Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies before Senate panel on Pentagon oversight — full video

[0:00] controller, Mr. J. Hurst. I thank all of them, including their families, for their service. [0:07] For the dozens of Americans that regularly watch our hearings, my next remarks will be no surprise, [0:12] but for new viewers, I want to reiterate some context from our remarks. I've said this at [0:19] almost every hearing. We live in the most dangerous security environment since World War II. [0:26] Every uniformed officer who has come before this committee has agreed with that statement. [0:31] First and foremost, we're locked in a competition with Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. [0:38] The competition is high stakes, and it is about whether this will be an American-led century [0:44] or a century defined by authoritarian autocratic regimes that care little for the needs of their [0:53] citizens or those in neighboring countries. The Chinese Communist Party has accelerated its [0:58] historic military buildup dressers. This growing alliance cannot be denied. It includes China, [1:06] Russia, Iran, and North Korea. They're united around this goal to oppose America's interests [1:13] and the interests of other like-minded democratic countries across the globe. Vladimir Putin's [1:20] war of choice in Ukraine has now entered its fifth year. In Putin's objectives, we hear echoes [1:26] of the imperialistic ambitions of World War II's aggressors, including Adolf Hitler. [1:32] Vladimir Putin has suffered 1.2 million casualties and failed miserably in his military objectives. [1:42] Along the way, he has transformed Russia's economy into one fueled by war, raising the prospect of an even [1:51] more aggressive Moscow for the foreseeable future. Most of Iran's leaders are now deceased. But they [1:59] and those who survived them have consistently sought violence against America, Israel, our Gulf allies, [2:07] and the Iranian people. We saw this during the October 7 massacre, during their continued support for [2:15] Hezbollah and Hamas, and in their desire to engage in nuclear blackmail. Iran's ayatollahs have consistently [2:22] represented a threat to American interest. Kim Jong-un has joined Mr. Putin's war of aggression. [2:31] He continues a military and nuclear buildup that threatens South Korea, Japan, and the United States. [2:38] Ties have never been closer among these four dictators, among these four dictatorships. [2:45] They support each other's aggressive endeavors. They prop each other up financially, and they scheme to [2:52] undermine America's objectives. We should expect them to continue this behavior. This context plays out across [2:59] every dimension of national power, the economy, technology, diplomacy, and more. But today we're here to talk [3:07] about the military dimension of this competition. These regimes have regularly tried to take force, take by force, [3:15] what they cannot secure through the political process. For that reason, we must be ready to deter conflicts [3:23] and, if necessary, to win them. President Trump has used the U.S. military appropriately and effectively for [3:32] American interests. He has viewed our adversaries as a united bloc and has taken action in light of that [3:41] reality. In Operation Absolute Resolve and Associated Statecraft, the president removed an aspiring dictator [3:50] off the board and set up Venezuela for a future aligned with democratic interests. In Operation Midnight Hammer, [3:58] he sought to eliminate the Ayatollah's nuclear program. When the Ayatollah chose to double down, [4:04] the president launched Operation Epic Fury. In that mission, he has worked to remove the regime's [4:10] conventional military capabilities and force it back to the table for a permanent solution. While [4:19] we all mourn the tragic loss of the 14 service members who've lost their lives in this conflict, [4:25] we do so knowing the world is safer without a nuclear Iran. All of these actions are part of a peace [4:32] through strength strategy. In this approach, we seek first to avoid war, but we take military action [4:39] when necessary to achieve U.S. interest. And so, Mr. Secretary, I'm pleased that you are here [4:45] testifying today in support of President Trump's historic $1.5 trillion defense budget request. [4:53] That sum will go a long way toward rebuilding our military capabilities for a generation. [4:59] I should say up front that this may be a long hearing. There's much to discuss. [5:04] This $1.5 trillion request is chock full of important programs and initiatives that are [5:11] absolutely necessary to secure American interest in the 21st century. I think this funding underpins [5:18] and accentuates three comparative advantages the United States possesses over the axis of aggressors. [5:25] The first comparative advantage America enjoys over our adversaries is that we have the best [5:30] innovation and industry in the world. So I hope our witnesses today will cover the progress we've made [5:37] in just the past year rebuilding the American arsenal. Last year, our reconciliation bill combined with [5:46] bipartisan appropriation bills achieved about a trillion dollar defense budget. This year's request would [5:54] represent a near 50 percent increase. Every penny of it should be money well spent making down payments on [6:03] crucial transformational capabilities such as drone warfare, low-cost munitions, and missile defense. [6:14] Also last year, Congress and the executive branch achieved historic acquisition reforms. Consequently, [6:20] we're well positioned to make huge gains on efficiency this year and in the years to come, making it much more [6:29] flexible and a more timely process. I look forward to discussing how we might accelerate implementation of [6:38] these actions. In particular, I'd like to see the Pentagon do more this year to drive competition in the defense [6:46] industrial base. Competition absolutely drives better outcomes for our service members and taxpayers. Of course, [6:55] our people are the final comparative advantage we have over our adversaries. We've enjoyed significant [7:02] improvements in recruitment and retention, but we need to solidify a merit-based environment that fully [7:08] cares for our personnel. I commend you, Mr. Secretary, for your efforts over the past year to do just that. [7:15] That task will never be finished, of course, but we embrace it [7:18] gladly and we salute the progress. We will always be striving to care for and equip American service [7:25] members as much as possible. I look forward to more work between this committee and the department [7:32] this coming year. With that, I turn to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Jack Reed. [7:37] Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Hegseth, General Cain, Mr. Hurst, welcome and please [7:45] convey my appreciation, all of our appreciation to our military service members and defense civilians. [7:52] We owe them our deepest sense of gratitude. Mr. Secretary, this is your first public appearance before this [7:59] committee in nearly a year. Since your last public testimony, you and President Trump have unwisely taken [8:06] the United States to war with Iran. You ordered an attack on Venezuela and have directed ongoing [8:14] illegal boat strike campaign in the Caribbean and Pacific. At your direction, our forces have bombed [8:21] Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, and Ecuador. In the United States, you have deployed thousands of [8:31] troops to cities like Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland to police American citizens. [8:38] And you have personally intervened to end the careers of dozens of military leaders without explanation. [8:44] These actions will have significant and long-term consequences. Now you appear before us to ask for [8:54] a $1.5 trillion budget, a 45 percent increase above last year. I must say I'm skeptical and such a request [9:04] demands intense scrutiny. 61 days ago, President Trump unilaterally began the war in Iran. He had no coherent [9:14] strategy. He refused to make a case to the American people or consult Congress. He failed to present any [9:21] evidence of an immediate threat. And he ignored the advice of military and intelligence experts who [9:27] warned him of the consequences. Today, our nation is in a war strategic position. The straightover moves [9:36] was open. Now it is closed. 13 service members have tragically lost their lives, and more than 400 have [9:43] been wounded. We have lost dozens of aircraft, sustained significant damage to our bases in the area, [9:50] and expended an alarming amount of our missile inventory. Morale and readiness across the force, [9:57] especially among over-deployed units and vessels like the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, have [10:03] suffered. Gasoline and fertilizer prices throughout the world have surged. American families are bearing the [10:11] cost of a war they wanted nothing to do with, and have gained nothing from. And yet, Secretary Hedges, [10:18] you declared victory a month ago. On April 8th, you said, in your words, Operation Epic Fury was a historic [10:25] and overwhelming victory. By any measure, Epic Fury decimated Iran's military and rendered its combat [10:34] forces ineffective for years to come. Let me be clear. Tactically, the United States military [10:41] performance against Iran has been remarkable. And I salute the service members who have executed this [10:47] mission with skill and bravery. The problem with your statements, Mr. Secretary, is they are [10:53] dangerously exaggerated. Iran's hardline regime remains in place. It still retains stockpiles of [11:00] enriched uranium, and its nuclear program remains viable. Iran's military retains enough combat effectiveness [11:09] to keep the conflict at an impasse. Its missiles and drones remain a far greater threat than you have [11:15] acknowledged, and the regime has demonstrated it can effectively control the threat of a moose when it [11:21] chooses. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that you have been telling the president what he wants to hear, [11:27] instead of what he needs to her. Bold assurances of success are a disservice to both the commander-in-chief [11:34] and the troops who risk their lives based on them. Our military has performed heroically, but military [11:41] force without Assad's strategy is a path to long-term defeat. I'd like to know what options you are [11:48] considering now, given the course from this war and the stalemate President Trump has put us in. More broadly, [11:55] Mr. Secretary, too often you have made dangerous statements that are counterproductive to the mission. [12:03] You boasted about, quote, no stupid rules of engagement. Just days after hundreds of Iranian schoolers [12:09] were tragically killed in a missile strike. You have made troubling statements about showing no mercy [12:16] and no quarter to the Iranians, orders that would constitute war crimes. As importantly, while our [12:23] men and women are fighting and dying overseas, you have focused unduly on your own personal agenda. In the [12:30] past two months alone, you have taken upon yourself to overhaul the Chaplain Corps, cancel flu vaccine [12:36] requirements, repeal firearm restrictions on military posts, and bar service members from attending certain [12:44] universities. Just this week, you brought performer Kid Rock to an army base to go for a joyride in an [12:51] Apache helicopter after dismissing an earlier investigation into the pilots who recklessly chose [12:59] to hover above his home. That runs directly counter to the chain of command and maintaining good order and [13:06] discipline. Most disturbingly, during your tenure, you have fired dozens of our most senior military leaders and [13:13] personally intervened to block the promotions of many others. That is a betrayal of the merit-based system [13:19] that forms the foundation of our military. You are hollering out the military's bench of experience and [13:26] highest performing senior officers, while making young officers wonder if they should continue to serve. [13:34] My colleagues and I have heard from countless service members throughout the ranks, many of whom will be watching [13:40] right now, who are confused and disturbed by your actions. Hopefully, you can explain them today. [13:47] Additionally, this committee expects a fulsome update on Operation Southern Sphere. This ongoing campaign [13:54] against suspected drug trafficking boats has resulted in nearly 200 fatalities. The administration has [14:01] failed to explain the long-term objectives of this mission or provide any evidence of reduced drug [14:08] flows into the United States. I would ask for a credible answer to this most fundamental question, [14:14] what is the operation actually meant to accomplish? Mrs. X-Ray, you are here to promote the President's [14:22] $1.5 trillion defense budget. While this budget provides funding for necessary programs, including [14:29] shipbuilding and drone manufacturing, many other critical programs like barracks repair and aircraft [14:35] procurement would rely on the passage of a party-line reconciliation bill. Further, this budget slashes [14:43] research and development, provides no funding for Ukraine, and includes no funding for losses incurred from [14:50] the Iran war. Yesterday, Mr. Hearst testified that Operation Epic Fury has cost $25 billion. If nothing else, [15:00] that help clarifies that we certainly do not need a supplemental anywhere near $100 billion, much less [15:08] $200 billion. And in this record-breaking budget, there is no pay adjustments for the civilian workforce, [15:15] and with inflation, that is a pay cut. After a year of doge layoffs and a hiring freeze, [15:21] across the Department, this is an insult to the 800,000 men and women who support our war fighters [15:28] every day. I cannot imagine a faster way to erode readiness and distract from our abilities [15:34] to deter our adversaries. Ultimately, Mr. Secretary, I believe you are causing lasting harm to the military. [15:43] Like many members of this committee, I had the opportunity and the privilege to serve in the military, [15:50] and every officer knows they are duty-bound to give their best professional advice, [15:55] even if it is not what their superiors want to hear. Because when leaders fear to speak honestly, [16:01] people die, missions fail, wars are lost. The Americans' people's trust in our military took 250 [16:09] years to build. You are dismantling it in a fraction of that time. And trust, once long, [16:16] can take generations to rebuild. Mr. Secretary, today, I hope you'll take a step forward toward [16:23] rebuilding the trust that has been lost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [16:27] Mr. Secretary, you are now recognized for your opening statement, sir. [16:33] Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed, Senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of [16:42] President Trump's historic, as you said, Mr. Chairman, $1.5 trillion fiscal year 2027 budget for the [16:49] Department of War. The President's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing [16:55] both the deferment of longstanding problems as well as positioning our forces for the current and future [17:01] fights. I'm honored to appear alongside General Dan Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [17:07] and Jay Hurst, our Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller. I'd like to start by thanking this [17:12] committee and Congress for your partnership in securing the investments needed for a stronger, [17:17] prouder, and more secure military. Your focus on acquisitions, your focus on efficiency are the [17:23] reflection in our department as well and in this budget. A nation's ability to build, to innovate, [17:31] and to support the critical needs of its warfighters at speed and at scale is the foundation upon which [17:37] its deterrence and survival rests. However, upon taking office on January 20th, 2025, [17:44] President Trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America [17:49] last policies, resulting in a diminished capacity to project strength. Under the previous administration, [17:57] we were offshoring, outsourcing, beset by cost overruns and degraded capabilities. But under the [18:04] leadership of President Trump, our builder-in-chief, we are reversing this systemic decay and putting [18:10] our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. Urgency informs everything we do. We're [18:17] rebuilding a military that the American people can be proud of, one that instills nothing less than [18:23] unrelenting fear in our adversaries and inspires historic morale and recruiting in its ranks. We fight [18:31] to win in every scenario. The $1.5 trillion budget put forward by the President will build upon a [18:38] previous $1 trillion FY26 top line and will continue to reverse the four years of underinvestment [18:45] and mismanagement of the Biden administration. The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure that the [18:50] United States continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with a [18:57] complex threat environment across multiple theaters. Not to mention, the budget also includes a historic [19:04] troop pay increase, 7 percent for junior enlisted, and the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. [19:12] Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget. By supercharging our defense [19:19] industrial capacity and transforming how the department does business, we are restoring American [19:24] commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations, transforming the defense industrial base from [19:30] the broken, slow-moving systems of the past. We have flipped the Pentagon acquisition process from a [19:38] bureaucratic model to a business model, decisively moving from an acquisitions environment paralyzed [19:45] by bureaucratic red tape into an outcomes-driven organization focused on delivering the most for [19:51] taxpayer dollars. Over the past year, through historic multi-year procurement agreements that this [19:57] committee supported, we have cut smart business deals that have sent unambiguous demand signals to [20:05] industry to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great American [20:13] factories and a massive reinvestment in the skilled American workers who serve as the industrial muscle [20:19] behind our warriors. Further interruptions of our hearing will be treated in like manner. We appreciate [20:43] the First Amendment rights of Americans to express themselves, but disruption of this hearing will [20:52] not be tolerated. So, Mr. Secretary, you may continue. I'll briefly provide some concrete high-level metrics of [20:59] what we've accomplished over just the past few months. These are announced new facilities and investments to [21:05] support American warfighters. The department has helped stimulate more than 250 private investment deals [21:11] in 39 states, 180 cities, and 150 companies worth more than $50 billion. It's resulted in 280 new or [21:21] expanded facilities, more than 18 million new square feet of American manufacturing, and more than 70,000 new [21:29] jobs. These $50 billion in investments in new plants, new assembly lines, and new factories are private [21:36] investments, not taxpayer dollars. By completely transforming our department's business model, [21:43] American companies are investing in America with their own dollars, a historic demonstration of [21:49] American manufacturing and defense revitalization, all with their money, not Uncle Sam's. This has never been done [21:57] before and is long overdue from a bureaucratic model to a business model. These investments equal great [22:05] things for America, for American families, and American workers to ensure that our warfighters have [22:10] everything they need, all American-made. Together with the help of the policy updates and appropriations [22:17] passed by Congress, President Trump's War Department has begun to turn the lights back on in our [22:22] manufacturing towns across this country, forging a lethal arsenal of freedom. Every policy we pursue, [22:30] every budgetary item we request, serves to ensure that this department remains laser-focused [22:35] on increasing lethality and survivability from the front lines to the factory floor. This is a historic [22:42] budget, as you said, Mr. Chairman. This is a fiscally responsible budget, and this is a warfighting budget. [22:50] Speaking of warfighting, the topic of Iran I'm sure will come up often today, which I welcome. I look [22:57] forward to sharing the incredible success of our military effort, achieved in a matter of weeks. [23:03] President Trump has the courage, has had, unlike other presidents, to ensure that Iran never gets [23:10] a nuclear weapon and that their nuclear blackmail never succeeds. We have the best negotiator in the [23:17] world driving a great deal. Unfortunately, as I