, our military will step up to challenge and defend Americans and our interest with military force. But would they be asked to lay down their lives unnecessarily, just because the White House was unready and incapable of preventing a crisis boiling over into a war in the Indo-Pacific? General Kane, do you agree that the military would benefit from significant inter intra-agency planning by the Department of Defense on actions short of war, that can be taken if a crisis occurs.

Dan Caine (Witness)3:20:36 – 3:21:07

ma'am i i appreciate that question you highlighting the importance of that and we we have really great relationships now on the joint staff with the interagency i think our relationship in particular i'll just pick cia i think it's the best it's it's ever been we're really working hard to find the best of title ten capabilities plus the best of title fifty to insure that we deliver really entrepreneurial options for our national policymakers to do what you're talking about, Senator.

Unknown3:21:07 – 3:21:48

But, alright, um, but I am concerned because during the recent NDS hearing I laid out the very real ways that a crisis in just one of the dozens of flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific could be devastating for our service members, Americans, and our American economy. But since then, this administration has only further diminished DOD's ability to prepare for these crises. In fact, many of the, as many as one third of the assets in the Middle East originally meant to be in the Indo-Pacific. This war of choice is draining our military resources. We need leaders who do everything they can to ensure war fighters only fight when they have to not because of one man's whims and the lack of bravery among the yes-men he surrounds himself with. I thank you for your service uh General um and I continue to look forward to working with you.

Dan Caine (Witness)3:21:48 – 3:21:48

Thank you.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:21:48 – 3:21:50

Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Senator Rosen.

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:21:51 – 3:22:54

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member Reid. Um, thank you, General. for your service. Uh, before my begin my questions for Secretary Hegsteth, I have one brief important question for General Kane. Um, General, as you've acknowledged at your confirmation hearing, service members who served at locations which another US government agency deems contaminated, like the Nevada test and training range, should have the same presumption of radiation exposure as DOE employees who served alongside them. But we also must ensure that DOD provides the VA the records proving that these individuals serve there. So this is a problem that DOD has the power to solve. I know we've discussed this. So General Kane, will you commit to ensuring parity for DOD personnel who served in locations that the G- US government has already deemed contaminated, identifying those who served in such locations, and providing documentation of that service to the VA so that they can receive the veterans' benefits um that they have earned.

Dan Caine (Witness)3:22:54 – 3:23:15

You bet, ma'am, and and I'm uh, you know, since our last time together on this, we've continued to chip away at removing or figuring out how to get past that uh one particular blocking in that record so that that data flows uh normally. And I'm I'm committed to trying to solve that for those leaders and teammates who are out there at that site.

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:23:15 – 3:24:27

Thank you. We'll look forward to continue to work with you on that. So, Secretary Hegseth, I wanna talk a little bit about AI. Because of course our service members deserve every advantage we can give them. So I just want you to help me understand this. In February, on the eve of Operation Epic Fury, you publicly designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk. However, this week it's been reported that the White House is now helping agencies get around this decision to access Anthropics technology. So the administration cannot credibly make both claims simultaneously. So before I ask you about the inconsistency, I just want you to reconfirm what it is you plan to use this technology for. It's been publicly reported that the decision to label Anthropic a national security risk was influenced by your personal and very public contract dispute with Anthropic when the company said that its technology could not be used for fully autonomous weapons targeting or mass surveillance of Americans. So following up on your response to Senator Rounds earlier. can you confirm whether or not there will always be a human in the loop when ai is used for lethal targeting decisions

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:24:29 – 3:24:36

well first of all on anthropic they would not agree to our terms of service that would be like boeing giving us airplanes and telling us who we can shoot at

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:24:35 – 3:24:39

but this is not this is not just about anthropic though this is about

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:24:37 – 3:24:45

so they were just wanna be just wanna be clear and also anthropic is run by an ideological lunatic who shouldn't have a

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:24:41 – 3:24:46

and that's fine so that's but that's not my question

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:24:45 – 3:24:46

sole

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:24:46 – 3:24:50

My question is, AI writ large, writ large.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:24:47 – 3:24:51

decision making about what we do. We follow the law, Senator.

