[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 119-33]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET REQUEST
__________
HEARING HELD
JUNE 12, 2025
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-330 WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Nineteenth Congress
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Vice JOHN GARAMENDI, California
Chair DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
SAM GRAVES, Missouri SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York RO KHANNA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
DON BACON, Nebraska JASON CROW, Colorado
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
RONNY JACKSON, Texas JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
PAT FALLON, Texas SARA JACOBS, California
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NANCY MACE, South Carolina PATRICK RYAN, New York
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO,
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia Pennsylvania
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
CORY MILLS, Florida DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia GILBERT RAY CISNEROS JR.,
LANCE GOODEN, Texas California
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin MAGGIE GOODLANDER, New Hampshire
JOHN J. McGUIRE III, Virginia SARAH ELFRETH, Maryland
PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina GEORGE WHITESIDES, California
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana DEREK TRAN, California
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
JEFF CRANK, Colorado WESLEY BELL, Missouri
ABRAHAM J. HAMADEH, Arizona
Chris Vieson, Staff Director
Will Metzger, Professional Staff Member
Katy Quinn, Professional Staff Member
Reed Kessler, Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 3
WITNESSES
Hegseth, Pete, Secretary of Defense.............................. 8
Caine, Gen John D., USAF, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff........ 11
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Hegseth, Pete................................................ 111
Caine, Gen John D............................................ 130
Documents Submitted for the Record:
CBS News Article submitted by Mr. Vindman entitled ``GOP
congressman confirms Hegseth ordered pause in cyber
operations against Russia, despite Pentagon denial''....... 149
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Tran..................................................... 159
Mr. Messmer.................................................. 159
Mr. Crank.................................................... 159
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Wittman.................................................. 163
Mr. Norcross................................................. 163
Mr. Scott.................................................... 164
Ms. Stefanik................................................. 167
Dr. DesJarlais............................................... 170
Mr. Bacon.................................................... 170
Ms. Mace..................................................... 171
Mr. Finstad.................................................. 172
Mr. Davis.................................................... 172
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET REQUEST
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, June 12, 2025.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers [Chairman
of the Committee] presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ALABAMA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Without
objection, the chair reserves the right to declare the
committee in recess at any point.
Before we begin, I would like to remind those in the
audience that this hearing is open to the public, but actions
that disrupt or distract from the proceedings will not be
tolerated. The chair reserves the right to remove disruptive
persons from the hearing. U.S. Capitol Police are on hand to
assist with that task, and I thank them for their service.
I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their
service to our great nation. We are here today to hear from the
Department of Defense about its fiscal year 2026 budget
request. Unfortunately, we still have not received the fiscal
year 2026 budget.
This historic delay by the Office of Management and Budget
in releasing this information is absolutely unacceptable. It is
impacting our ability to move forward with the NDAA [National
Defense Authorization Act], the next big step in enacting the
President's peace through strength agenda.
That is a problem, because threats to our nation have never
been more urgent or complex. Adversaries like China, Russia,
North Korea, Iran continue to expand their military power. They
are no longer acting alone. These countries are strategically
building alliances and supporting each other with drones,
munitions, satellite technology, and energy supplies. And we
are seeing that acutely in Ukraine.
Make no mistake, a Russian victory in Ukraine would be a
victory for China, North Korea, and Iran. We cannot let that
happen. Russia must be stopped. Russia is not our friend.
While our adversaries collaborate on the development and
deployment of innovative new capabilities, we are facing
challenges. Our defense industrial base has atrophied
significantly, making it harder for us to sustain prolonged
conflicts. That is why now, more than ever, it is critical that
we make a significant investment in our national security.
This investment is at the heart of achieving the
President's, President Trump's, peace through strength agenda.
We look forward to steps toward enacting that agenda with our
reconciliation legislation. Together with the President and our
Senate colleagues, we have developed a historic investment of
$150 billion plus-up that will go a long way toward modernizing
our military, rebuilding our industrial base, and restoring
American deterrents.
While this is a great first step, it will have limited
impact without sustained investment in the following years. To
truly achieve the President's peace through strength agenda, we
need to grow the defense spending to at least 4 percent of GDP
[Gross Domestic Product]. But we need to be smart about how we
invest these dollars.
That begins with identifying and cutting inefficient and
unnecessary DOD [Department of Defense] spending. The Secretary
has taken the lead on that, and we appreciate his work. But
spending wisely also means fixing a broken acquisitions system
that is needlessly driving up costs and delaying delivery of
critical capabilities to our warfighters.
The current system is simply not meeting our needs or the
warfighters'. It is not taking advantage of American's
innovative private section, and it is not the most efficient
use of taxpayer dollars.
The bipartisan SPEED Act that the ranking member and I
introduced this week will fundamentally reform defense
acquisition. It streamlines the process and significantly
reduces the time it takes to fill new military capabilities. I
know the Secretary is determined to fix the broken system, and
I look forward to partnering with him to enact real,
meaningful, game-changing reform.
I also look forward to understanding from the Secretary
what the administration's plans are for a global force posture.
Maintaining a forward presence of U.S. troops in strategic
areas across the globe is essentially to ensuring peace through
strength.
The current level of American forces stationed in Eastern
Europe are a crucial bulwark against further Russian aggression
and another devastating war in Europe. Our forces in South
Korea protect our ally, but also serve as a critical strike
force if North Korea attempts a launch on our homeland.
U.S. servicemembers in CENTCOM [United States Central
Command] and AFRICOM [United States Africa Command] are
fighting daily to defeat the terrorist threat against America
and Israel while maintaining maximum pressure on Iran. And our
forces in Japan, the Philippines, and throughout the Pacific
are keeping China's hegemonic desires in check and preserving
trade routes critical to our economy.
Together, this collaborative posture forms the backbone of
American deterrence. Secretary Hegseth is right when he says
America first does not mean American alone. I appreciate the
time you recently spent in the Pacific and Europe reinforcing
our alliances and partnerships, but also pressing our allies to
increase their defense spending.
It is long past due for our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty
Organization] allies and those around the globe to shoulder a
greater share of the collective defense. But we must understand
it will take some time for them to grow their capacity. In the
interim, we should not make large scale posture changes that
undermine our deterrents.
I look forward to working with the administration on
building the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need
to deter our adversaries. And with that I yield to my friend
the ranking member for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. And
I will start with three substantial notes of agreement.
One, we do face an incredibly complex threat environment.
We face Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, various other
terrorist organizations working together against American
interests in a way we have never seen before, with an economy
like China's that we have never seen before. It is going to be
very difficult to meet those challenges.
Second, innovation is incredibly important and crucial to
that. The changes in warfare are happening at a more rapid pace
than I think we have ever seen before. We have to innovate more
quickly, and I appreciate your leadership on getting after
acquisition reform.
Because what is absolutely true is the Pentagon is not
ready for this right now. And certainly that predates this
Secretary of Defense and this administration. It is a problem
that we need to get after to do the acquisition reform so that
we can get the materials that we need quickly, innovate more
quickly. We have got a lot of good ideas on this committee,
look forward to working with the administration on trying to
get that done.
Second, the budget is a major problem. It is simply
unacceptable that we are this late in the year and we do not
have a budget. That is the basics of how you plan to do all of
that. And this is but the culmination of a series of problems.
We had a CR [continuing resolution] for fiscal year 2025,
largely at the insistence of President Trump. And then by the
time we did pass a budget, it was just a CR. And now we are on
a path again towards a CR in fiscal year 2026.
There is no budget transparency and no plan that we can
see. And what we have seen happening at the Pentagon in the
interim is also very disturbing and without explanation. There
has been talk about 8 percent cuts across the board. Nobody on
this committee knows what that means.
Some of it is happening. It has not been made transparent
to us. Is it going to make us better? Is it part of a larger
strategy? Nobody really knows.
We also heard the plan to cut 20 percent of the flag
officers. Again, no strategy, no plan. This is why the budget
is so important. The budget can inform all of this. Maybe that
is a good idea, but we have no idea because there is no
transparency and no follow through.
Also, quite disturbingly, within Department of Defense and
also across the Federal Government, the one and only criteria
that is consistent is loyalty to Trump as opposed to loyalty to
the law or loyalty to the Constitution. This started with one
of the more shameful events in DOD history, and that is when we
pulled security details from former members of the Pentagon who
face security threats.
Why were those security details pulled? They weren't pulled
because anything told us that they were safe. Chairman Milley
is one great example. He was on the threat list because he
carried out an order from President Trump, and rightfully so,
to kill Soleimani in the Middle East.
He is now on Iran's hit list, and we pulled his security
detail, leaving him and his family vulnerable. Why? Because he
had the audacity to say something critical of President Trump.
I mean, that is just embarrassing. If you told me 10 years
ago on this committee that something like that would have
happened, I wouldn't have believed you. And now we have a
dictate from the White House saying that all Federal employees
will be tested for whether or not they are supportive of
President Trump.
The New York Times had a great headline on that, saying why
does an air traffic controller have to be a Trump supporter?
Well, I would ask why does an acquisition professional have to
be a Trump supporter. If you are focused on loyalty, you are
not focused on competency, you are not focused on ability, and
it is the wrong way to go.
Even within the budget, we see the influence of the
President over the influence of common sense. We have all heard
about the Golden Dome.
When I first heard about the Golden Dome, it was
interesting because it reminded me of a joke I first told about
12 years ago when we were dealing with a large number of
Pentagon programs that were more ambitious than practical,
future combat systems, the expeditionary fighting vehicle.
You know, basically they had, well, this is what we want.
And we had this joke that well, all I want is sharks with
fricking laser beams attached to them. That became the Armed
Services thing. Actually, I have a little plastic shark that my
staff made for me with a laser beam attached to it.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good is a problem. And
nobody on this committee knows what Golden Dome is. The other
thing that is really important about this, contained within
that is one of the most important national security threats
that we face: missile defense and counter-drone. We have a lot
of programs that people are working on in that direction.
What happens to those programs when you take $25 billion
towards a project that no one can explain and no one can
understand? And again, we don't have a budget, so we are taking
it on faith. That is deeply troubling.
Equally troubling is the Air Force One airplane that we got
from Qatar. There is all kinds of ethics problems with that,
which I will leave aside for the moment. But that airplane is
going to have to be fitted to be Air Force One.
It is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Again,
no transparency. We are not told what that is going to cost and
where it is going to go. But because President Trump wanted it,
he gets it, hundreds of millions of dollars goes out the
window. We don't have the capacity to sort of say, sorry, sir,
that is not a good idea.
And the last one on this list is one that frankly I had a
hard time believing when I first heard it. Apparently the
President has decided that the F-35 would be a better plane if
it had two engines.
And to a certain degree, it is hard to argue with. I guess
two engines is better than one, except that you can't just add
a second engine to the F-35. This is a program that has taken
us over 25 years, and we are, knock on wood, finally to the
point where we are going to have the plane.
Now, I would have thought this would have been dismissed,
but I hear defense contractors, Pentagon, they are looking at
this idea. It is okay to tell the boss that he is wrong. We all
have dumb ideas. It is good to have people around us who have
the capability and the competency to say no, we are not going
to do that. We are walking down the wrong direction.
In terms of the global strategy, I substantially agree with
the chairman, except that I fear that, you know, America first
does mean America alone. We have seen that in a number of
different issues. Certainly, placing tariffs on absolutely
every country in the world, irrespective of our relationships-
well, sorry, except for Russia, didn't place tariffs on Russia-
that alienates people.
Cutting off foreign aid programs, which I realize is not
the purview of the Department of Defense, but I will remind you
of something that Secretary Gates said before this committee.
You know, if you are going to cut off the State Department, you
better give me more ammunition. The two things are related.
We stopped programs that were feeding hungry children in
Africa. Literally took food out of the mouths of hungry
children. Why? Apparently because there were a couple of USAID
[U.S. Agency for International Development] programs that
supported LGBTQ [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and
Queer] programs.
Now, why we didn't just cut those instead of cutting the
ones that were feeding hungry children in Africa, I don't know.
But that really sends the wrong message to the rest of the
world.
And the last one, and once we get to the Q&As [questions
and answers], I would be curious to hear what the Secretary has
to say about this, threatening to use military force to invade
Greenland and Panama. I don't believe the President has
actually threatened military force against Canada just yet, he
has just threatened to annex it.
So Denmark, Canada, Panama, three peaceful nations that we
are allies with, or were anyway. The message that sends to the
rest of the world is one that the U.S. is purely in it for
itself and does not care about the rest of the world.
And this has implications for trying to stop China. We are
in a global competition with China. We have built up excellent
partnerships across Asia over the course of the last 6 or 7
years, in Australia, in Japan, in India, and the Philippines.
Largely, that was because China exercised economic
coercion. They went ballistic on Australia for daring to
suggest that China could be more transparent about COVID. And
Australia recalculated. Now we are the ones using economic
coercion on our partners and allies and pushing them away.
And this filters back over to Ukraine, where I am in
violent agreement with the chairman about how important Ukraine
is to our national security interests. And I also agree with
the Secretary. We need to get peace in Ukraine. The longer that
war continues, the more dangerous it is for everybody.
But the administration made a crucial mistake at the start
by showing weakness to Vladimir Putin and fundamentally
misunderstood the war. Actually put out quotes that bought into
the notion that Ukraine was somehow responsible for the war,
even though Russia was the one who invaded. And Putin saw that
signal, he saw that big green light and knew if he just waited
a little while, we would abandon our allies, we would abandon
our partners, and we abandon Ukraine.
The President promised to end the war Ukraine on day one.
Now, admittedly that was a moronic thing to say and he wasn't
ever going to do it. But well over 100 days in, the war is
going stronger than ever. Putin is attacking more aggressively
than he ever has because President Trump sent him the message:
we are walking away, it is all yours.
We need to change that message. Ukraine can defend itself
and we can get to peace. But not if we don't make it clear that
we are going to keep the 53-nation alliance together, and that
we are actually going to defend Ukraine going forward.
The other part of this that is deeply disturbing is
apparently if policy isn't going well, the solution to it is to
just act like it is. In the Middle East, and you hear the
President, you know, peace through strength is back, everything
is fine, we are all doing well.
But just like Ukraine, when the President took office,
there was a cease fire in Gaza. Now that war is going stronger
than ever. The humanitarian crisis is growing. Israel is
continuing to attack in Lebanon and Syria. Yemen is still a
problem.
Yes, for the moment they have stopped attacking U.S. ships.
But President Biden went through that as well. Attacked Yemen
from time to time, they stood down, and they stood back up. And
now we are dangerously close to that conflict spreading to
Iran.
Do not misunderstand me. I do not blame President Trump for
that, all right. But to stand up and say it is all solved
because I am President and to not be engaged and figure out how
to solve it, just to imagine that you can create the factual
world that you want just with your words is an incredibly,
incredibly dangerous thing.
The last issue that I want to talk about is the issue
around DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion], because I am
deeply disturbed about what the Pentagon is doing in this
direction. But keep in mind I say that as someone--I didn't
love the excesses of the DEI programs they put in place. I live
with them out in the Seattle King Country area. I think there
were a lot of mistakes behind that.
But instead of addressing that in a sensible way, we have
decided to go at it with a right-wing cultural war. With a sort
of right-wing cultural revolution that, frankly, would make
Chairman Mao proud. We are banning books, we are pulling images
down off the website, leading to some just sort of ridiculous
things.
There was of course the instance when all reference to the
Enola Gay disappeared for a few days. Now, that is kind of
funny, because in that context, gay means something different.
But why do we care if the world "gay" that means
"homosexual" is printed somewhere? Why is that threatening to
us? Why are we spending time on that instead of, I don't know,
giving us a budget? That might have been more productive.
And then we are pulling books off the shelves, which led to
one really amusing outcome, where someone said in one
particular, you know, library within the Pentagon you could not
find a copy of Jackie Robinson's biography, that had been
pulled. But you could find two copies of Mein Kampf.
So it is interesting, I guess, well, got to have two
because if one is checked out, somebody needs something to do.
Why are we doing that?
And now we have got the changes to the names, and this--
changing the names of ships, going back to the original names
of the Confederacy for all of our military bases.
A lot of different things can be said about this, but I
just want to close by drawing one particular contrast, and that
is about Medgar Evers, who is actually a personal hero of mine.