said yesterday, and I'll say it again today, [23:24] the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless naysayers and defeatist words of [23:31] congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Defeatists from the cheap seats who, two months in, [23:38] seek to undermine the incredible efforts that have been undertaken and the historic nature of taking on a [23:44] 47-year threat with the courage no other president has had to great success and great opportunity for [23:51] preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Despite this, under President Trump, we are restoring [23:57] the unbreakable might of American manufacturing. We're providing for our warfighters, and we are [24:03] putting the people and interests of this country first. May almighty God continue to watch over our troops [24:10] wherever they are, and may we honor the legacy of those brave Americans that we have lost. This is [24:17] our sacred mission, and this is what we will continue to execute on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [24:23] Thank you for that statement, Mr. Secretary. General Cain, you're recognized. [24:26] Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, members of the committee, and your staff, [24:31] who we never get to say thanks to. Thanks for having me today. I'm honored to be here alongside the [24:37] Honorable Pete Hegseth and the Honorable Jay Hurst to testify on the president's fiscal 2027 budget. [24:44] I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm thankful for your continued partnership and [24:50] support of our warfighters defending the homeland and our interests around the world. It's a privilege [24:56] to speak with you today about the foundation of America's strength, the 2.8 million members of our [25:03] joint force, and I am continually inspired by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, [25:11] coast guardsmen, and civilians standing the watch for the nation, supported always by their families. [25:18] They could have chosen a much easier path, any other path, but they volunteered for a life of purpose [25:24] and passion and service. And every single day they rise to meet the nation's challenge challenges, [25:30] from combat operations to critical support roles, with the courage, tenacity, and grit that keeps our [25:38] nation strong and secure. I would also like to express my deep gratitude for the 39 members of the joint [25:47] force who've passed in operations, combat, and training during my time as the chairman, and specifically [25:56] highlight the 14 who've passed in Operation Epic Fury. The secretary and I are deeply grateful for each [26:03] of them and their families, and their names will never be forgotten. As the chairman, my duty is to ensure [26:10] our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military options and the associated risks [26:18] required to make the nation's hardest and most complex decisions. I owe the president, the secretary, [26:25] and the congress the truth at every turn, and my blueprint for this role has always been that of [26:32] General George C. Marshall. His firm commitment to civilian control and a nonpartisan military remains [26:41] my constant standard, and I strive to emulate his candor, delivering the facts leaders need [26:48] to hear not always what they want to hear, and once a decision is made, executing it with the absolute [26:55] dedication while keeping the joint force precisely where it should be. That's the demand of our profession. [27:02] As I sit before you today representing our incredible joint force, I want to emphasize my commitment to this [27:08] committee and to the congress. I will always follow General Marshall's steadfast example by providing clear [27:15] and candid nonpartisan military advice, working together to ensure the military remains squarely focused on one thing, [27:23] being prepared to deter and if called upon fight and win our nation's war, and that is our mission. [27:31] America's joint force is operational at its core, purpose-built for the realities in a complex world. [27:38] We're organized, trained, and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with [27:45] unrivaled precision. And over the past year, our war fighters have consistently demonstrated exactly [27:53] what it means to be the most capable and most professional force on earth. Our shared goal is to ensure the [28:01] joint force sustains the strategic initiative and advantage and ability to project power to respond [28:11] to the global challenges on our nation's terms. During Operation Rough Rider, Midnight Hammer, Southern [28:19] Spear, Absolute Resolve, and Epic Fury, the joint force executed globally integrated missions alongside our [28:27] interagency and international partners. And once our leaders made a decision, our forces demonstrated the unmatched ability [28:35] to seamlessly synchronize actions and activities from the seabed to cislunar space. We're able to accomplish these [28:44] complex things that we are asked to do because we draw from a deep reservoir of training, professionalism, [28:52] and commitment. Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it, rebuilding readiness every day, [29:00] training professionals every day, and sharpening our edge every day. And I am incredibly proud of this joint [29:07] force team and the leaders at every echelon who command it. As the chairman said, we are living in a complex [29:15] environment. Today, I look forward to discussing how we can sustain America's military advantage. [29:21] And I know this committee recognizes the challenges and the urgency in the environment that we face. [29:28] We're operating in delicate and dangerous times where risk is scaling. And the complexity of the modern [29:36] battlefield demands America's constant adaptation, innovation, and partnership with Congress. As a joint [29:44] force, we're up to the challenge. We're built for this environment. However, our continued success [29:50] success is not guaranteed by our past achievements. We must continue to be forward-looking and innovate [29:57] together with the Congress. To drive the pace of change and maintain our superiority requires timely, [30:04] predictable, and sustained investment. And the resources we're going to discuss today [30:10] are critical to modernizing the joint force and ensuring whatever threats might emerge, we are prepared [30:17] to defeat them to protect our interests and defend the nation and win. This president's budget for 2027 [30:24] supports the secretary and the department's goal of reinvigorating, recharging the defense industrial base [30:32] and the national industrial base, enhancing our readiness and securing our military advantage. To ensure [30:38] that our war fighters are properly armed, globally integrated, and ready while always taking care of [30:45] our people. And that is what truly sets America's joint force apart from each other, especially the 1.8 million [30:54] members, enlisted members of our joint force. It is them, the character, the competence of that force, [31:01] that transforms our capabilities into a decisive advantage. And our enlisted force is represented today [31:09] by the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, United States Navy Fleet Master Chief Dave Isom sitting [31:16] behind me, a teammate who I greatly appreciate and many of you on this committee know from his time in the [31:23] Indo-Pacific. While we face dynamic and dangerous times, I have absolute trust and confidence in the [31:31] extraordinary men and women within our joint force who every day execute the missions we ask them to quietly and [31:40] with precision. And coupled with the American spirit to outthink, outcompete, and relentlessly innovate, we will [31:48] maintain our decisive edge, but doing so requires your continued partnership. We [31:53] stand ready today to answer the nation's call. I humbly ask that as we're here today in this hearing, [32:00] we remember those deployed service members who are out there right now doing our nation's work. [32:06] And may we always forget our, or remember our fallen and never forget them or their families [32:12] who continue to show us what courage looks like. Thank you for your enduring support and I look forward to [32:17] your questions. Thank you very much, General. We appreciate your service. Let's jump right in. [32:23] Secretary Hegseth. Let's talk about the money from Reconciliation 1.0 last year. There have been [32:30] some complaints about the speed, but not everything we hear is actually accurate. How much of the [32:38] $154 billion from Reconciliation has the Pentagon put on contract? [32:44] Secretary Hegseth. My understanding, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to say what an important vehicle [32:50] reconciliation was for us and how it gave us a chance coming out of FY25 to advance the president's [32:56] priorities, whether it's drone dominance, Golden Dome for America, shipbuilding, the defense [33:00] industrial base. It was a critical vehicle for us. The number you're looking for is about, [33:05] what I'm looking at, about $26 billion right now. But we've got the floodgates about to open and apply to [33:11] those priorities. Okay. So, unfortunately, you're starting a bit late through no fault of your own [33:18] because the money was not sent timely by the Office of Management and Budget to the Department [33:24] until last month. That's over and done with, but it should be mentioned. Mr. Secretary, where are we [33:30] on the obligation rates as far as a normal appropriation bill? Are we a little behind, [33:40] a little ahead, or what? I would say probably a little bit behind as it pertains to reconciliation, [33:45] but part of that is, as you know, this is a new funding vehicle for the department. And twofold. One, [33:52] you've got to make sure you do it right and do it in a fiscally responsible way in conjunction with the [33:55] Congress to ensure that we meet congressional intent, but also that we've been using it to [34:01] energize our ability to exercise new pathways, to get at problems in different and more dynamic ways [34:06] that don't get stovepiped or stuck in the bureaucracy. So, yes, there's been some delays, [34:12] but ultimately, I think it's all goodness on the other side, given the new nature of this funding [34:18] vehicle. Right. Yes. Well, and things have been done differently, and we appreciate that. But, [34:23] Mr. Secretary, will you commit to us that you'll keep the committee informed frequently of your [34:29] efforts to get all this money out the door so our industrial base can start building as you have [34:35] described in this new flexibility that we've provided them? Absolutely. And you mentioned a few [34:43] things in reconciliation that you think have been game changers. We've, I do, I don't think we've [34:55] talked enough about some of the game changers. For years, we failed to take action on rebuilding [35:01] America's drone industrial base and critical mineral supply chains. After the last reconciliation bill [35:09] and the National Defense Authorization Act, we're in a very different position on drones [35:15] and critical mineral supply chains, are we not? Very much so. Mineral supply chains, drones, we went from [35:23] Jayada 401 to an autonomous warfare group. We're looking at the concept of a subunified command, [35:29] and you're looking at $54 billion in the FY27 budget dedicated to drone dominance. UAS, counter-UAS, [35:37] ensuring we can scale not just exquisite drones, but also the attributable ones that are proliferating on [35:43] the battlefield today. We need to be ahead. Are there any other initiatives from last year's bill [35:48] that you want to point out? And you only have a minute and a half? No, the investment in Golden [35:53] Dome for America, the ability to get running on that, and we are on schedule to deliver capabilities [35:58] inside this administration. Minerals and shoring up supply chains on minerals. The Office of Strategic [36:04] Capital, which its ability to loan gives 10x to new entrants into the department, the opportunity to fund [36:12] things that wouldn't normally meet the threshold for the department, but give them the running room to [36:16] invest in those capabilities, and we've already seen fruit from that as well. [36:19] And briefly, General Kane, there's no question that Vladimir Putin's Russia is taking serious [36:27] action to undermine our efforts for success in Iran. Is there any question about that? [36:32] Senator, I think there's actions and activities that are mindful of the hearing room we're in, [36:40] but there's definitely some action there. [36:42] Thank you very much. Senator Reid, you're recognized. [36:47] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you recently fired the [36:55] Honorary Chief of Staff, General Randy George, who's one of the most distinguished and decorated [37:00] officers of this generation. General George's nomination came before us. We reviewed it thoroughly, [37:08] and we concurred. Why did you fire General George? [37:12] Well, as I did then, and I'll say now, we thank General George for his service. [37:19] And out of respect to him and other officers, we never talk about the nature of why certain officers [37:26] are asked to step down. But we all serve at the pleasure of the president. And ultimately, [37:31] my view in coming into this department, as I stated in my confirmation hearing, [37:36] was to change the culture of the department. And it's ultimately challenging to change the [37:41] culture of a department with the same people who are a part of or in that department. So I have made [37:47] many changes with General Officers. We will continue to make changes as necessary with General Officers, [37:53] and they will be in keeping with the trajectory of where we would like to take the department. But it [37:57] doesn't take away from the service of those. And I think you will note that every officer that's been [38:03] asked to leave has been treated with respect. [38:06] Interesting. Of the two dozen officers that you have fired for reasons unrelated to performance, [38:15] since you have not indicated any cause, 60 percent are black or females. Now, did the president direct [38:23] you to single out female and black officers to be dismissed? Senator, of course not. And as we've [38:33] emphasized at this department from the beginning, the only metric is merit. This members on this [38:40] committee and the previous leadership of this department were focused on social engineering, [38:46] race and gender in ways that we think were unhealthy for the department, focusing on those things, [38:51] making decisions based on those things. In President Trump's War Department, we make decisions based on [38:56] only one thing, merit. And that's how we've made decisions going forward. That's how we've made them, [39:00] and that's how we'll make them going forward. Well, let me go back to General George. What [39:04] did he fail in terms of his lack of merit to continue serving? As I've said, I don't talk about [39:13] the nature of dismissal out of respect for these officers. But ultimately, we want to take the [39:18] department in a particular direction, certain services in a particular direction. And we want [39:23] leadership that's running as fast in that direction as possible. And in some cases, we make changes [39:27] accordingly, but do so out of respect to those officers. Well, I think that direction from your [39:32] behavior is an intense interest in Christianity, in nationalism, and in not recognizing the talents of [39:46] women and non-white gentlemen. And that's the wrong direction. [39:52] I don't know what you're insinuating, Senator, but I am not ashamed of my faith in Jesus Christ. [39:57] Well, you shouldn't be ashamed. And if you want to shame me for it, go ahead. [40:00] I'm not shaming you. But are you critical of other faiths? [40:05] I am a believer. I'm quite open in that. And our department allows for a multitude of faiths. [40:11] So I don't know what you're suggesting. I've heard the likes of things that people like you suggest [40:15] to try to smear my character, and I won't give into it. [40:19] Now, I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, but broadcasting before the national [40:28] religious broadcasters, stressing the need for more Christianity in the military forces, [40:34] doesn't seem like a neutral position in which you tolerate and accept all religions. [40:39] Let me move on. The strategic aspects of this operation in Iran. The president declared that [40:49] we're going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. And after more [40:56] than 13,000 strikes, unclassified assessments conclude that Iran retains more than 40 percent [41:02] of its drone arsenal and 60 percent of its ballistic missile launches compared with pre-war levels. [41:10] That's one of his objectives. The second objective was regime change. To the great, proud people of Iran, [41:20] I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand and we will finish, take over your government. [41:25] Well, when we finish, we'll take over your government. That has not succeeded. And then [41:31] one of his other things is the onset of the war, the president said, we will ensure that Iran does [41:36] not obtain a nuclear weapon. Military operations since Iran have not achieved that goal yet. And it also [41:43] seems to indicate that his pronouncements about Operation Midnight Hammer obliterating the nuclear [41:53] policy and structure of the Iranians was false. So you have not achieved any of the objectives yet, [41:59] that as the president mentioned. Well, in this setting, I won't talk about the nature of metrics, [42:05] which are classified, as you know, Senator. But I can say that looking at the objectives we set out to [42:11] achieve from the beginning, some of which you laid out, our military, our military objectives have been [42:18] stunningly effective. Look, take, for example, their defense industrial base. They're completely [42:23] incapable at scale at any level of reconstituting the capabilities you referred to, which is a [42:28] devastating result for any country, especially one whose ambitions are as wide as Iran's. So we've put [42:35] the president in a very strong position to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. That's that's [42:41] the takeaway that's been underneath every single aspect of this. For 47 years, Iran's trying to [42:46] blackmail its way to a nuclear weapon. They were closer than ever before because of bad deals under [42:50] previous administration. President Trump was willing to do something about it and not allow their [42:55] conventional missile shield. That's the North Korea strategy. That's to be clear what Iran was pursuing, [43:01] hiding their nuclear ambitions, revealing them over time, and then building a conventional shield of [43:07] missiles so powerful that no country would challenge them for fear of what would happen if they unleashed [43:13] that arsenal. Weekend after the 12-day war in Midnight Hammer, which did obliterate their their their [43:18] sights, President Trump saw an opportunity because their ambitions continued to ensure that umbrella of [43:24] nuclear blackmail did not allow them to get to a nuclear weapon. And the world is safer because of his [43:30] bold and historic choice. Mr. Secretary, I think that's rhetorical but not factual. Thank you. [43:40] Thank you, Senator Reid. