Secretary Hegseth and Gen. Caine testify at Senate hearing — NBC News

[4:10] completed a productive classified session down in the skiff and now we will [4:14] begin the public portion of this hearing. I welcome back Secretary Hegseth, General [4:18] Cain and our Acting Comptroller Mr. Jay Hurst. I thank all of them including [4:24] their families for their service. For the dozens of Americans that regularly [4:29] watch our hearings my next remarks will be no surprise but for new viewers I [4:34] want to reiterate some context from our remarks. I've said this at almost every [4:39] hearing. We live in the most dangerous security environment since World War II. [4:44] Every uniformed officer who has come before this committee has agreed with [4:50] that statement. First and foremost we're locked in a competition with Xi Jinping [4:55] and the Chinese Communist Party. The competition is high stakes and it is [5:01] about whether this will be an American-led century or a century defined by [5:07] authoritarian autocratic regimes that care little for the need needs of their [5:13] citizens or those in neighboring countries. The Chinese Communist Party [5:17] has accelerated its historic military buildup and its predatory economic [5:21] practices against Americans and countries the world over. Xi Jinping leads not only [5:27] China but also an axis of aggressors. This growing alliance cannot be denied. It [5:35] includes China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. They're united around this goal to [5:41] oppose America's interests and the interest of other like-minded democratic [5:47] countries across the globe. Vladimir Putin's war of choice in Ukraine has now [5:52] entered its fifth year. In Putin's objectives we hear echoes of the [5:57] imperialistic ambitions of World War II's aggressors including Adolf Hitler. [6:02] Vladimir Putin has suffered 1.2 million casualties and failed miserably in his [6:11] military objectives. Along the way he has transformed Russia's economy into one [6:17] fueled by war raising the prospect of an even more aggressive Moscow for the [6:24] foreseeable future. Most of Iran's leaders are now deceased but they and those [6:30] who survived them have consistently sought violence against America, Israel, our Gulf [6:36] allies and the Iranian people. We saw this during the October 7th massacre, during [6:44] their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas and in their desire to engage in [6:49] nuclear blackmail. Iran's ayatollahs have consistently represented a threat to [6:54] American interest. Kim Jong-un has joined Mr. Putin's war of aggression. He continues a [7:03] military and nuclear buildup that threatens South Korea, Japan and the United States. [7:07] Ties have never been closer among these four dictators, among these four [7:13] dictatorships. They support each other's aggressive endeavors, they prop each other [7:20] up financially and they scheme to undermine America's objectives. We should [7:25] expect them to continue this behavior. This context plays out across every [7:30] dimension of national power, the economy, technology, diplomacy and more. But today we're [7:36] here to talk about the military dimension of this competition. These regimes have [7:42] regularly tried to take force, take by force, what they cannot secure through the [7:47] political process. For that reason we must be ready to deter conflicts and if [7:55] necessary to win them. President Trump has used the US military appropriately and [8:00] effectively for American interests. He has viewed our adversaries as a united bloc and has taken action [8:10] in light of that reality. In Operation Absolute Resolve and Associated Statecraft, the president removed [8:17] an aspiring dictator off the board and set up Venezuela for a future aligned with democratic interests. [8:26] In Operation Midnight Hammer, he sought to eliminate the Ayatollah's nuclear program. When the Ayatollah [8:33] chose to double down, the president launched Operation Epic Fury. In that mission, he has worked to remove [8:39] the regime's conventional military capabilities and force it back to the table for a permanent solution. [8:47] While we all mourn the tragic loss of the 14 service members who've lost their lives in this conflict, [8:55] we do so knowing the world is safer without a nuclear Iran. All of these actions are part of a peace [9:02] through strength strategy. In this approach, we seek first to avoid war, but we take military action [9:09] when necessary to achieve US interest. And so, Mr. Secretary, I'm pleased that you are here testifying [9:16] today in support of President Trump's historic $1.5 trillion defense budget request. That sum will [9:24] go a long way toward rebuilding our military capabilities for a generation. I should say up [9:29] front that this may be a long hearing. There's much to discuss. This $1.5 trillion request is chock full [9:38] of important programs and initiatives that are absolutely necessary to secure American interest in the 21st [9:45] century. I think this funding underpins and accentuates three comparative advantages the [9:52] United States possesses over the axis of aggressors. The first comparative advantage America enjoys over [9:58] our adversaries is that we have the best innovation and industry in the world. So I hope our witnesses [10:05] today will cover the progress we've made in just the past year rebuilding the American arsenal. Last year, [10:13] our reconciliation bill combined with bipartisan appropriation bills achieved about a trillion dollar [10:21] defense budget. This year's request would represent a near 50 percent increase. Every penny of it should [10:31] be money well spent making down payments on crucial transformational capabilities such as drone warfare, [10:39] low-cost munitions and missile defense. Also last year, Congress and the executive branch achieved historic acquisition reforms. [10:50] Consequently, we're well positioned to make huge gains on efficiency this year and in the years to come, [10:58] making it much more flexible and a more timely process. I look forward to discussing how we might [11:06] accelerate implementation of these actions. In particular, I'd like to see the Pentagon do more this year to drive [11:14] competition in the defense industrial base. Competition absolutely drives better outcomes for our service members [11:24] and taxpayers. Of course, our people are the final comparative advantage we have over our adversaries. [11:31] We've enjoyed significant improvements in recruitment and retention, but we need to solidify a merit-based environment [11:38] that fully cares for our personnel. I commend you, Mr. Secretary, for your efforts over the past year to do just that. [11:45] That task will never be finished, of course, but we embrace it gladly and we salute the progress. [11:51] We will always be striving to care for and equip American service members as much as possible. [11:57] I look forward to more work between this committee and the department this coming year. With that, [12:03] I turn to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Jack Reed. [12:07] Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Hegseth, General Kane, Mr. Hurst, welcome. [12:14] And please convey my appreciation, all of our appreciation to our military service members and defense [12:21] civilians. We owe them our deepest sense of gratitude. [12:25] Mr. Secretary, this is your first public appearance before this committee in nearly a year. [12:31] Since your last public testimony, you and President Trump have unwisely taken the United States [12:37] to war with Iran. You ordered an attack on Venezuela and have directed ongoing illegal [12:44] boat strike campaign in the Caribbean and Pacific. At your direction, our forces have bombed Yemen, [12:52] Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, and Ecuador. In the United States, you have deployed thousands of troops to [13:01] cities like Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland to police American citizens. And you have [13:08] personally intervened to end the careers of dozens of military leaders without explanation. These actions [13:15] will have significant and long-term consequences. Now you appear before us to ask for a $1.5 trillion budget, [13:27] a 45% increase above last year. I must say I'm skeptical and such a request demands intense scrutiny. [13:38] 61 days ago, President Trump unilaterally began the war in Iran. He had no coherent strategy. He refused to make [13:46] a case to the American people or consult Congress. He failed to present any evidence of an immediate threat, [13:54] and he ignored the advice of military and intelligence experts who warned him of the consequences. [14:00] Today, our nation is in a war strategic position. The straight-over moves was open. Now it is closed. [14:08] Thirteen service members have tragically lost their lives, and more than 400 have been wounded. We have [14:15] lost dozens of aircraft, sustained significant damage to our bases in the area, and expended an alarming [14:22] amount of our missile inventory. Morale and readiness across the force, especially among over-deployed units [14:29] in vessels like the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, have suffered. Gasoline and fertilizer prices [14:37] throughout the world have surged. American families are bearing the cost of a war they wanted nothing to do [14:43] with and have gained nothing from. And yet, Secretary Hedges, you declared victory a month ago. On April 8th, [14:51] you said, in your words, Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory. By any measure, [14:58] Epic Fury decimated Iran's military and rendered its combat forces ineffective for years to come. [15:07] Let me be clear. Tactically, the United States military performance against Iran has been remarkable, [15:15] and I salute the service members who have executed this mission with skill and bravery. The problem with [15:20] your statements, Mr. Secretary, is they are dangerously exaggerated. Iran's hardline regime remains in place. [15:28] It still retains stockpiles of enriched uranium, and its nuclear program remains viable. Iran's military [15:36] retains enough combat effectiveness to keep the conflict at an impasse. Its missiles and drones remain [15:43] a far greater threat than you have acknowledged, and the regime has demonstrated it can effectively [15:49] control the straightable moves when it chooses. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that you have been telling the [15:55] President what he wants to hear instead of what he needs to hear. Bold assurances of success are a [16:02] disservice to both the Commander-in-Chief and the troops who risk their lives based on them. Our military [16:08] has performed heroically, but military force without a signed strategy is a path to long-term defeat. I'd like [16:17] to know what options you're considering now, given the cost from this war and the stalemate President Trump [16:22] has put us in. More broadly, Mr. Secretary, too often you have made dangerous statements that are [16:30] counterproductive to the mission. You boasted about, quote, no stupid rules of engagement, just days after [16:38] hundreds of Iranian schoolers were tragically killed in a missile strike. You have made troubling [16:44] statements about showing no mercy and no quarter to the Iranians, orders that would constitute war crimes. [16:51] As importantly, while our men and women are fighting and dying overseas, you have focused unduly on your [16:58] own personal agenda. In the past two months alone, you have taken upon yourself to overhaul the Chaplain [17:04] Corps, cancel flu vaccine requirements, repeal firearm restrictions on military posts, and bar service [17:12] members from attending certain universities. Just this week, you brought performer Kid Rock to an army base to [17:19] go for a joyride or an Apache helicopter after dismissing an earlier investigation into the pilots who [17:28] recklessly chose to hover above his home. That runs directly counter to the chain of command and maintaining [17:35] good order and discipline. Most disturbingly, during your tenure, you have fired dozens of our most senior [17:41] military leaders and personally intervened to block the promotions of many others. That is a betrayal of the [17:49] merit-based system that forms the foundation of our military. You are hollering out the military's bench of [17:56] experience and highest performing senior officers, while making young officers wonder if they should [18:02] continue to serve. My colleagues and I have heard from countless service members throughout the ranks, [18:08] many of whom will be watching right now, who are confused and disturbed by your actions. Hopefully, [18:15] you can explain them today. Additionally, this committee expects a fulsome update on Operation Southern [18:22] Sphere. This ongoing campaign against suspected drug trafficking boats has resulted in nearly 200 [18:28] fatalities. The administration has failed to explain the long-term objectives of this mission or provide [18:36] any evidence of reduced drug flows into the United States. I would ask for a credible answer to this most [18:43] fundamental question, what is the operation actually meant to accomplish? Mrs. X-ray, you are here to [18:50] promote the President's $1.5 trillion defense budget. While this budget provides funding for necessary [18:58] programs including shipbuilding and drone manufacturing, many other critical programs like barracks repair and [19:05] aircraft procurement would rely on the passage of a party-line reconciliation bill. Further, this budget slashes [19:13] research and development provides no funding for Ukraine and includes no funding for losses incurred from [19:20] the Iran war. Yesterday, Mr. Hurst testified that Operation Epic Fury has cost $25 billion. If nothing else, [19:30] that help clarifies that we certainly do not need a supplemental anywhere near $100 billion, much less [19:38] $200 billion. And in this record-breaking budget, there is no pay adjustments for the civilian workforce [19:46] and with inflation, that is a pay cut. After a year of doge layoffs and a hiring freeze across the [19:51] department, this is an insult to the 800,000 men and women who support our war fighters every day. I cannot [20:00] imagine a faster way to erode readiness and distract from our abilities to deter our adversaries. Ultimately, [20:08] Mr. Secretary, I believe you are causing lasting harm to the military. Like many members of this committee, [20:16] I had the opportunity and the privilege to serve in the military. And every officer knows they are duty [20:22] bound to give their best professional advice, even if it is not what their superiors want to hear. [20:29] Because when leaders fear to speak honestly, people die, missions fail, wars are lost. The Americans' [20:36] people's trust in our military took 250 years to build. You are dismantling it in a fraction of that [20:43] time. And trust once long can take generations to rebuild. Mr. Secretary, today I hope you'll take a step [20:52] forward toward rebuilding the trust that has been lost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [20:58] Mr. Secretary, you are now recognized for your opening statement, sir. [21:03] Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed, Senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support [21:12] of President Trump's historic, as you said, Mr. Chairman, $1.5 trillion fiscal year 2027 budget for [21:19] the Department of War. The President's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing [21:25] both the deferment of longstanding problems as well as positioning our forces for the current and future [21:32] fights. I'm honored to appear alongside General Dan Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [21:37] and Jay Hurst, our Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller. I'd like to start by thanking this [21:42] committee and Congress for your partnership in securing the investments needed for a stronger, [21:47] prouder, and more secure military. Your focus on acquisitions, your focus on efficiency, [21:53] are the reflection in our department as well and in this budget. A nation's ability to build, [22:00] to innovate, and to support the critical needs of its warfighters at speed and at scale is the [22:06] foundation upon which its deterrence and survival rests. However, upon taking office on January 20th, [22:13] 2025, President Trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America [22:20] last policies, resulting in a diminished capacity to project strength. Under the previous administration, [22:27] we were offshoring, outsourcing, beset by cost overruns and degraded capabilities. But under the [22:35] leadership of President Trump, our builder-in-chief, we are reversing this systemic decay and putting [22:40] our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. Urgency informs everything we do. We're [22:47] rebuilding a military that the American people can be proud of, one that instills nothing less than [22:53] unrelenting fear in our adversaries and inspires historic morale and recruiting in its ranks. We fight [23:01] to win in every scenario. The $1.5 trillion budget put forward by the President will build upon a [23:08] previous $1 trillion FY26 top line and will continue to reverse the four years of underinvestment and [23:15] mismanagement of the Biden administration. The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure that the United States [23:21] continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with a complex [23:27] threat environment across multiple theaters. Not to mention, the budget also includes a historic troop [23:34] pay increase, 7 percent for junior enlisted, and the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. [23:42] Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget. By supercharging our defense [23:49] industrial capacity and transforming how the department does business, we are restoring [23:54] American commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations, transforming the defense industrial base [24:00] from the broken, slow-moving systems of the past. We have flipped the Pentagon acquisition process from [24:08] a bureaucratic model to a business model, decisively moving from an acquisitions environment paralyzed [24:15] by bureaucratic red tape into an outcomes-driven organization focused on delivering the most for [24:21] taxpayer dollars. Over the past year, through historic multi-year procurement agreements that this [24:27] committee supported, we've cut smart business deals that have sent unambiguous demand signals to [24:35] industry to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great American [24:43] factories and a massive reinvestment in the skilled American workers who serve as the industrial muscle [24:50] behind our warriors. Further [25:07] interruptions of our hearing will will be treated in like manner. We appreciate the first amendment rights of Americans to express [25:18] themselves, but [25:20] disruption of this hearing will not be tolerated. So, Mr. Secretary, you may continue. [25:25] I'll briefly provide some concrete high-level metrics of what we've accomplished over just the past few months. [25:32] These are announced new facilities and investments to support American warfighters. The department has helped stimulate more than 250 [25:39] private investment deals in 39 states, 180 cities, and 150 companies [25:46] worth more than 50 billion dollars. It's resulted in 280 new or expanded facilities, more than 18 million new square feet [25:55] of American manufacturing, and more than 70,000 new jobs. [26:00] These 50 billion in investments in new plants, new assembly lines, and new factories are private [26:07] investments, not taxpayer dollars. By completely transforming our department's business model, [26:13] American companies are investing in America with their own dollars. A historic demonstration of American [26:20] manufacturing and defense revitalization. All with their money, not Uncle Sam's. This has never been done before [26:28] and is long overdue from a bureaucratic model to a business model. These investments equal great things [26:35] for America, for American families, and American workers to ensure that our warfighters have everything [26:41] they need, all American-made. Together with the help of the policy updates and appropriations passed by Congress, [26:49] President Trump's war department has begun to turn the lights back on in our manufacturing towns across [26:54] this country, forging a lethal arsenal of freedom. Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request, [27:02] serves to ensure that this department remains laser-focused on increasing lethality and survivability, [27:08] from the front lines to the factory floor. This is a historic budget, as you said, Mr. Chairman. [27:14] This is a fiscally responsible budget, and this is a warfighting budget. Speaking of warfighting, [27:22] the topic of Iran I'm sure will come up often today, which I welcome. I look forward to sharing the [27:28] incredible success of our military effort achieved in a matter of weeks. President Trump has the courage, [27:36] has had, unlike other presidents, to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, and that their [27:41] nuclear blackmail never succeeds. We have the best negotiator in the world driving a great deal. [27:50] Unfortunately, as I said yesterday, and I'll say it again today, the biggest adversary we face at this [27:57] point are the reckless naysayers and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. [28:04] Defeatists from the cheap seats who, two months in, seek to undermine the incredible efforts that have [28:11] been undertaken and the historic nature of taking on a 47-year threat with the courage no other [28:17] president has had to great success and great opportunity for preventing Iran from having a nuclear [28:24] weapon. Despite this, under President Trump, we are restoring the unbreakable might of American [28:29] manufacturing. We're providing for our warfighters, and we are putting the people and interests of this [28:35] country first. May Almighty God continue to watch over our troops wherever they are, [28:42] and may we honor the legacy of those brave Americans that we have lost. This is our sacred mission, [28:49] and this is what we will continue to execute on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that statement, [28:54] Mr. Secretary. General King, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, [29:00] members of the committee, and your staff, who we never get to say thanks to. Thanks for having me today. I'm [29:05] honored to be here alongside the Honorable Pete Hegseth and the Honorable Jay Hurst to testify on the [29:11] President's fiscal 2027 budget. I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm thankful for [29:18] your continued partnership and support of our warfighters defending the homeland and our interests [29:24] around the world. It's a privilege to speak with you today about the foundation of America's strength, [29:31] the 2.8 million members of our joint force, and I am continually inspired by the soldiers, [29:38] sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, coast guardsmen, and civilians standing the watch for the nation, [29:45] supported always by their families. They could have chosen a much easier path, any other path, but they [29:52] volunteered for a life of purpose and passion and service, and every single day they rise to meet the [29:59] nation's challenges. From combat operations to critical support roles with the courage, tenacity, [30:07] and grit that keeps our nation strong and secure. I would also like to express my deep gratitude [30:15] for the 39 members of the joint force who've passed in operations, combat, and training during my time as [30:24] the chairman, and specifically highlight the 14 who've passed in Operation Epic Fury. The Secretary and I are [30:31] deeply grateful for each of them and their families, and their names will never be forgotten. As the chairman, [30:39] my duty is to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military options and the [30:46] associated risks required to make the nation's hardest and most complex decisions. I owe the President, [30:54] the Secretary, and the Congress the truth at every turn, and my blueprint for this role has always been [31:02] that of General George C. Marshall. His firm commitment to civilian control and a nonpartisan military [31:11] remains my constant standard. And I strive to emulate his candor, delivering the facts leaders need to [31:18] hear, not always what they want to hear. And once a decision is made, executing it with the absolute [31:25] dedication while keeping the joint force precisely where it should be. That's the demand of our profession. [31:32] As I sit before you today representing our incredible joint force, I want to emphasize my commitment to this [31:38] committee and to the Congress. I will always follow General Marshall's steadfast example by providing clear and [31:46] candid nonpartisan military advice, working together to ensure the military remains squarely focused on one thing, [31:54] being prepared to deter, and if called upon, fight and win our nation's war. And that is our mission. [32:01] America's Joint Force is operational at its core, purpose-built for the realities in a complex world, [32:08] we're organized, trained, and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with [32:15] unrivaled precision. And over the past year, our war fighters have consistently demonstrated exactly [32:23] what it means to be the most capable and most professional force on earth. Our shared goal is to ensure the [32:32] joint force sustains the strategic initiative and advantage and ability to project power to respond to [32:41] the global challenges on our nation's terms. During Operation Rough Rider, Midnight Hammer, Southern Spear, [32:50] Absolute Resolve, and Epic Fury, the Joint Force executed globally integrated missions alongside our interagency and [32:59] international partners. And once our leaders made a decision, our forces demonstrated the unmatched [33:05] ability to seamlessly synchronize actions and activities from the seabed to cislunar space. We're able to [33:13] accomplish these complex things that we are asked to do because we draw from a deep reservoir of training, [33:21] professionalism, and commitment. Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it, [33:28] rebuilding readiness every day, training professionals every day, and sharpening our edge every day. [33:35] And I am incredibly proud of this joint force team and the leaders at every echelon who command it. [33:42] As the chairman said, we are living in a complex environment. Today, I look forward to discussing how we can [33:49] sustain America's military advantage. And I know this committee recognizes the challenges and the urgency in the [33:56] environment that we face. We're operating in delicate and dangerous times where risk is scaling. And the [34:04] complexity of the modern battlefield demands America's constant adaptation, innovation, and partnership with [34:12] Congress. As a joint force, we're up to the challenge. We're built for this environment. However, [34:18] our continued success is not guaranteed by our past achievements. We must continue to be forward-looking [34:26] and innovate together with the Congress. To drive the pace of change and maintain our superiority requires [34:33] timely, predictable, and sustained investment. And the resources we're going to discuss today are [34:40] critical to modernizing the joint force and ensuring whatever threats might emerge, we are prepared to [34:47] defeat them to protect our interests and defend the nation and win. This president's budget for 2027 [34:54] supports the secretary and the department's goal of reinvigorating, recharging the defense industrial base [35:02] and the national industrial base, enhancing our readiness and securing our military advantage. To ensure that [35:08] our war fighters are properly armed, globally integrated, and ready while always taking care of our people. [35:17] And that is what truly sets America's joint force apart from each other, especially the 1.8 million members, [35:25] enlisted members of our joint force. It is them, the character, the competence of that force that transforms [35:32] our capabilities into a decisive advantage. And our enlisted force is represented today by the senior [35:40] enlisted advisor to the chairman, United States Navy Fleet Master Chief Dave Isom sitting behind me, [35:47] a teammate who I greatly appreciate and many of you on this committee know from his time in the Indo-Pacific. [35:54] While we face dynamic and dangerous times, I have absolute trust and confidence in the extraordinary [36:03] men and women within our joint force who every day execute the missions we ask them to quietly and with [36:10] precision. And coupled with the American spirit to outthink, outcompete, and relentlessly innovate, [36:18] we will maintain our decisive edge. But doing so requires your continued partnership. We stand ready [36:24] today to answer the nation's call. I humbly ask that as we're here today in this hearing, we remember [36:31] those deployed service members who are out there right now doing our nation's work. And may we always [36:37] forget our, remember our fallen and never forget them or their families who continue to show us what [36:44] courage looks like. Thank you for your enduring support and I look forward to your questions. [36:49] Thank you very much, General. We appreciate your service. Let's jump right in. Secretary Hegseth, let's talk about [36:55] the money from Reconciliation 1.0 last year. There have been some complaints about the speed, but [37:05] not everything we hear is actually accurate. How much of the 154 billion dollars from [37:10] reconciliation has the Pentagon put on contract? My understanding, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to say [37:19] what an important vehicle reconciliation was for us and how it gave us a chance coming out of FY25 to [37:25] advance the president's priorities, whether it's drone dominance, Golden Dome for America, shipbuilding, [37:30] the defense industrial base. It was a critical vehicle for us. The number you're looking for is about, [37:35] what I'm looking at, about 26 billion right now. But we've got the floodgates about to open and apply to [37:41] those priorities. Okay, so unfortunately you're starting a bit late through no fault of your own [37:48] because the money was not sent timely by the Office of Management and Budget to the department [37:54] until last month. That's over and done with, but it should be mentioned. Mr. Secretary, where are we [38:01] on the obligation rates as far as a normal appropriation bill? Are we a little behind, a little ahead, or what? [38:11] I would say probably a little bit behind as it pertains to reconciliation. But part of that is, [38:17] as you know, this is a new funding vehicle for the department. And twofold. One, you've got to make [38:22] sure you do it right and do it in a fiscally responsible way in conjunction with the Congress [38:26] to ensure that we meet congressional intent. But also that we've been using it to energize our ability [38:32] to exercise new pathways, to get at problems in different and more dynamic ways that don't get [38:37] stovepipe. We're stuck in the bureaucracy. So yes, there's been some delays. But ultimately, [38:43] I think it's all goodness on the other side, given the new nature of this funding vehicle. [38:49] Right, yes. Well, and things have been done differently and we appreciate that. [38:53] But Mr. Secretary, will you commit to us that you'll keep the committee informed frequently of your efforts [39:00] to get all this money out the door so our industrial base can start building as you have [39:06] described in this new flexibility that we've provided them? Absolutely. [39:12] And you mentioned a few things in reconciliation that you think have been game changers. [39:20] I don't think we've talked enough about some of the game changers. For years, we failed to take action [39:30] on rebuilding America's drone industrial base and critical mineral supply chains. After the last [39:38] reconciliation bill and the National Defense Authorization Act, we're in a very different [39:43] position on drones and critical mineral supply chains, are we not? Very much so. Mineral [39:52] supply chains drones. We went from JIA 401 to an autonomous warfare group. We're looking at the [39:57] concept of a subunified command. And you're looking at $54 billion in the FY27 budget dedicated to drone [40:05] dominance. UAS, counter UAS, ensuring we can scale not just exquisite drones, but also the attributable ones [40:12] that are proliferating on the battlefield today. We need to be ahead. Are there any other initiatives [40:16] from last year's bill that you want to point out? And you only have a minute and a half? [40:22] No, the investment in Golden Dome for America, the ability to get running on that, and we are on [40:26] schedule to deliver capabilities inside this administration. Minerals and shoring up supply [40:32] chains on minerals. The Office of Strategic Capital, which its ability to loan, gives 10x to new entrance [40:39] into the department. The opportunity to fund things that wouldn't normally meet the threshold [40:44] for the department, but give them the running room to invest in those capabilities. And we've already [40:48] seen fruit from that as well. And briefly, General Cain, there's no question that Vladimir Putin's Russia [40:55] is taking serious action to undermine our efforts for success in Iran. Is there any question about that? [41:05] Senator, I think there's actions and activities that are mindful of the hearing room we're in, [41:10] but there's definitely some action there. Thank you very much. Senator Reed, you're recognized. [41:18] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you recently fired the Honorable Chief of Staff, [41:27] General Randy George, who's one of the most distinguished and decorated officers of this generation. [41:32] General George's nomination came before us. We reviewed it thoroughly and we concurred. [41:39] Why did you fire General George? Well, as I did then and I'll say now, we thank General George for his [41:49] service. And out of respect to him and other officers, we never talk about the nature of why [41:56] certain officers are asked to step down. But we all serve at the pleasure of the president. And ultimately, [42:01] my view in coming into this department, as I stated in my confirmation hearing, was to change the culture [42:08] of the department. And it's ultimately challenging to change the department, the culture of a department [42:14] with the same people who are a part of or in that department. So I have made many changes with General [42:19] Officers. We will continue to make changes as necessary with General Officers. And they will be in keeping [42:24] with the trajectory of where we would like to take the department. But it doesn't take away from the service [42:29] of those. And I think you will note that every officer that's been asked to leave has been treated with respect. [42:36] Interesting. Of the two dozen officers that you have fired for reasons unrelated to performance, [42:45] since you have not indicated any cause, 60 percent are black or females. Now, did the president direct [42:53] you to single out female and black officers to be dismissed? Senator, of course not. And as we've [43:03] emphasized at this department from the beginning, the only metric is merit. This this [43:09] members on this committee and the previous leadership of this department were focused on [43:14] hype, you know, social engineering, race and gender in ways that we think were unhealthy for the [43:19] department, focusing on those things, making decisions based on those things. In President [43:24] Trump's War Department, we make decisions based on only one thing, merit. And that's how we've made [43:29] decisions going forward. That's how we've made them. And that's how we'll make them go. Let me go back to [43:32] General George. What did he fail in terms of his lack of merit to continue serving? As I've said, [43:42] I don't talk about the nature of dismissal out of respect for these officers. But ultimately, [43:47] we want to take the department in a particular direction, certain services in a particular [43:51] direction. And we want leadership that's running as fast in that direction as possible. And in some [43:56] cases, we make changes accordingly, but do so out of respect to those officers. Well, I think that [44:01] direction from your behavior is an intense interest in Christianity, in nationalism, and in not [44:15] recognizing the talents of women and non-white gentlemen. And that's the wrong direction. [44:22] I don't know what you're insinuating, Senator, but I am not ashamed of my faith in Jesus Christ. [44:27] Well, you shouldn't be ashamed. And if you want to shame me for it, go ahead. [44:30] I'm not shaming you. But are you critical of other faiths? [44:37] I am a believer. I'm quite open in that. And our department allows for a multitude of faiths. [44:41] So I don't know what you're suggesting. I've heard the likes of things that people like you suggest [44:46] to try to smear my character, and I won't give into it. [44:49] No, I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, but broadcasting before the national [44:59] religious broadcasters stressing the need for more Christianity in the military forces [45:04] doesn't seem like a neutral position in which you tolerate and accept all religions. [45:10] Let me move on. The strategic aspects of this operation in Iran. The president declared that [45:20] we're going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. And after more [45:26] than 13,000 strikes, unclassified assessments conclude that Iran retains more than 40 percent [45:32] of its drone arsenal and 60 percent of its ballistic missile launches compared with pre-war levels. [45:40] That's one of his objectives. The second objective was regime change. To the great proud people of Iran, [45:50] I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand and we will finish take over your government. [45:55] Well, when we finish, we'll take over your government. That has not succeeded. And then [46:01] one of his other things is the onset of the war, the president said, we will ensure that Iran does not [46:06] obtain a nuclear weapon. Military operations to Iran have not achieved that goal yet. And it also seems to [46:14] indicate that his pronouncements about Operation Midnight Hammer obliterating the nuclear policy and [46:24] structure of the Iranians was false. So you have not achieved any of the objectives yet that, as the [46:29] president mentioned. Well, in this setting, I won't talk about the nature of metrics, which are which are [46:36] classified, as you know, Senator. But I can say that looking at the objectives we set out to achieve [46:41] from the beginning, some of which you laid out, our military capabilities have been stunningly effective. [46:50] Take, for example, their defense industrial base. They're completely incapable at scale at any level [46:55] of reconstituting the capabilities you referred to, which is a devastating result for any country, [47:01] especially one whose ambitions are as wide as Iran's. So we've put the president in a very strong [47:07] position to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. That's the takeaway that's been underneath [47:13] every single aspect of this. For 47 years, Iran's trying to blackmail its way to a nuclear weapon. [47:18] They were closer than ever before because of bad deals under previous administration. President Trump [47:22] was willing to do something about it and not allow their conventional missile shield. That's the North [47:27] Korea strategy. That's, to be clear, what Iran was pursuing. Hiding their nuclear ambitions, revealing them [47:34] over time and then building a conventional shield of missiles so powerful that no country would [47:40] challenge them for fear of what would happen if they unleashed that arsenal. Weekend after the 12-day war [47:45] and Midnight Hammer, which did obliterate their their their sights, President Trump saw an opportunity [47:50] because their ambitions continued to ensure that umbrella of nuclear blackmail did not allow them to [47:57] get to a nuclear weapon. And the world is safer because of his bold and historic choice. [48:01] Mr. Secretary, I think that's rhetorical but not factual. Thank you. [48:09] Thank you, Senator Reid. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Hurst, General Kane, welcome. Over the last several months, [48:19] I've worked closely with some of the new direct reporting program managers and I've been encouraged [48:26] by how they're approaching the department's most complex acquisition systems. General White's pulled [48:33] forward the next milestone for the Sentinel program by at least six months. General Guttlein has completed [48:40] the initial blueprint for the Golden Dome architecture and is beginning to build it out. For years, this [48:47] committee has known that we must improve our ability to defend our homeland against a wider variety of [48:55] threats. And we finally have a partner with the full backing of the department to lead the charge. [49:01] Mr. Secretary, what's the advantage of this new type of program management structure? [49:08] Well, thank you for the question, Senator. It's acquisition authority, technical authority, [49:15] contracting authority. It's consolidating decision-making in one place under a highly screened, [49:21] highly capable general, General White and General Guttlein, who know that terrain extremely well [49:26] and understand what mistakes have been made in the past in programs of that magnitude and then are [49:31] given the authority to cut through the red tape. That's the key. Success or failure lands with them [49:39] and they know it. And as a result, they're incentivized to ensure that program and then given every dollar [49:44] and authority needed to move it as quickly as possible. So whether it's Sentinel, whether it's F-47, [49:49] whether it's Golden Dome for America, these critical strategic assets, the direct report [49:55] construct, along with Deputy Secretary Feinberg, who is a national treasure and is changing the way [50:01] we do business at this department, is giving us a chance to ensure these critical systems are delivered. [50:06] Thank you. And General Cain, can you give us your thoughts on why the Golden Dome received, [50:13] why they must receive that requested $17 billion in funding for the fiscal year 27? [50:21] Well, Senator, as you know, it's an essential part of our Homeland Security layered defense. And as [50:28] General Guttlein begins to do the work that you're asking about and frankly helping to advance, [50:34] you know, the insurance around that down payment, charging the defense industrial base with those [50:42] capital allocations will allow them to get after it much, much quicker. We appreciate the help. [50:47] And if there's a delay in that funding? Well, hopefully there won't be, Senator, [50:53] because we've got a leader on that account 24-7, 365. But if we do, we'll always, [50:59] of course, come back and talk to the Congress, but also figure out what has to be true to [51:06] help that constraint get removed in that production system. And that's really what we're asking these [51:12] leaders to do is to be able to get past the theory of constraints. Okay. Thank you. Secretary Hagseth, [51:18] I agree with your statement on nuclear deterrence. When you said nothing else matters if we don't get [51:25] this right, so we will. We need a modernized nuclear triad and NC3 architecture that can credibly deter [51:35] multiple adversaries instead of an insufficient nuclear force structure based on fundamentally [51:42] flawed assumptions made 16 years ago. Our presidents must also have a more diverse set of options [51:51] so that they can effectively manage more complex nuclear escalation dynamics. So, Mr. Secretary, [51:59] how does this budget request achieve those objectives? Well, thank you for your leadership on this issue [52:06] for a very long time. First and foremost, it invests in it. $71 billion in our nuclear triad and NC3, [52:14] understanding that if you get that wrong, you get everything else wrong. Frankly, it's why the Iran [52:20] effort is so important. Imagine what the situation in the region would look like if Iran also wielded a [52:26] nuclear weapon and the limits it would put on our capabilities in those situations. Our adversaries have [52:32] to deal with that dilemma because of the strength of our nuclear triad. So that $71 billion investment, [52:37] the derpums that have been put over top of it to move those systems left, as you acknowledged, [52:43] it's just been a priority since we came into the building and we're funding it accordingly. [52:50] And Chairman Cain, Secretary Hague said, whoever would like to answer this, [52:56] should our nuclear command control and communication systems like the SAOC be given the same level of [53:05] priority as Congress considers the department's budget request as our triad? I think so, but I defer to the [53:16] Chairman. Yes, ma'am. We've got to be able to see to anything. So, yes, ma'am. Thank you. Senator [53:24] Shaheen, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Hague, [53:30] Seth, Congress enacted $400 million to provide security assistance to Ukraine in January. [53:37] Now, the committee received a notification just yesterday confirming only that the funding would [53:43] go toward Ukraine. It contained no details about the type of equipment, no delivery timelines, [53:49] nothing that is typically included in these notifications. And when asked about the delay in [53:55] funding, the committee was told that Bridge Colby was developing a spend plan, [54:00] but we've received nothing. So when can we expect the full spend plan for this appropriation? [54:07] And Madam Chair, can I, if this is not all already part of the record for the committee, can I [54:13] enter it into the record? We acknowledge and are executing on the European capacity building amount of [54:22] $400 million that you referred to. Under Secretary Colby's done a great job looking at options and worked [54:29] very closely with our European commander, General Grankowicz. So his requests of what makes the most [54:35] sense will inform what ultimately is invested in. Well, this notification says that UCOM coordinated on [54:44] the spend plan in March, but General Grankowicz told this committee on April 16th that he had not yet been [54:51] asked to review any spend plan for this appropriation. So General Cain, have you received the spend plan for [54:59] funds in Ukraine? And have you asked the UCOM commander for his concurrence? I do not believe so, [55:08] but I will find out, Senator, and get back to you by the end of the day. Thank you. And yesterday, [55:14] Mr. Hurst, you told the House that you needed to seek legal review to appropriate the funds as Congress [55:22] intended. So can you share with us what the nature of that legal review is? And it seems to me the law [55:29] was pretty clear. I saw it. It was part of the defense appropriations bill that we passed in January. [55:36] And as you know, violating congressional intent on appropriating funds is a violation of the [55:41] Impoundment Control Act. So what's the nature of the legal review that you have to get? Thanks for [55:47] the question, Senator. What we're looking at is if we could use the funds in the same manner as USAI. [55:52] And we had our council look at that. And so they provide us a legal opinion on how the funds could [55:56] be used to support European capacity building. And can you share with this committee what that legal [56:02] opinion is? Ma'am, I don't have a copy of that, but we can ask the OGC office if they can supply it to you. [56:08] Madam Chair, can we ask that that legal opinion is shared with the committee officially? Thank you. [56:17] Also, I don't know who can answer this, but it says that consistent with the president's priority to [56:29] shift the financial burden of Ukraine support to European partners, the United States will seek [56:34] commensurate financial contributions via the prioritized Ukraine requirements list, or PERL, [56:42] from the European partners for this program. So what's the justification for using PERL when [56:49] there's $400 million in appropriated funds? Can somebody answer? PERL is a reflection of the [56:56] president's priority and the belief that any weapons that are supplied are paid for by [57:00] European partners and used as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or somewhere else. But that was not [57:04] the intent of Congress in providing that $400 million. As I understand the PERL program, [57:10] the Europeans purchase those weapons from the United States and they pay for them. But this appropriation [57:18] was $400 million that Congress expected to be provided to Ukraine, not paid for by the Europeans, but [57:27] provided from the United States to support Ukraine. So again, I don't understand what the justification is [57:36] for using PERL when that's not the intent that Congress provided. We're following the intent of [57:43] European capacity building, but at the same time recognizing that wherever PERL can be utilized so [57:48] that the Europeans contribute to that fight per the burden-sharing approach this president takes is [57:54] important. But that was not congressional intent. And that's what I'm asking you. Why you're using [57:59] PERL to do something that Congress intended to go directly to Ukraine? Well, we look forward to working with you on that. [58:05] Mr. Hurst, can you answer that? What was the legal opinion on this? Did you ask [58:10] the attorneys if the $400 million could be used for the PERL program? Let's get back to you. We'll take [58:17] it for the record, ma'am. Thank you. And what portion of the funding that's committed from the Europeans [58:23] under PERL is being used to assist Ukraine rather than restocking our own shelves? Can you answer that? [58:31] That's up to Europe. Ultimately, Europe pays for any weapons that we provide, and they can utilize [58:38] them as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or otherwise. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. There have [58:44] been a number of times when our witnesses have stated both in the closed hearing and up here that they [58:51] will get back to us. And we certainly hope that will happen very expeditiously. So thank you very much, [58:59] and thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance today. [59:04] Mr. Secretary, you provided us with a chart here entitled The Arsenal of Freedom, which includes a lot [59:10] of sites that you visited. My favorite one is down here in South Arkansas, Camden, where you and I had a [59:17] chance to visit just a couple months ago, highlighting the great work that the people there are doing to [59:24] help rebuild our arsenal of freedom. Thank you, first off, for being there and for your kind words [59:33] for the workforce of the people of South Arkansas. Isn't it fair to say that the war in Iran, just like [59:40] the Ukraine war before it and still today, hasn't caused any challenges with our munitions, the way some [59:49] of our democratic colleagues would say, but it's exposed to a decades-old problem of brittleness and [59:54] fragility in our defense industrial base before you and General Kane took over and that we're trying [59:59] to address right now? In many ways, that's precisely what we're trying to address. We also have a situation [1:00:06] where President Trump rebuilt our military in the first term, and a lot of those munitions and a lot of [1:00:11] those capabilities were sent to Ukraine under the previous administration to the point where when we ask our [1:00:16] commanders or when we look at O plans, the answer often is that was sent to Ukraine. So the recognition [1:00:22] of those two things, as the president gave us a charge from day one to rebuild the arsenal of freedom, [1:00:29] to fast forward, not to provide a little bit more of each thing, but 2x, 3x, 4x the number of exquisite [1:00:35] munitions that we need. The expenditures that we've seen under this administration, we can account for [1:00:40] them and we ensure that other O plans and elsewhere are well taken care of. So on the munitions front, [1:00:45] we're in really good shape, but we need to accelerate and that's exactly what we're doing. [1:00:49] And I think that's an important point you make is that we're not just trying to fill a hole that [1:00:53] was created by Epic Fury or by support for Ukraine. We're going to fill that and then go much beyond [1:01:00] that for our needs in the future. So we're never caught where we were over the last several years [1:01:06] with these worries about munitions running short. Is that right, Mr. Secretary? [1:01:10] That's exactly right. The president has charged up with not just replacing anything, [1:01:14] but filling it up, as he might say, to the tippy top and make sure that the remainder of this term [1:01:19] and future presidents have all the munitions they need for any level of contingencies, [1:01:24] especially considering the dangerous world we live in. [1:01:26] I want to turn now to Operation Epic Fury. It's been a smashing military success. [1:01:31] Unfortunately, we have suffered casualties to include soldiers killed in the line of action. [1:01:38] Obviously, our military takes the greatest steps possible to protect our troops, whether they are [1:01:43] in action or whether they are on bases in the region. No war that was antiseptic. Mr. Secretary, [1:01:50] could you explain some of the steps we've taken to try to minimize the greatest extent we can [1:01:55] the number of casualties we've taken in the Middle East? [1:01:57] First of all, every day we live to ensure that we follow through on the legacy of those who gave [1:02:03] everything. That's front and center for us. I can also say, and the chairman may want to weigh in, [1:02:08] from the beginning of looking at the possibility of this contingency, setting the defense and [1:02:13] ensuring that Admiral Cooper and everyone throughout CENTCOM had every possible measure they could to [1:02:19] ensure that our troops are protected and force protection was maximized was the top priority. [1:02:24] Moving assets to the region, we integrated our air defenses with local Gulf countries to ensure our [1:02:30] shot doctrine was maximized, whether it's ballistic missiles or on drones. Flowing in the most recent [1:02:37] capabilities to ensure we can intercept drones. Moving troops off the X. I think what people [1:02:43] mostly don't know is that a massive effort was undertaken before this conflict to move as many humans [1:02:49] off of targets to other places and maintain operational security about where they might be [1:02:55] to minimize the space with which Iran could hit. We always knew something getting through was a tragic [1:03:01] possibility. But I can assure you, from our perspective, that was priority number one, as it [1:03:06] was Admiral Cooper's, to ensure that fortification and missile defenses were right there when we went on [1:03:12] offense if we had to. General Cain, do you have anything to add? Well, in addition to just again [1:03:18] mourning our fallen from the 103rd, what I'll add to the Secretary's comments is after every tragic loss, [1:03:25] at every echelon within our joint force are going to go back and look at what was our plan and what [1:03:31] lessons we can learn from this so that we protect and defend our soldiers, sailors, and other members [1:03:38] of the joint force the next time. Thank you, and I know you do, and I just wanted to give you the [1:03:42] opportunity to speak to what you've done to try to prevent casualties and minimize them. Obviously, [1:03:47] again, no war is antiseptic. One final question. I understand you've been accused of lying to the [1:03:51] president. Mr. Hexeth, have you lied to the president at all about what's happening in Iran [1:03:56] or Epic Fury? No, only tell the truth to the president. General Cain, have you lied to the [1:04:00] president about what's happening in Iran or Operation Epic Fury? Never. I suspected that would be your [1:04:05] answer, but since you were accused of it and deep staters are leaking to the media about as well, I just [1:04:09] wanted to give you a chance to answer on the record that, of course, you've always given the [1:04:12] president a completely accurate picture of what's happening. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much, [1:04:15] Senator Cotton. Senator Gillibrand and then Senator Rounds. Thank you, [1:04:19] gentlemen, for appearing before this committee, and thank you for the closed session prior to this. [1:04:24] I don't know if you fully appreciate how much the American people do not support this war. [1:04:30] It is an unauthorized war. Normally, when you come to Congress, it's a way for the American people to be [1:04:36] part of that discussion. The American people, particularly in my state of New York, are upset [1:04:43] for a lot of reasons. First of all, this war is costing so much money, over $25 billion already, [1:04:50] estimates a billion dollars a day, and they're feeling it every single day at the gas pump [1:04:55] with higher prices for both fuel, for diesel, for gasoline, for their cars. They're also feeling [1:05:02] it with higher grocery costs, and they're exhausted. They are truly exhausted. On top of that, on top of [1:05:10] that, they have so many grave concerns about how this war is being prosecuted. They read in the paper [1:05:19] that 22 schools have been hit. They read in the paper about a girl's school, hundreds getting killed. [1:05:27] We have a debate going on in this country about AI, a serious debate about AI. And I haven't heard [1:05:36] yet from you that you will not allow AI to make final targeting determinations, even when nuclear [1:05:41] weapons are being used. That's a huge issue that we need to discuss. So I want to start from the top, [1:05:48] Secretary Hegseth. Why do you continue to prosecute a war that the American people aren't behind? [1:05:53] Uh, first of all, I appreciate the opportunity for that closed session, where we had a [1:06:00] unsurprisingly very different discussion than we have here with the cameras on. [1:06:04] Um, we support this- Because my job is to represent New Yorkers, and I can tell you, [1:06:09] when I talk to them all across my state, they are furious. And they expect me to explain to them why they are furious. [1:06:18] And Senator, when I talk to Americans, and especially when I talk to the troops, [1:06:23] they are grateful for a president who has the courage to take on this threat after 47 years of [1:06:27] what Iran has done targeting and killing Americans, and what it would mean to the world if Iran's [1:06:32] nuclear ambitions were actually achieved. So the question I would ask to you and to others is, [1:06:37] what is the cost of a nuclear-armed Iran? What is the cost to the American people if the world's [1:06:42] most dangerous regime has a nuclear weapon? But the truth is, they don't want war coming to this shore, [1:06:47] and when you do a decapitation operation, the likelihood is going to be exchanged in the [1:06:52] United States. There's no evidence that we are safer because of this war. We did not have any evidence [1:06:57] that Iran intended to imminently attack this country in any way, shape, or form. So I disagree [1:07:04] with your assessment that we are under threat. Do you not believe them when they say death to America? [1:07:09] Listen, our adversaries use rhetoric all the time. What I'm concerned about is we are not safer, [1:07:16] and I would just like to know why you have not sought the support of the American people. [1:07:21] And three out of five Americans are against this war today. [1:07:24] I believe we do have the support of the American people, and we have briefed regularly what this [1:07:31] mission looks like and why it's critically important that we undertake it. And I would remind you and this [1:07:36] group that we're two months in to an effort. And many congressional Democrats, as I pointed out, [1:07:42] want to declare defeat two months in. Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? [1:07:48] And they were nebulous missions that people went along with. This is different. This is a defined [1:07:53] mission set that we have had great success in pursuing against a determined enemy who seeks nuclear [1:07:59] weapons. And I'm proud of the opportunity to remind the American people because they believe in it as [1:08:04] well that they can't have it. You don't care whether the American people support this war. [1:08:09] The American people are quite smart. They understand and see through spin. [1:08:13] They know that a regime that says death to America, that seeks nuclear weapons, and the ability to [1:08:18] deliver. And at what cost? Did they lie about the range of their missiles? [1:08:20] How much more? Because I saw a 4,000-kilometer missile get shot at- [1:08:22] How much more will you ask the American people to pay for this war? [1:08:26] Diego Garcia. Right now, do you want it a billion dollars a day? Do you want two billion dollars a day? [1:08:30] You're asking for 200 billion dollars more to fund this war? And to make sure we have- [1:08:34] We didn't ask for 200 billion dollars. I don't know where you got that number from, Senator. [1:08:37] I think you got it from the news, which you should be careful what you read in the news. [1:08:41] Okay, Mr. Hegseth. Secretary Hegseth. Here's a few more. Let's talk about how you're prosecuting the war. [1:08:47] What is your response to targeting that has resulted in the destruction of schools, [1:08:53] hospitals, civilian places? Why did you cut by 90 percent the division that's supposed to help [1:09:00] you, not target civilians? And do you know the impact of a strategic failure at a war when you [1:09:06] have so many civilian casualties? You may have tactically completed a mission well, [1:09:11] but strategically is not meeting your goals because of the harms to civilians. What is the cost of that? [1:09:16] Let's leave time for an answer. No military, no country works harder at every echelon to ensure [1:09:23] they protect civilian lives than the United States military. And that is an ironclad commitment that [1:09:29] we make, no matter how, no matter what systems we use. And why did you cut the department by 90 percent? [1:09:33] Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. There will be other rounds of questions. [1:09:38] Senator Rounds, you are now recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:09:42] First of all, thank you to all of you for your service to our country. [1:09:47] Let me just allow you to finish the answer a little bit with regard to the Senator from New York. [1:09:54] Does the United States military ever target a civilian center? [1:09:59] Well, thank you, Senator. Unlike our adversaries, unlike radical Islamists, [1:10:05] unlike those that target civilians or use civilians as shields, [1:10:10] the United States military never targets civilians and puts constructs in place to ensure that the [1:10:17] maximum extent possible, we do not harm or hit civilians. Is war a difficult place with a lot of [1:10:24] complexities? Absolutely right. But no country does more and no department does more than our department. [1:10:30] Do you still have all of the resources necessary to assure that every opportunity to eliminate that [1:10:37] as a threat in terms of that happening? Do we still have the resources available in the department [1:10:43] to make sure that we do the best we can never to hit a civilian target? [1:10:46] Every resource necessary at every echelon is available legal, intel, and