I read his wife's book when I was a freshman in college and it
inspired me. My son's middle name is Evers.
We are talking about pulling Medgar Evers' name off of a
ship. Now, this is a man who served in the military. But also,
he stood up to Jim Crow, White supremacy, and racism in the
South. And I know we are focused on the warrior ethos. If you
don't think that it took a warrior ethos to do that in
Mississippi in the 1950s and the 1960s, then you are just not
paying attention. Why are we having this conversation?
And Mr. Secretary, your summary of the problem, where you
said that basically the problem with DEI is there just aren't
enough trannies from Brooklyn or lesbians from San Francisco
who want to join the 82nd Airborne. Not only do the trannies
and lesbians not join, but those very same ads turn off the
young, patriotic, Christian men who have traditionally filled
our ranks.
We can go after the extremes of DEI without denigrating and
insulting people. And by the way, leaving out the Jews,
apparently, while you are putting that group in there. Because
the thing is, the insulting, you know, belittling language
aside, you are right, there aren't enough trannies in Brooklyn
or lesbians in San Francisco to fill the military.
There also aren't enough, what is the word here, young
patriotic Christian men who remind us of John Wayne to fill the
military either. We are a diverse nation. We need to be
inclusive. And we need to not actively insult people who don't
happen to fit our preconceived notion of what a member of the
military should look like.
So we are at a situation now where the military is
denigrating Medgar Evers, who died standing up for the values
that I think are central to our country. One of the things I
love about the military is service above self. I mean, it is
such an important message that everyone who serves there says
that. No one I can think of personifies that more than Medgar
Evers.
Instead, we are going to go back to renaming the bases
after the Confederates. Now, I know, apparently you spent a lot
of time finding other names that applied to people who actually
did serve this country honorably.
But President Trump just, was it yesterday, 2 days ago now
down at Fort Bragg when he blatantly politicized the United
States military, sort of as they like to say, said the quiet
part out loud. That those bases are being renamed for the
Confederates.
So we honor White supremacist, slave-owning
insurrectionists who lost, by the way, they are losers, instead
of Medgar Evers. Can we please just stop and get back to the
business of treating everybody equally and with respect? You
know, a fear of a left-wing cultural revolution is not solved
by launching a right-wing cultural revolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the ranking member. And now I would
like to introduce our witnesses, all before us for the first
time.
General Caine, have you been before the committee before?
General Caine. No, sir.
The Chairman. I didn't think so. Well, welcome, glad to
have you.
First we have the Honorable Pete Hegseth, Secretary of
Defense. We have General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs. And accompanying our witnesses is Mrs. Bryn MacDonnell,
Acting DOD Comptroller, who is here to assist and answer our
questions. Welcome.
First, we will start with you, Mr. Secretary, you are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Secretary Hegseth. Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify in full support of President Trump's
proposed fiscal year 2026 budget for the Department of Defense.
I am honored to testify today alongside General Dan Caine,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Bryn MacDonnell, who
is performing the duties of DOD's Comptroller and Chief
Financial Officer.
We are very proud to represent and serve our warriors and
their families. And today, as they do every day, they are
keeping America safe. They are defending our homeland, they are
standing up to communist China, they are working hand in glove
with our allies and partners. They are achieving peace through
strength.
I would like to start today by thanking this committee and
Congress for your bipartisan leadership to give our troops a
big pay raise in 2025. This included an additional 10.5 percent
raise for our junior enlisted servicemembers, E-1 to E-4. Thank
you also for supporting other initiatives that improve the
quality of life for our warriors and their families.
With a focus on our troops and their loved ones, we have
directed additional actions that will further improve their
quality of life. These include making historic investments in
this budget to improve living conditions in barracks and base
housing, reforming the PCS [Permanent Change of Station]
process to reduce the cost and stress of moves for military
families, and improving the quality of the care provided by our
defense healthcare system.
The best part of our job is meeting and interacting with
troops and their families. We hear their concerns. I know how
it feels to face these challenges. I have been there recently.
Each of these initiatives responds to feedback we have received
from the force. We will keep listening and keep looking for
ways to improve their quality of life.
Under President Trump's leadership this budget puts America
first and gives our warriors what they need. The $961 billion
budget request, more than one trillion in total for national
security, ends 4 years of chronic under-investment in our
military.
Now, as is customary with first-year administration budget
releases, additional time was necessary to implement this
President's initiatives. In the last 4 months, we have moved
quickly to reverse course after 4 years of weakness and
mismanagement.
In that 8 percent exercise, we found nearly 30 billion in
savings across the Department, which we reinvested. We killed
wasteful programs, targeted bureaucratic excess, and redirected
funding from Biden-era priorities to President Trump's
priorities.
Working with the Department of Homeland Security, we have
increased border security. We reduced China's malign influence
in our hemisphere. We defended freedom of navigation in the Red
Sea. However, we still have a lot of work ahead of us to
achieve peace through strength. A lot of deferred maintenance
to catch up on.
To carry out the President's mission, we have set three
priorities for the department: restore the warrior ethos,
rebuild our military, and reestablish deterrence.
First, we are restoring the warrior ethos. President Trump
charged me to focus relentlessly on warfighting, lethality,
meritocracy, standards, and readiness, and that is exactly what
we have done since day one. We are refocusing on what is truly
important, which is warfighting and our warriors, sweeping away
distractions and bureaucracy.
We are setting standards that are high, equal, and
unwavering. DEI is dead. We replaced it with a colorblind,
gender-neutral, merit-based approach. Our force is responding
incredibly to these changes.
Because of President Trump and his America first
priorities, recruitment and retention under this administration
are higher than they have been in decades. Historic numbers of
young Americans are putting on the uniform and raising their
right hand because they believe in the leadership they see.
This budget provides a historic level of funding for military
readiness, putting our warfighters and their needs first.
Second, we are rebuilding our military. 25 years ago, our
military was unchallenged. Yet we squandered that advantage as
China carried out an unprecedented military buildup. President
Trump, as he did in his first term, is correcting those
mistakes.
And we are doing this by, as was mentioned multiple times,
reviving our defense industrial base, reforming our
acquisitions process, and working with Congress to do so, and
rapidly fielding emerging technologies and new weapons so our
warfighters can meet the challenges of the evolving nature of
warfare.
This budget invests 25 billion in Golden Dome for America,
a down payment on President Trump's priority to defend our
homeland. It also commits more than $62 billion to modernize
and sustain our nuclear forces as we face rising nuclear
dangers. The budget allocates 3.5 billion for the F-47, the
world's first sixth generation air superiority fighter.
The budget will also revitalize our ship building
industrial base with 6 billion in funding in fiscal year 2026,
bringing it to 47 billion in total we request for ship building
after neglect from the previous administration.
The budget also significantly increases funds to buy next
generation technologies that we need now into the future,
autonomous systems, long-range drones, long-range fires, and
hypersonics. We will put these capabilities in the hands of our
military. These steps will help us remain the strongest and
most lethal fighting force in the world for generations to
come.
And third, we are reestablishing deterrence. When an
opponent sees our well-equipped and tough-as-nails warriors,
they will decide that today is not the day to test U.S.
resolve. Credible deterrence starts at home. It starts with
securing our borders. We will achieve 100 percent operational
control of our southern border, and to that end, illegal
crossings under the Trump administration have decreased 99.9
percent.
The Indo-Pacific is our priority theater and China is our
pacing threat. That is why I traveled to the Indo-Pacific twice
already to visit our forces and meet with allies and partners.
As we shift our focus to the Indo-Pacific, President Trump
looks to our allies and partners to be force multipliers
alongside the United States, and we are making progress on
those fronts.
We applaud allies who are stepping up, but others need to
do more, and they need to do it quickly. And at the NATO Heads
of State meeting later this month, we expect our NATO allies to
commit to 5 percent of GDP on defense and defense-related
investments, something that was almost inconceivable before
President Trump led the charge in his first administration and
continues in this one.
As the President has rightly pointed out, it is only fair
that our allies and partners do their part. We can't want their
security more than they do.
The Department of Defense is executing a common sense
agenda to achieve peace through strength. The threats we face
are serious. Our investments to counter them must also be. That
is what this budget does: it matches capabilities to threats.
While we long for peace, we prepare for war. And we must
overcome decades of neglect and decline.
We must fortify our position as the world's most lethal
fighting force, and that means acting fast as our opponents
are. This committee is our critical partner in everything we
do. We appreciate your leadership and oversight.
We look forward to accomplishing these goals, to achieving
peace through strength, to supporting our warriors, to
protecting our citizens and our taxpayers. Together with you,
may God grant us the wisdom to see what is right and the
courage to do it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Hegseth can be found
in the Appendix on page 111.]
The Chairman. I thank the Secretary.
General Caine, you are recognized for 5 minutes to
summarize your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL DAN CAINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF
STAFF, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
General Caine. Chair Rogers, thank you, sir. Ranking Member
Smith, other members of the committee, I am honored to join
this Secretary here today and Mrs. Bryn MacDonnell to appear
before you to testify on the President's fiscal year 2026
budget.
Today's hearing reflects our shared commitment to maximize
efficiency, accountability, and lethality and survivability
through the investments that you make in us, ensuring every
expenditure increases the survivability of the Joint Force and
providing our warfighters the advanced capabilities, cutting
edge technologies required to dominate our adversaries at
scale.
I have got deep gratitude for everyone in this room and
your commitment to helping us deliver the capability and
capacity of our Joint Force and the 2.8 million servicemembers,
civilians, and their families. To help us deliver the peace
through strength that the Secretary talked about is very
important, and I'm very thankful.
It is my responsibility as Chairman to understand the
global situation, integrate the Joint Force to confront and
manage risk worldwide, and ultimately advise our leaders. This
demands a comprehensive understanding across every domain:
land, sea, air, cyber, space, undersea, and all military
services in every region of the globe, and frankly, all time
horizons.
It also requires making hard, informed decisions, which we
advise on, in order to prioritize the finite taxpayer dollars
that we have to ensure the greatest impact and capability for
our joint warfighters across the globe. The President's budget
enables the Joint Force to defend our great nation from
adversaries seeking to do us harms.
We are relentless in our pursuit of innovation and
technology that allows us to deter and if need be win the wars
of the future at every opportunity, while ensuring that we
learn from the battlefields of the past and position ourselves
for the battlefields of the future.
This budget empowers the Joint Force to get after the
Secretary's three pillars as he just talked about: restoring
the warrior ethos, rebuilding our military, and reestablishing
our deterrence, and ensures our Joint Force is properly armed,
globally integrated, and ready, while doing our number one job
of protecting our homeland.
The President's budget investment on warfighters, as I
said, to win on the battlefields of the future, we have got to
be properly armed with the right capabilities, lethal, modern,
reliable, and survivable at scale. Victory requires people and
platforms that overmatch the enemy, systems that work together
in the harshest conditions, and technologies that give our
warfighters an advantage at the tactical edge.
The budget gives us necessary tools to reinvigorate our
national and defense industrial base. Our nation is full of
incredible entrepreneurial talent, and we need every bit of it
to support the increasing demands of the warfighters.
This budget also helps the Joint Force become more globally
integrated. I think of us as relationship entrepreneurs in the
Joint Force, not only working together in the military, but
working with our allies and partners, the interagency,
industry, and of course Congress before crisis begins and
before conflict comes upon us.
Finally, the President's budget reflects our mandate to
stay ready. Always be on the account, anticipating the next
fight and getting out in front of it so that we are best
prepared for our warfighters and their families.
The most important component of our Joint Force is our
people. This budget makes meaningful investments in our
servicemembers and their families, improving the quality of
life of our servicemembers, medical care, and things important
to them, like the moving process.
As I mentioned, our people are the most important part of
this, and it is an honor every day for me to serve alongside
some of the most extraordinary warriors, civilian teammates,
and families our nation has ever known. I assure this committee
that the force remains ready, capable to defend this nation,
but we have got some work to do.
With your continued support and prudent investment, we will
maintain our competitive edge, strengthen our advantage, and
ensure that our men and women in uniform are equipped with the
right capability.
I also remain thoughtful of those currently deployed right
now and their families, who stand the watch around the world,
quietly serving to do our nation's work so that we can be here
in this room right now. And I also hold a special remembrance
for our fallen and their families, who continue to show us
every day what real courage and tenacity looks like.
I thank the Congress and this committee for your support
and collaboration in our shared commitment to deliver peace
through strength. I look forward to your questions, and again,
I am honored to be here.
[The prepared statement of General Caine can be found in
the Appendix on page 130.]
The Chairman. I thank the witnesses, and I now recognize
myself for the first questions.
Secretary Hegseth, you know, you have talked with me about
this. We both know the President has a peace through strength
agenda and he is serious about it. And as I have talked to you
about this, we are at the lowest level of defense spending as a
nation in 80 years, and that has got to change.
And I think that you and the President have sent a strong
signal about wanting to get after that and change it with this
year's proposed spending that includes the reconciliation
package, which will put us over $1 trillion. It is a great
first step.
But as you and I both know, it is a 1-year, we are going to
have to seek continued funding, in my opinion, and growth in
that top line in the out years. Do you share that opinion?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, Mr. Chairman, the baseline of our
planning process for fiscal year 2026 was looking-working with
our partners in OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] and
the COCOMs [combatant commands] and elsewhere, identifying the
threats that exist, the priorities of the administration, and
what we need to spend to make sure we have those capabilities.
And that was a reorientation from the previous approach and
the previous administration. So that included exercises where
we looked at reductions, where we could reinvest those into
different priorities.
So when you look at the two bills in one budget that add up
to $961 billion and over a trillion, truly a historic
investment, 13 percent increase, that was our statement to the
President of what we think we need in order to spend and invest
in ways that are postured for now and into the future.
And what I would commit to you and to this committee is
that in fiscal year 2027, in 2028, in 2029, in this
administration, we will perform the same exercise, knowing that
threats, you know, we believe the policies of this
administration will lead to peace and more opportunities.
But as our adversaries continue to increase their
capabilities and we learn about what is happening on the
battlefield, that will lead to commensurate increases in ours.
So we anticipate through that review that there probably will
be increases, but I wouldn't put a number to it in the future.
The Chairman. Thank you. I just shared the President's
commitment that every NATO member nation should reach 5 percent
of its GDP, and that includes us, and I think we can do it by
the end of this President's term, and I am determined to help
him get there.
Secretary Hegseth, at the President's direction, you are
developing a plan on reforms of DOD acquisition. It just so
happens we are too. You may have heard of the SPEED Act. It is
a bipartisan, bicameral effort.
As you develop your plan, what problems have you identified
with acquisition reform that need attention?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, our A&S [Acquisition and
Sustainment], Under Secretary for A&S, was just confirmed, Mike
Duffy. He is doing a fantastic job. He is diving right into
this, to include the SPEED Act, which we are reviewing in real
time, that identified a lot of the same problems we have.
Streamlining processes, consolidating. We need competition
in actual new entrants into acquisitions. And a stale process,
it is too bureaucratic. There are too many gatekeepers. Too
many programs are gold-plated, which add to cost overruns and
they're late-to-need.
So throughout the entire process we have reached out to
industry and to innovators and to outside-the-box thinkers and
said what you would do. How would you look at this problem, to
include this committee. How would you attack this so that we
can get what we need in the hands of warfighters faster?
It is unacceptable in this real-time world we live in,
where you have got off-the-shelf capabilities and open
architecture opportunities. And you can do virtual design of
products and you don't have to build copy that we are not doing
it faster.
So everything necessary we want, and we are going as fast
as we can.
The Chairman. Great, thank you.
General Caine, as you know, there has been a lot of dialog
around here about selling off some of our spectrum. Can you
talk to us about the importance of preserving the spectrum
around lines that the DOD uses?
General Caine. You bet, sir. Spectrum is a critical part of
our warfighting enablers, and as the administration and the
Congress carefully consider the slices that we must preserve,
there are certain areas within that that, you know, my military
advice to the Secretary and others is to hang onto that.
I am grateful that the Deputy has been really leading this
effort with the Congress and to sort of measure risk. I
understand that economic security is also national security, so
the truth is always somewhere in the middle. But there are some
segments in the lower end that frankly I would strongly
recommend we preserve and protect for defense matters.