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Hurst, General Kane, welcome. Over the last several months, [43:49] I've worked closely with some of the new direct reporting program managers and I've been encouraged [43:56] by how they're approaching the department's most complex acquisition systems. General White's pulled [44:03] forward the next milestone for the Sentinel program by at least six months. General Guttlein has completed [44:10] the initial blueprint for the Golden Dome architecture and is beginning to build it out. For years, this [44:17] committee has known that we must improve our ability to defend our homeland against a wider variety of [44:24] threats. And we finally have a partner with the full backing of the department to lead the charge. [44:32] Mr. Secretary, what's the advantage of this new type of program management structure? [44:38] Well, thank you for the question, Senator. It's acquisition authority, technical authority, contracting [44:45] authority. It's consolidating decision-making in one place under a highly screened, highly capable general, General [44:52] White and General Guttlein who know that terrain extremely well and understand what mistakes have been [44:58] made in the past in programs of that magnitude and then are given the authority to cut through the red [45:04] tape. That's the key. Success or failure lands with them and they know it and as a result they're [45:11] incentivized to ensure that program and then given every dollar and authority needed to move it as [45:15] quickly as possible. So whether it's Sentinel, whether it's F-47, whether it's Golden Dome for America, [45:20] these critical strategic assets, the direct report construct, along with Deputy Secretary Feinberg, [45:28] who is a national treasure and is changing the way we do business at this department, is giving us a [45:33] chance to ensure these critical systems are delivered. Thank you. And General Cain, can you [45:38] give us your thoughts on why the Golden Dome received, why they must receive that requested 17 billion dollars [45:48] in funding for the fiscal year 27? Well, Senator, it's, as you know, it's an essential part of our [45:55] Homeland Security layered defense and as General Guttlein begins to do the work that you're asking [46:01] about and frankly helping to advance, you know, the insurance around that down payment, [46:09] charging the defense industrial base with those capital allocations will allow them to [46:14] get after it much, much quicker. We appreciate the help. And if there's a delay in that funding? [46:20] Well, hopefully there won't be, Senator, because we've got a leader on that account 24-7, 365, [46:27] but if we do, we'll always, of course, come back and talk to the Congress, but also figure out what [46:33] has to be true to help that constraint get removed in that production system. And that's really what [46:41] we're asking these leaders to do, is to be able to get past the theory of constraints. [46:45] Okay. Thank you. Secretary Hagseth, I agree with your statement on nuclear deterrence. When you said, [46:52] nothing else matters if we don't get this right, so we will. We need a modernized nuclear triad and [47:01] NC3 architecture that can credibly deter multiple adversaries instead of an insufficient nuclear [47:09] force structure based on fundamentally flawed assumptions made 16 years ago. Our presidents [47:17] must also have a more diverse set of options so that they can effectively manage more complex nuclear [47:25] escalation dynamics. So, Mr. Secretary, how does this budget request achieve those objectives? [47:32] Well, thank you for your leadership on this issue for a very long time. First and foremost, it invests [47:40] in it, $71 billion in our nuclear triad and NC3, understanding that if you get that wrong, you get [47:47] everything else wrong. Frankly, it's why the Iran effort is so important. Imagine what the situation in the [47:53] region would look like if Iran also wielded a nuclear weapon and the limits it would put on our [47:58] capabilities in those situations. Our adversaries have to deal with that dilemma because of the [48:03] strength of our nuclear triad. So that $71 billion investment, the derpums that have been put over top [48:09] of it to move those systems left, as you acknowledged, it's just been a priority since we came into the [48:17] building and we're funding it accordingly. And Chairman Cain, Secretary Hagseth, whoever would [48:25] like to answer this, should our nuclear command control and communication systems like the SAOC be [48:33] given the same level of priority as Congress considers the department's budget request as our triad? [48:42] I think so, but I defer to the chairman. Yes, ma'am. We've got to be able to see to anything. So, yes, ma'am. [48:51] Thank you. Senator Shaheen, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. [48:59] Secretary Hagseth, Congress enacted $400 million to provide security assistance to Ukraine in January. [49:07] Now, the committee received a notification just yesterday confirming only that the funding would [49:13] go toward Ukraine. It contained no details about the type of equipment, no delivery timelines, [49:19] nothing that is typically included in these notifications. And when asked about the delay in [49:24] funding, the committee was told that Bridge Colby was developing a spend plan, but we've received [49:31] nothing. So, when can we expect the full spend plan for this appropriation? And Madam Chair, can I, [49:38] if this is not all already part of the record for the committee, can I enter it into the record? [49:44] We acknowledge and are executing on the European capacity building amount of $400 million that you [49:53] referred to. Under Secretary Colby has done a great job looking at options and worked very closely with [50:01] our European commander, General Grinkowitz. So, his requests of what makes the most sense will inform [50:07] what ultimately is invested in. Well, this notification says that UCOM coordinated on the [50:14] spend plan in March, but General Grinkowitz told this committee on April 16th that he had not yet been [50:21] asked to review any spend plan for this appropriation. So, General Cain, have you received the spend plan [50:29] for funds in Ukraine and have you asked the UCOM commander for his concurrence? [50:33] I do not believe so, but I will find out, Senator, and get back to you by the end of the day. [50:41] Thank you. And yesterday, Mr. Hurst, you told the House that you needed to seek legal review to [50:50] appropriate the funds as Congress intended. So, can you share with us what the nature of that legal [50:56] review is? And it seems to me the law was pretty clear. I saw it. It was part of the [51:01] defense appropriations bill that we passed in January. And as you know, violating congressional [51:08] intent on appropriating funds is a violation of the Impoundment Control Act. So, what's the nature of [51:14] the legal review that you have to get? Thanks for the question, Senator. What we're looking at is if we [51:19] could use the funds in the same manner as USAI, and we had our council look at that. And so, they [51:24] provide us a legal opinion on how the funds could be used to support European capacity building. [51:28] And can you share with this committee what that legal opinion is? [51:33] Ma'am, I don't have a copy of that, but we can ask the OGC office if they can supply it to you. [51:38] Madam Chair, can we ask that that legal opinion is shared with the committee officially? Thank you. [51:47] Also, I don't know who can answer this, but it says that consistent with the President's priority to [51:58] shift the financial burden of Ukraine's support to European partners. The United States will seek [52:04] commensurate financial contributions via the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List, or PEARL, [52:12] from the European partners for this program. So, what's the justification for using PEARL when there's [52:20] $400 million in appropriated funds? Can somebody get- [52:24] PEARL is a reflection of the President's priority and the belief that any weapons that are supplied [52:29] are paid for by European partners and used as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or somewhere else. [52:34] But that was not the intent of Congress in providing that $400 million. As I understand, [52:39] the PEARL program, the Europeans purchase those weapons from the United States, and they pay for them. [52:47] But this appropriation was $400 million that Congress expected to be provided to Ukraine, [52:54] not paid for by the Europeans, but provided from the United States to support Ukraine. So, again, [53:03] I don't understand what the justification is for using PEARL when that's not the intent that Congress [53:09] provided. So- [53:11] We're following the intent of European capacity building, but at the same time recognizing that [53:16] wherever PEARL can be utilized so that the Europeans contribute to that fight, [53:21] per the burden-sharing approach this President takes is important. [53:24] But that was not congressional intent. And that's what I'm asking you, [53:27] why you're using PEARL to do something that Congress intended to go directly to Ukraine. [53:34] Well, we look forward to working with you on that. [53:35] Mr. Hurst, can you answer that? What was the legal opinion on this? Did you ask [53:40] the attorneys if the $400 million could be used for the PEARL program? [53:45] Let's get back to you. We'll take it for the record, ma'am. [53:49] Thank you. And what portion of the funding that's committed from the Europeans under PEARL [53:54] is being used to assist Ukraine rather than restocking our own shelves? Can you answer that? [54:02] That's up to Europe. Ultimately, Europe pays for any weapons that we provide, [54:07] and they can utilize them as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or otherwise. [54:10] Thank you, Senator Shaheen. There have been a number of times when our witnesses have stated, [54:19] both in the closed hearing and up here, that they will get back to us. And we certainly hope that [54:24] will happen very expeditiously. So thank you very much, and thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Cotton. [54:32] Thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance today. Mr. Secretary, you provided us with a chart here, [54:37] entitled The Arsenal of Freedom, which includes a lot of sites that you visited. My favorite one is [54:42] down here in South Arkansas, Camden, where you and I had a chance to visit just a couple months ago, [54:50] highlighting the great work that the people there are doing to help rebuild our arsenal of freedom. [54:57] Thank you, first off, for being there and for your kind words for the workforce of the people of South [55:04] Arkansas. Isn't it fair to say that the war in Iran, just like the Ukraine war before it and still today, [55:14] hasn't caused any challenges with our munitions the way some of our Democratic colleagues would say, [55:20] but it's exposed a decades-old problem of brittleness and fragility in our defense industrial base [55:26] before you and General Cain took over and that we're trying to address right now? [55:32] In many ways, that's precisely what we're trying to address. We also have a situation where [55:36] President Trump rebuilt our military in the first term, and a lot of those munitions and a lot of [55:41] those capabilities were sent to Ukraine under the previous administration to the point where, [55:46] when we ask our commanders or when we look at O plans, the answer often is that was sent to Ukraine. [55:51] So the recognition of those two things has, as the president gave us a charge from day one, [55:57] to rebuild the arsenal of freedom, to fast forward, not to provide a little bit more of each thing, [56:02] but 2x, 3x, 4x the number of exquisite munitions that we need. The expenditures that we've seen under [56:08] this administration, we can account for them and we ensure that other O plans and elsewhere are well [56:13] taken care of. So on the munitions front, we're in really good shape, but we need to accelerate and [56:18] that's exactly what we're doing. [56:18] And I think that's an important point you make, is that we're not just trying to fill a hole that was created by [56:24] epic fury or by support for Ukraine. We're going to fill that and then go much beyond [56:30] that for our needs in the future. So we're never caught where we were over the last several years [56:36] with these worries about munitions running short. Is that right, Mr. Secretary? [56:40] That's exactly right. The president has charged up with not just replacing anything, [56:44] but filling it up, as he might say, to the tippy top and make sure that the remainder of this term [56:49] and future presidents have all the munitions they need for any level of contingencies, especially [56:54] considering the dangerous world we live in. [56:56] I want to turn now to Operation Epic Fury. It's been a smashing military success. [57:01] Unfortunately, we have suffered casualties to include soldiers killed in the line of action. [57:07] Obviously, our military takes the greatest steps possible to protect our troops, whether they are [57:13] in action or whether they are on bases in the region. No war, though, is antiseptic. Mr. Secretary, [57:20] can you explain some of the steps we've taken to try to minimize, to the greatest extent we can, [57:25] the number of casualties we've taken in the Middle East? [57:27] First of all, every day we live to ensure that we follow through on the legacy of those who gave [57:33] everything. So that's front and center for us. But I can also say, and the chairman may want to weigh in, [57:38] from the beginning of looking at the possibility of this contingency, setting the defense and [57:43] ensuring that Admiral Cooper and everyone throughout CENTCOM had every possible measure they could [57:48] to ensure that our troops are protected and force protection was maximized was the top priority. [57:53] Moving assets to the region, we integrated our air defenses with local Gulf countries to ensure our [58:00] shot doctrine was maximized, whether it's ballistic missiles or on drones. Flowing in the most recent [58:07] capabilities to ensure we can intercept drones. Moving troops off the X. I think what people [58:13] mostly don't know is that a massive effort was undertaken before this conflict to move as many humans [58:19] off of targets to other places and maintain operational security about where they might be [58:25] to minimize the space with which Iran could hit. We always knew something getting through was a [58:31] tragic possibility. But I can assure you, from our perspective, that was priority number one, [58:36] as it was Admiral Cooper's, to ensure that fortification and missile defenses were right there [58:41] when we went on offense, if we had to. General Cain, do you have anything to add? Well, [58:46] in addition to just, again, mourning our fallen from the 103rd, what I'll add to the Secretary's comments is, [58:53] after every tragic loss, commanders at every echelon within our Joint Force are going to go back [58:59] and look at what was our plan and what lessons we can learn from this so that we protect and defend [59:06] our soldiers, sailors, and other members of the Joint Force the next time. [59:09] Thank you. And I know you do. And I just wanted to give you the opportunity to speak to what you've [59:13] done to try to prevent casualties and minimize them. Obviously, again, no war is antiseptic. One final [59:19] question. I understand you've been accused of lying to the president. Mr. Hexeth, have you lied to the [59:23] president at all about what's happening in Iran or Epic Fury? Now, only tell the truth to the president. [59:29] General Cain, have you lied to the president about what's happening in Iran or Operation Epic Fury? [59:33] Never. I suspected that would be your answer. But since you were accused of it, [59:36] and deep staters are leaking to the media about it as well, I just wanted to give you a chance to [59:39] answer on the record that, of course, you've always given the president a completely accurate picture of [59:43] what's happening. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much, Senator Cotton. Senator Gillibrand and then [59:47] Senator Rounds. Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before this committee. [59:51] And thank you for the closed session prior to this. I don't know if you fully appreciate [59:56] how much the American people do not support this war. It is an unauthorized war. Normally, [1:00:02] when you come to Congress, it's a way for the American people to be part of that discussion. [1:00:07] The American people, particularly in my state of New York, are upset for a lot of reasons. [1:00:14] First of all, this war is costing so much money, over $25 billion already, estimates $1 billion a day. [1:00:22] And they're feeling it every single day at the gas pump with higher prices for both fuel, for diesel, [1:00:29] for gasoline for their cars. They're also feeling it with higher grocery costs. And they're exhausted. [1:00:35] They're truly exhausted. On top of that, on top of that, they have so many grave concerns about how this [1:00:43] war is being prosecuted. They read in the paper that 22 schools have been hit. They read in the paper [1:00:53] about a girl's school, hundreds getting killed. We have a debate going on in this country about AI, [1:01:00] a serious debate about AI. And I haven't heard yet from you that you will not allow AI to make final [1:01:09] targeting determinations, even when nuclear weapons are being used. That's a huge issue that we need [1:01:15] to discuss. So I want to start from the top, Secretary Hegseth. Why do you continue to prosecute [1:01:21] a war that the American people aren't behind? [1:01:23] Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth, First of all, I appreciate the opportunity [1:01:28] for that closed session, where we had an unsurprisingly very different discussion than we have here [1:01:33] with the cameras on. We support this. [1:01:36] Because my job is to represent New Yorkers. And I can tell you, when I talk to them, [1:01:41] all across my state, they are furious. And they expect me to explain to them why they are furious. [1:01:49] And Senator, when I talk to Americans, and especially when I talk to the troops, [1:01:52] they are grateful for a president who has the courage to take on this threat after 47 years [1:01:57] of what Iran has done targeting and killing Americans, and what it would mean to the world [1:02:01] if Iran's nuclear ambitions were actually achieved. So the question I would ask to you and to others is, [1:02:07] what is the cost of a nuclear-armed Iran? What is the cost to the American people if the [1:02:12] world's most dangerous regime has a nuclear weapon? [1:02:14] Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth, But the truth is, [1:02:15] they don't want war coming to this shore. And when you do a decapitation operation, [1:02:20] the likelihood is going to be exchanged in the United States. There's no evidence that we are safer [1:02:25] because of this war. We did not have any evidence that Iran intended to imminently attack this [1:02:30] country in any way, shape, or form. So I disagree with your assessment that we are under threat. [1:02:36] Do you not believe them when they say death to America? [1:02:39] Listen, our adversaries use rhetoric all the time. What I'm concerned about is we are not safer. [1:02:46] And I would just like to know why you have not sought the support of the American people. [1:02:51] And three out of five Americans are against this war today. [1:02:54] Um, I believe we do have the support of the American people. And we have briefed [1:03:00] regularly what this mission looks like and why it's critically important that we undertake it. [1:03:04] And I would remind you and this group that we're two months in to an effort. And many [1:03:10] congressional Democrats, as I pointed out, want to declare defeat two months in. Iraq took how many [1:03:16] years? Afghanistan took how many years? And they were nebulous missions that people went along with. [1:03:21] This is different. This is a defined mission set that we have had great success in pursuing [1:03:26] against a determined enemy who seeks nuclear weapons. [1:03:30] And I'm proud of the opportunity to remind the American people because they believe in it as [1:03:34] well that they can't have it. [1:03:35] You don't care whether the American people support this war. [1:03:39] The American people are quite smart. They understand and see through spin. [1:03:42] They know that a regime that says death to America, that seeks nuclear weapons, [1:03:47] and the ability to deliver. And at what cost? [1:03:48] Did they lie about the range of their missiles? [1:03:50] How much more? [1:03:50] Because I saw a 4,000-kilometer missile get shot at. [1:03:52] How much more will you ask the American people to pay for this war? [1:03:56] Diego Garcia. [1:03:56] Right now, do you want it a billion dollars a day? [1:03:58] Do you want two billion dollars a day? [1:04:00] You're asking for 200 billion dollars more to fund this war? [1:04:03] And to make sure we have- [1:04:04] We didn't ask for 200 billion dollars. [1:04:05] I don't know where you got that number from, Senator. [1:04:07] I think you got it from the news, which you should be careful what you read in the news. [1:04:10] Okay, Mr. Hegseth. Secretary Hegseth, here's a few more. [1:04:14] Let's talk about how you're prosecuting the war. [1:04:16] What is your response to targeting that has resulted in the destruction of schools, hospitals, civilian places? [1:04:25] Why did you cut by 90% the division that's supposed to help you not target civilians? [1:04:31] And do you know the impact of a strategic failure at a war when you have so many civilian casualties? [1:04:38] You may have tactically completed a mission well, but strategically is not meeting your goals because of the harms to civilians. [1:04:45] What is the cost of that? [1:04:46] Let's leave time for an answer. [1:04:47] No military, no country works harder at every echelon to ensure they protect civilian lives than the United States military. [1:04:56] And that is an ironclad commitment that we make, no matter how, no matter what systems we use. [1:05:01] And why did you cut the department by 90%? [1:05:03] Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. There will be other rounds of questions. Senator Rounds, you are now recognized. [1:05:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you