otherwise to ensure that [1:10:54] we minimize at every extent possible civilian casualties. And the suggestion was made that [1:10:58] somehow AI might be used without a human in the loop, which is a classic anthropic talking point, [1:11:04] which is half of what we talked about previously. There is a human in the loop on decisions that are [1:11:09] made. And the suggestion otherwise is to suggest that somehow AI is running targeting. Thank you. [1:11:15] Right now, part of what we're also talking about is not just are we engaged right now in terms of trying [1:11:25] to eliminate the threat from Iran in terms of being a nuclear armed country, but we've also got, [1:11:30] staring with us as well, the fact that we have an ongoing principle threat with regard to a pacing threat [1:11:35] with China. The dual capable B-21 Raider will be a critical part of both our conventional and our nuclear [1:11:44] deterrence against China and Russia. As you know, the Air Force's program of record includes plans to [1:11:49] procure 100 B-21s, but many national security experts and leaders, including STRATCOM Commander [1:11:56] Admiral Corral and INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Paparo are calling for a greater number of B-21s. [1:12:03] Admiral Paparo testified here last week that he would favor buying 200 B-21s. Secretary Hegseth and [1:12:11] Chairman Cain, could you speak to the progress and the importance of the B-21 program? [1:12:17] And if you agree with the growing sentiment that the U.S. needs to revisit the B-21 program of record [1:12:23] and assess the requirement for at least 200 B-21s to match the global threat, would you speak just [1:12:29] to exactly what that would mean and what the probability of that is? Thank you for the question. [1:12:35] And I appreciate the fact that you're listening to and hearing from combatant commanders, because that's [1:12:40] who we listen to as well, who are looking at the operational plans and what would be required to [1:12:44] ensure we deter and, if necessary, defeat. Assets like the B-21 or the F-47 are critical to that. [1:12:50] That's why we're funding them and increasing the funding, and where necessary would increase the [1:12:55] allocation. And I think you see a budget that reflects the reality that we have to invest in more [1:13:02] capabilities, to include the B-21, which is ahead of schedule. And we will be funding to the tune of 6 [1:13:09] billion, and we believe will require a lot more over 100 in the future. But I'll defer to the chairman. [1:13:15] Hey, sir. Thank you for the question. Working through the JROC and the Vice Chiefs, I'll [1:13:21] absolutely stack hands around assessing the requirement. And we're glad to see B-21 on the [1:13:28] flight path, no pun intended, that it's on through operational testing. On the specific numbers, [1:13:36] the one sort of big picture strategic thing I want to say is we want to make sure as we think through [1:13:42] what does air power of the future look like, based on the evolving threat, that we're staying well in [1:13:48] front of it. And so that's the only thing we'll look at in the assessment. But I'm on board with [1:13:53] assessing the numbers. I want to make sure we're buying ahead of the technology development curve, [1:13:58] so that we give all those young war fighters out there the capabilities that we need well into the [1:14:03] future. Is there any question at all that we're going to need more than 100 B-21s? [1:14:09] I want to go back. Here's how I'll look at it, Senator. I want to go back and look at the old [1:14:14] plans right now that we have to make sure that we allocate those numbers. So I don't believe so, [1:14:20] but I do want to take the due diligence time, if you'll allow me to look at that, Senator. [1:14:25] Good. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you and to clarify what that number should look like [1:14:31] in the near future. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. Senator Blumenthal. [1:14:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. I want to talk about the costs of war. [1:14:42] The costs of war include caring for our veterans. We've had an estimate from Mr. Hurst yesterday that [1:14:53] the cost to date in dollars for this war has been 25 billion dollars, which I believe is well below the [1:15:01] actual costs based on everything that I've heard, everything available to us in various kinds of [1:15:09] settings. And I'm going to ask for a more accurate assessment. But we also know that about 400 [1:15:16] service members have been wounded as a result of this war. When they retire, when they come home, [1:15:26] their retirement pay will be docked dollar for dollar for every disability benefit dollar they receive. [1:15:37] Secretary Hegseth, I'd like your commitment that you will support the major Richard Starr Act that [1:15:45] will eliminate this wounded warrior tax. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Tens of thousands of [1:15:52] servicemen and women now are reduced in their retirement pay literally for every dollar of [1:16:00] disability benefits they receive. Well, I appreciate your focus on this issue. And I will tell you of the, [1:16:07] you mentioned roughly 400 that have been injured, thankfully over 90% are returned to duty. But that [1:16:12] doesn't mean they wouldn't have a residual challenge. And we're tracking that at point of injury to ensure [1:16:18] that that is noted, even though they're returned to duty. But what I'd like is your commitment that you [1:16:23] will support the major Richard Starr Act. As I have said in the past to other organizations, we support the [1:16:28] Richard Starr Act. Thank you. On the issue of cost, Mr. Hurst, does that $25 billion estimate include [1:16:40] all of the costs in terms of damage to our bases, the need to replace planes and munitions, [1:16:53] and the costs of injuries to our servicemen and women? Senator, so for the MILCON facilities replacement [1:17:03] cost, that's probably the hardest thing to estimate right now because we don't know what our future [1:17:07] posture is going to be or the future construction of those bases. Well, you owe it to us. You're here to [1:17:12] ask for appropriations. Of course. And I would like a more accurate estimate of what has been [1:17:22] done that will require replacement and renovation, as well as the other costs. And I think $25 billion [1:17:31] is probably less than half, maybe less than a quarter of the total cost of war, which is the reason why [1:17:38] the supplemental request is much higher. So I think you owe it to the American people to give us [1:17:45] the straight talk about what the costs have been. Mr. Secretary, [1:17:49] I know you have characterized this war as an astonishing military success, to use your words [1:18:01] yesterday. But the American people aren't buying it. And I know you feel the American people are [1:18:10] seeing through the abstruse stuff that is thrown at them. But one point is irrefutable, which is America [1:18:21] never succeeds in war unless the American people are behind it. And if what you're seeing as success [1:18:30] now is winning, I would hate to see what losing looks like, because none of the shifting and contradictory [1:18:38] objectives of the war so far have been achieved. Likewise, let me ask you, yesterday, the President said [1:18:45] that Ukraine has been, quote, militarily defeated. I assume you don't agree with that assessment. [1:18:56] The negative nature in which you characterize the incredible and historic effort in Iran is part of [1:19:02] the reason, Senator, why the American people view it the way they do. It's why I looked out at our press [1:19:06] corps at the Pentagon and called them the Pharisees in the press, because they look for every problem. [1:19:11] I'm asking you about Ukraine. Do you believe Ukraine has been militarily defeated? I would submit, [1:19:18] based on my nine trips to Ukraine, that is a false narrative that the President is buying from Vladimir [1:19:26] Putin. We are two months into a historic military success in Iran, and you want to call it a defeat. [1:19:30] And it's defeatist Democrats like you that cloud the mind of the American people and would [1:19:35] otherwise fully support preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. [1:19:38] administration, and they are bravely fighting our fight. And that is the reason that I'm pursuing [1:19:45] the Russian sanctions bill, which is bipartisan, along with Senator Graham, and why I hope we will [1:19:51] recognize our obligation to release that 400 million dollars. Thank you. We've appropriate. [1:19:55] Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Ernst. [1:19:58] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. I really do appreciate [1:20:04] your time to be with us. Before I begin some of my questions, I do want to start [1:20:10] with something personal. And both to you, Secretary Hegseth, and to the Chairman, I want to thank you [1:20:16] both for the time that you take to recognize our fallen and those that have given, of course, during [1:20:25] this administration, given their all. You have traveled to Dover and have been there to greet [1:20:31] those families and to welcome home the fallen. I've been there with you, and Iowa has been hit, [1:20:37] in particular, very hard. We lost two of our Iowa National Guardsmen from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, [1:20:44] 34th Infantry Division, Secretary Hegseth, you know full well, the 34th. But we also lost six members [1:20:52] from the 103rd Sustainment Command Expeditionary, based out of Des Moines, Iowa, during this current [1:20:59] conflict. And again, your presence there meant a lot to the families. It also meant a lot to me, [1:21:06] so thank you very much for taking the time to do that. Secretary Hegseth, you and I have had many [1:21:13] discussions over the course of many months now regarding general officer positions. And you know, I [1:21:22] believe that we were operating in good faith as we talked through a couple of those in particular, two [1:21:27] Iowans, General Mingus and General Randy George. I was disappointed to see that their retirements [1:21:35] were hastened over what I believed had been set out by you and the administration. So I just want [1:21:44] to take the time to list out some of General Randy George's accomplishments as Army Chief of Staff. [1:21:51] He pulled the Army out of its worst recruiting crisis since the Vietnam era, exceeding fiscal [1:21:57] year 2024 recruiting goals and welcoming more than 61,000 new soldiers. Recruitment numbers that both [1:22:05] you and the President talk a lot about and rightfully so. He cut 5% of general officer positions, 12 [1:22:13] positions that were deemed as non-essential in the Army. And he reduced the Army headquarters by 1,000 [1:22:20] personnel. He co-authored the Army Transformation Initiative, which is a comprehensive response aligned with [1:22:28] your directives. And he testified here in front of Congress and took a lot of heat defending that [1:22:34] Army transformation. He was suddenly let go at the beginning of April, 2026. General George's merits, [1:22:44] which I firmly believe in. He enlisted at the age of 17. He is a West Point graduate. He had four combat [1:22:52] deployments. He served in Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He had 38 years of honorable service. [1:23:00] He achieved the greatest Army recruitment and modernization effort in a generation. So I want to [1:23:08] thank him for his service. And I would like to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, the speeches that I did [1:23:17] honoring General Randy A. George on his retirement and General James J. Mingus on his retirement as well. [1:23:25] Without objection, they'll be admitted. Thank you very much. I'd like to to talk a little bit about [1:23:31] the audit, Mr. Secretary. I saw the video that you posted this week calling on the department to [1:23:38] pass a clean audit. And thank you for doing that. It's something that we talked about during your [1:23:43] confirmation hearing. Fiscal responsibility at the department has been a priority of mine for a [1:23:49] very long time. And I think it's time that we build on that momentum. It's extremely important. [1:23:56] And that's why I'm pushing for my Receipts Act in this year's NDAA. It's focused on improving [1:24:03] financial traceability and accountability across the department. And if you could talk a little bit [1:24:09] more about the efforts in making sure that we are being much more accountable to our taxpayers. [1:24:15] What is that effort going to entail? When will we see a clean audit? As I said, Senator, [1:24:21] thank you for your work on the audit. That has been a priority of our department from day one. [1:24:27] And we put in place goals and benchmarks to get to FY28, get to 28 for a clean audit. The joint task [1:24:33] force audit, which we announced was a reflection of even more capabilities we want to push forward [1:24:38] and centralize authority to make sure it happens. Jay's been involved from the beginning. We also have [1:24:43] a new IG who the new IG's focus, one of his focus points is precisely this. And he's prepared to work [1:24:51] with us to ensure we reach it. So I think at every level and through this budget, it's a focus. [1:24:55] Okay, thank you. We look forward to seeing a clean audit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:24:59] Thank you, Senator Ernst. Senator Hirono. [1:25:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questions, I'd like to take a moment to highlight [1:25:07] the true costs of this war, both for the military and everyday Americans. And the true cost of the [1:25:16] President's illegal war with Iran. And since the start of the war, 13, 14 brave US service members [1:25:22] have been killed and more than 400 have been wounded. We've burned through over $25 billion in taxpayer [1:25:29] money with no end in sight. And the fiscal year 27 budget request is a massive 42% increase from last [1:25:37] year. Hundreds of critical munitions have been expended and deployments have been extended directly [1:25:46] impacting service members quality of life, military readiness, and our ability to deter our adversaries. [1:25:55] The relationships with our allies, some of our closest allies and partners have been fractured. [1:26:02] And the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which somehow caught the President by surprise, even though [1:26:10] he had to have been warned, is directly contributing to the affordable crisis that Americans are facing. [1:26:17] Energy costs are skyrocketing with the price of gas now at its highest level in almost four years. [1:26:25] Instability has driven interest rates to its highest level since September of last year. [1:26:31] The cost of fertilizer is spiking, which will have a direct impact on the cost of food. [1:26:37] This illegal war is driving up costs, undermining readiness and alienating our allies with neither [1:26:45] a clear rationale for starting this war, nor an exit strategy. And when the President was asked [1:26:53] how long he'll let this war continue, he said, do not rush me. [1:27:00] I have a question for General Kane relating to women serving in combat. And I'd like to hear your best [1:27:08] military advice. Does the mere fact of women being in combat armed units lower standards or readiness [1:27:18] if they meet the physical standards? [1:27:20] Well, ma'am, the standards are set by the civilians. We have examples of women leading well across the joint force. [1:27:31] I'll highlight some of our current commanders engaged in the fight in Epic Fury. [1:27:37] Specifically, one of our bomb squadrons are led by an extraordinary female leader who's doing great work. [1:27:43] And but those standards are set by so I'm sorry. I mean, it's definitely I think your answer is that it in fact [1:27:49] it does not lower standards of readiness readiness. Second question. Should every service member regardless of gender be permitted [1:27:56] to serve in any role, including the combat arms, if they meet the standards established? [1:28:02] Yes or no. [1:28:04] Is that to me, ma'am? [1:28:05] Over the last decade since combat arms have been open to women, have you personally [1:28:13] seen any instance where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness? [1:28:20] Apologies, I didn't hear your first question. The, you know, people policies are all set by the civilian [1:28:27] leaders in the government. [1:28:27] No, I'm asking you personally. [1:28:28] Could you repeat the question again? I'm sorry, ma'am. [1:28:30] Over the last decade since combat arms have been open to women, have you personally seen any instance [1:28:37] where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness? [1:28:42] Again, I'll highlight that the standards are set by our civilian leaders. Women continue to perform [1:28:50] well across a range of of MOS's and jobs and AFSC's that are out there. [1:28:54] No, I do need to get to a question for Secretary Hicks. Prior to your nomination hearing, you said [1:29:02] women shouldn't serve in combat armed units. At your confirmation hearing, you reverse course and, [1:29:09] excuse me, and you basically said as long as the women meet the standards, they should be able to serve. [1:29:16] But recently, you ordered a review of the effectiveness of women in combat roles. And I am concerned you are [1:29:23] laying the groundwork to reverse the policy allowing women to serve in these units because [1:29:29] right now, current law, if you want to change this policy, a current law requires you to submit [1:29:34] a report to Congress justifying such a change. So did you order the review to support a potential [1:29:42] decision to overturn the policy of having women in combat roles? [1:29:48] We are laser focused on standards. The highest male standard for every combat arms position should [1:29:53] be the standard. And 10 years into this, we are reviewing it, which is what the American people [1:29:57] would expect. Also, there's nothing illegal about a war that defends the American people and prevents [1:30:02] Iran from having a nuclear bomb. You know, you didn't answer the question because the reason that you're [1:30:08] asking for this review, I think has to do with your earlier position that you don't think women should [1:30:13] serve in combat roles. So now we have the study, and I'd like to ask you, will you reveal the study [1:30:21] to the public, to the American people? Will you make the study public? Will you make that study? Yes or no? [1:30:29] We're doing the study for that very reason, to ensure that real science is applied to this [1:30:34] this question and not social engineering like the previous administration. We appreciate your [1:30:38] assurance that that will be made public. Yeah, I think it's really critical that this study be made. [1:30:44] Thank you, ma'am. Uh, Senator Scott. Thank you. Well, first, thanks. Thank each of you for being here. [1:30:50] Secretary Hitchfield, you can talk about you've had the job for a little bit. What's your, what are you most [1:30:54] proud of? And what are your biggest challenges? Well, I appreciate the question. And what I'm most [1:31:02] proud of is the incredible men and women who serve in our nations in uniform and what they are capable of when [1:31:09] they're given a clear mission and unleashed to do it. And I think the best reflection of the success [1:31:15] of President Trump and this War Department is the historic recruiting success and the historic [1:31:22] morale amongst our ranks. I would encourage every member of this committee, Democrat or Republican, [1:31:27] go into the formations, go into the Air Force formations, the Army formations, the Marine Corps formations, [1:31:33] and talk to corporals, talk to sergeants, talk to lieutenants, talk to captains, talk to colonels. [1:31:38] And what you will find are men and women more inspired to serve in the military than they have been [1:31:44] in a generation. And you see that in the young Americans who are rushing to recruiting stations [1:31:50] at historic numbers, 30-year highs across the force. We're hitting our recruiting numbers halfway through [1:31:56] the year. Why is that? Because the American people look at what we're doing at the War Department [1:32:02] by getting back to basics and they're attracted to that. Same with our retention rates, which are [1:32:07] now merit-based. Our best sergeants, our best leaders are staying. That's exactly what we want. [1:32:13] So we've made changes to change the environment. The renaming of the department to the War Department [1:32:19] is not just a name. In fact, it's restoring it to the original name of the department set by George [1:32:24] Washington. But it's an ethos as well. That warrior ethos lives inside the heart of each one of these [1:32:30] men and women and we're unleashing it. I'm proud of the, I mean, you name it, the border, the missions, [1:32:35] yes, those are all incredible demonstrations of that. But it's the people and the urgency of Americans [1:32:40] to want to be a part of it that is the best affirmation, Senator. Thank you. So we've talked [1:32:44] about the importance of not relying on Chinese drugs for our military. Can you just talk about what [1:32:50] the what you're doing to make sure that we don't continue to rely on China for anything, including [1:32:56] our drugs? Oh, drugs. Absolutely. We can't be dependent on China on anything that's critical [1:33:04] to our supply chain, even if it's the national industrial base and not just the defense industrial [1:33:09] base. And you've been a leader on that. This committee has been a leader on that. Onshoring, [1:33:13] bringing manufacturing here, bringing critical capabilities here is central to the interagency and [1:33:21] the NSC, but also our department. If any critical weapon system is reliant upon something China could [1:33:27] change at a moment's notice, then we have a true challenge to our ability to produce for the [1:33:33] American people. And so we're finding all of those, changing them, onshoring it, reviving the [1:33:39] defense industrial base allows us to ensure we're separated from China on anything that's critical. [1:33:45] Thank you. Can you talk about the importance of foreign military sales to our allies and our [1:33:49] partners and what you're doing to make sure that whether it's what you're doing right now in Iran [1:33:55] or any potential conflict in Asia, our partners have the best assets to be able to be a great [1:34:02] partner? Absolutely. Foreign military sales has been a huge problem for a long time because the [1:34:09] department didn't prioritize it and organize to deliver efficiently on it. So we're working with the [1:34:13] State Department. We've changed the way we do business internally. The executive order, the America [1:34:18] First arms strategy prioritizes what we sell and to whom, a catalog approach. But it took us, [1:34:25] this committee would be astonished to know how long it took us just to get our arms around who [1:34:30] we're selling to what and by what processes, which means there was no strategy behind ensuring we're [1:34:35] sending the proper demand signal to industry and delivering those systems on time and under budget to [1:34:40] those countries, which you can imagine is frustrating to partners who are relying on those to be able to [1:34:45] step up and burden share. So foreign military sales is critical to our own defense industrial base, [1:34:50] more customers, more customers for our companies that employ more American workers to ensure our [1:34:55] allies are properly armed for the fights and they can stand alongside us. So FMS is a big one for us, [1:35:00] Senator. General Cain, I just want to commend you and everybody in the military for [1:35:05] what you did in Venezuela and then what you've done in Iran. Can do the willingness of the American [1:35:13] military to to fight and win, do you think it's changing the calculus for Beijing and Moscow? [1:35:20] Well, Senator, I know they're watching and I'm incredibly proud of the joint force [1:35:28] and their ability to integrate and synchronize a range of activities. And I suspect [1:35:34] that my counterpart in China is watching very closely and envious of what our joint force is [1:35:42] capable of doing if ordered to do so. Well, thank each of you and thank everybody that serves under you. [1:35:48] Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Cain. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hurst, [1:35:52] I want you to just confirm something for me about the president's submitted budget. [1:35:56] 1.5 trillion dollars is about a 40 plus percent increase from FY26. Am I right that not a penny of [1:36:06] that is to go to a pay raise for the 800,000 civilians who work for the Department of Defense? [1:36:13] We have 4.2 percent of a civilian salary set aside for bonuses to make sure we can recognize high [1:36:21] performers in the civilian workforce. But you have guaranteed pay raises for the active duty in the [1:36:25] Guard and Reserve component, but no guaranteed raises for there are guaranteed raises for the [1:36:30] military. But, you know, in the last year, this department's given out more civilian bonuses. [1:36:34] Well, I you know, if we're if we're going to increase the defense budget by that much, [1:36:38] I would hope the committee would take a look at this. Chairman Cain, and I like the sound of that, [1:36:43] Chairman Cain. General Cain, I want to ask you a question about Southern Spear. It's an operational [1:36:49] question. I know from your background that you carefully act to keep military actions within the [1:36:56] rules of war. What legal justification could there possibly be that would allow the U.S. military to [1:37:05] strike boats in international waters and kill the occupants of those boats without a showing of [1:37:11] evidence that there's narcotics on those boats? Well, sir, as you know, our job is to show the range of [1:37:19] options, the associated risks, and then take those execution orders, transmit them down to the COCOMs on [1:37:28] legally appropriate and legally backstopped actions. Could you give me a legal justification? [1:37:36] Well, sir, the execution or I don't have a striking boats that do not have evidence that they're [1:37:41] carrying narcotics? I don't know. I apologize. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I don't have a copy of the [1:37:46] order issued to South Com with me today. It's classified in its own right, which clearly articulates [1:37:53] based on a variety of criteria what constitutes a valid military and legally valid target [1:38:01] in that theater. And I know, I just want to say, I know and trust that our commanders at Echelon are [1:38:07] rigorously following that legal opinion and those legal boundaries upon which we've been issued those orders. [1:38:15] And General Kane, I would encourage again my colleagues, I am at a disadvantage. I've seen the [1:38:21] legal opinion, but I can't talk about it because it's classified. I've seen the targeting criteria, [1:38:26] but I can't talk about them because they're classified. I've seen the secret list of DTOs against [1:38:32] whom we have declared war that even they haven't been informed of, but I can't talk about it because [1:38:38] it's classified. But I would urge all of my colleagues to go to the SCIF and read the targeting criteria and get [1:38:45] briefed about it. And then also look at all of the files of all the strikes that have taken place. [1:38:50] I've done that with the first 46 strikes or so. And I think there's a profound mismatch between what [1:38:58] is occurring and the underlying assumptions in the legal opinion. And I would just encourage my [1:39:03] colleagues to dig into this. To Secretary Hegseth and General Kane, the War Powers Resolution specifies [1:39:09] that a war initiated by a president without congressional approval must be concluded within 60 days. [1:39:15] It can be extended by an additional 30 days if, quote, the president determines and certifies to [1:39:22] Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the U.S. Armed Forces [1:39:28] requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal [1:39:35] of such forces. We're right at the 60-day deadline. Is the president intending to either seek congressional [1:39:42] authorization for the war in Iran or send us the legally required certification that he needs an [1:39:49] additional 30 days to remove U.S. forces from the war? Just briefly on the previous question, [1:39:57] we do know that these are designated terrorist organizations, so we treat them like the al-Qaeda [1:40:00] of our hemisphere. Just as a note. But that was not the question I asked. I know there's more to [1:40:05] that question. I just think it's important for the public to understand that. There's no willy-nilly [1:40:09] targeting of drug boats. We know exactly who these people are affiliated with. I was asking about [1:40:13] what's on the boats. On Iran. Ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House [1:40:19] Council on that. However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day [1:40:24] clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire. So you're not in. It's our understanding, just so you know. [1:40:30] Okay. Well, I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe [1:40:34] tomorrow, and it's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration. [1:40:41] We have serious constitutional concerns, and we don't want to layer those with additional [1:40:46] statutory concerns. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Sullivan. [1:40:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. [1:40:55] Mr. Secretary, I mentioned in the classified hearing today, but I do think the $1.5 trillion [1:41:00] top line is historic. It meets the needs. And the other thing, as I mentioned in our earlier meeting, [1:41:08] you know, the President's done a really good job of getting other allies, NATO and Asian allies, [1:41:14] to step up, meet a 5% GDP of defense spending. And in many ways, that's what this is doing as well. [1:41:22] So isn't that important as well in terms of our global leadership, what you and the President are [1:41:27] providing? Is that example as well? I think the more we step up, the more the world should look [1:41:34] at the American leadership and example and step up as well. And they're going to do that. It helps. [1:41:40] It remains to be seen whether some of our allies actually step up to their commitments, [1:41:44] but that is the hope. Let me go to an element of that budget that I mentioned in the classified [1:41:50] hearing. You know, I always like to put this chart up in different hearings. We have the examples. [1:41:55] So we have a lot of our adversaries, the Chinese, the Russians, in my AOR, in the Arctic, in the [1:42:02] North Pacific. These are the numbers just recently. Eight is incursions, easy incursions by the Russians, [1:42:08] by the Chinese. By the way, the green ones are joint Russian-Chinese strategic bomber task forces, [1:42:15] joint Russian-Chinese naval task forces. This is America, right? This is a really important part of [1:42:23] our national defense. So I was pleased to see that one of the elements in the budget was what's [1:42:31] referred to by the Air Force as the J-Bear fighter town recapitalization, given how strategically [1:42:38] important that Air Force base is. General, can you talk a little bit about that recapitalization? It's [1:42:46] for building out what is a very strategic base, but old. A lot of these facilities are from the 1950s. [1:42:59] The goal of, in the Air Force's language, was to have a recapitalization to provide a new state-of-the-art [1:43:05] fighter facility capable of supporting multiple platforms now and well into the future. 6.9 billion [1:43:12] total authorization. 2.2 billion dollar appropes for this year. Can you talk about the importance? I was [1:43:19] glad to host you at J-Bear recently. Can you talk about the importance of this element of the [1:43:24] President's budget? Yes, Senator. Thank you. Thank you for that. You know, our investment up at J-Bear [1:43:30] is essential to modernizing the nation's ability to project power and capabilities and really bolsters [1:43:38] our effort in not only the Indo-Pacific, but also in the high north in the Arctic, which I know is [1:43:43] something that's passionate to you. The Arctic is certainly becoming more operationally and [1:43:49] strategically valuable, and we need to be thinking proactively around how we're going to set the [1:43:56] conditions for us to offer a range of options to the Secretary and the President about power projection [1:44:03] across a range of capabilities, and fighters is certainly one of them, and the recap [1:44:07] effort that's there. You know, it is our ability to protect that flank is a national imperative and [1:44:15] something that we want to keep focused on, and we appreciate the efforts across this committee [1:44:21] and the rest of the Congress to help us with that. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, one of the things that I've [1:44:26] been talking about and I think is really important now is American energy and us being a energy dominant. [1:44:33] President put a recent executive order out highlighting the need to accelerate [1:44:41] the ability to produce LNG in America. We have a huge LNG project that we're getting close to getting [1:44:50] off the ground in Alaska. It would be huge for our military in terms of energy for our military, huge for [1:44:57] our allies, and can I get your commitment to work with me and this committee? You mentioned in your testimony, [1:45:04] strategic capital. This to me is one of these projects that I think would be absolutely critical [1:45:12] for our national security. We talked about this just in Admiral Paparo's testimony last week. He was [1:45:18] talking about the Alaska LNG project is hugely strategic, kind of a private sector, American counter to [1:45:25] the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. I think it'd be a great opportunity to work with the Office of [1:45:29] Strategic Capital. Can I get your commitment, Mr. Secretary, to do that on this project? [1:45:34] Yes, very aware of that project and I think it's the Office of Strategic Capital is a great place to [1:45:39] look at partnering. Great, I appreciate that. Finally, I'm just going to ask, 47 years of war that we've had with [1:45:47] Iran. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you know, they talk about these civilian casualties. These are all [1:45:57] horrible, horrible, horrible whenever there's any civilian casualties, but just general. Do our forces [1:46:04] target civilians ever? Sure, never intentionally and I don't know in any particular case of unintentional, [1:46:14] but we don't do that. That's not core to our American values or how we approach things. [1:46:18] Do our adversaries target civilians? Yes, sir. Like the Quds Force? Yes, sir. I think it's really [1:46:24] important as we keep bringing this topic up to remember who we are and who our adversaries are. [1:46:30] Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator Sullivan, do you ask unanimous consent to have the two exhibits [1:46:35] added to the record? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Without objection, that will be done. Senator King. [1:46:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've had a lot of discussion about Iran. I'd like to talk about several other [1:46:45] aspects of the budget. The first is the way the budget's been constructed. Ever since I've been [1:46:51] here until last year, we've had bipartisan budgets and bipartisan National Defense Authorization Acts [1:46:59] and passed by majorities. I voted for all of them. And all of a sudden in this year, 25% of the budget [1:47:07] is essentially out of the process and will be passed presumably through some kind of reconciliation, [1:47:13] which is by definition a partisan exercise. Mr. Secretary, why not what all those items of [1:47:21] housing or Golden Dome, whatever, why aren't they in the regular budget? Why do we suddenly have [1:47:26] a two-part budget where this committee and the Congress generally has oversight and input to a [1:47:34] process where a quarter of the budget is essentially a slush fund? Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. [1:47:42] I wouldn't characterize a quarter of it as a slush fund, but I recognize that we see it as a, [1:47:46] in totality, as a $1.5 trillion budget. But why the separation? Why the two pieces? [1:47:52] Multiple vehicles. As you know, there are multiple dynamics that play into why there are multiple [1:47:57] vehicles, but we are fully committed with working to the committee to ensure that the right vehicles [1:48:01] are utilized to get precisely this amount, $1.5 trillion. Why should we, you didn't answer my [1:48:06] question? Why are there two pieces? Why, why not? For time immemorial, we've done budgets here. We've [1:48:12] never, to my knowledge, we've never used this reconciliation process for a defense budget before. [1:48:17] What's, what's, what's going on? Why not? My understanding of the reason for the vehicles is to [1:48:23] ensure we actually get to $1.5 trillion, which is the most important bottom line. The most important [1:48:28] bottom line is that top line of $1.5 trillion to fund what we need. And we think this process is the [1:48:33] most effective way to get there, Senator. Well, it, what you're really saying is we [1:48:38] don't want to deal with that pesky Congress and their appropriation process. I, I think it's, [1:48:43] I think this is significant, Mr. Chairman, that we're, we're basically abdicating a quarter of our [1:48:48] responsibility in terms of this budget. Let me move on. One of the factors of this budget that hasn't [1:48:55] gotten any publicity is that there's zero funding for Ukraine. That's correct, isn't it, Mr. Hurst? [1:49:02] That's correct. There's no USAI funding in this budget. And there was 400, 400 billion, 400 million [1:49:08] that was appropriated last year by a bipartisan, bicameral act of Congress. What's become of that [1:49:15] money? My understanding is not a dollar of it has been dispersed. It was released very recently. And [1:49:23] again, we got these funds, I believe in March. And it takes time for funds to flow through the [1:49:28] department. But it's going to get put to work very shortly. We're going to work with the UCOM [1:49:31] commander to make sure we use these funds in the most appropriate way possible. [1:49:34] I didn't want Senator Sullivan to be the only one with an exhibit. [1:49:38] This indicates what's happened to our support for Ukraine over a period of years. The orange bars [1:49:44] are U.S. support. The blue bars are Europe. As you see, Europe is 99% in the year 2026. Same thing [1:49:54] with humanitarian and other aid to Ukraine. And yet this is, I believe, an existential struggle for [1:50:02] the future of democracy where we had an aggressive country invade a neighboring country without any [1:50:07] justification whatsoever. And by the way, that invading country is the major winner so far of the [1:50:13] war in Iran. They've gotten the estimates are 40 to 80 billion dollars of additional revenues from oil [1:50:21] and the relief of sanctions as a result of the war in Iran. Secretary Hegseth, why are we abandoning Ukraine? [1:50:29] Senator, if you would hold that chart back up, I think that's a beautiful chart. I think that's [1:50:35] exactly what we want. We want Europe stepping up and funding and shouldering the burden. They are rich [1:50:41] countries worth 20 trillion versus economy of 2 trillion. Europe can step up. Europe can fund it, [1:50:47] and they have through our Pearl Initiative and through our European command. That's exactly what [1:50:51] the American people want to see, is other countries stepping up and funding that. If it's that important [1:50:56] to Europe, which I understand why it is, and the incursion of Russia and the bravery of the Ukrainians, [1:51:00] then European countries should pay for it. And that's exactly what that chart says, and that's the [1:51:04] administration policy. So we don't have any interest in what happens in Ukraine. Is that what you're [1:51:09] saying? It's only the Europeans? I'm saying the threat is far closer to rich and capable countries [1:51:15] in Europe, and they should step up to lead the charge, and that's why that chart is a good thing [1:51:19] to see. They have stepped up, but I think the American people should understand that we've stepped [1:51:24] back. In fact, stepped back to the point of abandoning. This is a war that never would have happened under [1:51:29] President Trump, and he supports ending it through a deal, and he's pursued that. So far it hasn't happened. [1:51:35] I'm out of time. I want to talk about DTOs, who designates, but we'll take that up later. Thank you, [1:51:40] Senator King. Senator Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's apropos that I'm following [1:51:48] my friend from Maine. Missouri and Maine came into the Union at the same time, but we couldn't disagree [1:51:52] more on this particular point. We may have to separate here. I actually think it's interesting [1:51:57] that Ukraine just came up, because we've heard from my colleagues on the other side discussion [1:52:03] about the cost of what the ongoing American effort. There was never a discussion about the $200 billion we [1:52:12] were sending to a foreign country that's not even in NATO. Never. In fact, when amendments were offered [1:52:18] for independent audits of how that money was spent, there was bipartisan opposition to that kind of [1:52:25] oversight. So I find it really rich now that there's a complaint that we're not spending money on Ukraine, [1:52:32] and by the way, $30 billion for salaries for bureaucrats, pensions and social safety net [1:52:39] programs and government operations to keep the state functioning during wartime. That's where American [1:52:45] tax dollars were going, $30 billion for bureaucrats in Ukraine. And we just heard a speech for more [1:52:52] money for Ukraine, yet the $1.5 trillion for this country is being balked at. I mean, I've seen Ukraine [1:53:01] flags all over this capital for three years. At the same time, the same people call the president of [1:53:08] the United States of this country a Nazi. So forgive me if I feel like we've lost our bearings a little [1:53:16] bit. So I'm all for the America First agenda. I'm all for us realigning our priorities. I'm all for [1:53:25] the national defense strategy that says our core strategic interests are the homeland, the western [1:53:30] hemisphere and the rising threat in China. And that means our European allies should step up. [1:53:38] If Vladimir Putin is truly some existential threat and the next Hitler that's going to roll through [1:53:44] Europe, you would think, by the way, he can't take Kiev. So you can't have it both ways. He hasn't [1:53:48] made it to Kiev, but they would step up. And we better start demanding that because if we want to meet [1:53:53] the challenges of the 21st century in China, our priorities, our focus has to be somewhere else. It [1:54:01] doesn't mean abandonment. It just means a true partnership with our European allies who for [1:54:06] a very, very long time have not stepped up. I want to ask you, Mr. Secretary, in your first year, [1:54:11] one of the things I think that's really gone towards this morale and recruitment boom that we've seen [1:54:17] through your leadership and President Trump was finally taking on the sort of cultural Marxism [1:54:22] that had taken hold from the highest levels of leadership from the President of the United States [1:54:26] to your predecessor, this obsession with DEI. Could you just walk through maybe the worst example [1:54:33] that you saw and a way that you addressed that and how it was affecting morale? [1:54:37] Well, thank you, Senator. First of all, I want to fully associate myself with the first two and a [1:54:43] half minutes of your comments, and I appreciate that perspective very much so. I would note $30 billion [1:54:48] for bureaucrats in Ukraine is more than the bill that we've talked about today [1:54:52] for an existential and critically important war to ensure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. [1:54:58] That's worth noting. I haven't talked about it as much in these hearings because this is a budget [1:55:04] hearing about $1.5 trillion that's historic and significant, but underwriting the change that we've [1:55:09] seen in our department was a laser focus on getting back to basics, and the key word to that is merit. [1:55:16] We had a department that was obsessed with gender, ideology, and race, diversity, equity, and inclusion. [1:55:24] In fact, the mantra you would hear dripping from the lips of generals and with a serious look on their [1:55:29] face was, our diversity is our strength, which is the single dumbest phrase in military history. [1:55:36] Of course, our diversity is not our strength. Our unity is our strength, our shared purpose, [1:55:41] the flag we wear, and the constitution we serve to defend. And when you clear that debris away, [1:55:47] whether it's Marxist ideologies, or social engineering, or political correctness, or quotas [1:55:54] based on gender and diversity, you get the best of the best rising up regardless of gender, regardless [1:56:00] of race, motivated by that environment where merit reigns. It's accountability, standards, lethality, [1:56:07] readiness, training, all the debris wiped away. That is the secret sauce of the revival of the war [1:56:14] department, and why Americans are attracted to serving in it, and why those inside it, why morale [1:56:19] is sky high. And any insinuation that it is not are coming from folks who haven't been in our units [1:56:25] recently. Go visit the troops at every level, and their morale is at record levels. And I want to talk [1:56:29] about morale with the 15 seconds that I have left. I want to thank you for coming to St. Louis for your [1:56:34] arsenal of freedom tour, where the next generation aircraft, the F-47, is being built by the hard [1:56:39] working men and women of Missouri, who take a tremendous amount of pride for that aircraft [1:56:43] that's going to go further, see further, go faster, have a bigger payload. And I know there's another [1:56:48] decision coming with the F-A-X-X, but really appreciate your leadership, and thanks for coming. [1:56:52] Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Schmidt. [1:56:56] Senator King, do you wish to ask unanimous consent to include your exhibit in the record? [1:57:02] Yes, please. Without objection, that will be done. Senator Warren. [1:57:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Americans are paying a high price for Donald Trump's war with Iran. We've [1:57:12] got 14 service members who are dead, over 400 more who are wounded. Prices are rising for nearly every [1:57:20] American family. But someone is profiting off Trump's war. Insiders who know what's going on, [1:57:28] and who place bets on that inside information. On March 23rd, just 14 minutes before Trump unexpectedly [1:57:38] posted about, quote, very good conversations on ending the war, traders suddenly bet $500 million [1:57:47] on the price of oil, which, once Trump made his announcement, immediately dropped. It happened [1:57:54] again on April 7th, and then again on April 21st. A surge in oil bets, then a Trump post, [1:58:03] and then a huge shift in oil prices in just the space of minutes. It looks like insiders have been [1:58:11] making out like bandits, using secret information about the war. Now, one U.S. soldier has been charged, [1:58:18] but that was for betting on capturing Maduro months ago. Not a single person has been charged in the [1:58:26] many, many, many trades over the Middle East war. So Secretary Hegseth, do you have any explanation for [1:58:36] these perfectly timed spikes in trading activity other than insider trading? Senator, all I can tell [1:58:46] you is that everything we've done in our department, everything we've done with information in working [1:58:51] with the White House and across the interagency has been completely above board. Well, so what does [1:58:56] it mean? Do you have any other explanation other than insider trading? Do you have a story for why just [1:59:04] minutes before there's an announcement, there's a surge in trading activity? Senator, I'm more [1:59:11] than focused on doing my job and ensuring we execute properly, which thankfully under this [1:59:16] administration, our troops have done incredible things in all these missions. My job in all of [1:59:21] those moments is to make sure we're prepared. And that's part of the reason why we've been so [1:59:25] successful in these raids, in these efforts, is that this joint force is prepared. You're saying you're [1:59:29] not paying any attention to this insider trading. Is that what you're telling me? That you've paid no [1:59:34] attention to this? You haven't noticed it? You haven't done anything about it? What I'm saying [1:59:38] is we're focused on our mission of executing for the American people. And what happens in in markets [1:59:43] is not, in betting markets is not something we're involved in. What happens in betting markets doesn't [1:59:48] matter to you, even if the information may be coming from insiders in your office? Senator, it's not [1:59:56] something we're involved in at all. And of course, we take operational security at every level very [2:00:00] seriously. In fact, no one's taken operational security more seriously than us. If you look at [2:00:06] what it required to keep secret Midnight Hammer and Operation Maduro, the absolute resolve with Maduro, [2:00:14] and the steps we've taken, no one's been tighter about ensuring that operational security is insured. [2:00:19] Have you taken any steps to deal with insider trading out of your office? [2:00:22] We have, we would ensure at every level that inside information is properly safeguarded. [2:00:29] All right. Well, obviously you're not. I'm also concerned about recent reporting on your own [2:00:36] financial dealings with regard to profiting from the war in Iran. The Financial Times reported that [2:00:42] your broker tried to buy hundreds of shares in a BlackRock fund invested in defense companies just [2:00:48] before the war began. The law clearly prohibits the secretary- That entire story is false, has been [2:00:54] from the beginning and was made up out of whole cloth. And anybody that looks at it sees how it was [2:00:59] worded from the beginning to make it look like I was involved in something I had nothing to do and [2:01:04] never have. So any insinuation that I've ever profited other than serving this nation, what, [2:01:09] what I give, what you give, what others give, I'm not looking for money. I don't do it for money. I [2:01:14] don't do it for profit. I don't do it for stocks. And that's part of the reason why I'm able to be [2:01:17] effective in this job because no one owns me. No one owns this department. No one owns this president. And we can [2:01:23] execute for the American people and we do. The law clearly prohibits the secretary of defense from [2:01:29] owning stock in the 10 biggest defense contractors. Other senators and I sent you a letter with detailed [2:01:36] questions about this and you have not given us a response. So I'd like to hear you say, did you, [2:01:43] through your broker at Morgan Stanley or otherwise, seek to invest in any defense-related funds right [2:01:50] before Trump started the Iran war? I'll give it to you as a big, fat, negative. Then let me ask you [2:01:59] a second question. Is your broker getting your personal sign-off on any investment in individual [2:02:06] stocks? Bigger, fatter, negative. He's not getting your sign-off before he makes investments in defense [2:02:13] stocks? Can I refer you to your ethics agreement? I'm not making investments, Senator. I am asking, [2:02:18] does he know that he has to get your sign-off before he does that? Of course. I don't know what you're [2:02:23] looking for, but you're going to find it. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I would like to enter into the [2:02:29] record the ethics agreement that the secretary of defense has signed that he will sign off personally [2:02:37] before his broker makes any attempt to buy defense stocks. Is there objection? Thank you. Without [2:02:44] objection, it will be admitted. Uh, Senator, uh, Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Heckseth, [2:02:51] um, you're doing a great job. I, I, I've been in Washington for 10 years, several secretaries of [2:02:58] defense, now secretary of war. You're, you're the best that we've had since I've been in Washington. [2:03:02] What you've done to restore readiness, uh, restore military recruitment, get the Pentagon focus on war [2:03:08] fighting is, is second to none. And I, I appreciate what you and President Trump and General Cain are [2:03:13] doing very much. In fact, uh, General Cain, according to the department's 2025 China military power report, [2:03:22] quote, China believes the next revolution in military affairs will occur when militaries transition to [2:03:28] intelligentized warfare and fully integrate artificial intelligence, big data, advanced computing, [2:03:36] and other technologies into the joint force, end quote. Can you describe General in greater detail [2:03:43] how the P, PLA is using AI to enhance its military capabilities? Uh, you bet, Senator. Um, you know, [2:03:52] they are attempting to integrate, uh, AI across the range of their war fighting functions, which extends to, [2:03:59] uh, command and control, information advantage, intelligence, um, certainly kinetic, uh, [2:04:07] and non-kinetic, uh, capabilities and to a certain extent sustainment. I'll note that, that so are we. [2:04:14] And in many cases, we are out in front of them. I want to commend our chief digital, uh, and artificial [2:04:21] intelligence officers inside the joint force at the COCOMS with the services who are also leaning very far [2:04:28] in as we, uh, march towards a digitized joint force that allows us to cease and, uh, see in, uh, [2:04:36] command and control the force better. Uh, the China military power report also goes on to note that [2:04:43] the Chinese AI sector remains, quote, constrained by its limited access to high performance AI chips. [2:04:53] General Kane, how big of an advantage is it for the American war fighter that America's arsenal of [2:05:00] compute is bigger than China's? Sir, it's, uh, it's, uh, it's critical to us. And, you know, [2:05:08] while I acknowledge there's, there's all kinds of chip issues in this, it is important to us to, uh, [2:05:14] to continue to scale at that. And I'll highlight a lot of the work going on up at Fort Meade [2:05:19] that the committee's helped to advance in the cyber capabilities. So we appreciate the help with that. [2:05:24] If that advantage were eroded and China were able to develop more advanced AI capabilities as a result, [2:05:30] what are some of the potential consequences for American war fighters? Well, sir, it could, [2:05:35] it could certainly put us at risk and that's why we're leaning in so hard. Um, there's always a [2:05:41] balance between commerce and, uh, and, and protection. I acknowledge those are policy matters, [2:05:48] I think is what you're, uh, starting to get towards. Um, but on a pure military only standpoint, [2:05:54] um, we, we, that we would see some defense in depth eroded from that. Secretary Hegseth, [2:06:00] do you agree that enhanced Chinese AI capabilities put, could, could put American service members at [2:06:06] risk? Uh, Senator, we absolutely have to stay ahead. Uh, the advantage that AI provides applied [2:06:14] to any number of capabilities, whether it's domain awareness, targeting cycles, you name it, [2:06:19] uh, AI and leveraging it. And that's why we've made it the forefront. I mean, it's AI first with [2:06:23] everything that we do, integrating it at every potential echelon to ensure we can respond faster. [2:06:29] If, if we're, if we're better at that than any adversary is, it's going to give us an advantage [2:06:33] and we have to maintain that. I agree. Do you agree that we should do everything in our power [2:06:37] to ensure that American service members go into battle with an overwhelming and fear-inducing [2:06:44] technological advantage, particularly with AI? Always. Uh, overwhelming is, is the goal in every [2:06:51] scenario. Uh, earlier this year, the Pentagon issued updated guidelines that prohibit department funds [2:06:57] from supporting grants and contracts involving fundamental research collaboration and with [2:07:03] blacklisted Chinese entities. How important are those restrictions to safeguarding our technological [2:07:09] leadership? Have to have them. Uh, especially when you look at the power of models and all of those [2:07:15] things and you, you have connections to entities that could have connections to your adversary and you [2:07:19] can, uh, you can have degradation of your advantage. Again, this is where I appreciate your leadership, [2:07:25] Mr. Secretary, uh, which has been second to none. And I know that you will work with Congress to help [2:07:30] codify those restrictions and encourage taxpayer dollars that to, to never advance the capabilities [2:07:36] of our enemies and our, and our adversaries. I appreciate both of your leadership. Um, we've [2:07:41] come a long way in a couple of years from, I mean, the night and day difference between the last [2:07:46] administration and this administration is apparent to every Hoosier that I talk to. So I appreciate your [2:07:52] leadership. I yield back. Thank you very much, Senator Banks. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [2:07:57] Ranking Member. Gentlemen, uh, welcome, uh, to the, uh, committee. I appreciate, uh, this, uh, discussion. [2:08:03] I'll just start off. The, the, the number one question I get when I'm back home from people, uh, [2:08:07] is basically very simply when, when will this war end? Uh, we know the costs are, uh, that the American [2:08:12] people are paying both at higher fuel costs, our farmers are paying because of fertilizer cost. We, [2:08:18] we know that the, uh, the whole world economy is paying a great deal for this war. And basically [2:08:25] when I, as I think that through, and this is what I want to talk to you about is that we, we all know [2:08:29] that it's a whole lot easier to go to war than it is to get out of war. Uh, that's, uh, always the tough [2:08:34] question. Uh, and we've got to figure that out. Uh, and there are some folks who've written quite a bit [2:08:40] about this, uh, one, one text on war by Carl von Klauswitz. Uh, Mr. Secretary, I'm sure you're familiar, uh, with, [2:08:47] with the book. I know all of the men and women in uniform are. It's the most widely read, most influential [2:08:54] military strategy book in Western history, which is, uh, pretty, pretty broad. And it is the core curriculum [2:09:01] that is read, uh, in all the war colleges. Uh, I read it when I was, uh, at the Navy War College, uh, taking courses. [2:09:08] Uh, uh, it's part of what the U S military thinks about when to go to war and then how to get out of [2:09:13] the war. And one of those, uh, core principles, uh, it starts with is, uh, basically war is the [2:09:20] continuation of politics by other means that everybody knows that quote, who's worn the uniform [2:09:25] and others too. And basically means there's two things about that. It's politics to get in the war [2:09:30] and it's politics to get out of the war. And in between, we rely on the men and women in the military [2:09:35] to carry out those policies. So I want to be clear. And I think I speak for all of my colleagues [2:09:41] is that we know, uh, the military plays an important part. They need to do the job and nobody, [2:09:46] nobody questions the amazing work that our men and women in the U S military have done and continue to [2:09:52] do. They've performed absolutely brilliantly, and we applaud all that they have done. However, [2:09:58] what we do question is the politics part. It's a continuation of politics. So it's our political [2:10:03] leaders that get us into war and our political leaders who have to get us out of that war, [2:10:09] which falls on, on you, Mr. Uh, secretary XF and others, uh, in the administration, [2:10:13] including the president and his commander, uh, in chief. So secretary, are you familiar with the, [2:10:18] uh, the concept in that book of center of gravity? Sure. So center of gravity is, [2:10:26] is basically, as you know, is it's the basically the hub of all the power and movement. Everything [2:10:31] depends on it. And Clausewitz will say, if you don't take out the center of gravity, [2:10:36] it's very difficult to win the war. You can have tactical successes. You can have military [2:10:41] successes, but if you're not focused on that, you're not going to be able to win. Basically, [2:10:46] he talks about military strikes are tactical and tactical success doesn't necessarily create the [2:10:52] political conditions necessary to get the parties to the table to negotiate and get it done. So we've got [2:10:58] to focus on that. So my question for you, Mr. Secretary, what is the center of gravity for Iran? [2:11:05] Well, the center of gravity as the president has seen it and as I see it, and he's talked about for [2:11:10] 30 years is, is their pursuit of a nuclear weapon and what they could do with that in pursuit as an [2:11:15] extension of the radical ideology they have professed since the beginning of their revolution. So the, [2:11:21] the, the, the prophetic ideology they profess alongside the most dangerous weapon in the world would be [2:11:27] the center of gravity of the rationality of this undertaking, which I appreciate it. I'll [2:11:31] understand. I'll elaborate more. I appreciate it. General Cain, you know more about, uh, Clausewitz, [2:11:36] uh, and strategy that I will ever know, including all the folks behind you. What would you consider [2:11:40] the center of gravity as defined by Clausewitz in this type of war? Well, sir, I, I, I, uh, you're not going [2:11:47] to love this answer, but I hope you'll respect it. War is politics by any other means. Right. And the [2:11:53] political side of that necessitates that our political leaders determine what is the center [2:11:58] of gravity associated with that from a military only perspective. There's a variety of things [2:12:04] academically that we could look at for center of gravities from leadership to will to capabilities [2:12:09] to intent, but I'll defer to our political leaders. Okay. That's fine. That's fair. I don't like it. [2:12:14] You're right, but I know, I know. And I know you know the answer to that and you're just not telling [2:12:18] me. Well, I get why you're doing that. But I would say, you know, other observers say that basically [2:12:23] it's the, it's not the leader. Usually if you take out a leader, that doesn't necessarily, uh, [2:12:27] take, make the changes that in Iran's case is probably the Islamic, uh, revolutionary guard. [2:12:33] That's the center of gravity. They're the ones that control the country and they're very diverse to do [2:12:38] that. Uh, the Americans, uh, center of gravity is probably our economy and our ability to maintain [2:12:43] public opinion support. We already know the public isn't there. We know the impact to our economy. [2:12:47] And central to that is the leverage. And I'm running out of time here, but the central of leverage [2:12:51] is the Strait of Hormuz, that that is bottom line. We have to open that up. We have to take that away [2:12:58] from Iran. The fact that we haven't done that yet, and we're 60 days in, we're just now bringing [2:13:04] minesweepers from the Pacific in there. We have some unmanned, uh, of the opportunities, but we've got [2:13:12] to have the capacity to do that. It was clear, even if