The Chairman. I raise that because I want you to know we
are going to be taking our cues from you, and if you are
against it, I am going to be against it.
With that I will yield back and recognize the ranking
member.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just another budget point, I made this point before the
committee before. The House just passed a budget that adds
nearly $3 trillion to an already out of control debt. So if we
do really want to spend money on defense or anywhere else, we
got to be willing to pay for it.
And this, you know, certainly go back through generations
of, you know, bipartisan problems with this. You can't have a
debt that size and keep coming back talking about how much
money you are going to spend, you know, whether it is defense
or whatever your priorities are.
And Mr. Secretary, you said the 99 percent down on border
crossings and the border is secure. At the same time, we are
going to take a billion dollars out of the MILCOn [military
construction] budget. Not building barracks, to send it for the
border. And there is another 4000 troops that we are planning
on sending down to the border.
Given that the border is secure, might you rethink that
spending?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, sir, we are securing it. It is
secure, but it has become--it is a manpower-intensive effort at
the--
Mr. Smith. Those are two different words. It is either
secure or insecure, and it sounded to me like you said it was
secure.
Secretary Hegseth. It is secure.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Secretary Hegseth. But what we are continuing to do is
expand that and fortify it through infrastructure, which is a
big part of the budget on the Department of Homeland Security
side as well.
So it is--that billion dollars you are talking about is
from the CR in fiscal year 2025. We fully fund that back and
more in fiscal year 2026, with a recognition that we were
dealing with the world as it existed when we came in. And the
previous administration said they needed new legislation to
secure the border. It turns out you just needed a new
President--
Mr. Smith. I would point out that you have not--
Secretary Hegseth.--and a President with a Defense
Department and DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] that
was willing to go to the border and actually secure it, which
is what--
Mr. Smith. You have not submitted a budget yet. So whether
or not you are putting that money back in remains to be seen.
You have definitely taken it out.
And I think the obsession there, and I don't disagree, the
border needed to be secure. But from a pure budget standpoint,
let's just not keep the political focus on that. Let's make
sure that we are funding some of the other priorities that we
have.
So when it comes back to acquisition reform, and the
chairman's point, it is our committee, certainly Congress is
part of the problem. We set up a lot of requirements. Defense
contractors are part of the problem. I am curious, how would
you get after reforming the culture at the Pentagon so that you
can move faster, number one? And number two, how would get
after the defense contractors that push the requirements
process? And specifically, what would you do about the
requirements process to try to speed things up?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, first of all, I think gold-plating
is a real problem, sir. I mean, across the Department--
Mr. Smith. Interesting you used the word gold in this
particular context, but yes, I agree with you actually.
Secretary Hegseth. We maybe could use a little bit more
silver plating on occasion. A recognition that the 99.9 percent
solution is oftentimes the enemy of the 85 percent solution
that delivers 2 years sooner.
And that is contractors and other companies wanting to do
right but trying to do too much and overpromise and then
they're under-delivering--
Mr. Smith. But not always want to do right. In some cases,
just--
Secretary Hegseth. Not always, not always.
Mr. Smith. --want to make money, but yes.
Secretary Hegseth. The change is also in acquisitions about
people. You need reformers in these positions. I am here to be
a disrupter of those processes. Our Deputy Secretary has
extensive business experience.
The types of people we are bringing in as Under Secretaries
have been disrupters and innovators in the private sector who
recognize that bureaucracy can be dysfunctional and needs to be
disrupted.
And so it is taking outside-the-box unique approaches. I
mean, virtual design is a big example. How many times are we
going to build something physically that takes a year to build
when you could AI and computing power, design it virtually,
identify the flaws, and move more quickly? Or create open
architecture--
Mr. Smith. Our committee stands ready to work with you.
Secretary Hegseth. I mean there is--
Mr. Smith. One final question.
Secretary Hegseth.--500 different things we can do, and we
are doing them.
Mr. Smith. Yeah. And I am sincerely concerned about this.
Is it the policy of the Department of Defense that we need to
be prepared to take Greenland and Panama by force if necessary?
Is this a policy that you have in the Department of Defense in
accordance with President's wishes?
Secretary Hegseth. I heard what you said about those two
countries and saying we need to worry about China. Well, we are
worried about China.
Mr. Smith. That wasn't my concern.
Secretary Hegseth. China's malign influence in Panama.
Mr. Smith. I was concerned--
Mr. Smith. --to take another sovereign country's territory.
Secretary Hegseth. We should pay attention that, right. So
Panama is a very key terrain that we have focused on, and we
have been willing to focus--
Mr. Smith. So we should take it--
Secretary Hegseth. --as is Greenland--
Mr. Smith.--we should take it by military force. They are
important. I am not going to argue with that.
Secretary Hegseth. The Arctic is incredibly important and
adversaries are trying to gain--
Mr. Smith. I am arguing with the use of our military to
take it by force.
Secretary Hegseth. Our job at the DOD is to have plans
and--
Mr. Smith. Do you have a plan for that?
Secretary Hegseth. Our job at the Defense Department is to
have plans for any particular contingency.
Mr. Smith. Including the contingency of basically invading
Denmark.
Secretary Hegseth. Any contingency you need, we have got
it. We have got a building full of planners, and we are
prepared to give recommendations whenever needed.
Mr. Smith. To just be clear, you have plans to take Panama
and Greenland by force if necessary.
Secretary Hegseth. I think the American people would want
the Pentagon to have plans for any particular contingency.
Mr. Smith. Not for that.
Secretary Hegseth. And thankfully, we are in the planning
business.
Mr. Smith. Speaking on behalf of the American people, I
don't think the American people voted for President Trump
because they were hoping we would invade Greenland. I am going
to go out on a limb on that one.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Wilson, is recognized.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Mike Rogers, for
your visionary leadership. And indeed, each witness, thank you
for your service to America.
And in particular, Mr. Secretary, your service is so
appreciated. And I am especially grateful as the son of a
Flying Tiger who helped liberate China, as the father of four
sons who have served in Iraq, Egypt, Italy, and Afghanistan,
and as a 31-year Army veteran myself.
Your leadership of peace through strength is crucial, and I
believe we are in a Cold War we did not choose of dictators
with rule of gun invading democracies with rule of law. It
began with war criminal Putin invading Ukraine on February 24,
2022, and then Iranian puppets invading Israel on October 7,
2023, with the Chinese Communist Party threatening Taiwan.
President Trump tried to deter war criminal Putin his first
term with Javelin missiles to Ukraine, American troops in
Poland, and stopping Nordsteam 2. But Putin ignored Trump, and
defying Biden, has continued his efforts.Upon election of
Trump, there were hopes for peace, but Putin insulted Trump
with the murderous attacks at Christmas and New Year's. Every
time President Trump tries to reduce the conflict, war criminal
Putin increases mass murder of drones of missile attacks on the
people and civilians of Ukraine, including hospitals this week.
War criminal Putin is clearly fixated to resurrect the
failed Soviet Union, with troops still in Transnistria of
Moldova, rigging elections on Belarus, invading the Republic of
Georgia, and rigging elections against the legitimate
president, Salome Zourabichvili of Georgia. Additionally, there
have been new threats this week against the Baltic republics,
our NATO allies.
Every outreach by Trump has been mocked by Putin. With that
in mind, an incredible achievement of President Trump is to
awaken our NATO allies, now including Sweden and Finland, that
with Germany pledging 5 percent remarkably. And 17 of our
allies of now provide a larger GDP support for the people of
Ukraine than the United States because of President Trump's
encouragement.
What is the latest status on encouraging our NATO allies of
providing for peace through strength?
Secretary Hegseth. Thank you for the question, sir. The one
thing I would take issue with is the characterization that
Vladimir Putin ignored President Trump. I think Vladimir Putin
paid a lot of attention to President Trump in his first term,
and that is why the invasion did not happen under President
Trump's watch. Instead, under the weakness--
Mr. Wilson. Ignored and proceeded to--
Secretary Hegseth. He paid attention to President Trump and
then when Joe Biden was in the office--
Mr. Wilson. But it set--it really set the stage, sadly,
that if he had really appreciated what President Trump was
trying to do, he wouldn't have invaded again. But, whether
Biden was president or not.
Secretary Hegseth. But to your question about Europe.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Secretary Hegseth. President Trump has invigorated a truly
historic investment amongst NATO allies to shoulder the burden
of the defense of the continent of the Europe.
Vladimir Putin saw what he believed to be weakness, and I
believe President Trump has stood up to that by reminding our
allies that they need to spend on their own defense and ensure
that they are able to shoulder the burden to defend the
continent. That has been a good development.
Mr. Wilson. And indeed, I was grateful last February coming
back from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe and meeting with the President. And I told him how
exciting it was to see our allies understand that indeed he
supports Ukraine, he supports NATO and peace through strength.
And General Caine, I particularly appreciate your VMI
[Virginia Military Institute] credentials for professionalism.
And with that in mind, we understand that even today, the
International Atomic Energy Agency has declared Iran in breach
of non-proliferation agreements. And what are we doing to deter
the aggression coming from Iran?
General Caine. Well, sir, first, I noticed in your bio that
you went to that other school in Lexington, which is always
hard for me to get my head around, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Hey, I grew up in the Holy City of Charleston.
When I saw VMIs, I thought they were Citadel cadets.
General Caine. Yes, sir. I am now a Joint guy, so I will
keep all those comments to myself, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Hear, hear.
General Caine. You know, sir, the IAEA [International
Atomic Energy Agency] report is certainly troubling. The
international community seems to be thinking about what they
are going to do about it, and as are we, watching the situation
develop and carefully monitoring the report.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, this morning the eyes of our closest allies,
U.K. and Australia, are on your department as a result of Under
Secretary of Policy Elbridge Colby announcement last night that
he is launching a 30-day review of the trilateral AUKUS
[Australia-United Kingdom-United States] mission.
I would just note that it is not just their eyes, it is our
eyes in this committee. In 2023, by a vote of 310 to a small
minority, we passed the AUKUS authorities and followed up on
that in terms of AUKUS investments in the billions of dollars
into our submarine industrial base. Australia has reciprocated,
as you know, with its own investments in our submarine
industrial base.
And since then, since 2023, what we have seen, the three
countries working together, that we now have well over 100
Australian sailors and naval officers that have gone through
joint training. I have seen them in my district at graduation
ceremonies. They are joint crewing Virginia class submarines.
We also have joint U.S.-Australian submarine repair work
that is happening in Guam and Hawaii. And our submarine
industrial base delivered two Virginia class attack submarines.
They are the New Jersey and Iowa. This year, it will be
Massachusetts and Idaho. And the year following it is going to
be Arkansas and the Utah are going to be delivered during that
3-year period.
General Caine, how many nuclear-powered attack submarines
is in the Chinese navy? Do you know that answer?
General Caine. It is nuclear-powered attack boats.
Mr. Courtney. Yes.
General Caine. It is--
Mr. Courtney. How many attack nuclear-powered?
General Caine. Yes, sir, many, I will get you the number.
Mr. Courtney. No, well, the answer is six.
General Caine. Yes, sir.
Mr. Courtney. Okay, so what we have seen in the industrial
base is that last year, this year, and next year, we are going
to be delivering that identical number. They are building a
seventh.
You can check the Wall Street Journal, and you can see
where that boat ended up at the bottom of the Yangtze River
because of their inability to actually do the hard work of
building nuclear-powered submarines, which is probably one of
the most complex undertakings in really industry of any sort.
Again, the Australians are investing in Perth and so that
we are going to have rotations of Virginia class submarines
that are already started to happen. Admiral Paparo testified in
vocal support of AUKUS when he came before this committee just
a few weeks ago.
And again, I would just say, you know, there is nothing
wrong with reviewing any program. We are all accountable.
Anything of this magnitude certainly deserves review.
But a 30-day review on a project that really took years to
develop and which this committee was instrumental in terms of
enabling. And in my opinion China's reaction to AUKUS is the
ultimate sort of endorsement of AUKUS, because they hate it.
And the one commitment I would ask, Mr. Secretary, is just
your commitment that this committee and Congress is going to be
integrally involved in whatever the review process is. Because
we have skin in the game, we have history, and we have allies
who really are, again, issuing statements this morning.
The Prime Minister of England, Stephen Lovegrove, the
Special Representative for AUKUS, Richard Marles, putting out
statements trying to reassure their countries that the U.S. is
still going to follow through on this commitment. And we want
that reassurance as well from you.
Can you, again, give us that commitment that Congress will
be involved in this review process? And I have just one more
follow-up question.
Secretary Hegseth. As it has been, Congress will be
involved. But I have had an ongoing review myself. I have spent
a great deal of time--
Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
Secretary Hegseth. Marles and Healey at the Australia and
U.K.
Mr. Courtney. And I have been following your work there.
Secretary Hegseth. --reviewing it myself.
Mr. Courtney. Yes.
Secretary Hegseth. Secretary Colby is reviewing it. We know
that. It is all important to make sure it is--
Mr. Courtney. Right. State Department, by the way, has skin
in the game too, and they should be involved in it as well.
I just want to reiterate Mr. Rogers' point and Mr. Smith's
point. If we really care about strengthening the industrial
base, we need to have procurement stability. Which means we
need to have a budget, a real budget, not a $20 billion ship
building budget, which Senator Wicker just eviscerated a couple
of days ago.
That is $17 billion less than the last Biden ship building
budget. That is what got sent over to us. And again, that is
the way, and I represent a district that has the general
contractor for both programs, you want to strengthen hiring,
supply chain, and facility growth, you need to have procurement
stability. That is not what we are seeing from the Office of
Management and Budget.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your written
statement. And also thank you for your recognition of the
importance of our nuclear deterrent, and specifically our
investment in our modernization of our nuclear deterrent. We
are behind, as you know, in the modernization of our nuclear
stockpile.
Your recognition of our investment in our triad and our
command and control is incredibly important. Thank you also for
your recognition of the importance of our future investment in
missile defense and the importance that Golden Dome will play.
The Secretary General of NATO has recently made statements
of his concern of Russia's future attempt to place an anti-
satellite nuclear weapon into space. Specifically he has said,
We are aware of reports that Russia is examining the
possibility of placing nuclear weapons in space. This is very
worrying. Space is also very importance for our deterrence and
defense, just as important as land, sea, air, and cyber space.
In recent years, space has become increasingly crowded,
dangerous, and unpredictable. And we know that competition in
space is fierce.
I recently had the opportunity to speak to him. He was at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in my community as we were
commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Peace Accords. His
concern was that this not getting worldwide enough of
attention.
We had General Saltzman recently in front of the committee.
He has characterized that if Russia were to place an anti-
satellite nuclear weapon into space, that that would be Day
Zero.
That if that was put in space, that next day, that it would
be irresponsible for us to count on space. That we would have
to spend trillions of dollars and seek technology that we don't
have to find solutions as an alternative to space, both
commercially, for military, and really to redo what is really
society today.
As you know, it would affect both our nuclear deterrents,
our efforts for missile defense, even our investments in Golden
Dome. In this venue, obviously we can't discuss all of the
details of what we are doing, but I would ask if you would
please confirm that this is a threat that is a priority to the
Department of Defense, as it has been characterized by the
Secretary General of NATO, and acknowledge that as it is a
priority, it is a priority for us to prevent the deployment of
nuclear weapons in space.
And that it is a priority for us to work with our allies to
work with our allies to uphold our commitment to the Outer
Space Nuclear Treaty that prohibits the deployment of nuclear
weapons in space, sir.
Secretary Hegseth. Well, thank you for the question, sir.
As you alluded to, there are a number of aspects to this
question or answer that can't be discussed here. But I would
underline our complete commitment to the space domain, to the
hardening of the space domain, to prevention of escalations in
the space domain.
But most importantly, to the dominance of the space domain.
I mean, that is--it is the future of how we see. It is the
future of how we sense. It could be the future of how our
adversaries fight and how we deal with that.
And so I think President Trump yet again was ahead of the
curve when he created the Space Force in his first
administration. People said we didn't need it.
We are relying on it every single day now to ensure,
alongside Space Force and private enterprise, that we are
delivering the capabilities we need that are resilient, that
are redundant, that are capable of all aspects of all the main
warfare, if necessary. And preventing adversaries from gaining
an advantage is a huge part of how we look at space.