to all of you for your service to our country. [1:05:17] Let me just allow you to finish the answer a little bit with regard to the senator from New York. [1:05:24] Does the United States military ever target a civilian center? [1:05:29] Well, thank you, Senator. Unlike our adversaries, unlike radical Islamists, [1:05:35] unlike those that target civilians or use civilians as shields, [1:05:39] the United States military never targets civilians and puts constructs in place to ensure that the [1:05:47] maximum extent possible, we do not harm or hit civilians. Is war a difficult place with a lot of [1:05:54] complexities? Absolutely right. But no country does more and no department does more than our department. [1:05:59] Do you still have all of the resources necessary to assure that every opportunity to eliminate [1:06:07] that as a threat in terms of that happening? Do we still have the resources available in the department [1:06:13] to make sure that we do the best we can never to hit a civilian target? [1:06:16] Every resource necessary at every echelon is available, legal, intel and otherwise, to ensure that we minimize [1:06:24] at every extent possible civilian casualties. And the suggestion was made that somehow AI might be [1:06:30] used without a human in the loop, which is a classic anthropic talking point, which is half of what [1:06:35] we talked about previously. There is a human in the loop on decisions that are made. And the suggestion [1:06:41] otherwise is to suggest that somehow AI is running targeting. [1:06:45] Thank you. Right now, part of what we're also talking about is not just are we engaged right now [1:06:54] in terms of trying to eliminate the threat from Iran in terms of being a nuclear armed country, [1:06:58] but we've also got, staring with us as well, the fact that we have an ongoing principal threat with [1:07:04] regard to a pacing threat with China. The dual capable B-21 raider will be a critical part of both our [1:07:11] conventional and our nuclear deterrence against China and Russia. As you know, the Air Force's [1:07:17] program of record includes plans to procure 100 B-21s, but many national security experts and leaders, [1:07:24] including STRATCOM Commander Admiral Corral and Indo-PACOM Commander Admiral Paparo, [1:07:30] are calling for a greater number of B-21s. Admiral Paparo testified here last week that he would favor [1:07:36] buying 200 B-21s. Secretary Hegseth and Chairman Cain, could you speak to the progress and the importance [1:07:45] of the B-21 program? And if you agree with the growing sentiment that the U.S. needs to revisit the B-21 [1:07:51] program of record and assess the requirement for at least 200 B-21s to match the global threat, [1:07:58] would you speak just to exactly what that would mean and what the probability of that is? [1:08:02] Thank you for the question. And I appreciate the fact that you're listening to and hearing [1:08:08] from combatant commanders, because that's who we listen to as well, who are looking at the operational [1:08:12] plans and what would be required to ensure we deter and, if necessary, defeat. Assets like the B-21 or [1:08:18] the F-47 are critical to that. That's why we're funding them and increasing the funding, and where [1:08:23] necessary would increase the allocation. And I think you see a budget that reflects the reality that we have [1:08:31] to invest in more capabilities, to include the B-21, which is ahead of schedule, and we will be funding to [1:08:39] the tune of $6 billion, and we believe will require a lot more, over $100 in the future. But I'll defer to the chairman. [1:08:45] Hey, sir, thank you for the question. Working through the JROC and the Vice Chiefs, I'll [1:08:51] absolutely stack hands around assessing the requirement. And we're glad to see B-21 on the flight path, no pun intended, [1:08:59] that it's on through operational testing. On the specific numbers, the one sort of big picture [1:09:08] strategic thing I want to say is we want to make sure as we think through what does air power of the [1:09:13] future look like, based on the evolving threat, that we're staying well in front of it. And so that's the [1:09:19] only thing we'll look at in the assessment. But I'm on board with assessing the numbers. I want to make sure [1:09:25] we're buying ahead of the technology development curve so that we give all those young warfighters [1:09:30] out there the capabilities that we need well into the future. Is there any question at all that we're [1:09:35] going to need more than 100 B-21s? I want to go back. Here's how I'll look at it, Senator. I want to go [1:09:43] back and look at the O plans right now that we have to make sure that we allocate those numbers. So I [1:09:49] I don't believe so. But I do want to take the due diligence time if you'll allow me to look at that, [1:09:55] Senator. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you and to clarify what that number should [1:10:00] look like in the near future. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. Senator Blumenthal. [1:10:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. I want to talk about the costs of war. [1:10:14] The costs of war include caring for our veterans. We've had an estimate from Mr. Hurst yesterday that [1:10:23] the costs to date in dollars for this war has been 25 billion dollars, which I believe is well below the [1:10:31] actual cost based on everything that I've heard, everything available to us in various kinds of [1:10:39] settings. And I'm going to ask for a more accurate assessment. But we also know that about 400 [1:10:46] service members have been wounded as a result of this war. When they retire, when they come home, [1:10:55] their retirement pay will be docked dollar for dollar for every disability benefit dollar they [1:11:06] receive. Secretary Hegseth, I'd like your commitment that you will support the Major Richard Starr Act, [1:11:14] that will eliminate this wounded warrior tax. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Tens of thousands of [1:11:22] servicemen and women now are reduced in their retirement pay literally for every dollar of [1:11:30] disability benefits they receive. Well, I appreciate your focus on this issue. And I will tell you, [1:11:36] of the you mentioned roughly 400 that have been injured, thankfully over 90 percent are returned to [1:11:41] duty. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have a residual challenge. And we're tracking that at point of [1:11:47] injury to ensure that that is noted, even though they're returned to duty. But what I'd like is your [1:11:52] commitment that you will support the Major Richard Starr Act. As I have said in the past to other [1:11:57] organizations, we support the Richard Starr Act. Thank you. On the issue of cost, Mr. Hurst, [1:12:07] does that 25 billion dollar estimate include all of the costs in terms of damage to our bases, [1:12:17] the need to replace planes and munitions, and the costs of injuries to our servicemen and women? [1:12:28] Senator, so for the Milcon facilities replacement cost, that's probably the hardest thing to estimate [1:12:35] right now because we don't know what our future posture is going to be or the future construction [1:12:38] of those bases. Well, you owe it to us. You're here to ask for appropriations. [1:12:44] Of course. And I would like a more accurate estimate of what has been done that will require replacement [1:12:54] and renovation as well as the other costs. And I think 25 billion is probably less than half, [1:13:04] maybe less than a quarter of the total cost of war, which is the reason why the supplemental request [1:13:10] is much higher. So I think you owe it to the American people to give us the straight talk about [1:13:16] what the costs have been. Mr. Secretary, I know you have characterized this war as a astonishing military [1:13:28] success, to use your words yesterday, but the American people aren't buying it. And I know you feel [1:13:39] the American people are seeing through the abstruse stuff that is thrown at them. But one point is [1:13:48] irrefutable, which is America never succeeds in war unless the American people are behind it. [1:13:54] And if what you're seeing as success now is winning, I would hate to see what losing looks like, [1:14:04] because none of the shifting and contradictory objectives of the war so far have been achieved. [1:14:11] Likewise, let me ask you. Yesterday, the President said that Ukraine has been, quote, [1:14:17] militarily defeated. I assume you don't agree with that assessment. [1:14:25] Um, the negative nature in which you characterize the incredible and historic effort in Iran is part [1:14:31] of the reason, Senator, why the American people view it the way they do. It's why I looked out at our [1:14:36] press corps at the Pentagon and called them the Pharisees in the press. It's because they look for [1:14:40] every problem. Well, I'm asking you about Ukraine. Do you believe Ukraine has been militarily [1:14:45] defeated? You missed the plank. I would submit, based on my nine trips to Ukraine, that is a [1:14:53] false narrative that the President is buying from Vladimir Putin. We are two months into a historic [1:14:57] military success in Iran, and you want to call it a defeat. And it's defeatist Democrats like you [1:15:02] that cloud the mind of the American people and would otherwise fully support preventing Iran from [1:15:07] having a nuclear weapon. No note from the administration. And they are bravely fighting our fight. [1:15:13] And that is the reason that I'm pursuing the Russian sanctions bill, which is bipartisan, [1:15:17] along with Senator Graham, and why I hope we will recognize our obligation to release that 400 million [1:15:23] dollars. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Ernst. [1:15:28] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. I really do appreciate [1:15:34] your time to be with us. Before I begin some of my questions, I do want to start with something [1:15:40] personal. And both to you, Secretary Hegseth, and to the Chairman, I want to thank you both [1:15:47] for the time that you take to recognize our fallen and those that have given, of course, during this [1:15:55] administration, given their all. You have traveled to Dover and have been there to greet those families [1:16:01] and to welcome home the fallen. I've been there with you, and Iowa has been hit, in particular, very hard. [1:16:08] We lost two of our Iowa National Guardsmen from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division, [1:16:15] Secretary Hegseth, you know full well, the 34th. But we also lost six members from the 103rd [1:16:23] Sustainment Command Expeditionary, based out of Des Moines, Iowa, during this current conflict. And, [1:16:30] again, your presence there meant a lot to the families. It also meant a lot to me. So, [1:16:37] thank you very much for taking the time to do that. Secretary Hegseth, you and I have had many [1:16:43] discussions over the course of many months now regarding general officer positions. And, you know, [1:16:51] I believe that we were operating in good faith, as we talked through a couple of those in particular, [1:16:56] two Iowans, General Mingus and General Randy George. I was disappointed to see that their retirements [1:17:05] were hastened over what I believed had been set out by you and the administration. So, I just want to [1:17:14] take the time to list out some of General Randy George's accomplishments as Army Chief of Staff. [1:17:21] He pulled the Army out of its worst recruiting crisis since the Vietnam era, exceeding fiscal year 2024 [1:17:28] recruiting goals and welcoming more than 61,000 new soldiers. Recruitment numbers that both you and the [1:17:36] President talk a lot about, and rightfully so. He cut five percent of general officer positions, [1:17:42] 12 positions that were deemed as non-essential in the Army, and he reduced the Army headquarters by 1,000 [1:17:50] personnel. He co-authored the Army Transformation Initiative, which is a comprehensive response [1:17:57] aligned with your directives, and he testified here in front of Congress and took a lot of heat [1:18:03] defending that Army transformation. He was suddenly let go at the beginning of April 2026. [1:18:12] General George's merits, which I firmly believe in, he enlisted at the age of 17. He is a West Point [1:18:20] graduate. He had four combat deployments. He served in Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He had 38 years [1:18:28] of honorable service. He achieved the greatest Army recruitment and modernization effort in a generation. [1:18:36] So I want to thank him for his service, and I would like to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, [1:18:44] the speeches that I did honoring General Randy A. George on his retirement and General James J. Mingus on his retirement as well. [1:18:55] Without objection, they'll be admitted. [1:18:56] Thank you very much. I'd like to talk a little bit about the audit, Mr. Secretary. I saw the video [1:19:05] that you posted this week calling on the department to pass a clean audit, and thank you for doing that. [1:19:11] It's something that we talked about during your confirmation hearing. Fiscal responsibility at the [1:19:17] department has been a priority of mine for a very long time, and I think it's time that we build [1:19:23] on that momentum. It's extremely important, and that's why I'm pushing for my Receipts Act in this [1:19:30] year's NDAA. It's focused on improving financial traceability and accountability across the department, [1:19:37] and if you could talk a little bit more about the efforts in making sure that we are being much more [1:19:43] accountable to our taxpayers. What is that effort going to entail? When will we see a clean audit? [1:19:49] As I said, Senator, thank you for your work on the audit. That has been a priority of our department [1:19:55] from day one, and we put in place goals and benchmarks to get to FY28, get to 28 for a clean audit. [1:20:02] The Joint Task Force audit, which we announced, was a reflection of even more capabilities we want [1:20:07] to push forward and centralize authority to make sure it happens. Jay's been involved from the beginning. [1:20:12] We also have a new IG. The new IG's focus, one of his focus points, is precisely this, and he's [1:20:19] prepared to work with us to ensure we reach it. So I think at every level and through this budget, [1:20:24] it's a focus. Okay, thank you. We look forward to seeing a clean audit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:20:28] Thank you, Senator Ernst. Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:20:33] Before I begin my questions, I'd like to take a moment to highlight the true costs of this war, [1:20:40] both for the military and everyday Americans, and the true costs of the President's illegal war with Iran. [1:20:47] And since the start of the war, 13, 14 brave U.S. service members have been killed, and more than 400 [1:20:54] have been wounded. We've burned through over 25 billion dollars in taxpayer money with no end in sight. [1:21:00] And the fiscal year 27 budget request is a massive 42% increase from last year. Hundreds of critical munitions [1:21:11] have been expended, and deployments have been extended, directly impacting service members' quality of life, [1:21:18] military readiness, and our ability to deter our adversaries. The relationships with our allies, [1:21:28] allies, some of our closest allies and partners have been fractured. And the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, [1:21:35] which somehow caught the President by surprise, even though he had to have been warned, is directly [1:21:43] contributing to the affordable crisis that Americans are facing. Energy costs are skyrocketing with the [1:21:49] price of gas now at its highest level in almost four years. Instability has driven interest rates to its [1:21:57] highest level since September of last year. The cost of fertilizer is spiking, which will have a direct [1:22:05] impact on the cost of food. This illegal war is driving up costs, undermining readiness, and alienating our [1:22:13] allies with neither a clear rationale for starting this war, nor an exit strategy. And when the President was [1:22:22] asked how long he'll let this war continue, he said, do not rush me. I have a question for our General [1:22:32] Kane relating to women serving in combat. And I'd like to hear your best military advice. Does the mere fact [1:22:41] of women being in combat armed units lower standards or readiness if they meet the physical standards? [1:22:50] Well, ma'am, the standards are set by the civilians. We have examples of women leading well across the [1:22:59] joint force. I'll highlight some of our current commanders engaged in the fight in Epic Fury. [1:23:07] Specifically, one of our bomb squadrons are led by an extraordinary female leader who's doing great [1:23:13] work. But those standards are set by, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to step on you. I think your answer is that [1:23:18] in fact it does not lower standards of readiness. Second question, should every service member regardless [1:23:24] of gender be permitted to serve in any role including the combat arms if they meet the standards established? [1:23:32] Yes or no? Is that to me ma'am? Over the last decade since combat arms have been open to women, [1:23:40] have you personally seen any instance where the standard resulted in a degradation and combat [1:23:48] effectiveness? Apologies, I didn't hear your first question. The, you know, people policies are all set [1:23:55] by the civilian leaders in the government. Could you repeat the question again? I'm sorry ma'am. [1:24:00] Over the last decade since combat arms have been open to women, have you personally seen any instance where the standard [1:24:08] resulted in a degradation and combat effectiveness? Again, I'll highlight that the standards are set [1:24:15] by our civilian leaders. Women continue to perform uh well across a range of of MOS's and jobs and AFSC's that [1:24:24] are out there. No, I do need to get to a question for Secretary Hicks. Prior to your nomination hearing, [1:24:31] you said women shouldn't serve in combat armed units. At your confirmation hearing, [1:24:36] you reverse course and excuse me and you basically said as long as the women meet the standards they [1:24:45] should be able to serve but um recently you ordered a review of the effectiveness of women in combat roles [1:24:51] and I am concerned you are laying the groundwork to reverse the policy allowing women to serve in these [1:24:57] units because uh right now current law if you want to change this policy a current law requires you to [1:25:04] submit a report to Congress justifying such a change. So uh did you order the review to support a [1:25:11] potential decision to overturn the policy of uh having women in combat roles? We are laser focused on [1:25:19] standards. The highest male standard for every combat arms position should be the standard and 10 years into [1:25:25] this we are reviewing it which is what the American people would expect. Also there's nothing illegal about [1:25:30] a war that defends the American people and prevents Iran from having a nuclear bomb. You know you didn't [1:25:35] answer the question because the reason that you're asking for this review I think has to do with your [1:25:40] earlier position that you don't think women should serve in combat roles. So now we have this study [1:25:46] and I'd like to ask you will you reveal the study to the public to the American people will you [1:25:53] make the study public? Will you make that study? Yes or no? We're doing the study for that very reason [1:26:01] to ensure that real science is applied to this this question and not social engineering like the [1:26:06] previous administration. We appreciate your uh assurance that that will be made public. Yeah I think it's [1:26:11] really important. Thank you. Thank you ma'am uh Senator Scott. Thank you. Well first thanks thank each of you [1:26:19] for being here. Secretary Hitchford can you talk about you've had the job for a little bit what's your what are you most [1:26:24] proud of and uh what are your biggest challenges? Well I appreciate the question and what I'm most [1:26:31] proud of is the incredible men and women who serve in our nations in uniform and what they are capable [1:26:38] of when they're given a clear mission and unleashed to do it. And I think the best reflection of the [1:26:45] success of President Trump and this war department is the historic recruiting success and the historic [1:26:51] morale amongst our ranks. I would encourage every member of this committee democrat or republican [1:26:57] go into the formations go into the air force formations the army formations the marine corps [1:27:02] formations and talk to corporals talk to sergeants talk to lieutenants talk to captains talk to colonels [1:27:09] and what you will find are men and women more inspired to serve in the military than they have been in [1:27:14] a