there was a plan to keep the straits [2:13:17] open, it was not going to be implemented because the assets were not positioned in a place to [2:13:22] actually open the straits. If they were, it would have been, we would have seen those happening right [2:13:28] now. We're not. So we're missing the point here. The center of gravity is going to be bringing down [2:13:33] the government of Iran in a way that they will want to have a peace treaty so we can protect our [2:13:39] country from having nuclear weapons pointed our way. But the center of gravity is going to be, [2:13:44] in a lot of ways, is going to be focused on what happens on the straits. And Mr. Secretary, [2:13:48] we've got to see action a whole lot sooner in the straits. The world community needs it. [2:13:52] We're not going to bring this war to an end until we seize control of the straits in a way. [2:13:56] Which in part is why we have a blockade that has been impenetrable for the Iranians, [2:14:01] because they don't have a conventional navy to contest it, which means we control the straits. [2:14:06] But the time of Senator Peters has expired. Let me observe that I very much appreciate [2:14:15] the Senator from Michigan suggesting ways in which our effort in Iran could be more successful. [2:14:23] I do appreciate that. And let me also observe, Senator Kaine, that civilian control [2:14:28] goes back well beyond Marshall. It goes back to George Washington, who was wise enough to resign [2:14:38] his commission to the elected membership of the government at that time. Senator Sheehy, you are [2:14:45] recognized. I think it's important to note that the objective is not to get out of the war. The [2:14:54] objective is to win the war, not to get out of it. And I think we've allowed the narrative to shift so [2:15:00] off target here. President Trump did not start this war. We did not start this war. These radical, [2:15:06] barbarian, savage clerics who have started killing Americans 47 years ago in a unilateral campaign [2:15:13] of terror, murder, treason, kidnapping, torture, have been murdering our countrymen all over this world [2:15:20] almost every single year, hijacking airplanes, hijacking cruise liners, taking our embassies, [2:15:25] blowing up our embassies, blowing up our barracks, blowing up our ships, [2:15:29] capturing our soldiers and murdering them in brutal ways. They started this war. And it would [2:15:36] be a lot easier to beat them if we didn't have administrations shoveling hundreds of billions [2:15:40] of dollars into their pockets while they're actively fighting our own people, while our own [2:15:44] uniformed service members have been fighting this murderous regime. And we have presidents quite [2:15:49] literally shipping pallets of cash to pay these terrorists off. It's been a disgrace. It's been an [2:15:55] embarrassment to this country for far too long. But back to the point, General Kaine, I have a specific [2:16:00] question for you. I think in this day and age, we all know that basically every single operation that [2:16:06] we partake in, whether it's stealth bombers, whether it's a blockade, our special operations forces are [2:16:12] a fundamental shaping and priority component to all those. Would you agree? [2:16:16] Yes, Senator, I would. And I think for the last about 15 years, the special operations community [2:16:23] budget has been largely flat, even adjusted for inflation. And yet continuously, we call on those [2:16:30] warriors to deliver the impossible. And they pretty much do. We were reminded just a few weeks ago, [2:16:36] even after the amazing Maduro raid, when we had to rescue one of our F-15 crewmen. Yet again, [2:16:41] our community came up and did something that probably most people thought wasn't possible. [2:16:47] And they did an amazing job. But we cannot continue to call on a tiny fraction of our military to carry [2:16:53] such a heavy load and to have such an op tempo without the appropriate resources. So I'd like to [2:16:59] hear your thoughts on how we can not just increase the budget, but make sure we're shaping their budget [2:17:03] in a way that ensures that those warriors are getting the direct support for training and sustainment, [2:17:09] but also the platforms that they need from mini submarines to unmanned aircraft to manned aircraft [2:17:15] and the platforms that are very unique for their mission are furnished and deployed rapidly. So [2:17:20] I'd like to talk about the percentage increase of SOCOM's budget, how we affect that and how fast we can do it. [2:17:25] Well, sir, I'll just highlight my gratitude and appreciation for the entirety of the SOCOM joint [2:17:32] force at Echelon and the work that they do. You know, I'll leave the budget numbers and the [2:17:38] increased percentages to my civilian leadership, but echo to your point, the exponential return on [2:17:46] whatever investment they give. These are incredible entrepreneurial leaders at every Echelon who do, [2:17:53] who do great, great things as the lights dim, as I say that. So hopefully they'll see that as a nod [2:18:00] towards them. But I'll defer on the budget allocation numbers to the, to the comptroller, sir. [2:18:05] Well, first of all, I, I want to second completely your opening remarks. Uh, and that's certainly our [2:18:12] view, uh, as well on, on the SOCOM budget. I'm going to, I'm going to say, I think, uh, we need to [2:18:17] increase what's in this budget. And I've heard from multiple people about that. In fact, that if there [2:18:22] is a supplemental, I actually, I should just wrote a note to Jay about it. I think SOCOM, given the [2:18:27] op tempo, given the, given their direct, uh, participation in so many of these historic, historic [2:18:32] aspects, SOCOM should be part of that supplemental as well. Makes complete sense. Who's been shouldering [2:18:38] a huge part of the burden? Special Operations Command. So whether it's a supplemental or this [2:18:42] budget, I, I fully agree. And I think we need to invest more. Great. And I'd ask that particular care [2:18:49] be given, uh, the era of, of, of beards and guns and kicking indoors as much fun as that was for all of [2:18:54] us. Um, it's coming to a close and we're, we're going to be going back to our roots as specialized, uh, [2:19:00] commandos, whether it's undersea Arctic airborne operations. And, uh, as we all became kind of [2:19:05] one joint soft force during G Watt, uh, quite frankly, that was an easier problem to resource [2:19:11] for, to budget for and acquire for. Uh, it's going to be a lot harder now when our operators go back [2:19:16] to their service corners and needs platform specific technologies and training, uh, submersibles [2:19:21] aircraft take years to acquire years to specify. It's not just buying more ARs and body armor and ammo [2:19:26] and sending them down range. So I think we have to think about the SOCOM budget a little different [2:19:29] than we have for the last 25 years and make sure we're programming in a way that it's, [2:19:34] it's sustained, um, and is protected. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Schmidt for, for that, um, [2:19:40] insightful exchange. Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. [2:19:46] Secretary Hegseth, safe to say that our weapons like SM3s, Tomahawks, Patriot missiles have capabilities [2:19:54] that are unmatched. That's why they cost a lot, take a long time to produce. Your budget requests [2:20:00] 31.8 billion dollars to expand production capacity for critical missile stockpiles. [2:20:07] Is that correct? 31.8? Uh, I'm looking at 53 billion for munitions acceleration over 14 critical [2:20:16] munitions of which the ones you listed are apart. So I believe more than that. Yes, sir. More than 20 [2:20:21] billion more. So we've been working together to grow the industrial base because we're all worried about [2:20:28] how our stockpiles would hold up in a conflict against China. Since the start of this war, [2:20:34] you've made it a point to highlight the number of strikes the U.S. military is carrying out, [2:20:40] citing that more than 13,000 targets had been struck as of April 8th. On March 2nd, you said, [2:20:48] and this is a quote, this was a massive, overwhelming attack across all domains of warfare, [2:20:53] striking more than a thousand targets in the first 24 hours. On March 10th, you said, [2:20:58] yet again, our most intense day of strikes inside of Iran. On April 6th, you said, and this is another [2:21:05] quote, the largest volume of strikes since day one of this operation. Your department has released video [2:21:13] after video of things blowing up. None of us doubt the strength of the U.S. military and their ability [2:21:20] to do hard things. I understand that better than anybody. The questions we should be asking and [2:21:26] answering are, what does this cost us and what does it achieve for the American people? Many of these [2:21:35] strikes use our best weapons and we're using a lot of them and a lot of interceptors. Open source [2:21:42] reporting has estimated that the military has used an outrageous number of patriots. I'm not even going to [2:21:47] say the numbers, but a lot of Patriots, a lot of Thad Rounds, Jasmine R, Tomahawks, very expensive, [2:21:54] exquisite. We can't make these munitions overnight and it's clear from your budget request that you know [2:22:01] that. Can you tell us how many years specifically is it going to take to replace these systems? Senator, [2:22:13] thank you for the question. I would defer to the comptroller on the amount because I think it's a lot higher [2:22:17] than 53. If you look at long-range fires, jasms, alrasms, tomahawks, we're looking at 238. Okay, a lot. [2:22:24] 40 billion for hypersonic. So I actually think it's closer to 330 billion in munitions. Okay, how many years to [2:22:30] replenish? That's the question. I think that's exactly the right question too, Senator, because [2:22:34] the time frame we were existing under was unacceptable. Okay, well tell me. And what this budget does, [2:22:39] I mean months and years. Fast. Years. I mean we're building new plants in real time. So just to replace what we have [2:22:45] expended. I said months. And then you said years. Both. It depends on the weapon system. But two to [2:22:51] three, four x of what we have today. So yes, we're dealing with the reality under the previous [2:22:55] administration of what they sent to Ukraine and what they allocated elsewhere. Okay, I got it. So we [2:22:59] fired years worth of munitions. And it is clear that we're, these are being expended to try to achieve [2:23:10] some objectives. That was the plan. But Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck. The Strait of Hormuz [2:23:19] is closed. The Iranian regime is in place. The nuclear material still in their hands. Americans [2:23:29] are being crushed by higher costs. And it's not clear to them at all what the goal of this war is. [2:23:38] So, I've got about a minute. And I want to go to another topic. I saw your hearing yesterday. And I'm [2:23:49] going to give you one more chance to address a question here. It's my understanding that the [2:23:57] definition of no quarter is that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees [2:24:08] will be executed. Is that your understanding of the definition? The only entity that would kill [2:24:17] detainees or target civilians is the Iranians. And they're the ones being crushed. It's the [2:24:20] Iranian military and their military capabilities. The question is, I disagree completely with your [2:24:26] articulation. No, do you understand the definition that I just read you? Because that's the definition [2:24:32] from your department's law of war manual. Is that your understanding? And I'm going to just get to the [2:24:38] point here. We fight to win and we follow the law, Senator. Okay, so your quote was, [2:24:44] we will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies. And yesterday you did not [2:24:51] clarify whether you stand by this statement. So, I'm going to give you another opportunity to clarify [2:24:58] if that is what you meant. Do you stand by that statement you made on March 13th? [2:25:05] We have untied the hands of our warfighters. We fight to win and we follow the law. Okay, [2:25:11] so you're not clarifying. So, you stand by that statement. So, you're the Secretary of Defense. [2:25:16] The things you say matter. And your response here, right now, makes it clear to the American people [2:25:24] exactly why you are not right for this job. It makes it clear to our enemies, Senator. [2:25:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator Sheehy has left the room, but it's been whispered to me that I [2:25:40] just referred to him in the last exchanges, Senator Schmidt. I don't know if he considered that a [2:25:46] compliment or an insult, but I would do correct that for the record. Senator Slotkin, I think you were [2:25:52] next. Thank you. Gentlemen, you're here to ask for 1.5 trillion dollars, 40% more than what we gave you [2:26:03] last year, a trillion dollars. And I agree with the chairman of this committee that the world has [2:26:10] never been more dangerous and complicated. And regardless of whether we disagree on the reasons [2:26:17] for getting into this war, I think we can all agree that we want our military to come out of it safely [2:26:23] and successfully and as soon as feasible. The military has taken, you all, the administration has taken [2:26:32] military action in 10 different places in the world in 15 months, more than any president in U.S. history. [2:26:40] I think President Trump has really become a foreign policy president. And many of those operations, [2:26:46] you know, were on the news for a couple of days, but then the American public didn't feel them. And [2:26:50] I think the difference with this war with Iran is that the American public is feeling it in their [2:26:56] pocketbooks. Gas in Michigan is $4.99 today. The cost of fertilizer, of airline tickets, things that are [2:27:03] real to people. Secretary Hegg said, the president said that you were most keen on this war. He said that [2:27:12] you were the most gung-ho about it. And I think despite us all wanting to come out of this successfully, [2:27:22] it is hard to miss that we are at the stalemate, that we don't control the Strait of Hormuz because [2:27:28] shipping is not getting through. And we can block what they're trying to get through, but nothing [2:27:34] is moving and it's costing the American public. And I think that's a fundamentally different moment [2:27:40] than the rest of the military action we've taken. Even in like Middle East 101 class, we used to talk [2:27:47] about and run war games on the Strait of Hormuz. It's a strategic geography that the Iranians have. [2:27:53] And I think it's just concerning to me that we, you know, we can try and tell the American people [2:28:00] that it's going great and we're killing it, but until the Strait of Hormuz is open, I don't think [2:28:05] we can credibly say that with any seriousness. I think the question I have for you though is future [2:28:12] looking and it's our 2026 elections. The president has been very clear. He said in the State of the [2:28:19] Union that essentially if his side doesn't win, then the election was rigged. He said that before [2:28:24] the 2020 election. He's asked for voter rolls for 29 different states. He just asked for Detroit's votes [2:28:33] or ballots. And we know that in 2020, he wrote an executive order that he didn't sign [2:28:39] that said to the U.S. military, to the Secretary of Defense, you should go and seize ballots and voting [2:28:48] machines. A few months ago, he said that he regretted that he ever, that he didn't sign that executive [2:28:54] order. So the U.S. military has never been deployed. You incorrectly said yesterday that they were [2:29:02] deployed during different elections. Governors deployed them under their authorities, but the federal [2:29:07] government has never put the uniformed military at our polls during World War II, right after 9-11. [2:29:16] We've never had to do that. So Secretary Hegseth, if the president, who regrets not signing that [2:29:22] executive order to the then SECDEF in 2020, asks you to seize ballots or voting machines in states during [2:29:30] the 2026 election, will you stand up for the Constitution and say no or will you salute and do his bidding? [2:29:40] Senator, I didn't get a chance to answer the front part of your question, which, you know, [2:29:44] there was a lot of deferred maintenance under the Biden administration that needed to be addressed [2:29:47] because the world was in chaos when President Trump was elected. Just address the election issue, [2:29:51] please. Well, again, that's the most important thing. It's what's happening. It's a yet another [2:29:56] gotcha hypothetical, which is your specialty. It's not that we had an executive order [2:30:01] that your predecessor had to hold. It's not a hypothetical. I refuse to accept. You give that [2:30:06] answer all the time. You and I have done this dance before. Get over it, okay? In 2020, he's the [2:30:12] president, your boss, the guy you're performing for right now, told the journalists this year that he [2:30:18] wished he signed that executive order to your predecessor. And your predecessor said publicly, [2:30:23] thank God we didn't actually go forward with it. What are you going to do? You're the guy [2:30:28] here in the seat. It's not hypothetical. Tell the American people, will you deploy [2:30:32] the uniformed military to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines? [2:30:38] Are you accusing me of performing? Because you're performing for cable news right now. [2:30:41] Dude, dude, just answer the question. [2:30:43] It's a hypothetical. By the way, in 2024, under the Biden administration, 15 states did deploy. [2:30:49] Under their governor's authority, when their governors asked for it. [2:30:52] What did Joe Biden say about that? That's fundamentally, I don't think anything, [2:30:55] because he needed them for cyber security and for COVID. Trump did it too, under Trump. [2:31:00] But it was not the federal decision. It was those governors of the states under their authorities, [2:31:05] okay? It's never been done in our history. Please stand up for the Constitution. Do not send [2:31:10] uniformed military to our polls. [2:31:12] Do you have a response to that portion of the question, Mr. Secretary? [2:31:18] I've never been ordered to do anything illegal, and I won't. That goes without saying. [2:31:23] Thank you for the answer. Senator Duckworth, you're now recognized. [2:31:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Despite his campaign promise of no new wars, [2:31:32] President Trump has been obsessed with using the military any chance he gets, [2:31:35] from deploying troops to American cities, to propping up Maduro's chosen number two in Venezuela, [2:31:41] to an endless war of boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea, and now in an illegal war with Iran, [2:31:46] where hundreds of thousands of our troops are in harm's way every day with no exit strategy in sight. [2:31:51] This administration hides bad policy behind the exceptional military operations [2:31:56] and the valor of our uniformed personnel. I've long said Iran is a malign actor, [2:32:01] but the responsible administration would have managed this short of conflict, [2:32:05] instead of starting a war of choice. There was no imminent threat to the United States or our troops. [2:32:10] The military was not the most effective tool to get Iran to capitulate, as we're already seeing [2:32:15] too clearly now. And using force has made Americans in the Middle East less safe, [2:32:20] or spiking costs for Americans here at home, all through the tune of 14 service members dead, [2:32:25] hundreds wounded, billions of taxpayer dollars, and untold costs to our military readiness. [2:32:29] This administration claims to be focused on the war fighter, but President Trump told us when he [2:32:34] announced a war from his luxury resort, that he expected service members to die. Now sadly, [2:32:40] it's clear how unserious Trump is about his role as the commander-in-chief. His war within Iran has [2:32:45] already reminded us how important it is to prevent a war, how serious it is to ask the military to wage [2:32:51] one under poor strategic direction, how destructive a wide-ranging war can be for Americans, for our [2:32:57] service members, and how difficult it is to actually end one once you start it. The incompetence and casual [2:33:04] disregard for our service members' professionalism and sacrifice is, in my opinion, a scandal. General [2:33:10] Cain, General Cain, can you tell us the status of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Navy, [2:33:17] the entity actively closing the strait? Senator, apologies, I was listening to you. I was just trying [2:33:25] to write it down. They're mostly destroyed. CENTCOM continues to watch them. Not the Iranian Navy? [2:33:34] No, no. The IRCG? Yes, ma'am. The smaller, I won't get into any classified materials, but the smaller [2:33:42] fast and, you know, smaller boats, Boston Whaler-sized boats, there's still some out there. Yes, ma'am. [2:33:48] So this administration and the Secretary of Defense has been boasting about sinking the ships of the [2:33:52] Iranian Navy, but let's call this what it is. It's