Mr. Turner. This threat is not classified. Russia's threat
of deploying an anti-satellite nuclear weapon is space is not
classified.
Obviously this is a priority of the Department of Defense,
and I just want your confirmation that this is a priority that
you are tracking. And you, too, see that as a threat to the
United States and certainly the United States and our space
infrastructure, and certainly, you know, our whole national
security infrastructure.
Secretary Hegseth. We track all potential escalations, yes,
sir.
Mr. Turner. And lawyer here, I just want to help you out,
because people try to, you know, twist your words. You were not
confirming in your testimony today that at the Pentagon there
are plans for invading or taking by force Greenland, correct?
That is not your testimony today?
Secretary Hegseth. All my testimony is, is that the
Pentagon has plans for any number of--
Mr. Turner. It is not your testimony today that there are
plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading
Greenland, correct? I sure as hell hope that it is not your
testimony.
Secretary Hegseth. We look forward to working with
Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential
threats.
Mr. Turner. Excellent. I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your opening statement, your concerns about Ukraine and the
budget issues.
Mr. Secretary, in your opening statement, you spoke to the
issue of cutting waste and abuse at the Pentagon. I assume you
intend to do that. Is that correct? Yes, no?
Secretary Hegseth. Now we have done that, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. All right. And, therefore, it must be a
responsibility. I want to bring to your attention a statement
that the President made in early February. He said there is no
reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We
already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times
over, 100 times over, and here are building new nuclear
weapons, and they are building new nuclear weapons. We are
spending--we are all spending a lot of money that we could
spend on other things that are actually hopefully much more
productive.
So I would like to focus for a few moments on one of the
most expensive programs at the Department of Defense, the
Sentinel ICBM [Intercontinental Ballistic Missile], which is to
replace the Minuteman-3. The cost of this program has exploded
from $78 billion to over $141 billion, not including a new
nuclear bomb for the Sentinel and the command and control
systems, which would add somewhere $20 to $40 billion, all the
while we have a Minuteman-3 that can continue to provide the
ground leg of the triad for at least 10 to 15 more years.
Should we cut the Sentinel program?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, President Trump is correct to
point out that proliferation is very dangerous. But he has also
in his budget ensured that we fully fund the nuclear triad,
every aspect of it, in a historic way.
The Sentinel is one leg of it. And that modernization is
critically important, as you know, faces a Nunn-McCurdy breach
for being behind. And as a result, it is being--it has to be
reviewed. But it is incredibly important and so our budget
does--
Mr. Garamendi. So you have made--
Secretary Hegseth. --have to ensure to--
Mr. Garamendi. Excuse me, sir. So you have made a decision
to continue even though the review is incomplete?
Secretary Hegseth. The review is ongoing. The investments
we have made allow us to continue should the review come out
the way we hope it does.
Mr. Garamendi. The answer is you continue to--you continue
the Sentinel Program even though the Nunn-McCurdy review is
incomplete.
I would like now to move over to Ukraine. The chairman of
this committee spoke very strongly about the Ukraine situation
and the necessity of the United States being strong in support
of Ukraine.
It is very, very clear that a review of what Mr. Putin has
said over the last two decades that he is determined to
reestablish the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is the current step
to achieve that.
Ukraine's security is our security, my view. And what is
dangerous for Ukraine will be dangerous for NATO and therefore
dangerous to the United States.
2 days ago, in response to Senator McConnell, who asked
which side of the Ukraine conflict do you want to win. And you
said, the President is committed to peace in that conflict.
Ultimately, peace serves our national interest. And we think it
serves the interest of both parties even though that outcome
will not be preferable to many in this room, at that time the
Senate, and I would also say this room too, preferable to many
in this room and many in our country.
Mr. Secretary, when you said that peace serves our national
interest, does that peace come from a complete surrender of
Ukraine and total victory for Russia?
Secretary Hegseth. That has never been a characterization
of my statement, sir. We think peace is in the best interest.
But I would point out, Ukraine is not the U.S., and Ukraine is
not in NATO. And to draw that comparison is to draw one that is
not correct.
But we hope for peace. We believe peace is in the best
interest of the United States of America, and our policies are
pointed toward that.
Mr. Garamendi. Let me go back to what I asked you. Is that
peace--could the achievement of that peace through the complete
surrender of Ukraine and the withdrawal of U.S. support for
Ukraine, is that a worthy peace and is that peace in the long-
term, and actually the short-term, interest of the United
States?
Secretary Hegseth. If you look at the billions of dollars
that have been invested in Ukraine, you could hardly
characterize that as a surrender from the United States.
So the existing military front line of troops, as difficult
as it is, is moving slowly. Where peace ends at the end of
that, nobody really knows. But the President has worked harder
than anybody else to try to get a peaceful outcome.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank our witnesses for joining us today, Secretary Hegseth,
Chairman Caine, Mrs. MacDonnell, thank you. Thank you for the
incredible job that you all are doing.
Secretary Hegseth, I want to begin with you and talk about
all of the efforts that went into the defense portion of the
One Big Beautiful Bill in making sure that we are getting all
of the pieces of this correct. Lots of back and forth, and we
know that there is a long-term need to make sure that we get
this right. And we want to make sure, too, as we look at
priorities from all of the different bodies that we are
assuring that those are continued on as the process takes
place.
We know there is going to be additional investments in
things like shipbuilding and ground vehicles. And we have also
made substantial investments in modernization, including things
like Golden Dome and things that are critical to this nation's
future.
I just wanted to get from you, can you assure the committee
that of the $150 billion that is here, that it is going to be
laid out and spent in exact alignment with what the committee
has laid out really on a line by line basis?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, sir, you will have--I can refer to
Bryn on that for the details. But you will have a complete
reckoning and many of the committee already does have of what
we intend to spend and where.
But from our viewpoint, it is two bills, one budget.
Mr. Wittman. Right.
Secretary Hegseth. And ultimately, we have worked with the
committee and will continue to to ensure that every priority is
funded either through the base bill or through reconciliation.
But I defer to Bryn.
Mrs. MacDonnell. I just concur with the Secretary. We have
worked very well with Chairman Rogers' staff and with Senator
Wicker's staff on it as well, and we will continue to do so now
that the data of the budget is released.
Mr. Wittman. That is great. Listen, I think it is key
especially since there are a lot of different moving parts here
to make sure that we are all in alignment with that.
Yesterday Admiral Kilby confirmed that the U.S. Navy still
needs a sixth generation fighter. That F/A-XX is still
critically important. And earlier this year in our Tactical Air
and Land Subcommittee, we received a lot of testimony about the
continued requirement need for F/A-XX, the Navy's unique need
to have that fighter that is able to function in a highly
contested environment, having the ability to deal with even
more ability for our adversaries to sense that aircraft.
We know that in the fiscal year 2025 CR, there was $453.8
million--billion dollars, excuse me, put a million dollars put
towards that. I will get the number right--and in
reconciliation, a $500 million.
So you can see Congress is consistently pushing ahead and
saying this is where we need to go. And we would be a little
surprised if the support for this fell off, especially since we
are looking at the requirements and not seeing any change
there.
So, General Caine, I wanted to get from you, do you still
see the requirements for F/A-XX being the same today as it has
been developed through the recent months by the Navy to project
and say this is what the Navy needs in order to have that
ability to provide a tactical air presence in places like the
South China Sea and elsewhere where that environment is going
to be highly contested?
General Caine. Congressman, thanks for the question. And,
you know, as we look at the threat picture out in the Pacific,
the requirements themselves, I think, are still valid. I think
it comes down to a question that many of the folks on the
committee have talked about and that is the ability to produce
at a particular time.
And I will defer to my civilian leaders on the timing and
synchronization of that program. But we do need, you know,
capability that is mobile, whether it is F/A-XX or others that
enable us to win on the battlefield to the future.
I will defer to the Secretary and Bryn for policy-related
stuff on the synchronization.
Mr. Wittman. Well, Secretary, I will ask in addition to
that, I think to build on Chairman Caine's comments, has the
Pentagon's plans changed because, you know, since April and
especially in our subcommittee, you know, we have looked very,
very specifically about this need, looking at NGAD [Next
Generation Air Dominance], which the President has made a
decision on. But then looking at the Navy's need, can you tell
us, are things continued on track for F/A-XX? Are there any
changes there?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, as you know, certainly, we have
adjusted the way we see the world from the Biden administration
through the Interim National Defense Strategy and planning
guidance.
Mr. Wittman. Sure.
Secretary Hegseth. That is what went into the decision that
we made on F-47 or NGAD. And this budget has a significant
investment in that.
Fiscal year 2026 funds the complete design of F/A-XX. We
are certainly reviewing it, working with the Joint Staff,
working with the COCOMs at its application around the globe.
So it is in the mix, but we recognize we need--we also need
a capability as quickly as possible for the threats that we
face.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Moulton.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hegseth, I
would like to clarify a few important details for the record.
When you texted the launch time for F-18s to go into combat
over enemy territory facing anti-aircraft missiles on an
unclassified Signal chat, did that launch time come from
Central Command? Yes or no.
Secretary Hegseth. I know what you are referring to. And
there were no targets or locations--
Mr. Moulton. It is a very simple question. Did it come from
Central Command.
Secretary Hegseth. In this committee, there is no way in
which I communicate or what I communicate on a successful
strike is something that I would share.
Mr. Moulton. So you can't even identify the combatant
command under which this operation occurred?
Secretary Hegseth. So everybody knows the--
Mr. Moulton. So everyone knows the Central Command. So when
Central Command sent you this information, did they send it on
a classified system or an unclassified system?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, as you know, having served
yourself, anyway that the Secretary of Defense communicates or
provides information in and of itself is classified and not to
be discussed.
Mr. Moulton. So what was the classification marking of the
launch time when it was sent to you, because DOD regulations
require information on classified systems to be marked?
Secretary Hegseth. What was the classification mark time?
Mr. Moulton. What was the classification marking because
DOD regulations--
Secretary Hegseth. Again, classifications of any
information in an ongoing operation that was successful are not
things that would be disclosed in a public forum.
Mr. Moulton. You can very well disclose whether or not it
was classified. It is not classified to disclose whether or not
it was classified. In fact, DOD regulations state that any
classified information has to be labeled with its
classification. Was it classified Secret or Top Secret?
Secretary Hegseth. What is not classified is that it was an
incredible mission against the Houthis.
Mr. Moulton. Okay. So it was classified. So are you
asserting--are you trying to say that the information was
unclassified?
Secretary Hegseth. I am not trying to say anything.
Mr. Moulton. That is what I thought. You are not saying
that. So you took classified information from Central Command
that had a classification marking on it, because that is what
is required by DOD regulations, and you put it on an
unclassified system.
So we are going to get a report in a few days from the DOD
Inspector General. And if the DOD inspector general finds what
is pretty obvious both to you smiling there on the witness seat
and to all of us up here that the information was, in fact,
classified, do you plan to take any accountability for that?
Secretary Hegseth. As I pointed out at the time--
Mr. Moulton. You said that accountability is back. Does
that not apply to you?
Secretary Hegseth. As I said at the time, Congressman,
there were no names, targets, locations, units, routes,
sources, methods, no classified information.
Mr. Moulton. Okay. So if it comes back that it is
classified, will you take accountability or not.
Secretary Hegseth. As I have said--
Mr. Moulton. We have already established--you have already
admitted that it was classified because everything you get from
CENTCOM is classified. You just explained that to me. That is
how you justified not answering the question.
Secretary Hegseth. That is not what I said. I didn't
confirm any classification or clarification.Mr. Moulton. Okay.
So if it is confirmed--
Secretary Hegseth. What I know is that--
Mr. Moulton. --will you take accountability?
Secretary Hegseth. --everything I share, everything I talk
about--
Mr. Moulton. Mr. Secretary, does accountability apply to
you or not.
Secretary Hegseth. --as to the Department of Defense is
classified whether I talk or not.
Mr. Moulton. Does it apply to you or not?
Secretary Hegseth. Does what apply to me?
Mr. Moulton. Accountability. You said accountability is
back at the Secretary of Defense.
Secretary Hegseth. And, you know, what the Houthis were
held accountable for shooting at our troops--
Mr. Moulton. I am just asking if it applies to you.
Secretary Hegseth. --very successfully.
Mr. Moulton. I am not asking about the Houthis.
Secretary Hegseth. The previous administration let our
ships get shot at and nothing was done about it. And thankfully
because of the skill and courage of our troops--
Mr. Moulton. I reclaim my time.
Secretary Hegseth. --we actually put them in a place--
Mr. Moulton. I reclaim my time.
Secretary Hegseth. --where they called for a ceasefire.
Mr. Moulton. I reclaim my time. I am just asking if
accountability applies to you. It is a very simple question.
Secretary Hegseth. I serve--
Mr. Moulton. We use leadership by example.
Secretary Hegseth. Of course. Unlike, you know, I serve at
the pleasure of the President like everybody else does.
Mr. Moulton. So it only applies to the President and not to
you?
Secretary Hegseth. I serve at the pleasure of the--
Mr. Moulton. You talked about the success of the Houthi
operation. About how much money did it cost? How much money did
you spend on missiles shooting at the Houthis?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, you would have to compare that
with what it cost--
Mr. Moulton. I am just asking how much it cost.
Secretary Hegseth. --to divert our shipping lanes around--
Mr. Moulton. I am told it is several hundred million
dollars, maybe close to a billion dollars. How many U.S.-
flagged commercial ships have transited the Red Sea since your
so-called successful operation?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, thankfully, unlike the previous
administration--
Mr. Moulton. The answer is zero.
Secretary Hegseth. --military vessels trans--
Mr. Moulton. No, I didn't ask about military vessels.
Secretary Hegseth. Well, which would be the precursor for--
Mr. Moulton. How many commercial vessels? It has been
several weeks. How many commercial vessels, U.S.-flagged, have
transited the Red Sea?
Secretary Hegseth. Would you, Mr. Congressman, put civilian
ships through the dam before military ships?
Mr. Moulton. The questions are not to me, Mr. Secretary.
They are to you.
Secretary Hegseth. We have responsibly put military ships--
Mr. Moulton. The answer is zero. I reclaim my time. How
many generals and admirals have you fired?
Secretary Hegseth. I don't know the exact number, but--
Mr. Moulton. You don't the number? It is eight. Can you
explain why any of them were fired? But just explain--why was
the Army JAG [Judge Advocate General] fired? Why did you fire
him?
Secretary Hegseth. They all serve at the pleasure of the
President. And I think--
Mr. Moulton. No, I am just asking you why.
Secretary Hegseth. General Caine is a great example of a
people that we need--
Mr. Moulton. I am just asking you why.
Secretary Hegseth. --at the--
Mr. Moulton. You probably learned at Princeton what why
means. Why did you fire him?
Secretary Hegseth. We serve at the pleasure of the
President. And we wanted better representation--
Mr. Moulton. Why did you fire him?
Secretary Hegseth. --in each and every of those--
Mr. Moulton. You can't explain why you fired any of them?
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ma'am, and Mr.
Secretary. Most of my questions are going to be for General
Caine. I will tell you, Mr. Secretary, I would appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you offline about a couple of things.
I am from Georgia. I spoke with you briefly. I supported
Hal and Julia Moore's name remaining on the base as you know. I
support Eisenhower's name remaining on the base. I don't want
to go too far into that. I don't want any questions.
But I will tell you this, the selection of Gary Gordon, he
is one of the most valorous, heroic acts of any American
soldier, certainly in modern times. He was one of the two
soldiers that went in with a Blackhawk Down Delta snipers that
both died there together. I do have a suggestion on that.
When the Army has named anything after Gary Gordon, Randall
Shughart's name has been tied to the name. The Army has
historically named things Shughart-Gordon because those two
guys went in together. They fought together. They literally
died together. And the historical accounts cannot figure out
which one actually died first.
And so if the name in Augusta is going to change back to
Gordon, I just respectfully suggest that you consider Shughart-
Gordon as the Army who has historically named other things. You
can't tell Gordon's story without Shughart's story. And I say
it out of respect.