generation. And you see that in the young Americans who are rushing to to recruiting stations [1:27:19] at historic numbers 30-year highs across the force we're hitting our recruiting numbers [1:27:25] halfway through the year. Why is that? Because the American people look at what we're doing at the [1:27:31] war department by getting back to basics and they're attracted to that. Same with our retention rates [1:27:37] which are now merit-based. Our best sergeants our best leaders are staying. That's exactly what we want. [1:27:43] So we've made changes to change the environment. The renaming of the department to the war department [1:27:49] is not just a name. In fact, it's restoring it to the original name of the department set by George [1:27:54] Washington. But it's an ethos as well that that warrior ethos lives inside the heart of each one of [1:27:59] these men and women and we're unleashing it. I'm proud of of the I mean you name it the border the [1:28:04] missions yes those are all incredible demonstrations of that but it's the people and the urgency of Americans [1:28:09] to want to be a part of it that is the best affirmation senator. Thank you. So we've talked [1:28:14] about the importance of not um relying on Chinese drugs uh for our military. Can you just talk about [1:28:20] what um the um what you're doing to make sure that we don't continue to rely on China for anything [1:28:25] including our our drugs? Oh drugs um absolutely uh we can't be dependent on China on anything that's [1:28:33] critical to our supply chain even if it's the national industrial base and not just the defense [1:28:38] industrial base uh and you've been a leader on that this committee's been a leader on that [1:28:42] on shoring men bringing manufacturing here bringing critical capabilities here uh is central to the [1:28:50] interagency and the NSC but also our department uh if any critical weapon system is reliant upon [1:28:56] something China could change at a moment's notice then we have a uh a true challenge to our ability [1:29:02] to produce for the American people and so we're finding all of those changing them on shoring it [1:29:07] reviving the divest you invest the defense industrial base allows us to ensure we're [1:29:12] separated from China on anything that's critical. Thank you. Can you talk about the importance of [1:29:17] foreign military sales to our allies and our partners and what you're doing to make sure that [1:29:21] that um that whether it's what you're doing right now in Iran or any potential conflict in in [1:29:27] Asia you our partners have the best um uh assets to be able to be a great partner? Absolutely. Foreign [1:29:35] military sales uh has been a huge problem for a long time because the department didn't prioritize [1:29:40] it and organized to deliver efficiently on it so we're working with the state department we've changed [1:29:44] the way we do business internally the executive order the America first arms strategy prioritizes [1:29:50] what we sell into whom a catalog approach but it took us you this committee would be astonished to [1:29:56] to to know how long it took us just to get our arms around who we're selling to what and by what [1:30:01] processes which means there was no strategy behind ensuring we're sending the proper demand signal to [1:30:06] industry and delivering those systems on time and under budget to those countries which you can [1:30:11] imagine is frustrating to partners who are relying on those to be able to step up and burden share [1:30:16] so foreign military sales is critical to our own defense industrial base more customers more customers [1:30:22] for our companies that employ more American workers to ensure our allies are properly armed for the [1:30:27] fights and they can stand alongside us so fms is a big one for us senator general kane um i just want [1:30:32] to commend you and everybody in the military for um what you didn't in is uh venezuela and then what [1:30:39] you've done in iran um can do the willingness of the American military to to fight and win do you think [1:30:46] it's changing the calculus for um beijing and moscow well senator i'm i know they're watching um and i'm [1:30:54] incredibly proud uh of the joint force um and their ability to integrate and synchronize a range of [1:31:02] activities and i suspect that my counterpart in china is watching very closely and envious of uh what our [1:31:11] joint force is capable of doing if ordered to do so well thank each of you and thank everybody that [1:31:16] serves under you thank you senator scott senator kane thank you mr chair mr hurst i want you to just confirm [1:31:23] something for me about the president's submitted budget 1.5 trillion dollars is about a 40 plus percent [1:31:31] increase from fy26 am i right that not a penny of that is to go to a pay raise for the 800 000 [1:31:41] civilians who work for the department of defense we have uh four two point our 4.2 percent of a civilian [1:31:47] salary set aside for bonuses uh to make sure we can recognize high performers in the civilian workforce [1:31:52] but you have guaranteed pay raises for the active duty in the garden reserve component but no guaranteed [1:31:58] raises for there are guaranteed raises for the military but you know in the last year this [1:32:02] department's given out more civilian bonuses well i you know if we're if we're going to increase the [1:32:06] defense budget by that much i would hope the committee would take a look at this um chairman kane [1:32:12] and i like the sound of that chairman kane um general kane i want to ask you a question about [1:32:17] southern spear it's an operational question i know from your background that you carefully act to keep [1:32:24] military actions within the rules of war what legal justification could there possibly be that would [1:32:33] allow the u.s military to strike boats in international waters and kill the occupants of those boats [1:32:40] without a showing of evidence that there's narcotics on those boats [1:32:44] well sir as as you know our our job is to show the range of options the associated risks and then [1:32:52] take those execution uh orders transmit them down to the co-coms on legally appropriate and legally [1:33:00] backstopped actions could you could you give me a legal justification well certainly that would [1:33:06] authorize striking boats that do not have evidence that they're carrying narcotics i don't know i apologize [1:33:13] i didn't mean to interrupt you i i don't have a copy of the the order issued to southcom with me today [1:33:19] it's classified in its own right which clearly articulates based on a variety of criteria what [1:33:26] constitutes a valid military and legally valid target in that theater and i know i just want to say [1:33:33] i know and trust that our commanders at echelon are rigorously following that legal opinion and those [1:33:41] legal boundaries upon which we've been issued those orders and and general kane i would encourage again [1:33:47] my colleagues i am at a disadvantage i've seen the legal opinion but i can't talk about it because [1:33:53] it's classified i've seen the targeting criteria but i can't talk about them because they're classified [1:33:59] i've seen the secret list of dto's against whom we have declared war that even they haven't been [1:34:05] informed of but i can't talk about it because it's classified but i would urge all of my colleagues [1:34:11] to go to the skiff and read the targeting criteria and get briefed about it and then also look at all [1:34:17] of the files of all the strikes that have taken place i've done that with the first 46 strikes or so [1:34:23] and i think there's a profound mismatch between what is occurring and the underlying assumptions in [1:34:31] the legal opinion and i would just encourage my colleagues to dig into this to secretary hegseth and [1:34:35] general kane the war powers resolution specifies that a war initiated by a president without [1:34:41] congressional approval must be concluded within 60 days it can be extended by an additional 30 days [1:34:48] if quote the president determines and certifies to congress in writing that unavoidable military [1:34:55] necessity respecting the safety of the u.s armed forces requires the continued use of such armed forces [1:35:02] in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces we're right at the 60-day deadline [1:35:08] is the president intending to either seek congressional authorization for the war in iran or send us [1:35:16] the legally required certification that he needs an additional 30 days to remove u.s forces from the war [1:35:24] just briefly on the previous question there we do know that these are designated terrorist organizations [1:35:29] so we treat them like the al-qaeda of our hemisphere just as a note but that was not the question i [1:35:34] asked i know i know there's more to that question i just think it's important for the public to [1:35:37] understand that there's no willy-nilly targeting of of drug boats we know exactly who these people are [1:35:42] affiliated i was asking about what's on the boats on the on on on iran uh ultimately i would i would [1:35:47] defer to the white house and white house counsel on that however we are in a ceasefire right now [1:35:51] which our understanding means uh the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire so you're not in [1:35:58] that's it's our understanding just so you know okay well i i do not believe the statute would support [1:36:02] that i think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow and it's going to pose a really important legal question [1:36:09] for the administration there we have serious constitutional concerns and we don't want to [1:36:14] layer those with additional statutory concerns i yield back mr chair uh thank you very much senator [1:36:20] thank you mr chairman uh thank you gentlemen for your testimony uh mr secretary i mentioned in the [1:36:27] classified hearing today but i do think the 1.5 trillion dollar top line is historic it meets the [1:36:34] needs and the other thing is i mentioned in our earlier meeting um you know the president's done a [1:36:39] really good job of getting other allies nato and asian allies to step up meet a five percent gdp of [1:36:48] defense spending and um in many ways that's what this is doing as well so isn't that important as [1:36:54] well in terms of our global leadership what you and the president are uh providing is that example as [1:36:59] well i think uh the more we step up the more the world should look at the american leadership and [1:37:05] example and step up as well and they're going to do that it helps we will it remains to be seen [1:37:11] whether some of our allies actually step up to their commitments but that is that is the hope let me uh [1:37:16] go to an element of that budget that i i mentioned in the classified hearing you know i always like [1:37:21] to put this chart up in different hearings we have the examples so we a lot of our uh adversaries the [1:37:27] chinese the russians in my aor in the arctic in the north pacific these are the numbers just recently eight [1:37:34] is incursions easy incursions by the russians by the chinese by the way the green ones are joint russian chinese [1:37:42] chinese strategic bomber task forces joint russian chinese naval task forces uh this is america right [1:37:50] this is a a really important part of uh our national defense so i was pleased to see that one of the [1:37:58] elements in the budget was what's referred to by the air force is the j bear fighter town recapitalization [1:38:06] given how strategically important that air force base is um general can you talk a little bit about [1:38:14] that recapitalization it's uh uh for uh building out what is a very strategic base but old a lot of these [1:38:25] uh facilities are from the 1950s the goal of in the air force's language was to have a recapitalization [1:38:33] to provide a new state-of-the-art fighter facility capable of supporting multiple platforms now and [1:38:39] well into the future 6.9 billion dollar total authorization 2.2 billion dollar appropes for this [1:38:47] year can you talk about the importance i was glad to host you at j bear recently can you talk about the [1:38:52] importance of this element of the president's budget yes senator thank you thank you for uh for that and [1:38:57] you know our investment up at j bear is essential to modernize in the nation's ability to project [1:39:04] power and capabilities and really bolsters uh our effort in not only the indo-pacific but also in [1:39:11] the high north in the arctic which i know is something that's passionate to you the arctic is certainly [1:39:17] becoming more operationally and strategically valuable and we need to be thinking proactively [1:39:24] around how we're going to set the conditions for us to offer a range of options to the secretary and [1:39:30] the president about power projection across a range of capabilities and fighters is certainly one of [1:39:36] them in the recap effort that's there um you know it is uh it is our ability to protect that flank is a [1:39:43] national imperative and something that we want to keep uh focused on and we appreciate the efforts uh [1:39:49] across this committee and the rest of the congress to help us with that thank you uh miss secretary one of [1:39:55] the things that i've been talking about and i think is really important now is american energy and us [1:40:01] being uh energy dominant president put a recent executive order out highlight highlighting the need [1:40:09] to accelerate uh the ability to produce lng uh in america we have a huge lng project that we're getting [1:40:19] close to getting off the ground in alaska would be huge for our military in terms of uh energy for our [1:40:25] military huge for our allies and can i get your commitment to work with me and this committee [1:40:31] you mentioned in your testimony the office of strategic capital this to me is one of these projects [1:40:39] that i think would be absolutely critical for our national security we talked about this just in [1:40:45] admiral paparro's testimony last week he was talking about the alaska lng project is hugely strategic [1:40:51] kind of a private sector american counter to the chinese belt and road initiative i think it'd be [1:40:57] a great opportunity to work with the office of strategic capital can i get your commitment mr [1:41:01] secretary to do that on this project yes very aware of that project and i think it's a the office of [1:41:07] strategic capital is a great place to look at partnering great i appreciate that uh finally i'm just [1:41:13] going to ask 47 years of war that we've had with iran um my colleagues on the other side of the aisle [1:41:20] that you know they talk about uh the civilian uh casualties these are all horrible horrible whenever [1:41:29] there's any civilian casualties but just general um do our forces target civilians ever uh sure not never [1:41:40] intentionally and i don't know in any particular case of unintentional but we don't do that that's [1:41:45] into our core to our american values or how we approach things because one one do our adversaries [1:41:49] target civilians yes sir like the kids force yes sir i think it's really important as we keep bringing [1:41:56] this topic up uh to remember who we are and who our adversaries are senator sullivan uh senator sullivan [1:42:02] do you uh ask unanimous consent to have the two exhibits added to the record yes sir mr chairman without [1:42:07] objection that will be done senator king thank you mr chairman we've had a lot of discussion about iran i'd [1:42:13] like to talk about several other aspects of the budget the first is the way the budget's been [1:42:18] constructed uh ever since i've been here until last year we've had bipartisan budgets and bipartisan [1:42:26] national defense authorization acts and uh passed by majorities i voted for all of them and all of a [1:42:33] sudden in this year 25 of the budget is essentially out of the process and will be passed presumably through [1:42:42] some kind of reconciliation which is by definition a partisan exercise mr secretary why not what all [1:42:50] those items of housing or golden dome whatever why aren't they in the in the regular budget why do we [1:42:55] suddenly have a two-part budget where the this committee and the congress generally has oversight and and [1:43:02] and input to a process where a quarter of the budget is is essentially a slush fund well senator i appreciate [1:43:11] the question i wouldn't characterize a quarter of it as a as a slush fund but i recognize that we see [1:43:15] it as a in totality as a 1.5 trillion dollar budget but why multiple separation why the two pieces [1:43:22] multiple vehicle as you know there are multiple dynamics uh that play into why there are multiple [1:43:27] vehicles but we are fully committed with working to the committee to ensure that the right vehicles [1:43:31] are utilized to get precisely this amount 1.5 trillion why should we you didn't answer my question why are [1:43:37] there two pieces why why not for time immemorial we've done budgets here we've never to my knowledge [1:43:43] we've never used this reconciliation process for a defense budget before what's what's what's going [1:43:49] on my understanding of the reason for the vehicles is to ensure we actually get to 1.5 trillion which [1:43:56] is the most important bottom line most important bottom line is that top line of 1.5 trillion to fund what [1:44:01] we need and we think this process is the most effective way to get there senator well what you're [1:44:07] really saying is we don't want to deal with that pesky congress and their appropriation process i i think [1:44:12] it's i think this is significant mr chairman that we're we're basically abdicating a quarter of our [1:44:18] responsibility in terms of this budget let me move on uh one of the factors of this budget that hasn't [1:44:25] gotten any publicity is uh that there's zero funding for ukraine that's correct isn't it mr hurst that's [1:44:32] correct there's no usai funding in this budget and there was 400 400 billion 400 million that was [1:44:39] appropriated last year by a bipartisan bicameral act of congress what's become of that money my [1:44:45] understanding is not a dollar of it has been dispersed it was released very recently and again [1:44:54] we got these funds i believe in march and it takes time for funds to flow through the department but [1:44:59] it's going to get put to work very shortly we're going to work the ucom commander to make sure we use [1:45:02] these funds in the most appropriate way possible i didn't want senator sullivan to be the only one [1:45:06] with an exhibit this indicates what's happened to our support for ukraine over a period of years the [1:45:13] orange bars are u.s support the blue bars are europe as you see europe is 99 in the year 2026 same thing [1:45:24] with humanitarian and other aid to ukraine and yet this is i believe an existential struggle for [1:45:31] the future of democracy where we had an aggressive country invade a neighboring country without any [1:45:37] justification whatsoever and by the way that invading country is the major winner so far of the war in [1:45:44] iran uh they've gotten the estimates are 40 to 80 billion dollars of additional revenues from oil and [1:45:51] the relief of sanctions as a result of the war in iran secretary hegseth why are we abandoning ukraine [1:45:59] senator if you would hold that chart back up i i think that's a beautiful chart i think that's [1:46:04] exactly what we want we want europe stepping up and funding and shouldering the burden they are rich [1:46:10] countries worth 20 trillion versus economy of 2 trillion europe can step up europe can fund it and [1:46:17] they have through our pearl initiative and through our european command that's exactly what the american [1:46:21] people want to see is other countries stepping up and funding that if it's if it's that important to [1:46:26] europe which i understand why it is in the incursion of russia and the bravery of the ukrainians then [1:46:30] european countries should pay for it and that's exactly what that chart says and that's the [1:46:34] administration policy so we don't have any we don't have any interest in what happens in ukraine is [1:46:39] that what you're saying it's only the europeans i'm saying the threat is far closer to rich and capable [1:46:45] countries in europe and they should step up to lead the charge and that's why that chart is a good [1:46:49] thing to see they have stepped up but i think the american people should understand that we've stepped [1:46:54] back in fact step back to the point of abandoning this is a war that never would have happened under [1:46:59] president trump and he supports ending it through a deal and he's pursued that so far it hasn't happened [1:47:05] i'm at a time i want to talk about dto's who designates but we'll take that up later thank you [1:47:10] senator king senator schmidt thank you mr