misdirection. They want us to focus on the [2:33:57] impressive number of large Iranian ships underwater to distract from the fact that they had no plans [2:34:01] for the second Navy that Iran owns that has always been a hard problem to address by military force. [2:34:07] The IRCG Navy, not the Iranian Navy, has been Iran's tip of the spear at the Straits of Hormuz, [2:34:12] seizing vessels and threatening to target U.S. assets. Iran has long invested in this second [2:34:18] asymmetrical Navy, specifically to develop capabilities that would be difficult for conventional U.S. [2:34:23] military forces to target. Iran's advantage was well-known to anyone paying attention. [2:34:28] I have no doubt that competent planners in the Pentagon raise their concerns about a quagmire in [2:34:32] the strait to leadership. The question is why their leadership did not pay attention to this sound [2:34:36] advice. Hubris is not strategy, and in war it costs lives. Even if the strait reopens, this administration [2:34:43] has created a new, less safe world by initiating and then bungling this crisis and teaching Iran that [2:34:48] it can charge a million dollars a ship to transit the strait. It will take a long time for the global [2:34:54] economy to bounce back to normal trade flows. And Iran has learned, again, that they can charge a [2:34:58] million dollars per ship, creating a new funding line for their malicious activity against Americans [2:35:03] for years to come. And in the Indo-Pacific, I don't doubt that if the worst day comes, our military will [2:35:09] step up to challenge and defend Americans and our interests with military force. But will they be [2:35:13] asked to lay down their lives unnecessarily just because the White House was unready and incapable of [2:35:17] preventing a crisis boiling over into a war in the Indo-Pacific? General Kaine, do you agree that the military [2:35:22] would benefit from significant intra-agency planning by the Department of Defense on actions short of [2:35:28] war that can be taken if a crisis occurs? I appreciate that question, you highlighting the importance of [2:35:35] that. And we have really great relationships now on the joint staff with the interagency. I think our [2:35:43] relationship in particular, I'll just pick CIA, I think it's the best it's ever been. We're really [2:35:49] working hard to find the best of Title 10 capabilities, plus the best of Title 50 to ensure [2:35:55] that we deliver really entrepreneurial options for our national policymakers to do what you're talking [2:36:01] about, Senator. All right. But I am concerned because during the recent NDS hearing, I laid out the [2:36:07] very real ways that a crisis in just one of the dozens of flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific could be [2:36:11] devastating for our service members, Americans, and our American economy. But since then, [2:36:16] this administration has only further diminished DOD's ability to prepare for these crises. In fact, [2:36:21] many of the, as many as one-third of the assets in the Middle East originally meant to be in the [2:36:25] Indo-Pacific. This war of choice is draining our military resources. We need leaders who do everything [2:36:31] they can to ensure warfighters only fight when they have to, not because of one man's whims and the lack [2:36:35] of bravery among the yes-men he surrounds himself with. I thank you for your service, General, and I continue [2:36:42] to look forward to working with you. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. [2:36:47] Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Reed. Thank you, General, for your service. Before I begin my [2:36:55] questions for Secretary Hegsteth, I have one brief important question for General Kane. General, as you've [2:37:01] acknowledged at your confirmation hearing, service members who served at locations which another U.S. [2:37:06] government agency deems contaminated, like the Nevada Test and Training Range, should have the same [2:37:12] presumption of radiation exposure as DOE employees who served alongside them. But we also must ensure [2:37:19] that DOD provides the VA with the records proving that these individuals served there. So this is a [2:37:25] problem that DOD has the power to solve. I know we've discussed this. So, General Kane, will you commit to [2:37:32] ensuring parity for DOD personnel who served in locations that the U.S. government has already deemed [2:37:37] contaminated? Identifying those who served in such locations and providing documentation of that [2:37:43] service to the VA so that they can receive the veterans benefits that they have earned. You bet, [2:37:50] ma'am. And, you know, since our last time together on this, we've continued to chip away at removing or [2:37:56] figuring out how to get past that one particular blocking in that record so that that data flows [2:38:03] normally. And I'm committed to trying to solve that for those leaders and teammates who are out [2:38:09] there at that site. Thank you. We'll look forward to continue to work with you on that. So, Secretary [2:38:14] Hegsteth, I want to talk a little bit about AI because, of course, our service members deserve every [2:38:19] advantage we can give them. So, I just want you to help me understand this. In February, on the eve of [2:38:24] Operation Epic Fury, you publicly designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk. However, this [2:38:31] week it's been reported that the White House is now helping agencies get around this decision to [2:38:36] access Anthropics technology. So, the administration cannot credibly make both claims simultaneously. [2:38:45] So, before I ask you about the inconsistency, I just want you to reconfirm what it is you plan [2:38:50] to use this technology for. It's been publicly reported that the decision to label Anthropic [2:38:56] a national security risk was influenced by your personal and very public contract dispute [2:39:00] with Anthropic when the company said that its technology could not be used for fully autonomous [2:39:06] weapons targeting or mass surveillance of Americans. So, following up on your response to Senator [2:39:13] rounds earlier, can you confirm whether or not there will always be a human in the loop when AI is [2:39:20] used for lethal targeting decisions? Well, first of all, on Anthropic, they would not agree to our [2:39:27] terms of service. That would be like Boeing giving us airplanes and telling us who we can shoot at. [2:39:31] This is not just about Anthropic, though. This is about- [2:39:34] I just want to be clear. And also, Anthropic is run by an ideological lunatic who shouldn't have a- [2:39:39] But that's not my question. My question is AI, writ large, writ large. [2:39:44] We follow the law, Senator. Will you confirm? You said this to Senator [2:39:48] Rounds earlier. So, I'm just asking for you to- We follow the law, but we don't have to sign [2:39:52] a different terms of agreement with Anthropic. That's not- This is not the question. This is not [2:39:56] about Anthropic. This is just an example. I want you to confirm that whether or not there will always [2:40:03] be a human in the loop when AI is used in the kill chain for lethal targeting decisions. Will there [2:40:08] always be a human in a loop or will AI make the decision? You said this to- [2:40:12] We follow- We follow the law and humans make decisions. [2:40:16] So, you will confirm what you said to Senator Rounds that a human will always be in the loop [2:40:24] when AI is used. Which is why- [2:40:26] I'm just- [2:40:27] That's part of our terms of service anyway. [2:40:29] You know- [2:40:31] It's how we operate. [2:40:32] All I want to say is this. There is a DOD directive, 3000 point- [2:40:40] a 3000 point-09. Which mandates that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems be designed to [2:40:46] allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over use of force. [2:40:53] That is in the DOD directive. [2:40:55] That's why we follow the law, Senator. [2:40:57] So, the answer is yes, Mr. Secretary. [2:40:59] The answer is we follow the law. Absolutely. [2:41:02] I think this is more important than following the law. [2:41:04] I think that people want to know that AI isn't going to make lethal decisions and it is critically important- [2:41:10] AI is not making lethal decisions. [2:41:13] That's what we want to hear. We're going to follow on that one. [2:41:16] I have just a few seconds left, but you keep doubling down on this phrase, Mr. Secretary. [2:41:26] You compare journalists, you compare us, you compare so many to Pharisees. [2:41:32] It's a problematic and historically weaponized term that cast Jewish communities as hypocritical or morally corrupt. [2:41:40] You double down again and said it. [2:41:43] Words matter. [2:41:44] Words matter. [2:41:45] What you choose to say, how we choose to say it. [2:41:49] How do you justify using this language as Secretary of Defense? [2:41:52] Words matter. [2:41:53] It's a hurt, historically hurtful term. [2:41:56] Why do you continue to use it? [2:41:58] And what actions are you taking to prevent rhetoric like this from permeating throughout the department [2:42:03] that is going to target specific groups or individuals of people based on their religion? [2:42:12] Senator, I feel like it's a pretty accurate term for folks who don't see the plank in their own eye [2:42:16] and always want to see what's wrong with an operation as opposed to the historic success [2:42:20] of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. [2:42:23] So I stand by it. [2:42:24] You stand by calling people Pharisees. [2:42:27] Sir, I cannot stand for that. [2:42:32] That is wrong. [2:42:33] It is not respectful to people. [2:42:35] And I expect anyone who is in leadership in our country to be respectful [2:42:43] and use respectful terms and not be an anti-Semite. [2:42:50] Thank you, Senator Rosen. [2:42:52] The chair and the ranking member have no second round questions. [2:42:58] I'm told by Senator Kelly that he would like to ask a second question. [2:43:04] Yeah, Mr. Secretary. [2:43:06] So $1.5 trillion, $1.5 is a very round number. [2:43:13] You know, if you're putting together a budget, you'd come up with, [2:43:16] these are the problems we're trying to solve. [2:43:19] This is the capability we need. [2:43:22] These are the systems we have to buy. [2:43:25] And at the end of the day, it would spit out a number, and it's probably not $1.5 trillion. [2:43:30] So to me, it feels like that number was just kind of pulled out of thin air. [2:43:37] I took a look recently, and it seems that the defense budget of the rest of the world, [2:43:45] I'm talking China, Russia, India, every Asian country, every European country, [2:43:51] South America, everybody else is in the neighborhood. [2:43:54] It looked like 1.7 to 1.8. [2:43:58] So your request is approaching all defense spending from everybody else with the exception of us. [2:44:05] That is a huge amount of money. [2:44:08] You know, when I got here, you know, just five years ago, it was almost half of that. [2:44:16] Through budget reconciliation, you've received a bunch of money to buy things, [2:44:23] some of the weapons systems, you know, to resupply what we need. [2:44:27] I'm just trying to understand, you know, like, where is all this money going to go? [2:44:31] And if you've figured out ahead of time, what do you want to spend this on? [2:44:35] And by the way, there are systems the president wants. [2:44:40] You know, he saw last summer how effective Iron Dome and David Sling were. [2:44:48] And because of that, the president decided we're going to build our own version. [2:44:53] We're going to call it Golden Dome because the president likes the color gold. [2:44:58] We've seen that. [2:45:00] See it in the Oval Office. [2:45:01] We're going to call it Golden Dome and it might cost somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion dollars. [2:45:06] I've heard those estimates. [2:45:08] By the way, on that problem, I know a little bit about intercepting stuff in space. [2:45:14] It's really hard and the physics on this favors the offense. [2:45:18] There's some things in that program that I think is really important that we do [2:45:23] and try to figure it out. [2:45:25] But space-based interceptors to hit multiple targets. [2:45:29] And by the way, it's important how you size the system. [2:45:33] So I'm trying to understand, Mr. Secretary, what kind of detail did you guys, [2:45:39] did you work out like a detailed plan? [2:45:41] And at the end of the day, it came out, oh, it just happens to come out to be 1.5 trillion dollars. [2:45:49] Senator, the exact amount is actually 1.535 trillion dollars. [2:45:53] And it was a product of a highly rigorous process throughout our department, [2:45:57] from COCOM commanders to the services with our comptroller, [2:46:00] with our deputy secretary, with the chairman and myself, [2:46:03] to ensure the budget reflects the realities of the world we live in [2:46:05] and the capabilities we're going to need. [2:46:07] And that's why there's 65 billion for shipbuilding, 120 billion for the defense industrial base, [2:46:12] 331 billion for munitions, 44 billion for quality of life, 71 billion on our nuclear dib. [2:46:20] You name it, we're investing in it. [2:46:21] And the biggest reason for it is the underinvestment of the Biden administration. [2:46:25] I mean, what they spent on defense, the continuing resolutions and others, [2:46:29] undercut the buildup that President Trump had created. [2:46:32] So, yes, we're doing a lot of deferred maintenance here around the world and in our department. [2:46:37] And this budget reflects it. [2:46:38] And it's a commitment, a generational commitment to the security of the American people. [2:46:42] And if the rest of the world won't spend on their defense, that's their fault. [2:46:45] The American Department of War will invest properly to defend the American people. [2:46:50] And that's what this budget stands for. [2:46:51] I've always been supportive of defense spending in my entire time here. [2:46:56] And after 25 years in the Navy, I want to make sure our folks have what they need. [2:47:01] I think you should go back and take a look and see if there are places where we are making [2:47:07] investments that we actually don't need. [2:47:09] There are some systems out there. [2:47:10] I mean, we're constantly looking and trying to balance. [2:47:14] Do we want, you know, F-47, which I've been supportive of? [2:47:18] B-21, also supportive. [2:47:21] And then we want to make all these other investments in really inexpensive, low-cost munitions, [2:47:30] because we suddenly realize that the expensive stuff, even through B-21, we can't really maybe [2:47:36] not get close enough. [2:47:37] But the whole idea behind B-21 and F-47 is we can penetrate further into the A2-AD bubble. [2:47:43] So there's some conflict there. [2:47:45] So I'm just encouraging you to go back and see, you know, if there are some systems where we can [2:47:52] bring that number, the overall number down. [2:47:55] Because as I look at what the department is trying to field, you know, some of this stuff, [2:48:01] in my judgment, and, you know, I know others might have another opinion, some of this stuff, [2:48:07] we either don't need or it's not going to work. [2:48:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:48:11] Mr. Kelly, your time has expired. [2:48:12] Let me just say, you have a great deal of expertise in the area of space. [2:48:16] And we do look forward to your contribution as we mark up further legislation. [2:48:24] Senator Blumenthal, I understand you have a follow-up question. [2:48:28] Yes, first of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your support for the [2:48:36] Major Richard Starr Act, which I think is tremendously significant. [2:48:41] I'm committed to getting it done as soon as possible, at least before Veterans Day. [2:48:48] And I look forward to your help in accomplishing that goal. [2:48:52] But I want to thank you for your support. [2:48:54] I'm sure the Veterans of America are grateful for the prospective victory there. [2:49:02] I've talked to many of the combatant commanders about lessons learned from Ukraine. [2:49:11] And I think that there is unanimity on the point that there is a lot to be learned, [2:49:21] not only about what the Russians are doing, but what other adversaries could do as well. [2:49:27] General Cain, Chairman Cain, would you agree that there are lessons to be learned from Ukraine? [2:49:33] You bet. [2:49:36] You bet, Senator. [2:49:37] And there's lessons learned from everywhere. [2:49:39] And that's really the culture of our joint force right now is to make sure that across [2:49:43] the globe, any time we're in contact with the enemy, we're going back and determining [2:49:48] what we can learn from there. [2:49:49] But, you know, a big one, if you'll allow me, a big one is, you know, mass and simultaneity, [2:49:58] which is something the secretary's taking a strong role in making sure that we're doing [2:50:03] that through drone evaluations and things like that moving forward. [2:50:07] Following up on a question that I asked earlier in my last question, the president said yesterday [2:50:16] that his view is, after his conversation with Vladimir Putin, that Ukraine has been, quote, [2:50:23] militarily defeated. [2:50:26] In your professional judgment, has Ukraine been militarily defeated? [2:50:31] Sir, I haven't seen the president's quote, but, you know, I'll go back to something I started with, [2:50:38] and that's the importance of me maintaining trust with a variety of people. [2:50:45] And, you know, a president will make a wide range of comments and considerations as the commander-in-chief. [2:50:53] You don't have to go too much farther, I understand the point that you're making. [2:50:56] Thank you, I appreciate it, Senator. [2:50:59] In my view, Ukraine has not only not been militarily defeated, but the point that I was trying to make [2:51:05] in the last exchange with the secretary, there's a false narrative based on my last visit to Ukraine, [2:51:15] which was my ninth, my conversation not only with President Zelensky, but with our own military [2:51:23] on the ground, as well as our intelligence community. [2:51:27] In fact, Ukraine arguably is winning. [2:51:31] There is this false narrative. [2:51:32] Russia's winning. [2:51:33] Putin wants that false narrative to be our official narrative. [2:51:37] I'm not putting words in your mouth, and you don't have to respond. [2:51:40] I understand your reasons for not responding, but the American people should know that the president [2:51:46] of the United States is undermining our security because Ukraine is holding the line against Vladimir [2:51:54] Putin who will keep going against Moldova, which I also visited on my last trip, against our NATO allies. [2:52:04] And we still have an obligation under Article 5 to come to their defense just as they did after 9-11, [2:52:14] as King Charles so eloquently reminded us. [2:52:18] And my view is, and this observation is hardly novel, that China is watching what we're doing in Ukraine. [2:52:26] Would you agree? [2:52:29] Sir, I'd agree that China's watching everywhere and carefully thinking about what their force posture [2:52:36] and approach will be. [2:52:38] And I think they're learning a variety of things to include the tenacity and grit of the joint force [2:52:45] around the things that we've been ordered to do over the last year. [2:52:48] But if they see weakness in our response to Russia and Ukraine, that will affect the deterrence of [2:52:58] their possibly moving against one of our allies or partners in the Far East. [2:53:06] Let me finally ask Mr. Hurst, your estimate of $25 billion, would you share with us what that estimate [2:53:15] is based on? [2:53:16] Yeah, we can work to get you a product, the details if you'd like. [2:53:21] And finally, Mr. Secretary, is there going to be a report on the bombing of the school in the first day [2:53:30] or so of the war? [2:53:32] I know you were asked about it yesterday. [2:53:34] I'm wondering whether you have a more detailed response that you can share with us. [2:53:39] As I've said, that's under investigation of 15-6. [2:53:43] A general officer from outside the chain of command has been reviewing it, and it's still within the [2:53:48] parameters of the investigation. [2:53:49] Will there be a preliminary report in the next few weeks, or do you have a time estimate? [2:53:57] I don't have a time estimate for you, but it will be, it's right now within the [2:54:02] parameters of the length of time that normally these investigations take. [2:54:05] I'm asking because in your final response to Senator Gillibrand, you said that great care is [2:54:14] taken to avoid civilian casualties, and it would be profoundly significant if that report were made [2:54:20] available in a timely way to show, in fact, the commitment to avoiding civilian casualties, [2:54:27] and learning lessons from the mistake made there. [2:54:31] Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. [2:54:33] This concludes today's hearing. [2:54:34] I'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony. [2:54:37] For the information of members, questions for the record would be due to the committee [2:54:41] within two business days of the conclusion of the hearing. [2:54:44] We are adjourned.