General Caine, the Communist Chinese Party assesses U.S.
strength, that our strength lies in our alliances and
partnerships. If they believe those ties are fraying, how can
we use the Ukraine War to demonstrate U.S. strength,
capability, and resolve to regain leverage over the Chinese in
their assessments of the United States?
General Caine. Well, sir, thanks for the question and first
thanks for recognizing two great warriors who showed us what
courage and tenacity look like when you infill into the place
that they did on those two MH-60s knowing full well what they
were going to face on that objective and then making the full
commitment to give their lives on behalf of an injured
teammate. That is what America looks like.
So thank you for highlighting that, sir. Bless you,
Congressman, by the way.
Mr. Scott. He is a SEAL.
General Caine. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I know a lot of SEALs.
So, I think, you know, mil-to-mil, you know, military-to-
military, our relationships with allies and partners around the
world remain incredibly important. I am grateful to serve
alongside so many great, not just joint force partners, but
international partners as well.
And I think that the courage and tenacity that our forces
out in EUCOM [United States European Command] have shown
through this journey and the teammates that they have built on
both sides of those borders is an example of what we should be
doing.
Mr. Scott. If I can follow up with that, the assessments,
Ukraine would survive 9 days, 10 days, some 15 days at the
outside. But the rapid innovation cycles that they have
candidly taught us in some cases how to do, how do we implement
that into the U.S. defense industrial base and get our weapons
developed as fast and candidly at the cost because we cannot
afford to pay what we are paying per weapon for what we are
going to have to do.
And at the same time, how do we develop the defense systems
against drones so that we don't lose million dollar--
multimillion tanks to $5,000 drones?
General Caine. Yes, sir. Thanks for highlighting the
innovative entrepreneurial and diabolical spirit of attack that
exists out in that part of the world. And, you know, I have
been out there and seen what they are doing in terms of drone
manufacturing, iterating on the line, linking up with partners,
taking the fight to the enemy out there. It is impressive. And
we have learned from those examples.
That same spirit of innovation has come back to the United
States. And when I think about rebooting our defense industrial
base and our national industrial base, I think of it through
four C's, and it starts with that culture that you are alluding
to about innovation and entrepreneurialism inside combat.
The second part is creating some competition. And I think
that is a key part is you help us do that here in the Congress.
The third thing is we got to write better contracts on our
side.
Mr. Scott. 100 percent.
General Caine. And we have to be better buyers and share
the risk, as I have talked about with the chairman before.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It shouldn't come as
no surprise that I have serious concerns with both the
Department of the National Guard and the Marines in Los
Angeles.
I served in the Marine Corps. We are trained to be
warfighters not for crowd control. Everyone here should be
alarmed that the President has sent Armed Forces into a city
against the wishes of a governor and mayor.
I am concerned that this administration is purposely
escalating the situation with this step and politicizing our
Armed Forces in the process. Let's call it for what it is. It
is political theater.
Hegseth, are the Marines in Los Angeles ordered to protect
property by any means necessary?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, I would say the ICE [U.S>
Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers and police
officers being attacked is not political theater. The National
Guard and Marines--
Mr. Carbajal. Just yes or no, just yes or no.
Secretary Hegseth. The National Guard and Marines have the
full authority to protect federal ICE agents.
Mr. Carbajal. Yes or no. Can you just say yes or no? This
isn't Fox anymore, just yes or no.
Secretary Hegseth. They are there to protect federal agents
and federal--
Mr. Carbajal. Another BS answer. Under the SRUF [Standing
Rules for the Use of Force], the use of force, are Marines
allowed to fire warning shots?
Secretary Hegseth. No.
Mr. Carbajal. Now that is more like it. Isn't that easy?
Will you--you know, I am going to beat this drum because you
refuse to take responsibility. Will you take responsibility for
having made a mistake, not to mention many people would say
break the law, in participating in the Signal group chat that
included a journalist, your wife, your brother where classified
information was shared?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, every way I communicate is
authorized.
Mr. Carbajal. Okay. If you want to say that. I have called
for your resignation. I didn't think you were qualified before
your confirmation. And you have done nothing to inspire
confidence in your ability to lead competently.
You broke the law in sharing classified information and in
doing so, endangered the lives of our servicemembers that you
are responsible for. Your inability to hold yourself
accountable makes you incapable to lead, to lead. This alone
makes you unfit to be the Secretary of Defense.
Secretary, do you think the United States should continue
supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia, a nation that
is hostile towards the United States?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, as you know, sir, President Trump
is committed to peace.
Mr. Carbajal. I just want yes or no answers.
Secretary Hegseth. The United States has spent billions of
dollars--
Mr. Carbajal. Yes or no, yes or no. Just yes or no. Can I
get a yes or no out of you?
Secretary Hegseth. We continue to send Presidential--
Mr. Carbajal. Come on.
Secretary Hegseth. --Presidential drawdowns.
Mr. Carbajal. It is that easy. Kindergartners could give me
a yes or no.
Secretary Hegseth. Yes, we support peace in Ukraine.
Mr. Carbajal. Come on. Is this really leadership? You are
an embarrassment to the United States. If Russia invades NATO
allies, are you going to recommend to the President that we
fulfill our Article 5 obligations?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, Russia has not invaded NATO
allies.
Mr. Carbajal. No, no, no, no, no, no.
Secretary Hegseth. President Trump--
Mr. Carbajal. No, no, no, no, no. I reclaim my time. Yes or
no. It is that simple.
Secretary Hegseth. There is Article 5 in NATO, which we
recognize.
Mr. Carbajal. So is the answer yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth. That is what Article 5 is, yes.
Mr. Carbajal. Good. I am glad you brought yourself to
saying yes. Do you think political allegiance to Trump is a
requirement for serving our nation either in uniform or a
civilian in the Department?
Secretary Hegseth. I am incredibly proud, as are millions
of Americans.
Mr. Carbajal. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no,
no. Not today, Hegseth. Yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth. Congressman, you know what a silly
question that is.
Mr. Carbajal. But silly enough to warrant a very
straightforward answer, yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth. We all support and defend the
Constitution of the United States. We are proud--
Mr. Carbajal. You know what? I am not going to waste my
time anymore. You are not worthy of my attention or my
questions. You are an embarrassment to this country. You are
unfit to lead. And there has been bipartisan members of
Congress that have called for your resignation. You should just
get the hell out and let somebody competently lead this
Department.
Mr. Mills. Mr. Chairman, do we not have any decorum in
here?
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. I yield my time.
Mr. Mills. This is absolutely disruptive. This is horrible.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. And I would urge
everybody to remember and maintain a decorum suitable for this
chamber for their further comments.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr.
DesJarlais.
Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like
to thank you, Secretary Hegseth and General Caine for bringing
pride, strength, and respect back to our military.
Many critics have described the President's deployment of
the National Guard in Los Angeles as unprecedented. But as you
know, we have seen similar actions throughout history from
Eisenhower sending the 101st to Little Rock, to Johnson and
Kennedy federalizing the Guard over the objections of Southern
governors during the civil rights era, to George H.W. Bush
deploying federal troops during the 1992 LA Riots.
Isn't it fair to say that there is a well-established
precedent for the Presidents acting as state leaders who are
either unwilling or unable to enforce federal law or protect
federal facilities?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, nothing that we are doing on the
ground is unprecedented. I would argue what is unprecedented is
a governor and a mayor unwilling to protect law enforcement.
Dr. DesJarlais. Well, I thank you for being willing to step
up.
We are going to shift gears here to the nuclear-armed sea-
launched cruise missile program. I just wanted to touch base on
that other subject because I think it is ridiculous the
criticisms that we are hearing in the media.
But with Putin talking freely about using low-yield or
tactical nuclear weapons, I think it is important we discuss
the SLCM-N [Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile] program
for a minute.
As you know, restoring SLCM-N capability of the Navy was
recommended in President Trump's 2018 Nuclear Posture Review.
The Biden administration proposed to cancel this program. But
based on consistent testimony from our senior military leaders
that this system was necessary to address deterrence gaps,
Congress continued to fund it. And the Fiscal Year 2024 Defense
Authorization Bill required the Department to create a
dedicated program of record for its development.
What is your view of the SLCM-N program and the broader
issue of modernizing our nuclear forces to ensure we have
nuclear deterrent that meets the evolving threats we are
seeing?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, your characterization is correct.
I want to thank Congress for keeping SLCM-N effectively alive
under the previous administration because we think it is a
critical capability.
And you will see in the fiscal year 2026 budget, we fund it
at over a 1000 percent increase. So we completely recognize the
need for that capability alongside the entirety of the nuclear
enterprise is critically important to maintain deterrence. If
you are going to have peace through strength, if you are going
to reestablish deterrence, you need to have a credible
deterrent, especially at the foundational and baseline level,
which is the nuclear level.
Dr. DesJarlais. And General Caine, STRATCOM [United States
Strategic Command] commanders and your Vice Chief Admiral Grady
have testified about the importance from a military perspective
of being able to provide the President with an additional
response option and how SLCM-N can strengthen deterrence by
providing a non-strategic response option that is not air
delivered. Do you share that view?
General Caine. I do.
Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you. And General Caine, your
testimony warns that the PLAs [People's Liberation Army]
exercise around Taiwan are not just pressure campaigns, but
rehearsal for forced unification.
Throughout my visits to our regional partners in the
INDOPACOM [United States Indo-Pacific Command] region over the
last few years, you can feel that there has been a rising tide
of recognition that China is a threat on their doorstep and
ours as the United States, and the world has woken to the
increasingly adversarial actions of China.
Can you expand upon how the DOD is rightsizing our force
structure to prepare for a conflict in the Pacific should our
adversaries continue to escalate tensions in the region and
what are we doing now, not years from now, to ensure we can
stop that move if it comes?
General Caine. Yes, sir. Well, first I share your--you
know, I share your views and those of Admiral Paparo related to
what certainly appears like increasing rehearsals by the PLA in
and around the Pacific.
You know, the administration and the Secretary, in
particular, through our interim national defense guidance and
strategy, which I won't get into in this forum, but is clear
around the need for the department to focus on the Pacific and
to scale our combat capability with systems capabilities and
effects that would prevent Xi from advancing his narrative and
create, frankly, multiple simultaneous dilemmas in their
decision-making.
And so we continue to work diligently on that through the
services as you talked about. And it is something that I am
keenly focused on with my global integrator role.
Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you. And I think, Secretary Hegseth,
you covered that pretty thoroughly in your opening statement.
So I am out of time, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Khanna.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am hoping we can start where we may have
common ground, no war in Iran.
In 2016, President Trump was one of the few people on the
Republican stage to have the guts to say that George W. Brush's
war in Iraq was an utter disaster. He promised the American
people no endless wars.
Tucker Carlson has said that thousands of Americans will
die if there is a war in Iran. And he is cautioning that
currently neo-cons are trying to get President Trump into a war
in Iran. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has said the
American people don't want to bomb Iran.
Will you today assure the American people in the MAGA [Make
America Great Again] movement that you will not bomb Iran
unless we are hit?
Secretary Hegseth. Congressman, it is good to hear you
quoting conservatives.
Mr. Khanna. When they are right, I quote them.
Secretary Hegseth. I will tell you this. The President has
been earnestly and completely committed to a peace process. He
has given Iran every opportunity. Those talks are ongoing. But
he also fully recognizes the threat that Iran--that a nuclear
weapon would exist.
Mr. Khanna. Will you commit to us not bombing them? I mean,
that's what the conservative--the MAGA movement is calling for
it online. You will see. I mean, they want a commitment that we
not bomb Iran unless we are directly hit.
Secretary Hegseth. Well, here in this forum it wouldn't be
prudent for me to commit or not to commit. My job is to be
postured and prepared in the region just as the chairman--
Mr. Khanna. How about this--
Secretary Hegseth. --potential capability.
Mr. Khanna. Would you agree with this analysis that
Netanyahu is itching for a fight. If Netanyahu uses American
missiles to hit Iran, he is going to drag us into a war there
because Iran is going to say they are using American missiles.
Our military knows that you cannot just throw hits,
eliminate Iran's nuclear capability. They will simply go
underground, and they will then end monitoring. And unlike
Iraq, they are in heavily civilian sites.
Will you stand up today and make it clear to Netanyahu that
that escalation, what he is threatening just yesterday, is not
in the American interest? That he should not be dragging
America into war with Iran?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, Congressman, that question
included a lot of speculation. What I know is that Bibi
Netanyahu is going to put his country first, and we are going
to put our country first. And we are positioned properly in the
region to ensure that we are prepared for any potential
contingency.
Mr. Khanna. Are you concerned about his escalation into
Iran and will you assure the American people you are going to
do everything possible to keep us out of war in Iran?
Secretary Hegseth. We remain, as the President has said,
committed to creating the conditions for peace, creating the
conditions for talks where Iran does not have the ability--
Mr. Khanna. I have given you my--
Secretary Hegseth. --to develop a nuclear weapon.
Mr. Khanna. I am running out of time, 2 minutes. So let me
ask you another matter.
Senator Baldwin asked you about the illegal authority for
the Marines in my state. I disagree with you. Not only do I not
want Marines in Iran, I don't want them in California.
But I don't want to get a got you. You know, they said what
provision? Your administration since then has filed in the
federal district court. You are arguing that the Marines should
be allowed to defend federal property. I disagree with you.
That is your argument.
Here is where I hope we can agree. Whatever the federal
district court decides, will you abide by it?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, this is a pending--
Mr. Khanna. Sure.
Secretary Hegseth. --it is a pending situation.
Mr. Khanna. So will you agree though that it is not my
legal view, it is not your legal view that makes the decision
in America? It is the federal judiciary. If the federal court
in California and the San Francisco district judge orders a
preliminary injunction, will you agree to abide by the federal
courts?
Secretary Hegseth. What I will tell you is my job right now
is to ensure that the troops that we have in Los Angeles are
capable of supporting law enforcement in the--
Mr. Khanna. Sir, I agree with that. But will you--
Secretary Hegseth. And we know, we have this constitutional
and statutory authority--
Mr. Khanna. That is fine. But can you just assure us that
you will abide by the decisions of the courts?
Secretary Hegseth. We have always looked to the decisions
of the courts.
Mr. Khanna. Well, the Vice President has said that he
doesn't believe that the courts should be respected in military
matters.
Secretary Hegseth. This is not my lane. But we also
recognize that the way in which the judiciary has expanded its
powers during the Trump administration is quite clear.
Mr. Khanna. Well, let me ask you this, two simple
questions. You got 30 seconds. I am not trying to trick you. I
think it would assure the American people. Because we
shouldn't--it shouldn't be Ro Khanna's view of the
Constitution, and it shouldn't be Secretary Hegseth's. It
should be the Supreme Court and the federal courts.
Can you assure the American people on two things. You will
respect any Supreme Court decision on this matter about whether
the Marines are constitutional, and you will respect the
district courts when they rule before the Supreme Court rules.
Secretary Hegseth. What I can say is we should not have
local judges determining foreign policy or national security
policy for the country.
Mr. Khanna. So you are not willing to say you would respect
those decisions?
Secretary Hegseth. What I am saying is local district
judges shouldn't make foreign policy for the United States.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi,
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Secretary Hegseth and General Caine
for being here today. Under President Trump's leadership,
America has restored deterrence and secured our southern
border.
Thanks to this renewed strength, we are seeing positive
momentum in both recruiting and retention. Our adversaries are
thinking twice, not just because of our advance capabilities
but because of the courage and dedication of the men and women
in uniform who defend this nation every day.
Still we face serious growing challenges. China remains a
pacing threat. Deterring that threat requires more than just
strategy. It requires a strong, responsive defense industrial
base.
That starts with the timely and adequate investments and
investments begin with a budget. We have to have a budget.
Despite the spending, defense spending is the price of
deterrence. And we have got to stay focused and strong.
With that being said, Mr. Secretary, I have championed the
Ships for America Act with Mr. Garamendi from California and
Senator Young and Senator Kelly in the Senate. I know the
administration is behind this.
Right now are you committed to getting the Ships Act and
getting our maritime industry at base to where we need it to do
to be a strong maritime nation, which means a great nation?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, I would refer to Bryn for the
actual details of what is included from that bill in our
budget. But I can say top line, we are historically committed,
$47 billion in shipbuilding in this budget alone.