chairman and uh it's a proposal that i'm following my friend [1:47:18] from maine missouri and maine came into the union at the same time but we couldn't disagree more on this [1:47:23] particular point we may have to separate here um i actually think it's interesting that ukraine just [1:47:28] came up because we've heard uh from my colleagues on the other side discussion about the cost of what [1:47:35] the ongoing american effort there was never a never a discussion about the 200 billion dollars we were [1:47:42] sending to a foreign country that's not even in nato never in fact when amendments were offered for [1:47:48] independent audits of how that money was spent there was bipartisan opposition to that kind of [1:47:54] oversight so i find it really rich now that there's a complaint that we're not spending money on ukraine [1:48:02] and by the way 30 billion for salaries for bureaucrats pensions and social safety net programs and [1:48:10] government operations to keep the state functioning during wartime that's where american tax dollars were [1:48:15] going 30 billion dollars for bureaucrats in ukraine and we just heard a a speech for more money for [1:48:22] ukraine yet the 1.5 trillion for this country is being balked at i mean i've seen ukraine flags all over [1:48:31] this capital for three years at the same time the same people call the president of the united states of [1:48:38] this country a nazi so i forgive me if if i if i feel like we've lost our bearings a little bit [1:48:47] so i'm all for the america first agenda i'm all for us realigning our priorities i'm all for [1:48:55] the national defense strategies that says our core strategic interests are the homeland the western [1:49:00] hemisphere and the rising threat in china and that means our european allies should step up if vladimir [1:49:08] putin is truly some existential threat and the next hitler that's going to roll through europe you would [1:49:14] 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 [1:49:19] they would step up and we better start demanding that because if we want to meet the challenges of [1:49:24] the 21st century in china our priorities our focus has to be somewhere else it doesn't mean abandonment [1:49:32] it just means a true partnership with our european allies who for very very long time have have not [1:49:37] stepped up i want to ask you um mr secretary in your first year one of the things i think that's [1:49:42] really gone towards this morale and recruitment boom that we've seen through your leadership and [1:49:47] president trump was finally taking on the sort of cultural marxism that had taken hold from the [1:49:54] highest levels of leadership from the president united states to your predecessor this obsession with [1:49:58] dei could you just walk through maybe maybe the worst example that you saw and a way that you address [1:50:05] that and how it was affecting morale well thank you senator first of all i want to fully associate [1:50:11] myself with the first two and a half minutes of your comments and i appreciate that perspective very [1:50:15] much so i would note 30 billion dollars for bureaucrats in ukraine is more than the bill that we've talked [1:50:21] about today uh for a existential and critically important war to ensure that iran doesn't get a [1:50:27] nuclear weapon that's worth noting i i haven't talked about it as much in these hearings um because [1:50:33] this is a budget hearing about 1.5 trillion that's historic and significant but underwriting the the change [1:50:39] that we've seen in our department was a laser focus on getting back to basics and the the key word to [1:50:45] that is merit we had a department that was that was obsessed with gender ideology and race diversity equity [1:50:53] and inclusion in fact the mantra you would hear dripping from the lips of generals and with a serious [1:50:58] look on their face was our diversity is our strength which is the single dumbest phrase in military history [1:51:06] of course our diversity is not our strength our unity is our strength our shared purpose the flag we [1:51:12] wear and who we and the constitution we serve to defend and when you clear that debris away whether [1:51:17] it's marxist ideologies or social engineering or political correctness or quotas based on gender and [1:51:24] diversity you get the best of the best rising up regardless of gender regardless of race motivated by that [1:51:32] environment where merit reigns it's accountability standards lethality readiness training all the [1:51:39] debris wiped away that is the secret sauce of the revival of the war department and why americans are [1:51:46] attracted to serving in it and why those inside it why morale is sky high and any insinuation that it is [1:51:52] not are coming from folks who haven't been in our units recently go visit the troops at every level and [1:51:57] their morale is at record level and i want to talk about morale with the 15 seconds that i have left i want [1:52:01] to thank you for um coming to st louis for your arsenal of freedom tour where the next generation [1:52:06] aircraft the f-47 is being built by the hard-working men and women in missouri who take a tremendous amount of pride [1:52:12] uh for that aircraft that's going to go further see see further go faster have a bigger payload and [1:52:17] i know there's another decision coming with the faxx but really appreciate your leadership and thanks for coming [1:52:22] thank you senator uh thank you senator schmidt senator king do you wish to ask unanimous consent to [1:52:29] include your exhibit in the record yes without objection that will be done senator warren uh thank [1:52:36] you mr chairman so americans are paying a high price for donald trump's war with iran we've got [1:52:42] 14 service members who are dead over 400 more who are wounded uh prices are rising for nearly every american [1:52:51] family but someone is profiting off trump's war insiders who know what's going on and who place bets [1:53:00] on that inside information on march 23rd just 14 minutes before trump unexpectedly posted about [1:53:09] quote very good conversations on ending the war traders suddenly bet 500 million dollars on the price of [1:53:18] oil which once trump made his announcement immediately dropped it happened again on april 7th and then again [1:53:27] on april 21st a surge in oil bets then a trump post and then a huge shift in oil prices in just the space of [1:53:37] minutes it looks like insiders have been making out like bandits using secret information about the war [1:53:45] the war now one u.s soldier has been charged but that was for betting on capturing maduro months ago [1:53:53] not a single person has been charged in the many many many trades over the middle east war so secretary [1:54:01] hegseth do you have any explanation for these perfectly timed spikes in trading activity other than insider trading [1:54:13] uh senator all i can tell you is that everything we've done in our department everything we've done [1:54:19] with information in working with the white house and across the interagency has been completely above board [1:54:25] well so what does it mean do you have any other explanation other than insider trading do you have a story [1:54:33] for why just minutes before there's an announcement there's a surge in trading activity senator i'm more [1:54:41] than focused on doing my job and ensuring we execute properly which thankfully under this [1:54:46] administration uh our troops have done incredible things in all these missions my job in all of those [1:54:51] moments is to make sure we're prepared and that's part of the reason why we've been so successful in [1:54:56] these raids in these efforts is that this joint force is you're saying you're not paying any attention to [1:55:01] this insider trading is that what you're telling me that you've paid no attention to this you haven't [1:55:05] noticed it you haven't done anything about it what i'm saying is we're focused on our mission of executing [1:55:10] for the american people and what happens in in markets is not uh embedding markets is not [1:55:15] something we're involved what happens in betting markets doesn't matter to you even if the information [1:55:21] may be coming from insiders in your office senator it's not something we're involved in at all and of [1:55:27] course we take operational security at every level very seriously in fact no one's taken operational [1:55:32] security more uh seriously than us if you look at what it required to keep secret midnight hammer and [1:55:39] operation maduro the uh absolute resolve with maduro and the steps we've taken no one's been tighter [1:55:47] about ensuring that operational security is with insider trading out of your office we have we would [1:55:56] ensure at every level that inside information is i take that as a properly safeguard all right well [1:56:01] obviously you're not uh i'm also concerned about recent reporting on your own financial dealings [1:56:07] with regard to profiting from the war in iran the financial times reported that your broker tried [1:56:13] to buy hundreds of shares in a black rock fund invested in defense companies just before the war [1:56:19] began the law clearly prohibits the secretary that entire story is false has been from the beginning [1:56:25] and was made up out of whole cloth and anybody that looks at it sees how it was worded from the [1:56:30] beginning to make it look like i was involved in something i had nothing to do and never have so any [1:56:34] insinuation that i've ever profited other than serving this nation what what i give what you [1:56:40] 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 [1:56:44] don't do it for stocks and that's part of the reason i'm able to be effective in this job because [1:56:48] no one owns me no one owns this department no one owns this president and we can execute for the [1:56:53] american people and we do clearly prohibits the secretary of defense from owning stock [1:57:00] in the ten biggest defense contractors other senators and i sent you a letter with detailed [1:57:06] questions about this and you have not given us a response so i'd like to hear you say did you through [1:57:13] your broker at morgan stanley or otherwise seek to invest in any defense related funds right before [1:57:20] trump started the iran war i'll give it to you as a big fat negative then let me ask you a second [1:57:29] question is your broker getting your personal sign off on any investment in individual bigger [1:57:37] fatter negative he's not getting your sign off before he makes investments in defense stocks [1:57:43] can i refer you to i'm not making investments senator asking does he know that he has to get your sign [1:57:50] off before he does that of course i don't know what you're looking for but you're gonna find it [1:57:56] thank you thank you senator i would like to enter into the record the ethics agreement that the secretary [1:58:03] of defense has signed that he will sign off personally before his broker makes any attempt to buy defense [1:58:11] stocks is there objection thank you without objection it will be admitted uh senator banks thank you mr [1:58:19] chairman secretary hexett um you're doing a great job i've been in washington for 10 years [1:58:26] several secretaries of defense now secretary of war you're the best that we've had since i've been [1:58:32] in washington what you've done to restore readiness uh restore military recruitment get the pentagon [1:58:37] focus on war fighting is is second to none and i i appreciate what you and president trump and general [1:58:43] kane are doing very much in fact uh general kane according to the department's 2025 china military [1:58:50] power report quote china believes the next revolution in military affairs will occur when militaries [1:58:57] transition to intelligentized warfare and fully integrate artificial intelligence big data advanced [1:59:05] computing and other technologies into the joint force end quote can you describe general in greater [1:59:12] detail how the pla is using ai to enhance its military capabilities uh you bet senator um you know they are [1:59:22] attempting to integrate uh ai across the range of their war fighting functions which extends to uh [1:59:29] command and control information advantage intelligence um certainly kinetic uh and non-kinetic [1:59:38] uh capabilities and to a certain extent sustainment i'll note that so are we and in many cases we are out [1:59:46] in front of them i want to commend our chief digital uh and artificial intelligence officers inside the joint [1:59:53] force at the co-coms with the services who are also leaning very far in as we march towards a digitized [2:00:02] joint force that allows us to cease and see and uh command and control the force better uh the china [2:00:09] military power report also goes on to note that the chinese ai sector remains quote constrained by its [2:00:18] limited access to high performance ai chips general kane how big of an advantage is it for the american war [2:00:27] fighter that america's arsenal of compute is bigger than china's sir it's a it's uh it's critical to us [2:00:37] and you know while i acknowledge there's there's all kinds of chip issues in this it is important to us [2:00:43] 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 [2:00:49] committee's helped to advance in the cyber capabilities so we appreciate the help with that if that advantage [2:00:54] were eroded and china were able to develop more advanced ai capabilities as a result what are some [2:01:01] of the potential consequences for american war fighters well sir it could certainly put us at risk [2:01:07] and that's why we're leaning in so hard um there's always a balance between commerce and uh and and [2:01:15] protection i acknowledge those are policy matters i think is what you're starting to get towards [2:01:21] um but on a pure military only standpoint um we would that we would see some defense in depth eroded [2:01:28] from that secretary hexa do you agree that enhanced chinese ai capabilities put could could put american [2:01:35] service members at risk um senator we absolutely have to stay ahead uh the advantage that ai provides [2:01:43] applied to any number of capabilities whether it's domain awareness targeting cycles you name it uh ai and [2:01:49] leveraging it and that's why we've made it the forefront i mean it's ai first with everything [2:01:53] that we do integrating it at every potential echelon to ensure we can respond faster if we're if we're [2:02:00] better at that than any adversary is it's going to give us an advantage and we have to maintain that [2:02:04] i agree do you agree that we should do everything in our power to ensure that american service members [2:02:10] go into battle with an overwhelming and fear inducing technological advantage particularly with ai [2:02:18] always uh overwhelming is is the goal in every scenario uh earlier this year the pentagon issued [2:02:24] updated guidelines that prohibit department funds from supporting grants and contracts involving [2:02:30] fundamental research collaboration and with blacklisted chinese entities how important are those [2:02:36] restrictions to safeguarding our technological leadership have to have them uh especially when you [2:02:43] look at the power of models and all those things and you you have connections to entities that could [2:02:47] have connections to your adversary and you can uh you can have degradation of your advantage again this [2:02:53] is where i appreciate your leadership mr secretary uh which has been second to none and i know that [2:02:58] you will work with congress to help codify those restrictions and encourage taxpayer dollars that to to [2:03:04] never advance the capabilities of our enemies and our adversaries i appreciate both of your leadership [2:03:11] we've come a long way in a couple of years from i mean the night and day difference between the last [2:03:16] administration and this administration is apparent to every hoosier that i talk to so i appreciate [2:03:22] your leadership i yield back thank you very much senator banks senator peters thank you mr chairman reiki [2:03:28] member gentlemen uh welcome uh to the committee i appreciate uh this uh discussion i'll just start off [2:03:34] the number one question i get when i'm back home from people uh is basically very simply when when will [2:03:38] this war end uh we know the cost are uh that the american people are paying both at higher fuel costs our [2:03:45] farmers are paying because of fertilizer cost we we know that the uh the whole world economy is paying [2:03:51] a great deal for this war and basically when i as i think that through and this is what i want to talk [2:03:57] 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 [2:04:02] war that's uh always the tough question uh and we've got to figure that out uh and there are some folks who've [2:04:09] written quite a bit about this uh one one text on war by carl von klaus witz uh mr secretary i'm sure [2:04:16] you're familiar uh with with the book i know all of the men and women in uniform are it's the most widely [2:04:21] read most influential military strategy book in western history which is uh pretty pretty broad and it is [2:04:29] the core curriculum that is read uh in all the war colleges uh i read it when i was uh at the navy war [2:04:36] college uh taking courses uh it's part of what the u.s military thinks about when to go to war and [2:04:42] then how to get out of the war and one of those uh core principles uh it starts with is basically war [2:04:49] is the continuation of politics by other means that everybody knows that quote who's worn the uniform and [2:04:55] others too it basically means there's two things about that it's politics to get in the war and it's [2:05:00] politics to get out of the war and in between we rely on the men and women in the military to carry out [2:05:06] those policies so i want to be clear and i think i speak for all of my colleagues is that we know [2:05:12] the military plays an important part they need to do the job and nobody nobody questions the amazing [2:05:17] work that our men and women in the u.s military have done and continue to do they've performed [2:05:23] absolutely brilliantly and we applaud all that they have done however what we do question is the [2:05:30] politics part it's a continuation of politics so it's our political leaders that get us into war [2:05:35] and our political leaders who have to get us out of that war which falls on on you mr secretary [2:05:41] hexaf and others in the administration including the president and his commander uh in chief so [2:05:47] secretary are you familiar with the uh the concept in that book of center of gravity sure so center of [2:05:55] gravity is is basically as you know is it's the basically the hub of all the power and movement [2:06:01] everything depends on it colossus will say if you don't take out the center of gravity [2:06:05] it's very difficult to win the war you can have tactical successes you can have military successes [2:06:11] but if you're not focused on that you're not going to be able to win basically he talks about military [2:06:17] strikes are tactical and tactical success doesn't necessarily create the political conditions necessary [2:06:23] to get the parties to the table to negotiate and get it done so we've got to focus on that so my [2:06:29] question for you mr secretary what is the center of gravity for iran well the senator of gravity as [2:06:37] the president has seen it and as i see it and he's talked about for 30 years is is their pursuit of a [2:06:41] nuclear weapon and what they could do with that in pursuit as an extension of the radical ideology they [2:06:47] have professed since the beginning of their revolution so the the the prophetic ideology they profess [2:06:54] alongside the most dangerous weapon in the world would be the center of gravity of the rationality [2:06:58] of this undertaking which i appreciate it i'll actually elaborate more i appreciate it general [2:07:03] kane you know more about uh clauswoods uh and strategy that i will ever know including all the [2:07:08] folks behind you what would you consider the center of gravity as defined by clauswoods in this type of [2:07:13] war well sir i i uh you're not going to love this answer but i hope you'll respect it war is politics by [2:07:21] any other means right and the political side of that necessitates that our political leaders determine [2:07:27] what is the center of gravity associated with that from a military only perspective [2:07:32] there's a variety of things academically that we could look at for center of gravities from leadership [2:07:37] to will to capabilities to intent but i'll defer to our political leaders okay that's fine but that's [2:07:43] fair i don't like it you're right but i know i know and i know you know the answer to that and [2:07:47] you're just not telling me well i get why you're doing that my inner i would say you know other [2:07:51] observers say that basically it's the it's not