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:24:50 – 3:24:56

Should AI well, you confirmed you said this to Senator Rounds earlier, so I'm just asking for you to recommit.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:24:55 – 3:25:00

We follow the law, but we don't have to sign a different terms of agreement with with Anthropic.

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:24:59 – 3:25:13

That's not I this is not the question. This is not about anthropic. This is just an example. I want you to confirm that whether or not there will always be a human in the loop, when AI is used in the kill chain for lethal targeting decisions,

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:25:16 – 3:25:17

we follow

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:25:17 – 3:25:18

you said this to

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:25:19 – 3:25:21

we follow the law and humans make decisions

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:25:24 – 3:25:30

so you will confirm what you said to senator rounds that a human will always be in the loop when ai is used

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:25:30 – 3:25:31

which is why

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:25:32 – 3:25:33

i'm just you just said this

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:25:32 – 3:25:34

that's part of our terms of service anyway

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:25:36 – 3:25:36

you know

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:25:37 – 3:25:37

it's how we operate

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:25:38 – 3:26:01

all i want to say is this There is a DOD directive, three thousand point, three thousand point O nine, which mandates that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over use of force. That is in the DOD uh directive.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:26:00 – 3:26:02

That's why we follow the law, Senator.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:26:01 – 3:26:04

So so they so the answer is yes, Mister Secretary.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:26:04 – 3:26:06

The answer is we follow the law. Absolutely.

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:26:07 – 3:26:15

I think this is more important than following the law. i think that people want to know that ai isn't gonna make lethal decisions and it is critically important

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:26:15 – 3:26:17

ai is not making lethal decisions

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:26:18 – 3:27:03

that's what we wanna hear we're gonna follow on that one i have um just a few seconds left but you keep doubling down on this phrase mister secretary you compare journalists you compare us you compare so many to pharisees Pharisees, it's a problematic and historically weaponized term that casts Jewish communities as hypocritical or morally corrupt. You doubled down again and said it. Words matter. Words matter, what you choose to say, how we choose to say it. How do you justify using this language as secretary of defense? Words matter. It's a hurt historically hurtful term. Why do you continue to use it,

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:27:01 – 3:27:02

Right.

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:27:03 – 3:27:14

and what actions are you taking to prevent rhetoric like this from permeating throughout the department that is going to target specific groups or individuals of people based on their religion.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:27:17 – 3:27:29

Senator, I feel like it's a pretty accurate term to for folks who don't see the plank in their own eye and always want to see what's wrong with an operation as opposed to the historic success of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. So I stand by it.

Sen. Rosen (NV)3:27:28 – 3:27:52

I just You stand by calling people Pharisees. Sir, I cannot I cannot stand for that. That is wrong. It is not respectful to people. Well, you have a second round. And I expect anyone who is in leadership, let in our country, to be respectful A second round for me. and use respectful terms and not be an anti-semit. OK.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:27:54 – 3:28:09

Um, thank you, Senator Rosen. Um, the chair and the ranking member have no second round questions i'm told by senator kelly that he would like to ask it uh second question