It was mischaracterized because of baseline versus
reconciliation. But when you look at the total investment,
historic. It is the same with defense industrial base.
So we recognize the failures and failings of the past. We
are also not just pouring money into the same processes. We are
hiring innovators. We have got Secretaries who are driving
change, personally reviewing each shipyard across the country
to recognize what is failing and what isn't. How we address
workforce issues, how we address modernization.
Mr. Kelly. I am going to take that as yes where I can get
something out because we work with the administration and the
Senate and the House, bipartisan, bicameral throughout the
administration to get that done.
Acquisition reform, General Caine, thank you for your
leadership. As the committee works to streamline acquisitions
through the SPEED Act and get program executive office PEOs
[Program Executive Officer] more agility, I want to make sure
we are doing the right things that DOD writ large, especially
when we are talking about Navy and Air Force and some of the
programs that we do.
Requirements cannot be shifted on a yearly basis. They at
least need to stand steady through an administration. So we
need requirements that are steady. We can't tell them how to
build things. What we need to tell them is the capabilities we
need and let industry build that.
We can't always let perfect be the enemy of good. We need
to keep and maintain during the acquisition process
intellectual property rights so that we can repair those things
ourselves so that we can 3D print. There are so many things
that we can do better that we put artificial barriers because
we have a risk averse DOD now, especially in acquisitions.
And finally, we need to make sure if we say we are building
four destroyers next year we don't need to next year say, well,
we are going to change that to three. We have to send a steady
demand signal. We have to do block buys, and we have to hold
these PEOs responsible for finishing the program or at least
getting it to a point where it is in production. We cannot
rotate every 2 or 3 years.
Are you committed to make sure that we do everything we can
to help our industrial base give the Army, Air Force, Navy,
Marines, the products they need to win?
General Caine. Well, sir, there was a lot of goodness in
the statement. And by the way, thank you for your service
yourself here in the uniform for so many years.
You know, you covered a lot of ground between requirements
to PEOs. One of the things that I think, both the military and
the Congress, are going to have to think through is how do we
buy aligned with the technology development curve, back to your
point about requirements.
And what I need to try to think through with you is how do
we ensure that the force of the future has the relevant and
current combat capability to dominate on the battlefield?
And technology is evolving so incredibly fast that we need
both the requirement system and acquisition system leaders that
understand that. And I think that is going to require some
partnership between the Department and the Congress to think
through that and clarity around what are we solving for?
Mr. Kelly. And finally real quick, Secretary Hegseth,
please have the Navy get us a shipbuilding plan that is not an
option. We have not had one for the last 7 years. Please get us
a 30-year shipbuilding plan of which the first 4 years are
locked in.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to take my
time to react to the testimony already given.
The three pillars that each of the witnesses and the
Secretary highlighted, pillar number one, restore the warrior
ethos.
You know, I have had the privilege in this committee to see
firsthand the special window of our troops, their courage,
their tenacity, their commitment. You don't have to restore the
warrior ethos, sir. It is already there. We have never lost it.
Pillar two, I just want to highlight something that is a
concern. Pillar two is the border security issue. And among
that, I am really worried about the agreement with El Salvador
that exists.
I think it is very cloudy. We don't know exactly what they
are getting in return for their commitment to house the hell
hole prisons, and the hell hole prisons they have. People that
are shipped there, transported there illegally.
But there are problems with that. It violates the
Constitution number one. It violates the First Step Act that
President Trump paraded around and took so much credit for in
his first term, he and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. It
violates the Lahey Law, which prohibits federal money to be
used for prisons of that type. It violates the Foreign
Assistance and Transparency and Accountability Act that our
Secretary of State was a proud sponsor of, demands taxpayer
accountability for monies because all we know is the White
House has said they have given El Salvador, given their strong
man Bukele $6 million. But then they are holding another $15
million in international narcotics and control and law
enforcement to the side for prospective use here.
And of concern too is we are now transferring helicopters,
military assets, to Bukele. We are giving him helicopters. And
I am concerned about that. Supposedly, it is there for
humanitarian reasons.
It is being taken away from drug control task force dealing
with the fentanyl issue. And now it is there for humanitarian
reasons in Bukele's control. And I am just worried about going
down the road here. I think there should be strict oversight of
what they are getting from the U.S.
If that is not there and there is dark money and dark
assets being passed, we could have the makings of another Iran
Contra.
Thirdly, the third pillar, deterrence. And I look to what
every expert, militarily from a security standpoint said, is
the greatest deterrent that we have with China and Russia and
our greatest weakness if we lose it, and that is the war in
Ukraine.
If we fail to support Ukraine and Ukraine loses, that is a
green light for China. That is just not my opinion, that is
virtually every security expert.
We have something China and Russia don't have. We have a
coalition of 50 countries, 50, dealing together. They don't
have anything near that yet you have attacked that alliance.
You said they are pathetic. You called them freeloaders. They
have paid--and we want more money, and they are giving more
money for their own defense. But they have given $199 billion
towards Ukraine, more than the U.S. by the way.
They were not freeloaders when they came to our assistance
at 9/11. They suffered thousands of casualties, several hundred
deaths, their young men and women sacrificed to defend Article
5, the only time it was exercised for the United States. They
are not freeloaders dealing with that.
And yet today, you attacked one of them saying that now you
have confirmed that the U.S. has plans in place to invade the
territory of a founding member of NATO, Denmark. That is not
being strength. That is not being strong. It is also chaotic.
This is the chaos cabinet when it comes to Ukraine.
Secretary of the Treasury, Putin is a war criminal. Trump's
chief negotiator, Putin is trustworthy. He is not a bad guy.
Secretary of State, Putin was a war criminal, I guess. But now
he is not. He doesn't know.
Trump says Ukraine was the aggressor. The Secretary of
State says Russia was the aggressor. You, sir, Secretary of
Defense said Russia was the aggressor.
The chair of Joint Chiefs said yesterday that Putin
wouldn't even stop at Ukraine. The Trump ambassador resigned
because of this policy. And I think Vice President Vance said
it best. He said he doesn't care what happens to Ukraine one
way or the other.
That is not strength. That is not using our coalition. That
is not deterrence. You are wrong on all of your pillars. I
yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska,
Chairman Bacon.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome all
three of you here. I appreciate you being here. And I want to
congratulate the chairman. I served three decades in the Air
Force. I didn't serve with you, but many of my friends have,
and they think very highly of you so our congrats.
Mr. Secretary, during your comments early on, I would say I
agree with you. Homeland security, defense of our homeland is
important. China is our pacing threat. I agree with that.
But we never hear Russia. You didn't mention it in your
comments upfront. And it's not just you. It's the entire
administration. Two-thirds of Americans see clearly that Russia
is a threat. That they are the aggressor in Ukraine. It is in
our national security interest that Ukraine prevails here
because Russia will not stop Ukraine.
Just this week, Putin said that he would stop--he would
only stop the invasion of Ukraine if we pull out of the Baltic
countries. I mean, this just gives you some insight into what
Putin is thinking.
What we see right now in the administration is some moral
blindness here. We want moral clarity. We want strength when it
comes to Russia.
Secondly, I also share concerns about the firing of the
generals. Yes, it is currently pretty much in your
constitutional right to fire and hire generals and the
President has that right. But there is also decency involved
here.
I have known many of these people. I served with most of
these folks when I was a colonel and as a one star. I knew one
as a captain. They served their whole adult life. And I think
they deserved an explanation of why they were fired. And I
think the American people deserve that as well.
And the impact on Cyber Command, having General Haugh
fired, we groomed him for over a decade to fill those shoes. I
don't know if anybody can fill those shoes right now. It is
going to take a year or two for people to get there.
I really believe the most happy on the firing of General
Hawk was Russia and China.
Now for my questions. I am on the cyber subcommittee. I
chair that committee. We learn, and we know, and I know you all
know that Russia and China are attacking us every day. I also
have learned that within the executive branch there are very
limiting rules of engagement on what Cyber Command can do in
response.
I would ask both the Secretary and the chairman if you
would review those rules of engagement and see if they were--I
think we should be carrying a bigger stick here, when we are
being attacked every day.
So would you at least look at those rules of engagement and
consider revamping them?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, we do review those on a regular
basis. And I would say there has been some incorrect reporting
on what has or has not been done. But internally, we are
ensuring that anything we do on cyber offense or cyber defense
is coordinated with the administration's priorities and the way
in which the department views threats and how we manage them in
real time.
Mr. Bacon. Since I mentioned I am the chairman of the
committee, and I talked to multiple layers, they are restricted
based off of the rules of engagement. Maybe they are
appropriate. I just hope we relook at them because if China can
attack our energy grid, our Wall Street grid, our hospitals, I
think we should be reviewing, okay, is our response adequate?
So I just want to submit that for you to think about and
consider.
I agree, China is the pacing threat. And the best way to--
we want to prevent a war. Day one of a war with China and
Taiwan is a day too late.
I happen to know that we owe billions of dollars of weapons
to Taiwan. We have committed to or they purchased them. And
this is really our previous administration's fault. But we are
talking about billions of dollars of weapons. They need sea
mines now. They need Harpoon missiles, air and missile defense,
things like that.
I asked the previous Secretary under the previous
administration, what are you doing? Oh, well, I am studying it.
He is the Secretary. I just asked for you all's review and
figure out who do we got to--who is behind, do we got to kick
to circuit these weapons to Taiwan faster so we have
deterrence? And I would just appreciate your comment to that.
Secretary Hegseth. I will defer to the chairman as well.
But this is not something we are simply reviewing. It is
something we are implementing in real time. I think there was a
lot of talk about a shift to the Indo-Pacific in previous
administrations, but the Department had not put in place--not
just--there was strategy changes at some level, but driving
change in to the institution to make decisions, prioritize and
tradeoffs in your budget, in force posture, in training and
exercises, in where you forward position troops and munitions,
those are things we are actioning in real time, and I think
very different than in the past with a realistic view of what
threats could emerge in the Indo-Pacific. I defer to the
chairman.
General Caine. I will just add in general terms about the
size and capacity of our defense assistance worldwide. You know
that all tacks back to our national and defense industrial
base. And what I am encouraged by is the leaders that we have
in the Department, in the joint force and in the Congress right
now.
It feels like, if not now, then when? And if not us, then
who? And these are the right leaders across the USG (United
States Government] to get after this and to support through
the--
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania,
Ms. Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
have been looking forward very much to our time together.
My name is Chrissy Houlahan. In addition to representing a
part of Pennsylvania, the Sixth District, I also am a veteran.
I come from a family of veterans and servicemembers. And it is
very deeply personal to me this conversation that we are having
as I know it is to you as well.
Over the last several days, I have had the opportunity to
watch a bit of the hearings that you have testified at this
week, and I can see and know that you have quite a bit to say.
But since I only have 5 minutes, I am going to try and focus my
time on a concept that you talk about very frequently, and that
is lethality.
By definition, lethality simply means capable of causing
death. Secretary Hegseth, I have a couple of clarifying
questions that I would like very much to get through, so in the
interest of time and efficiency, I would ask just simply for a
yes or no from you for the answers to these questions in
advance. And I thank you.
So given that definition of lethality, would it be fair to
say that both men and women are, generally speaking, capable of
causing death?
Secretary Hegseth. It depends on the--
Ms. Houlahan. Yes or no, sir.
Secretary Hegseth. It depends on the context.
Ms. Houlahan. Yes or no. Are men and women capable of
causing death?
Secretary Hegseth. It depends on the context.
Ms. Houlahan. Yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth. It depends on the context.Ms. Houlahan.
It is unbelievable to me that you can't come up with an answer
whether or not a man or a woman can cause death. That is an
obvious yes.
Would it be fair to say that the U.S. military trains our
soldiers in multiple ways to be capable of causing death,
whether they are men or women?
Secretary Hegseth. That's a big part of our job.
Ms. Houlahan. Yes. Would it be fair to say that both and
men and women are capable of pulling a trigger of a rifle to
cause death? Yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth. Sure.
Ms. Houlahan. And would it be fair to say that both men and
women are capable of operating an unmanned combat drone or
maybe pushing a button to launch a missile to cause death
again? Yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth. I know what you are getting at, ma'am.
Ms. Houlahan. Yes?
Secretary Hegseth. But it is--
Ms. Houlahan. So lastly, sir.
Secretary Hegseth. --men and woman carry equipment
differently--
Ms. Houlahan. Lastly, sir.
Secretary Hegseth. --a 155 differently--
Ms. Houlahan. Lastly, sir.
Secretary Hegseth. --a 245 or a machine gun differently.
Ms. Houlahan. I am reclaiming my time. I asked about
missiles and drones.
The Chairman. It is the gentlelady's time.
Ms. Houlahan. I am reclaiming my time.
The Chairman. It is the gentlelady's time.
Ms. Houlahan. Would it be fair finally to say that both men
and women are capable of piloting a jet or a helicopter to
combat people and to cause death as a consequence?
Secretary Hegseth. A lot of wonderful female pilots--
Ms. Houlahan. Yes or no. So while I agree with you that
physical fitness, as you were mentioning, is a very strong and
important component of lethality, the warfighter that you have
written about in your books and talked about on various
podcasts is but a very, very small piece of the overall
lethality picture. In fact, we estimate only about 10 percent
of our military personnel are directly involved in the kind of
combat that you are referring to.
Rather 90 percent, that is the math, of our troops are
doing other jobs that support and enable those 10 percent. So
to put it simply, lethality cannot be measured solely by the
damage that a 6 foot 3, 225 pound, Christian male with a rifle
can do to the enemy any more.
Sure, I agree. He is part of that solution. But it is an
incomplete and at best very dangerous and very homogenous
description of that.
Lethality is equal parts technical skills, tactical
experience, cognitive problem solving and physical fitness. It
is not about one person. But it is about many. It is not about
blue or red. It is not about liberal or conservative,
Christian, Jewish or agnostic. It is not about north and south.
Here are some statements that you have said previously
about women in service. This is 2024, sir, not when you were a
19 year old. You have said that women are life-givers. That
dads push us to take risks and that moms put the training
wheels on our bikes. That we need moms, but not in the
military.
Secondly, you have said, ``I am straight up just saying we
should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more
effective, and it hasn't made us more lethal.''
With what is left of my time, sir, I will say to you that
women have served our country for 200 plus years in our
militaries and in service and protection of our nation. They
are watching you, what you do and what you say. And we deserve
better from you.
Women can and do serve with lethality today. We can and do
all of the jobs that are required of us. Yes or no, do you
believe military women should be in all roles in the military?
Secretary Hegseth. Women have joined our military in
record--
Ms. Houlahan. Yes or no, sir.
Secretary Hegseth. --numbers under this administration.
Ms. Houlahan. Should women be in all roles in the military?
Secretary Hegseth. The standards should be high and equal
for all positions.
Ms. Houlahan. Yes or no, sir. We agree. Should they be in
all roles in the military?
Secretary Hegseth. My job is that 10 percent--
Ms. Houlahan. Yes or no? Reclaiming my time.
Secretary Hegseth. --stays as sharp as possible. The
standards should be high and equal.
Ms. Houlahan. Reclaiming my time. Do you agree that all
women--that women should be able to perform in all combat
roles, assuming they meet the standards?
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Secretary Hegseth. It is all about standards.
Ms. Houlahan. Disappointing.
The Chairman. Before we move to the next witness, I would
like to hearken back to my several decades ago time as a trial
lawyer and remind the members, you control your questions. The
witness controls his or her answers. You can ask a yes or no
question, but the witness is entitled to give his or her answer
the way they choose to frame it.
With that, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr.
Jackson.
Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. I deeply appreciate your time.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to start by apologizing for
some of the rude and childish behavior that was demonstrated
earlier by one of my colleagues. I think I speak for several
members on this committee. I apologize for that. Unfortunately,
it is probably not the last bit of disrespectful grandstanding
that is going to take place before this hearing is over.
Secretary, under President Donald Trump's leadership, our
government has been refocused on the most pressing challenges
facing our nation. Instead of woke DEI and climate change
programs, this administration is advancing our military
readiness and lethality.
As adversaries seek to challenge the United States, we must
do better to equip, train, and defend this great nation.