the leader usually if you take out a leader that doesn't [2:07:56] necessarily uh take make the changes that in iran's case is probably the islamic uh revolutionary [2:08:02] guard as to that's the center of gravity they're the ones that control the country and they're very [2:08:07] diverse to do that the americans center of gravity is probably our economy and our ability to maintain [2:08:13] public opinion support we already know the public isn't there we know the impact to our economy and [2:08:17] central to that is the leverage i'm running out of time here but the central of leverage [2:08:21] is the strait of hormuz that that is bottom line we have to open that up we have to take that away [2:08:28] from iran the fact that we haven't done that yet and we're 60 days in we're just now bringing mine [2:08:34] sweepers from the pacific in there we have some unmanned of the opportunities but we've got to have the [2:08:42] capacity to do that it was clear even if there was a plan to keep the straits open it was not going [2:08:49] to be implemented because the assets were not positioned in a place to actually open the [2:08:53] straits if they were it would have been we would have seen those happening right now we're not so [2:08:59] we're missing the point here the center of gravity is going to be bringing down the government of iran [2:09:05] in a way that they will want to have a peace treaty so we can protect our country from having nuclear [2:09:10] weapons pointed our way but the center of gravity is going to be in a lot of ways is going to be [2:09:15] focused on what happens on the straits and mr secretary we've got to see action a whole lot [2:09:20] sooner in the straits the world community needs it we're not going to bring this war to an end [2:09:24] until we seize control of the straits in a way which in part is why we have a blockade that has been [2:09:28] impenetrable for the iranians because they don't have a conventional navy to contest it which means we [2:09:34] control the straits the time the time of senator peters has expired let me let me um observe that i very [2:09:42] much appreciate the the senator from michigan uh suggesting ways in which our effort in iran [2:09:51] could be more successful i do appreciate that and let me also observe senator kane that that civilian [2:09:58] control um goes back well beyond uh marshall it goes back to to george washington who was wise enough [2:10:07] to resign his commission to the elected uh membership of of the government at that time [2:10:14] uh senator sheehy you are recognized i think it's important to note that um the objective is not to [2:10:23] 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 [2:10:29] narrative to shift so off target here president trump did not start this war we did not start this war [2:10:35] these radical barbarian savage clerics who have started killing americans 47 years ago in a [2:10:41] unilateral campaign of terror murder treason kidnapping torture have been murdering our countrymen all [2:10:49] over this world almost every single year hijacking airplanes hijacking cruise liners taking our embassies [2:10:55] blowing up our embassies blowing up our barracks blowing up our ships capturing our soldiers and murdering [2:11:00] them in brutal ways they started this war and it would be a lot easier to beat them if we didn't [2:11:08] have administrations shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars into their pockets while [2:11:11] they're actively fighting our own people while our own uniformed service members have been fighting [2:11:16] this murderous regime and we have presidents quite literally shipping pallets of cash to pay these [2:11:22] terrorists off it's been a disgrace it's been an embarrassment to this country for far too long [2:11:27] but back to the point general kane i have a specific question for you i think in this day [2:11:33] and age we all know that basically every single operation that we partake in whether it's stealth [2:11:38] bombers whether it's a blockade our special operations forces are a fundamental uh shaping [2:11:43] and priority component to all those would you agree yes senator i would and i think for the last [2:11:51] about 15 years the special operations community budget has been largely flat even adjusted for inflation [2:11:57] and yet continuously we call on those warriors uh to deliver the impossible and they pretty much do [2:12:04] we we were reminded just a few weeks ago even after the amazing maduro raid when we had to rescue [2:12:09] one of our 15 crewmen yet again our community came up and did something that probably most people [2:12:15] thought wasn't possible and they did an amazing job but we cannot continue to call on a tiny fraction [2:12:21] of our military to carry such a heavy load and to have such an op tempo without the appropriate [2:12:26] resources so um i'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can not just increase the budget but make sure [2:12:32] we're shaping their budget in a way that ensures that those warriors are getting the the direct [2:12:36] support for training and sustainment but also the platforms that they need from many submarines [2:12:43] to unmanned aircraft to manned aircraft and the platforms that are very unique for their mission [2:12:47] are furnished and deployed uh rapidly so i'd like to talk about the percentage increase of SOCOM's budget [2:12:53] how we affect that and how fast we can do it well sir i'll just i'll just highlight my gratitude [2:12:58] an appreciation for the entirety of the SOCOM joint force at at echelon and the work that they do [2:13:05] you know i'll leave the budget numbers and the increased percentages to to my civilian leadership but [2:13:12] echo to your point the exponential return on whatever investment they give these are incredible [2:13:19] entrepreneurial leaders at every echelon uh who do who do great great things um as the lights dim as i say [2:13:27] that so hopefully they'll see that as a nod uh towards them but i'll defer on the budget allocation [2:13:32] numbers to the to the comptroller sir uh first of all i i want to second completely your opening remarks [2:13:40] uh and that's certainly our view uh as well on on the SOCOM budget i'm gonna i'm gonna say i think uh [2:13:47] we need to increase what's in this budget and i've heard from multiple people about that in fact that if [2:13:52] there is a supplemental i actually i should just wrote a note to jay about it i think SOCOM given the [2:13:57] op tempo given the given their direct uh participation in so many of these historic [2:14:02] historic aspects SOCOM should be part of that supplemental as well makes complete sense who's [2:14:06] been shouldering a huge part of the burden special operations command so whether it's a supplemental [2:14:12] or this budget i i fully agree and i think we need to invest more great and i'd ask that particular care [2:14:19] be given uh the era of of beards and guns and kicking indoors as much fun as that was for all of us [2:14:24] um it's coming to a close and we're we're going to be going back to our roots as specialized uh commandos [2:14:30] whether it's undersea arctic airborne operations and uh as we all became kind of one joint soft force [2:14:36] during g watt uh quite frankly that was an easier problem to resource for to budget for and acquire [2:14:42] for uh it's going to be a lot harder now when our operators go back to their service corners and needs [2:14:47] platform specific technologies and training uh submersibles aircraft take years to acquire years to [2:14:53] specify it's not just buying more ars and body armor and ammo and sending them down range so i think [2:14:57] we have to think about the SOCOM budget a little differently than we have for the last 25 years [2:15:01] and make sure we're programming in a way that it's it's sustained um and is protected thank you [2:15:06] thank you senator schmidt for for that um insightful exchange senator kelly thank you mr chairman [2:15:15] gentlemen thank you for being here secretary hegseth safe to say that our weapons like sm3s tomahawks [2:15:22] patriot missiles have capabilities that are unmatched that's why they cost a lot take a long time to [2:15:27] produce your budget requests 31.8 billion dollars to expand production capacity for critical missile [2:15:36] stockpiles is that correct 31.8 uh i'm looking at 53 billion for munitions acceleration over 14 critical [2:15:45] munitions of which the ones you listed are apart okay 53 in that yes more than 20 billion more [2:15:53] so we've been working together to grow the industrial base because we're all worried about how our [2:15:59] stockpiles would hold up in a conflict against china since the start of this war you've made it a point [2:16:06] to highlight the number of strikes the u.s military is carrying out citing that more than 13 000 targets [2:16:14] had been struck as of april 8th on march 2nd you said this is a quote this was a massive overwhelming [2:16:20] attack across all domains of warfare striking more than a thousand targets in the first 24 hours [2:16:26] on march 10th you said yet again our most intense day of strikes inside of around on april 6th you [2:16:33] said and this is another quote the largest volume of strikes since day one of this operation your [2:16:40] department has released video after video of things blowing up none of us doubt the strength of the [2:16:47] u.s military and their ability to do hard things i understand that better than anybody the questions [2:16:54] we should be asking and answering are what does this cost us and what does it achieve for the american [2:17:03] people many of these strikes use our best weapons and we're using a lot of them and a lot of interceptors [2:17:11] open source reporting has estimated that the military has used an outrageous number of patriots i'm [2:17:16] not even going to say the numbers but a lot of patriots a lot of found rounds jasmine are tomahawks [2:17:22] very expensive exquisite we can't make these munitions overnight and it's clear from your budget [2:17:30] requests that you know that can you tell us how many years specifically is it going to take to replace [2:17:40] these systems senator thank you for the question i would defer to the comptroller on the amount because [2:17:46] i think it's a lot higher than 53 if you look at uh long-range fires jasms l-rasms tomahawks we're [2:17:52] looking at 238 okay we're looking at 40 billion for hypersonic so i actually think it's closer to 330 [2:17:57] billion in munitions okay how many years to replenish that's the question i think that's [2:18:01] exactly the right question too senator because the time frame we were existing under it was unacceptable [2:18:07] okay well what this budget does uh i mean months and years last year i mean we're building new plants [2:18:13] in real time though just to replace what we have extended i said months and then you said years [2:18:18] both it depends on the weapon system but two to three four x of what we have today so yes we're [2:18:23] dealing with a reality under the previous administration of what they sent to ukraine [2:18:27] and what they allocated elsewhere okay i got it so we fired rap years quickly worth of munitions and [2:18:34] it is clear that we're these are being expended to try to achieve some objectives that was the plan but [2:18:43] mr secretary this war is stuck the strait of hormuz is closed the iranian regime is in place the nuclear [2:18:54] material still in their hands americans are being crushed by higher costs and it's not clear to them [2:19:05] at all what the goal of this war is so i've got about a minute and i want to go to another topic [2:19:16] i saw your hearing yesterday and i'm going to give you one more chance to address a question here [2:19:24] it's my understanding that the definition of no quarter is that legitimate office offers of [2:19:32] surrender will be refused or that detainees will be executed is that your understanding of the [2:19:41] definition well the only entity that would kill detainees or target civilians is the iranians and they're [2:19:49] the ones being crushed so you ronnie and uh military and their military capability question is [2:19:54] you i disagree completely with your articulation no do you understand the definition that i just [2:19:59] read you because that's the definition from your department's law of war manual is that your [2:20:05] understanding and i'm gonna i'm gonna just get to the point here we we fight to win and we follow the [2:20:10] law senator okay so your your quote was we will keep pushing keep advancing no quarter no mercy for our [2:20:18] enemies and yesterday you did not clarify whether you stand by this statement so i'm going to give you [2:20:24] another opportunity to clarify if that is what you meant do you stand by that statement you made on march [2:20:33] 13th we have untied the hands of our war fighters we fight to win and we follow the law okay so you're not [2:20:41] clarifying so you stand by that statement so you're the secretary of defense the things you say matter [2:20:48] and your response here right now makes it clear to the american people exactly why you are not right [2:20:56] for this it makes it clear to our enemies senator thank you mr chairman um thank you um senator sheehy has [2:21:06] left the room but it's been whispered to me that i just referred to him in the last exchanges senator schmidt [2:21:14] i don't know if he considered that a compliment or an insult but i would do correct that for the record [2:21:20] senator slotkin i think you were next thank you um gentlemen you're here to ask for 1.5 trillion dollars [2:21:29] uh 40 percent more than what we gave you last year a trillion dollars um and i agree with the chairman of [2:21:37] this committee that the world has never been more dangerous and complicated um and regardless of [2:21:45] whether we disagree on the reasons for getting into this war i think we can all agree that we want [2:21:51] our military to come out of it safely and successfully and as you know soon as feasible [2:21:57] the military has taken you all the the administration has taken military action in 10 different places [2:22:04] in the world in 15 months more than any president in u.s history um i i think president trump has really [2:22:12] become a foreign policy president and many of those operations you know were on the news for a couple of [2:22:17] days but then the american public didn't feel them and i think the difference with this war with iran [2:22:23] is that the american public is feeling it in their pocketbooks a gas in michigan is 4.99 today [2:22:30] the cost of fertilizer of airline tickets things that are real to people um secretary hegg said [2:22:37] the president said that you were most keen um on this war he he said that you were the most gung-ho [2:22:44] about it um and um i think despite um us all wanting to come out of this successfully it is hard to [2:22:52] miss that we are at the stalemate that we don't control the strait of hormuz because shipping is not getting [2:22:59] through um and we can block what they're trying to get through but nothing is moving and it's costing [2:23:05] the american public um and i think that's a fundamentally different moment than the rest of [2:23:11] the military action we've taken um even in like middle east 101 class we used to talk about and run war [2:23:18] games on the strait of hormuz it's a strategic geography that the iranians have um and i think it's [2:23:24] it's just concerning to me that we you know we can try and tell the american people that it's going [2:23:30] great and we're killing it but until the strait of hormuz is open i don't think we can credibly say [2:23:35] that with any seriousness um i think the question i have for you though is future looking and it's our [2:23:43] 2026 elections um the president has been very clear he said in the state of the union that essentially [2:23:50] if his side doesn't win then the election was rigged he said that before the 2020 election [2:23:56] he's asked for voter rolls for 29 different states he just asked for detroit's votes or ballots [2:24:05] and we know that in 2020 he wrote an executive order that he didn't sign [2:24:10] that said to the u.s military to the secretary of defense you should go and seize ballots and voting [2:24:17] machines a few months ago he said that he regretted that he ever that he didn't sign that executive [2:24:24] order so the u.s military has never been deployed you missed correctly uh incorrectly said yesterday [2:24:31] that they were deployed during different elections governors deployed them under their authorities but [2:24:37] the federal government has never put the uniformed military at our polls during world war ii right after [2:24:44] 9 11. we've never had to do that so secretary hegseth if the president who regrets not signing [2:24:51] that executive order to the then sec def in 2020 asks you to seize ballots or voting machines in states [2:25:00] during the 2026 election will you stand up for the constitution and say no or will you salute and do his [2:25:07] bidding um senator i didn't get a chance to answer the front part of your question which uh you know [2:25:13] there was a lot of deferred maintenance under the administration that needed to be addressed [2:25:17] because the world was in chaos just when president was elected please well again that's the most [2:25:23] important thing it's what's happening it's a yet another gotcha hypothetical which is your specialty [2:25:28] it's not that we had an alternative order under the vide administration in 2024 it's not a hypothetical [2:25:34] i refuse to accept you give that answer all the time you and i have done this dance before [2:25:39] get over it okay in 2020 he he's the president your boss the guy you're performing for right now [2:25:45] told the journalists this year that he wished he signed that executive order to your predecessor [2:25:51] and your predecessor said publicly thank god we didn't actually go forward with it what are you [2:25:56] gonna do you're the guy here in the seat it's not hypothetical tell the american people will you [2:26:01] deploy the uniform military to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines are you accusing me of [2:26:09] performing because you're performing for cable news right now but mr secretary we have it's a [2:26:14] hypothetical by the way in 2024 under the biden administration 15 states did deploy under their [2:26:19] governor's authority when their governors asked what did joe biden say that's fundamentally i don't think [2:26:24] anything because he needed them for cyber security and for covid trump did it too under trump but it was not [2:26:30] the federal decision it was those governors of the states under their authorities okay it's never been [2:26:36] done in our history please stand up for the constitution do not send uniformed military to our polls [2:26:43] do you have a response to that portion of the question mr secretary i've never been ordered to do [2:26:50] anything illegal and i won't that goes without saying thank you for the answer senator duckworth you're [2:26:55] now recognized thank you mr chairman um despite his campaign promise of no new wars president trump [2:27:02] has been obsessed with using the military any chance he gets from deploying troops to american cities to [2:27:07] propping up maduro's chosen number two in venezuela to an endless war of boat strikes in the caribbean sea [2:27:14] and now in an illegal war with iran where hundreds of thousands of our troops are in harm's way every day [2:27:19] with no exit strategy in sight this administration hides bad policy behind the exceptional military [2:27:25] operations and the valor of our uniformed personnel i've long said iran is a malign actor but the [2:27:31] responsible administration would have managed this short of conflict instead of starting a war of [2:27:36] choice there was no imminent threat to the united states or our troops the military was not the [2:27:41] most effective tool to get iran to capitulate as we're already seeing too clearly now and using [2:27:47] forces made americans in the middle east less safe or spiking costs for americans here at home [2:27:52] all through the tune of 14 service members dead hundreds wounded billions of taxpayer dollars and [2:27:56] untold costs to our military readiness this administration claims to be focused on the war [2:28:02] fighter but president trump told us when he announced a war from his luxury resort that he expected [2:28:07] service members to die now sadly it's clear how unserious trump is about his role as the commander-in-chief [2:28:14] his war within iran has already reminded us how important it is to prevent a war [2:28:19] how serious it is to ask the military to wage one under poor strategic direction how destructive a [2:28:24] wide-ranging war can be for americans for our service members and how difficult it is to actually [2:28:30] end one once you started the incompetence and casual disregard for our service