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:28:10 – 3:30:51

yeah mister secretary so one point five trillion dollars one point five is a very round number um you know if you're putting together a budget you'd come up with these are the problems we're trying to solve this is the capability we need these are the systems we have to buy And at the end of the day, it would spit out a number and it's probably not one point five trillion. So to me it feels like that number was just kinda pulled out of thin air. I took a look recently and it, it uh, it seems that the defense budget of the rest of the world, I'm talking China, Russia, India, every Asian country, every European country, South America, everybody else, is in the neighborhood, it looked like one point seven to one point eight. So, your request is approaching all defense spending from everybody else with the exception of us. That is a huge amount of money. You know, when I got here, you know, just five years ago, it was almost half of that. Through budget reconciliation, you've received a bunch of money to buy things, of some of the weapon systems, you know, to resupply what we need. I'm just trying to understand, you know, like where is all this money gonna go, and if you've figured out ahead of time what do you wanna spend this on? And by the way, there are systems the president wants. You know, he saw um, last summer how effective Iron Dome and David's sling were. And because of that, The president decided we're gonna build our own version. We're gonna call it Golden Dome, because the president likes the color gold. We've seen that, see it in the Oval Office. We're gonna call it Golden Dome, and it might cost somewhere between five hundred billion and a trillion dollars. I've heard those estimates. By the way, on that problem, I know a little bit about, intercepting stuff in space, it's really hard. And the physics on this favors the offense. There's some things in that program that I think is really important that we do, and try to figure it, figure it out. But space-based interceptors, to hit multiple targets, and by the way, it's important how you size the system. So, I'm trying to understand, Mister Secretary, what kind of detail did you guys, y- did you work out like a detailed plan and at the end of the day it came out, oh, it just happens to come out to be one point five trillion dollars?

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:30:54 – 3:31:56

senator the exact amount is actually one point five three five trillion dollars and it was a product of a highly rigorous process throughout our department from com commanders to the services with our com controller with our deputy secretary with the chairman and myself to ensure the budget reflects the realities of the world we live in and the capabilities we're gonna need and that's why there's sixty five building billion for ship building hundred and twenty billion for the defense industrial base three hundred and thirty one billion for munitions forty four billion for quality of life, seventy one billion on our nuclear dib, you name it, we're investing in it. And the biggest reason for it is the underinvestment of the Biden administration. I mean, what they spent on defense, the continuing resolutions and others, undercut the build-up that the President Trump had created. So, yes, we're doing a lot of uh deferred maintenance here, around the world and in our department. And this budget reflects it. And it's a commitment, a generational commitment to the security of the American people. And if the rest of the world won't spend on their defense, that's their fault. the american department of war will invest properly to defend the american people and that's what this budget stands for.

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:31:54 – 3:33:14

i have always been i've always been supportive of defense spending in my entire time here and after twenty five years in the navy i wanna make sure our folks have what they need i think you should go back and take a look and see if there are places where we are making investments that we actually don't need. there are some systems out there i mean we're constantly looking and and trying to balance Do we want, you know, F forty seven, which I've been supportive of. Um, B twenty one, also supportive. And then we wanna make all these other investments in really inexpensive, low-cost amish, uh, u- munitions, because we suddenly realize that the expensive stuff, even with through B twenty one, we can't really, maybe not get close enough. But the whole idea behind B twenty one and F forty seven is we can penetrate further into the A two A D bubble. So there's some conflict there. So, I'm just encouraging you to go back and see, you know, if there are some systems where we can bring that number, the overall number down. Because as I look at what the department is trying to field, you know, some of this stuff, in my judgment, and, you know, I know others might have another opinion, some of this stuff, we either don't need, or it's not gonna work.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:33:15 – 3:33:15

Um,

Sen. Kelly (AZ)3:33:15 – 3:33:16

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:33:16 – 3:33:32

Senator Kelly, your time has expired, let me just say, you have a great deal of expertise in the area of space and, and we do look forward to um, your contribution as we mark up uh further legislation. Senator Blumenthal, I understand you have a follow-up question.

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)3:33:33 – 3:34:38

Uh, yes. Uh, first of all, I wanna thank uh, you, Mister Secretary, for your support for the Major Richard Starr Act, which uh i think is tremendously significant uh i'm committed to getting it done as soon as possible at least before veterans day and i look forward to your help in accomplishing that goal but i wanna thank you for your support i'm sure the veterans of america are grateful for the prospective victory there um i've talked to many of the combatant commanders about lessons learned from ukraine and uh i think that there is unanimity on the point that there is a lot to be learned not only about what the russians are doing but what other adversaries could do as well general kane chairman kane um would you agree that there are lessons to be learned from ukraine

Dan Caine (Witness)3:34:40 – 3:35:12

uh you bet you bet senator and there's lessons learned from everywhere and that's really the culture of our joint force right now is to make sure that across the globe any time we're in contact with the enemy we're going back and determining what we can learn from there but um i uh you know a big one if if you'll allow me a big one is is uh you know mass and and simultaneity which is something the secretary has taken a strong role in making sure that we're doing that through uh drone evaluations and things like that moving forward

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)3:35:15 – 3:35:36

following up on a question that i asked earlier on my last question uh the president said yesterday that his view is after his conversation with latimer putin that ukraine has been quote militarily defeated in your professional judgment has ukraine been militarily defeated.