Mr. Secretary, on behalf of the patriotic Americans in the
13th Congressional District of Texas, I want to thank you for
what you are doing to reclaim our military. I think you are
doing a wonderful job.
Last month at SOF [Special Operations Forces] week, you
stressed an important and foundational SOF truth. People, not
equipment, make the critical difference. Our SOF community
employ a number of capabilities and special expertise that
bolster our ability to deter the PRC [People's Republic of
China] and set conditions if needed that provide the United
States with distinctive advantages.
We ask a lot of our special operations forces more and more
as each day goes by. And that is only going to continue.
Crisis response remains a critical mission performed by
SOCOM [United States Special Operations Command]. And despite
flat funding, this responsibility has risen as high as 200
percent over the last decade.
Mr. Secretary, as you highlighted during SOF week, our
operators' lethal precision and timely crisis response
capabilities have met these growing demands every single time.
Given this significant and sustained increase in
operational tempo, what can the department do to alleviate
resource constraints in SOCOM's budget to ensure critical
crisis response capabilities are properly funded and that our
SOF operators can continue to meet the evolving global threats
both with great power competition and in the counterterrorism
arena?
Secretary Hegseth. It is a great question, sir. I
appreciate it. We start by listening to those units, to those
men, what they are facing, what they need, what their families
need, and then resource it. Because not only have they been
used more than anybody else over the last 20 years, but even in
just the last 4 or 5 years, the amount of times we call on the
special forces community, special operations community has
increased.
So the funding needs to match that, which you will see in
this budget. The training needs to be commensurate with it. And
then I think morale and standards really matter. There is a
reason why we looked at school houses of some of our most elite
special operations forces and ensured that standards have not
eroded because under the previous administration, for political
reasons, in pursuit of political correctness, for other
ideologies, standards were dropped, whether formally or
informally, amongst certain communities to sometimes reach
quotas or sometimes for ideological perspectives.
We want to ensure standards go up to the highest possible
level. Anyone who can quality meets those standards. And guess
what that does for those units? It increases morale, increases
unit cohesion because they know they are as capable as they can
possibly be.
Dr. Jackson. Thank you. General Caine, do you have anything
to add to that?
General Caine. Sir, most of those matters are policies that
my civilian leaders set and not something that the Joint Force
weighs in on as you know. And thank you for your service.
Dr. Jackson. Yes, sir. And thank you. And I will say that,
you know, we have had lots of discussions about this. And I
know you are aware of this, but the special operations
community is being spread extremely thin right now.
And, you know, SOCOM, JSOC [Joint Special Operations
Command], they are repeatedly and more and more often having to
tell the geographic combatant commanders that they cannot do
what they are being asked to do just because they don't have
the resources or the people to do the job.
So anything I can personally do, and I am sure many others
on this committee, we are willing to make sure that we can do
that.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crow.
Mr. Crow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman
Caine, Secretary Hegseth, and Mrs. MacDonnell. You are doing a
great job today, Mrs. MacDonnell.
Secretary Hegseth, we have a lot of things in common. In
fact our careers started the same way. We were both infantry
officers. We were both platoon leaders. We both deployed our
platoons to combat in a counterinsurgency environment.
There are very few better leadership training grounds than
that experience. And it is that experience that I want to
transport us back into time into, back to Lieutenant Hegseth
and Lieutenant Crow.
There are a lot of things that make a leader and that make
a unit effective. Would you say that unit cohesion is
important?
Secretary Hegseth. Unit cohesion amongst many is very
important, yes.
Mr. Crow. It is an important element. And part of that is
making sure that all members of your unit felt included in that
team, correct?
Secretary Hegseth. Far more important that every member of
that unit felt capable to do the mission and united in that
mission.
Mr. Crow. But that they were included and felt part of the
team as well.
Secretary Hegseth. I wouldn't use the word inclusion, sir,
but yes, they were cohering as a team, yes.
Mr. Crow. And that you reduced tension and in-fighting and
points of tension between your platoon members so that you can
focus on the mission. That was a part of the regular job.
Secretary Hegseth. Absolutely. That is why I have said that
our diversity is our strength is the single dumbest phrase in
military history.
Mr. Crow. And words are important.
Secretary Hegseth. Unity is our strength.
Mr. Crow. Words--
Secretary Hegseth. Unity amongst members despite
differences, backgrounds, race, whatever that is--
Mr. Crow. And I agree with you on that.
Secretary Hegseth. --to ensure we work together on a
mission.
Mr. Crow. Part of that is words are important and setting
the tone is important, correct, when you are a leader?Secretary
Hegseth. All aspects of leadership, mostly leading by example.
Mr. Crow. Did you ever tell them your political
affiliation? Did you ever tell your platoon members your
political affiliation?
Secretary Hegseth. We certainly discussed lots of topics.
And I am sure my political affiliation--
Mr. Crow. Did you ever ask them theirs?
Secretary Hegseth. No, their political affiliation was
never a concern to me.
Mr. Crow. Because it is important that everybody feel
included and that people weren't excluded, correct? That would
be antithetical to leaders.
Secretary Hegseth. I am sure my platoon contained
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, and I had no idea
what their affiliation was.
Mr. Crow. That was actually my next question. So I
appreciate you answering that.
You led your unit in a counterinsurgency environment, and
you interacted with civilians, correct?
Secretary Hegseth. Interacted with members of the civilian
population, interact, sure.
Mr. Crow. And you were in fact a COIN [counter insurgency]
instructor, a counterinsurgency instructor, correct?
Secretary Hegseth. In Afghanistan in 2011 and 2012, I was
the senior counterinsurgency instructor.
Mr. Crow. And you signed off on a manual. There is actually
a counterinsurgency manual that you signed off on and helped
create. And your name is on that manual, correct?
Secretary Hegseth. We were a part of creating a lot of
content at the COIN Academy, yes.
Mr. Crow. Do you remember this portion of the manual? It
says if you have killed two innocents, you have set yourself
back more than you have moved forward. Do you still agree with
that?
Secretary Hegseth. I would have to take a look at the
manual, but obviously no one in warfare is seeking to kill
innocents.
Mr. Crow. Okay. So it is important to show why we are
different from the enemy because we are not the enemy, right?
We ae different from our adversary. Would you agree with that?
We have different morals and different values.
Secretary Hegseth. We are not the enemy, sir.
Mr. Crow. We have different morals and different values
than the enemy.
Secretary Hegseth. We have a code, a Uniform Code of
Military Justice.
Mr. Crow. The answer to that is yes.
Secretary Hegseth. --pre-societal formations that we try
to--
Mr. Crow. You are not trying to compare us to Al Qaeda and
ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] are you? We are
different.
Secretary Hegseth. I know the code of the United States
Military and Army that I signed up for--
Mr. Crow. You can't tell me whether we are different.
Secretary Hegseth. --and I swore to uphold by raising my
right hand.
Mr. Crow. You are not willing to say we are different.
Secretary Hegseth. Of course we are different.
Mr. Crow. Okay. Thank you.
Secretary Hegseth. This is absurd.
Mr. Crow. That is why I am trying to reconcile the fact
that we learned many of the same lessons as platoon leaders
about unit cohesion, making sure that people were included,
that we didn't ask people's political affiliation, that we
interacted respectfully with civilian populations. That what a
leader says matters. That the tone you set matters. That we are
not the enemy. That we are different from them. We lead
differently. We have different morals.
How can I reconcile that experience and those lessons
learned from Lieutenant Hegseth to now Secretary Hegseth where
you say things like what you just saw here, making us
equivalent on the same standards as our adversaries, doing the
same things that ISIS and Al Qaeda would do. How can you
possibly reconcile that? I can't.
And just the other day down at Fort Bragg in our beloved
82nd Airborne Division, sitting there while we politicize the
military and pull our paratroopers into politics, booing
elected officials, booing politicians with whom you disagree,
it is antithetical to our values. And you, sir--
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gimenez.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, when you say that you want the military to
have standards, high standards, is that for each job
classification? You were going to be setting the standards that
that job classification merits?
Secretary Hegseth. Sure. So if you are looking at combat
arms, you are going to have a certain set of standards there
that are very important, and that anybody who meets that
standard is qualified to have that job, whether it be male,
female, whatever race, political affiliation, et cetera. We
have made that clear, from day one, that those jobs are open to
anybody that can reach the standard for that particular job. It
shouldn't be lowered for any reason.
Mr. Gimenez. Fair enough, but are you--when you are setting
these standards, are you going to make sure that they don't set
artificial barriers for entry for anybody? In other words, if
you don't want a particular race or gender, you are going to
set standards that kind of push them away? Or are you going to
be fair in setting your standards?
Secretary Hegseth. The only thing that matters in the
setting of standards is the capability to do the job.
Mr. Gimenez. Fair enough. And I think that is all we ask
for. I want to transition a little bit and you are saying about
peace through strength. Our doctrine is peace through strength,
correct?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. And the only way that really that works is if
your enemy knows that you will use that strength. Is that
correct?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes, credible and capable matters.
Mr. Gimenez. And would you say that if you are ambiguous
about using that strength, that actually invites not peace, but
war?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, there are certain environments
where strategic ambiguity is an important thing, but for the
most part your enemy or adversary needs to know you are capable
and willing to use force, if necessary.
Mr. Gimenez. Fair enough. Would you consider Russia and
China to be allies?
Secretary Hegseth. Unfortunately, especially under the
previous administration, the Biden administration, policies
have driven Russia and China into an even greater alliance,
yes.
Mr. Gimenez. And so would you consider that anything that
benefits Russia and its aggression, would also benefit China?
Secretary Hegseth. I don't know that I would agree with
every characterization of that statement, but certainly if you
are benefitting folks that are on the same side, that matters.
Mr. Gimenez. Fair enough. Now I commend you and the Trump
administration for pushing our allies, our NATO allies into
defending more of Europe. In other words, it is their
responsibility. They have a bear in their backyard. They need
to understand they have a bear in their backyard and that they
need to protect themselves from that bear. But if that bear
gets out of hand, will the United States come to its aid?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, the goal of this administration is
peace in Ukraine. And there is no doubt about that and we
understand--
Mr. Gimenez. I am not talking about Ukraine. I am saying if
a bear, okay, and we are a part of NATO, okay? If the bear
starts getting out of hand and we are part of NATO, will the
United States fulfill its duties under NATO's obligations?
Secretary Hegseth. Article 5 is a real part of NATO. We
acknowledge that. Never have not. But at the same time, we have
been very aggressive in reminding Europe it is responsible for
its defense first.
Mr. Gimenez. No, that is not a small thing.
Secretary Hegseth. I--no, no.
Mr. Gimenez. I am not saying a small thing at all. Okay? I
agree with it. The NATO nations need to be more involved in
their own defense. I agree. They need to bear a big portion of
that defense. But we are part of an alliance.
Secretary Hegseth. But increasingly, not just a bigger
part, but the lead of their defense on the continent in the
years on after World War II, the belief of this administration
is that European countries ought to be able to build combat
credible capability that the bear fears and worries about, not
a continual backstop reliance on the United States of America
for decades and decades and decades. And that is why a 5
percent commitment for European countries is a huge focus for
this administration that only President Trump could achieve
because in a world of a lot of threats, you can't just
continually stay in the same posture and the same places for
the same reasons of the last 80 years. So we are encouraged by
the investment--
Mr. Gimenez. I have only got a certain amount of time. I
need to put this out, okay? I believe like when we started out
this conversation, okay, that it is imperative that that bear
knows that yes, Europe needs to protect itself, but that the
United States will also demonstrate peace through strength in
order to keep the peace in Europe and I yield my time back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. At this time, the chair
would like to note that at approximately 12:30, the committee
will recess for 15 minutes and reconvene at 12:45.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maine, Mr.
Golden.
Mr. Golden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary Hegseth,
yesterday, Admiral Kilby testified before the committee about
the importance of building DGG Flight III ships. The anti-air
ballistic missile radar capabilities are chief among the
reasons why, as I am sure you know, and you can ask just about
any of the U.S.-flagged merchant vessels that have been
attacked by the Houthis, or the Americans, who were protected
by destroyers when Iran attacked Israel for this large-scale
missile attack, why these ships are so important.
So we don't have a complete budget request from your
Department yet, but the word on the street is that it is going
to request zero new destroyers. Of course, destroyers are well
known as the backbone of any modern Navy fleet and China is
closing the gap between us and them having doubled its
destroyer fleet in the last 20 years. I am also now hearing
that the President plans to eliminate the frigate program
outright.
Yesterday, Senator Collins asked you about the absence of
anything referencing destroyers in your fiscal year 2026
spreadsheets that were delivered to Congress. You didn't really
answer the question, instead you referenced a historic
shipbuilding investment that is forthcoming.
So just focusing on destroyers, there is really nothing
historic about the two destroyers in the reconciliation bill.
Just last year, Congress funded three new destroyers. We did
two in fiscal year 2024. We did three in fiscal year 2023. So
from my perspective, the reconciliation bill sets you up for an
easy opportunity to increase the size of America's destroyer
fleet. So I want to give you an opportunity to tell us what
this committee could expect in the fiscal year 2026 request
pertaining to destroyers. I know you have been talking a lot
about tradeoffs and in the short-term I would agree that maybe
there is no immediate negative tradeoff there or negative
effects of not requesting any destroyers, but in the mid-term
and long-term, I think surely any gap in production of
destroyers may come back to bite us, so I wanted to hear what
your thinking is here.
Secretary Hegseth. I appreciate the question, sir. We are
procuring destroyers and I would contrast the previous
administration's budget, last budget, effectively which
procured five ships. This one includes 19.
Mr. Golden. I am talking about destroyers only here.
Secretary Hegseth. There is a plus up of destroyers. We are
reviewing the frigate program for reasons I think this
committee is well aware of. Another one of those difficult
decisions that we think we are in a place where we have to make
them, again, another program that was supposed to be off the
shelf and reflecting something based on existing design that
was gold plated time and time again and pushed backwards. So
that is one of the things we are reviewing. We call it historic
because it is multiples of what we had before, not all
destroyers because you have got a lot of back-end capabilities
you need to invest in to be effective in the maritime space,
but it does make it a historic investment.
Mr. Golden. You said plus up when you say that. Are you
referencing the two destroyers in the reconciliation bill?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes.
Mr. Golden. So that would be a plus up on top of
forthcoming request for more destroyers in the fiscal year 2026
budget request?
Secretary Hegseth. I would ask Bryn, how would you break
that down?
Mrs. MacDonnell. Yes, sir. So our budget, I associate that
as one budget, two bills. So the two destroyers he is
referencing are the two in the reconciliation bill.
Mr. Golden. Okay, so, again, does that mean that you will
request additional destroyers as part of the fiscal year 2026
NDAA in the appropriations process, yes or no?
Mrs. MacDonnell. When we built the budget, sir, the 4
months that you and the Secretary referenced, we found the
requirement for two destroyers in fiscal year 2026, so the
budget only requests two across those bills.
Mr. Golden. Yes, absolutely. The Navy has been planning to
get two destroyers in fiscal year 2026 and fiscal year 2027.
However, I think this committee, the Senate, appropriators as
well, have been pretty clear that the destroyers in
reconciliation were to supplement that anticipated request of
four ships in 2 years, not the plan itself. I suppose if that
is all you are asking for it will be up to members of this
committee and the Congress whether or not we want to exercise
we think is the right call here which would be to grow the size
of our destroyer fleet, not slow down its growth. With that,
you can take the 40 seconds if you have any other comments or I
will yield it back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Luttrell.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and
General Caine and Mrs. MacDonnell, thank you for joining us
today.
Mr. Secretary, I am very laser focused in on the
advancements and the buildout of hypersonic capabilities in our
military at the classification level obviously in this room,
and I will always be concerned and always plan for the worst
and hope for the best, but we are very far behind when it comes
to our ability to build out hypersonics. The nefarious actors
globally have really kind of taken advantage of that over the
past two decades and they are way out front.
And you can pass this off to Mr. Caine if you like, but I
would like to hear where we are and are we moving forward
aggressively enough to outfit our arsenal?
Secretary Hegseth. I will defer to the chairman on that,
but very aggressive. Long range fires, hypersonics are central
to this fiscal year 2026 budget in some creative ways as well.