members professionalism [2:28:36] and sacrifice is in my opinion a scandal general kane general kane can you tell us the status of the [2:28:44] iranian revolutionary guard corps navy identity actively closing the strait uh their uh senator [2:28:53] apologies i was uh listening to you i was just trying to write it down uh they're uh um mostly destroyed [2:28:59] centcom continues to watch them uh not not the iranian navy no no the ircg yes ma'am the the smaller i [2:29:07] won't get into any classified materials but the smaller uh fast uh and you know smaller boats boston [2:29:14] whaler sized boats there's still some out there yes ma'am so this administration and the secretary [2:29:20] defense has been boasting about sinking the ships of the iranian navy but let's call this what it is [2:29:24] it's misdirection they want us to focus on the impressive number of large iranian ships underwater [2:29:29] to distract from the fact that they had no plans for the second navy that iran owns that has always been [2:29:34] a hard problem to address by military force the ircg navy not the iranian navy has been iran's tip of the [2:29:40] spear the straits of hormuz seizing vessels and threatening target to target u.s assets iran has [2:29:46] long invested in this second asymmetrical navy specifically to develop capabilities that would [2:29:51] be difficult for conventional u.s military forces to target iran's advantage was well known to anyone [2:29:56] paying attention i have no doubt that competent planners in the pentagon raise their concerns about [2:30:01] a quagmire in the strait to leadership the question is why their leadership did not pay attention to this [2:30:06] sound advice hubris is not strategy and in war it costs lives even if the strait reopens this [2:30:12] administration has created a new less safe world by initiating and then bungling this crisis and [2:30:17] teaching iran that it can charge a million dollars a ship to transit the strait it will take a long [2:30:23] time for the global economy to bounce back to normal trade flows and iran has learned again that they [2:30:27] can charge a million dollars per ship creating a new funding line for their malicious activity against [2:30:32] americans for years to come and in the indo-pacific i don't doubt that if the worst day comes our [2:30:38] military will step up to challenge and defend americans in our interest with military force [2:30:42] but will they be asked to lay down their lives unnecessarily just because the white house was [2:30:46] unready and incapable of preventing a crisis boiling over into a war in the indo-pacific general [2:30:51] kane do you agree that the military would benefit from significant inter intra-agency planning [2:30:55] by the department of defense on actions short of war that can be taken if a crisis occurs [2:31:00] i appreciate that question you highlighting the importance of that and we we have really great [2:31:07] relationships now on the joint staff with the interagency i think our relationship in particular [2:31:14] 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 [2:31:20] best of title 10 capabilities plus the best of title 50 to ensure that we deliver really entrepreneurial [2:31:28] options for our national policy makers to do what you're talking about center all right um but i am [2:31:34] concerned because during the recent nds hearing i laid out the very real ways that a crisis [2:31:38] in just one of the dozens of flashpoints in the indo-pacific could be devastating for our service [2:31:42] members americans and our american economy but since then this administration has only further [2:31:47] diminished dod's ability to prepare for these crises in fact many of the as many as one-third of the [2:31:52] assets in the middle east originally meant to be in the indo-pacific this war of choice is draining [2:31:58] our military resources we need leaders who do everything they can to ensure war fighters only [2:32:02] fight when they have to not because of one man's whims and a lack of bravery among the yes-men he surrounds [2:32:07] himself with i thank you for your service uh general um and i continue to look forward to working with [2:32:12] you thank you senator duckworth center rosen uh thank you mr chairman thank you ranking member reed [2:32:20] thank you general for your service uh before my begin my questions for secretary hegseth i have [2:32:26] one brief important question for general kane um general as you've acknowledged at your confirmation [2:32:32] hearing service members who served at locations which another u.s government agency deems contaminated [2:32:38] like the nevada test and training range should have the same presumption of radiation exposure as doe [2:32:45] employees who served alongside them but we also must ensure that dod provides the va with the records [2:32:52] proving that these individuals serve there so this is a problem that dod has the power to solve i know [2:32:58] we've discussed this so general kane will you commit to ensuring parity for dod personnel who served in [2:33:04] locations that the u.s government has already deemed contaminated identifying those who served in such [2:33:10] locations and providing documentation of that service to the va so that they can receive the veterans [2:33:16] benefits that they have earned you bet ma'am and and i'm you know since our last time together on this [2:33:23] we've continued to chip away at removing or figuring out how to get past that one particular blocking in that [2:33:31] record so that that data flows uh normally and i'm i'm committed to trying to solve that for those [2:33:37] leaders and teammates who are out there at that site thank you we'll look forward to continue to [2:33:41] work with you on that so secretary hegseth i want to talk a little bit about ai because of course our [2:33:47] service members deserve every advantage we can give them so i just want you to help me understand this [2:33:52] in february on the eve of operation epic fury you publicly designated anthropic as a supply chain risk [2:34:00] however this week it's been reported that the white house is now helping agencies get around this decision [2:34:05] to access anthropics technology so the administration cannot credibly make both claims simultaneously [2:34:14] so before i ask you about the inconsistency i just want you to reconfirm what it is you plan [2:34:20] to use this technology for it's been publicly reported that the decision to label anthropic [2:34:25] a national security risk was influenced by your personal and very public contract dispute [2:34:30] with anthropic when the company said that its technology could not be used for fully autonomous [2:34:36] weapons targeting or mass surveillance of americans so following up on your response to senator rounds [2:34:43] earlier can you confirm whether or not there will always be a human in the loop when ai is used for [2:34:50] lethal targeting decisions well first of all on anthropic they would not agree [2:34:57] to our terms of service that would be like boeing giving us airplanes and telling us who we can [2:35:01] shoot at this is not so they were not just about anthropic though this is what i just want to be clear [2:35:05] and also anthropic is run by an ideological lunatic who shouldn't have a but that's not my question [2:35:11] my question is a decision making over what we do writ large we follow the law i will you confirm you [2:35:16] said this to senator rounds earlier so i'm just asking for you to we follow the law but we don't have [2:35:21] to sign a different terms of agreement that's not the question this is not about anthropic this is [2:35:27] just an example i want you to confirm that whether or not there will always be a human in the loop when [2:35:34] ai is used in the kill chain for lethal targeting decisions will there always be a human in a loop or [2:35:39] will ai make the decision you said this to what we follow the law and humans make decisions so you will [2:35:50] confirm what you said to senator rounds that a human will always be in the loop when ai is used which [2:35:55] is why i'm just that's part of our terms of service anyway you know it's how we operate all i want to [2:36:04] say is this there is a dod directive three thousand point three thousand point oh nine which mandates that [2:36:13] autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise [2:36:19] appropriate levels of human judgment over use of force that is in the dod that's why we follow the [2:36:26] law senator so they so the answer is yes mr the answer is we follow the law absolutely i think this [2:36:32] is more important than following the law i think that people want to know that ai isn't going to make [2:36:38] lethal decisions and it is critically ai is not making lethal decisions that's what we want to hear we're [2:36:43] going to follow on that one i have uh just a few seconds left but you keep doubling down on this [2:36:53] phrase mr secretary you compare journalists you compare us you compare so many to pharisees pharisees [2:37:03] it's a problematic and historically weaponized term that cast jewish communities as hypocritical or [2:37:09] morally corrupt you doubled down again and said it words matter words matter what you choose to say how we [2:37:17] choose to say it how do you justify using this language as secretary of defense words matter it's [2:37:23] a hurt historically hurtful term why do you continue to use it and what actions are you taking to prevent [2:37:30] rhetoric like this from permeating throughout the department that is going to target specific groups [2:37:35] or individuals of people based on their religion senator i feel like it's a pretty accurate term to for folks [2:37:45] who don't see the plank in their own eye and always want to see what's wrong with an operation [2:37:49] as opposed to the historic success of preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon so i stand by it [2:37:54] you stand by calling people pharisees sir i cannot i cannot stand for that that is wrong [2:38:03] it is not respectful to people and i expect anyone who is in leadership level in our country to be [2:38:10] respectful and use respectful terms and not be an anti-semite um thank you senator rosen um the chair [2:38:24] and the ranking member have no second round questions i'm told by senator kelly that he would like to ask [2:38:32] a second question yeah mr secretary so 1.5 trillion dollars 1.5 is a very round number um you know if you're [2:38:43] putting together a budget you'd come up with these are the problems we're trying to solve this is the [2:38:50] capability we need these are the systems we have to buy and at the end of the day it would spit out a [2:38:57] number and it's probably not 1.5 trillion so to me it feels like that number was just kind of pulled [2:39:03] out of thin air i took a look recently and it it it seems that the defense budget of the rest of the [2:39:13] world i'm talking china russia india every asian country every european country south america everybody [2:39:22] else is in the neighborhood it looked like 1.7 to 1.8 so your request is approaching all defense spending [2:39:33] from everybody else with the exception of us that has a huge amount of money you know when i got here [2:39:39] you know just five years ago it was almost half of that through budget reconciliation you've received [2:39:48] a bunch of money to buy things of some of the weapon systems you know to resupply what we need [2:39:56] i'm just trying to understand you know like where is all this money going to go and if you've figured [2:40:02] out ahead of time what do you want to spend this on and by the way there are systems the president [2:40:09] wants you know he saw last summer how effective iron dome and david sling were and because of that [2:40:19] the president decided we're going to build our own version we're going to call it golden dome [2:40:25] because the president likes the color gold we've seen that see it in the oval office we're going to call [2:40:32] it golden dome and it might cost somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion dollars i've heard those [2:40:37] estimates by the way on that problem i know a little bit about intercepting stuff in space it's [2:40:44] really hard and the physics on this favors the offense there's some things in that program that i [2:40:51] think is really important that we do and try to figure it figure it out but space-based interceptors [2:40:57] to hit multiple targets and by the way it's important how you size the system so i'm trying to [2:41:05] understand mr secretary what kind of detail did you guys did you work out like a detailed plan and at [2:41:11] the end of the day it came out oh it just happens to come out to be 1.5 trillion dollars senator the [2:41:19] exact amount is actually 1.535 trillion dollars and it was a product of a highly rigorous process [2:41:25] throughout our department from co-com commanders to the services with our comptroller with our deputy [2:41:31] secretary with the chairman and myself to ensure the budget reflects the realities of the world we live in [2:41:35] and the capabilities we're going to need and that's why there's 65 building billion for ship building [2:41:40] 120 billion for the defense industrial base 331 billion for munitions 44 billion for quality of life [2:41:47] 71 billion on our nuclear dib you name it we're investing in it and the biggest reason for it is [2:41:53] the under-investment of the bide administration i mean what they spent on defense the continuing resolutions [2:41:58] and others undercut the build-up that the president trump had created so yes we're doing a lot of uh [2:42:03] deferred maintenance here around the world and in our department and this budget reflects it [2:42:08] and it's a commitment a generational commitment to the security of the american people and if the rest [2:42:12] of the world won't spend on their defense that's their fault the american department of war will invest [2:42:18] properly to defend the american people and that's what this i've always been supportive of defense [2:42:23] spending in my entire time here and after 25 years in the navy i want to make sure our folks have what they [2:42:30] need i think you should go back and take a look and see if there are places where we are making [2:42:37] investments that we actually don't need there are some systems out there i mean we're constantly [2:42:41] looking and trying to balance do we want you know f-47 which i've been supportive of um b21 also [2:42:50] supportive and then we want to make all these other investments in really inexpensive low-cost [2:42:57] uh munitions because we suddenly realize that the expensive stuff even with through b21 we can't [2:43:05] really maybe not get close enough but the whole idea behind b21 and f-47 is we can penetrate further [2:43:11] into the a2ad bubble so there's some conflict there so i'm just encouraging you to go back and see [2:43:19] you know if there are some systems where we can bring that number the overall number down because as i look [2:43:26] at what the department is trying to field you know some of this stuff in my judgment and you know i know [2:43:34] others might have another opinion some of this stuff we either don't need or it's not going to work [2:43:40] thank you mr chairman sir kelly your time has expired let me just say you have a great deal of expertise [2:43:45] in the area of space and and we do look forward to uh your contribution as we mark up uh further [2:43:53] legislation central blumenthal i understand you have a follow-up question uh yes uh first of all i [2:44:01] want to thank uh you mr secretary for your support for the major richard star act which i think is [2:44:09] tremendously significant uh i'm committed to getting it done as soon as possible at least before veterans [2:44:17] day and i look forward to your help in accomplishing that goal but i want to thank you for your support [2:44:24] i'm sure the veterans of america are grateful for the prospective victory there uh i've talked to [2:44:34] many of the combatant commanders about lessons learned from ukraine and uh i think that there is [2:44:46] unanimity on the point that there is a lot to be learned not only about what the russians are doing [2:44:54] but what other adversaries could do as well general kane chairman kane um would you agree that [2:45:01] there are lessons to be learned from ukraine uh you bet you bet senator and there's lessons learned [2:45:08] from everywhere and that's really the culture of our joint force right now is to make sure that across [2:45:13] the globe anytime we're in contact with the enemy we're going back and determining what we can learn [2:45:18] from there but um i you know a big one if if you'll allow me a big one is is uh you know mass and in [2:45:27] simultaneity which is something the secretary's taking a strong role in making sure that we're [2:45:32] doing that through uh drone evaluations and things like that moving forward following up on a question [2:45:40] that i asked earlier my last question uh the president said yesterday that his view is after his [2:45:48] conversation with vladimir putin that ukraine has been quote militarily defeated in your professional [2:45:58] judgment has ukraine been militarily defeated sir i haven't i haven't seen the president's quote but [2:46:05] you know i'll i'll go back to something i started with and that's the important of importance of me [2:46:12] maintaining trust with a variety of people and you know a president will make a wide range of of comments [2:46:20] and considerations you don't enter in chief you don't have to go too much farther i understand the point [2:46:25] that you're making thank you i appreciate senator uh in my view ukraine has not only not been [2:46:32] militarily defeated but the point that i was trying to make in the last exchange with the secretary [2:46:39] there's a false narrative based on my last visit to ukraine which was my ninth my conversation not [2:46:47] only with president zielinski but with our own military on the ground as well as our intelligence [2:46:56] community in fact ukraine arguably is winning there is this false narrative russia's winning [2:47:03] putin wants that false narrative to be our official narrative i'm not putting words in your mouth [2:47:09] and you don't have to respond i understand your reasons for not responding but the american people [2:47:14] should know that the president of the united states is undermining our security because ukraine [2:47:21] is holding the line against vladimir putin who will keep going against moldova which i also visited [2:47:30] on my last trip against our nato allies and we still have an obligation under article 5 to come to their [2:47:38] defense just as they did after 9 11 as king charles so eloquently reminded us and my view is and [2:47:51] this observation is hardly novel that china is watching what we're doing in ukraine would you agree [2:47:59] sir i'd agree that china's watching everywhere um and carefully thinking about what their force posture [2:48:06] and approach will be and i think they're learning a variety of things to include the tenacity and grit [2:48:13] of the joint force around the things that we've been ordered to do over the last year but if they see [2:48:20] weakness in our response to russia in ukraine that will affect the deterrence of their possibly [2:48:30] moving against one of our allies or partners in the far east let me uh finally ask mr hurst [2:48:39] your estimate of 25 billion dollars would you share with us what that estimate is based on yeah we can [2:48:49] work to get you a product the details if you'd like and and finally mr secretary is there going to be a [2:48:55] report on the bombing of the school in the first day or so of the war i know you were asked about it [2:49:03] yesterday i'm wondering whether you have a more detailed response that you can share with us as i've [2:49:10] said that's under investigation of 15-6 a general officer from outside the chain of command has been [2:49:15] reviewing it and uh it's still within the parameters of the investigation will there be a preliminary report [2:49:22] in the next few weeks or do you have a time estimate i don't have a time estimate for you but it it uh it [2:49:30] it will be it's right now within the parameters of the length of time that normally these investigations [2:49:34] take i'm i'm asking because in your final response to senator gillibrain you said that great care is [2:49:44] taken to avoid civilian casualties and it would be profoundly significant if that report were made available in [2:49:51] a timely way to show in fact the commitment to avoiding civilian casualties and learning lessons [2:49:58] from the mistake made there thank you senator blumenthal um this concludes today's hearing i'd like to thank [2:50:05] our witnesses for their testimony for the information of members questions for the record would be due [2:50:10] to the committee within two business days of the conclusion of the hearing we are adjourned