Dan Caine (Witness)3:35:37 – 3:35:58

sir i haven't i haven't seen the president's quote but uh you know i'll i'll go back to something i started with and that's the important of uh importance of me maintaining trust with a variety of people and you know i uh a president will make a wide range of of comments and considerations as a commander in chief and

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)3:35:56 – 3:36:01

you you don't you you don't have to go too much farther i understand the point that you're making

Dan Caine (Witness)3:35:59 – 3:36:00

thank you

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:36:00 – 3:36:00

mmm

Dan Caine (Witness)3:36:00 – 3:36:02

yes sir thank you i appreciate it sir

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)3:36:03 – 3:37:32

uh in my view ukraine has not only not been militarily defeated but the point that i was trying to make in the last exchange with the secretary there's a false narrative based on my last visit to ukraine which was my ninth my conversation not only with president zelinski but with our own military on the ground as well as our intelligence community in fact ukraine arguably is winning there is this false narrative russia is winning putin wants that false narrative to be our official narrative i'm not putting words in your mouth and you don't have to respond i understand your reasons for not responding but the american people should know that the president of the united states is undermining our security because ukraine is holding the line against vladmir putin who will keep going against moldova which i also visited on my last trip against our nato allies and we still have an obligation under article five to come to their defense just as they did after nine eleven as king charles so eloquently reminded us and my view is and this observation is hardly novel that china is watching what we're doing in ukraine would you agree

Dan Caine (Witness)3:37:34 – 3:37:53

Sorry, I'd agree that China's watching everywhere, um, and carefully thinking about what their forced posture and approach will be. And, uh, I think they're learning a variety of things, to include the tenacity and grit of the joint force around the things that we've been ordered to do over the last year.

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)3:37:54 – 3:38:21

But if they see weakness in our response to Russia and Ukraine, that will affect the deterrence of their possibly moving against one of our allies or partners in the far east let me uh finally ask mister hearst um your estimate of twenty five billion dollars would you share with us what that estimate is based on

Jay Hurst (Witness)3:38:23 – 3:38:26

yeah we we can work to get you a product with the details if you like

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)3:38:28 – 3:38:44

And, and finally, Mister Secretary, is there going to be a report on the bombing of the school in the first day or so of the war? I know you were asked about it yesterday. I'm wondering whether you have a uh, more detailed response that you can share with us.

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:38:45 – 3:38:54

As I've said, that's under investigation of fifteen six, a general officer from outside the chain of command has been reviewing it, and uh, it's still within the parameters of the investigation.

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)3:38:54 – 3:39:00

Will there be a preliminary report? in the next few weeks or do you have a time estimate

Pete Hegseth (Witness)3:39:02 – 3:39:10

i don't have a time estimate for you but it it uh it it will be it it's put right now within the parameters of the length of time that normally these investigations take

Sen. Blumenthal (CT)3:39:10 – 3:39:35

i'm i'm asking because in your final response to senator gillibrand you said that great care is taken to avoid civilian casualties and it would be profoundly significant if that report were made available in timely way to show in fact the commitment to avoiding civilian casualties and learning lessons from the mistake made there.

Sen. Wicker (MS)3:39:36 – 3:39:50

Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Um, this concludes today's hearing. I'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony. For the information of members, questions for the record would be due to the committee within two business days of the conclusion of the hearing. We are adjourned.

Morning digest

Start every morning briefed on yesterday’s hearings

A free weekday email covering yesterday’s hearings and transcripts newly unlocked in the archive.

Free weekday email. Unsubscribe anytime.