So I wouldn't fully agree with every characterization of what
you said. We are catching up quickly on capabilities and that
is because of things that are known and things that are unknown
in hypersonics because that is the capability that we need to
have existing and--
Mr. Luttrell. Need to have. Well said. Yes, sir. General?
General Caine. Congressman, first, thanks for your service
in the teams. Appreciate it and a bunch of SEALs in the room
here, so I will be mindful of that.
Mr. Luttrell. They are not as good as I was.
General Caine. No comment, sir.
Mr. Luttrell. Case in point.
General Caine. Yes, sir. Sir, it is very much on our Joint
Force radar. As you know, the services handle a lot of that and
the Navy is all over SM-6 [Standard Missile-6] Block 1B which
will hit in 2029. The Air Force is working on HACM [Hypersonic
Attack Cruise Missile] and doing operational tests on that now
and thinks that that was progressing along the way. We are
looking at partnering with industry to look at additional
capacity and capability on the hypersonic side, but the ability
to leverage that capability to cause dilemmas in those ground
force commanders on the other side is key and essential and
something that we are very focused on through the services.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Good to hear. Mr. Secretary, I have
spoken to the Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Army. I
have spoken to Secretary Collins of the VA [U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs] and I am going to completely shift gears on
this with you. If I am able to accomplish anything and I am
putting this out for public consumption, so I am probably going
to get beat up for it, but if I can before I leave this place,
this wonderful place we call Washington, D.C., if I can make
the transition from Department of Defense, our servicemembers
into the VA space seamless and effective, I have done something
amazing.
Now as a veteran yourself, I can understand, you certainly
understand, you know the complexities of what it looks like
when somebody says hey, thank you for your service. Here is
everything you need. The VA is that way. We lose 6,000 veterans
a year to suicide. We have disability claims that are through
the roof and our veterans' community is more or less lost.
And I wholeheartedly believe that the DOD and the VA worked
shoulder to shoulder with this where it was almost just a drag
and drop. Here is your DOD service record. VA, he or she are on
their way. There we go. You have them. We are good to go. And
the veteran is absolutely taken care of. That does not exist
currently and it is something that I am working every day on.
I know you will support this. I probably am putting words
in your mouth and I shouldn't do that, but I want you and the
Secretary of the VA if you haven't been in the room together to
talk about this, I would love to be involved, but I want this
put to bed. This is a problem that has existed for decades and
decades and decades and it shouldn't. And I think if we make
this process easier, we will decrease the amount of veteran
suicides down the zero. Our veteran space will be just
wholeheartedly happier and then we can move on and focus on
other things.
Secretary Hegseth. As you know, I do agree wholeheartedly.
I hope you have seen Secretary Collins and I--we look for it.
We have never seen a memorandum written together by a DOD
Secretary and VA Secretary which we signed together in his
office at the VA. He came to see me. We talked about it. I came
to see him in his office. He put out a video and a memorandum
and put our staffs together to say this is a problem we need to
fix. We need to streamline that transition in real time for
those who served. So we are fully committed.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir. And I will reach out to your
office for that point of contact so I can--I won't hold it over
top of them, I would like to have someone that I can talk to on
a weekly basis. Thank you and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, the gentleman yields back. The
chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Jacobs.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to all of
our witnesses for being here.
Secretary Hegseth, as you probably know, today is National
Women Veterans Day and in your confirmation hearing and in
subsequent conversations, you have said and I am quoting you
now, "Women in our military have and continue to make amazing
contributions across all aspects of our battlefields" and that
women were some of the best soldiers you served with.
Do you still stand by those statements?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. As you probably know, I represent
San Diego, the biggest military community in the country, so I
meet with countless servicemembers all the time. And with your
focus and emphasis on merit and standards, I want to tell you
about three incredible women in our military.
So the first woman is a major responsible for advanced
collective warfighting training. Her officer evaluation report
rates her as most qualified and some of the comments included
are and I am quoting now "She lives the Army values and
demonstrates the warrior ethos daily. She rates within the top
5 percent of officers I have encountered in 18 years of
military service."
The second woman is an aviator with a record of over 50
combat missions, including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Two quotes from her most recent fitness report in April
include, quoting again, "People excel under her leadership and
she has my strongest possible recommendation for promotion."
The third woman is an instructor for an Army ROTC [Reserve
Officers' Training Corps] battalion. According to her
evaluation report, her overall performance was rated at far
exceeds standards. And the comments include she is undoubtedly
within the top 5 percent of noncommissioned officers I have
worked with in my 22 years of service.
Given their stellar qualifications and accomplishments and
their record of surpassing standards, I assume that you agree
that the Pentagon and the services should do everything they
can to retain women like these, correct?
Secretary Hegseth. I would commend the major, the aviator,
and the instructor for their service.
Ms. Jacobs. Great. I am glad you agree because I also
believe we should be recruiting and retaining the very best and
brightest in our country to serve in the military. And yet, you
are actually kicking out these three highly qualified
servicemembers solely because of their identities. These are
trans women. And you are using the very same arguments that
have been used against desegregating the military or allowing
women to serve or allowing gay people to serve. And in all
those cases those arguments were wrong. So I think it is clear
that this is actually not about standards or and I am quoting
you again, "an equal, unwavering gender neutral, merit-based
system." Because if it were, you would be keeping these women
in. Instead, you are the one injecting culture wars into the
military and it is at the detriment of our military readiness
and national security.
Now General Caine, I would like to turn to you.
Secretary Hegseth. So to be clear, these are men who think
they are women.
Ms. Jacobs. These are women. I am happy to educate you on
trans--
Secretary Hegseth. What we have identified is that there
are mental health issues in that belief system--
Ms. Jacobs. I would like to turn to General--
Secretary Hegseth. --that are detrimental to readiness. And
that is the determination that we have made and that we stand
behind. Gender dysphoria creates--
Ms. Jacobs. So you don't trust your commanding officers to
be able to evaluate the people under them to decide? If that
were true, wouldn't that show up in their fit reps and yet
these fit reps are from the last 3 months and all of their
commanding officers say that they exceed standards.
I am turning to General Caine now. General Caine, I would
like to touch on something you said yesterday before the Senate
Appropriations Committee. When asked whether the United States
is under a foreign invasion you said at this point in time I
don't see any foreign state sponsored folks invading.
Despite that testimony, 2,000 national guard troops have
been federalized and deployed to Los Angeles and 700 Marines
from my community of Southern California are now on the ground
there as well. And on Tuesday, President Trump, flanked by
hundreds of uniformed troops, said they are there, said this is
the reason they are there. They are there--I am quoting now,
"Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant
shores only to watch our country be destroyed by an invasion."
General, have you personally informed the President that
according to your own assessment there is no invasion?
General Caine. Ma'am, first, the definition of an invasion,
whether or not that is--that is really a policy decision and
from a military-only perspective, I stand by what I said
yesterday. But my advice to the President in any particular
matter from a security standpoint or for the Secretary for that
matter, I keep that between them.
Ms. Jacobs. I understand that, but the highest ranking
military advisor in the country does not believe there is an
invasion, and yet the President of the United States is
federalizing the National Guard--
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jacobs. --in the name of an invasion.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. This will
be the last member before we have our break.
The gentlelady from South Carolina is recognized.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just to clarify, I
want everyone to know that men are not women and I find it
deeply offensive as a woman who has broken the glass ceiling.
So to all the women out there who are fighting their way
through their track meets, their scholarships, their jobs
against mentally-ill men, I want you to know Republicans, we
see you, and we support you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Secretary Hegseth and
General Caine for joining us today. The Department of Defense
and our Armed Forces exist to protect our country's interests
and our citizens' freedoms. Under the previous administration,
this mission was supplanted by divisive ideology and social
experimentation. Allowing ideological advocacy to come before
military readiness was an enormous mistake.
At the direction of President Trump, and under your
leadership, the DOD is rightfully returning to its focus on
lethality and readiness. Our country faces a complex array of
challenges and must maintain unparalleled readiness. The
changes you are implementing at DOD are critical to returning
our military to its core mission.
So I have a few questions for you, Secretary Hegseth,
today. How much did the Biden administration spend on DEI
programs at DOD?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, when you look at directly or
ancillary reflections of it, it was billions of dollars, ma'am.
Ms. Mace. And did it focus on equitable outcomes rather
than merit or improved our effectiveness in the military?
Secretary Hegseth. No, I think if you look at ongoing
operations under the Biden administration and also recruiting
and retention under the administration, it was a distraction,
not an enabler.
Ms. Mace. Do DEI programs make our military more lethal?
Secretary Hegseth. No.
Ms. Mace. Secretary Hegseth, how much money did the Biden
administration spend on the chemical and surgical mutilation of
our servicemembers under the guise of gender affirming here?
Secretary Hegseth. I don't know, but one dollar is too
much.
Ms. Mace. I agree. Did sex change experiments and the
chemical and surgical mutilation or castration of
servicemembers improve our defense capabilities and make us
more lethal?
Secretary Hegseth. No.
Ms. Mace. That is what I thought. Secretary Hegseth, can a
history of mental health conditions disqualify someone from
military service?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes.
Ms. Mace. And is gender dysphoria a documented mental
illness included in this list of disqualifying conditions?
Secretary Hegseth. It was not, but it is now per an
Executive Order from the White House and reinforced by the
Defense Department, gender dysphoria is properly recognized as
a mental disorder and a disqualifying one for military service.
Ms. Mace. God bless America. Okay, so I welcome the
announcement of the Navy that they would be ending animal
testing on cats and dogs, huge one for animal lovers and those
against the barbaric treatment of cats and dogs. However, I
understand there is still some active dog and cat testing
funded by the DOD.
Secretary, do you plan to end these experiments as well?
Secretary Hegseth. As you know, Congresswoman, we have
looked at a lot of those. We have reviewed a lot of those and
we have ended a lot of those. There are probably others under
review and we will do that.
Ms. Mace. I would love for you all to do review and
eliminate all of them and see them ended as well.
Will you, do you think you will enact a DOD-wide ban on
conducting or funding cat and dog experiments? Do you think
that will be in the future under your leadership?
Secretary Hegseth. We will review that. Right now, our
focus is studies that actually add to our capability, our
readiness, our warfighting ethos. So if they don't contribute
to enabling better capabilities, then they will be reviewed and
ended.
Ms. Mace. Okay, and talk to me about recruitment. How far--
you have already met your recruitment numbers this year so far,
right, or close to it?
Secretary Hegseth. In record numbers. Months and months
ahead in all services.
Ms. Mace. Why do you think that is?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, a new commander-in-chief was
elected in November and inaugurated in January and I used to
call it the Trump Bump. You can't call it that any more. It is
a tsunami of young Americans who believe in the direction
President Trump is taking the country and specifically his
leadership as commander-in-chief and they look at a fighting
force that is going to be back to basics. We get accused of
wanting to ideology--ideology on the other side that was pushed
into the military. We are pulling that out and getting back to
basics, fidelity to the Constitution, focus on warfighting.
Americans respond when that is the focus.
Ms. Mace. So if there is a young person watching today on
C-SPAN and I hope that there are a few and if they don't know
what they want to do with the rest of their life, how do they
get recruited into the military? What can they go do today
right now to come work for you?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, the menu, any different services,
any different jobs, and contrary to the narrative being pushed
by one side, we have a record number of females, minorities as
well. This is not just one group of people joining the
military. And we welcome all Americans who are qualified to
serve our country.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. As previously
stated, the committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The hearing will return to order. The chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Strickland.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. I represent
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, home to over 40,000 active duty
servicemembers and their families. JBLM [Joint Base Lewis-
McChord] is the Department of Defense's most important
installation for projecting power into the Indo-Pacific region,
hosting the Army's 1 Corps and one third of the Air Force's
entire C-17 feet.
I want to start by recognizing the Army's 250th birthday. I
am an Army brat myself. My father served in the military. He
joined the Army when it was segregated and he continued to
serve when President Truman desegregated, something that
probably would have be defined as woke back then.
I could not be more proud of the soldiers who make up Army
and what it is and as part of the celebration, the Pentagon is
going to host a day-long festival and parade estimated to cost
up to $45 million. Department of Defense officials have
described this as a generational recruiting tool and a plan to
highlight every era and legendary leaders throughout Army
history.
So Secretary Hegseth, do you plan to include displays of
Colin Powell, our first Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff? Will you include displays about the Japanese-American
442nd Regimental Combat Team, one of the most decorated units
of all time? Will you include displays about Major General
Charles Calvin Rogers, whose Medal of Honor your Department
previously labeled as DEI?
Recent articles by Stars and Stripes, Military Times and
others outline how your team has gone to great lengths to wipe
out references of these American heroes. I am incredibly
concerned and actually disappointed that you will continue
trying to tell an incomplete story about the Army's proud
history, especially when you consider that 40 percent of those
who are serving who are enlisted represent minority
communities.
So I am going to ask you, sir, will you be able to talk
about these things and will they be included? And I am going to
have another question after that.
Secretary Hegseth. Well, Congresswoman, I do not accept
your insinuation that we would seek to disclude [sic] any race
or group of people in representing 250 years of incredible
service of the United States Army, including your father which
I thank him for. We are proud that we are going to put on full
display the Army's military might 250 years on which is a
demonstration of American freedom, power, and commitment.
Ms. Strickland. And I agree. Are these three people that I
mentioned going to be included in this celebration?
Secretary Hegseth. This is a parade demonstrating military
might, capabilities through the years, including to today.
Ms. Strickland. Yes. There will be exhibits. So will these
folks be included, sir?
Secretary Hegseth. I think you will be heartened to know
that the Secretary of Defense is not involved in choosing
individual exhibits in the celebration, but our team has put in
a great deal of effort to make sure the Army's history is well
represented.
And I will say this, part of the reason I am sitting right
here and I put on the uniform is a parade that went through my
parents' home time in Wanamingo, Minnesota, blink and you miss
it, nothing farm town.
Ms. Strickland. Absolutely, no I am talking about the
exhibition. Are you going to include Colin Powell, the
Japanese-American 442nd, or Major General Charles Calvin
Rogers? That is my question.
Secretary Hegseth. I am sure we will include a cross
section of a lot of incredible Americans and possibly all of
them, too. I have no idea.
Ms. Strickland. So you have no idea or I am going to take
that as a no.
Next question. Let's talk about Ukraine and Russia. So we
know that Russia started this war. They have long been an
adversary of the United States and at the same time, you heard
the President make some really interesting comments including,
not including Russia in the widespread random terrorists. So I
think one question I will ask you as we talk about wanting
peace, because we all agree that is a desired outcome, do you
and the President support surrender to Russia by Ukraine as
your definition of peace?
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, no one has talked about
surrender. We are talking about a negotiated peace.
Ms. Strickland. So does that mean that you are okay with
Russia keeping this territory that they are trying to take so
they can march on to one of our NATO allies?
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, I think the situation is
unfortunate, unleashed by the previous administration, but
everyone that talks about winning and prevailing has yet to
present to me a plan that is going to push the Russian army out
of those territories.
Ms. Strickland. So, sir, I appreciate you talking about the
previous administration often, but we are now in this
administration, so as the person who serves at the pleasure of
the U.S. President, do you believe that Russia is a true
adversary and is your definition of peace going to be surrender
of Ukraine from this invasion?
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, I have never said surrender and
we are prepared to negotiate what we hope will be a lasting
peace.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our
distinguished witnesses, Ms. MacDonnell, Secretary Hegseth, and
General Caine, for your service and appearing before us today.
Secretary Hegseth, I also want to thank you for visiting
Guam. And it is great to see you once again, sir. Thank you
very much. I appreciate your keeping an eye on the Pacific
Deterrence Initiative, sir, and wanted to make sure that our
construction, our readiness projects on Guam stay on time and
on budget.
Considering the complexity of working in our isolated
territory, of course, with workforce constraints and logistical
constraints as well, tell us about the mechanisms that you have
in place to ensure we maintain our time and budget on the
Pacific Deterrence Initiative, sir.
Secretary Hegseth. Well, thank you for the question, sir.
It was great to visit you. I will say a big part of that is
focus and attention and time and I was struck, not to be
critical of any of my predecessors in this context, but that it
had been over 20 years since the Secretary of Defense had
visited Guam. It was one of the first places we felt like we
should go because our focus is in the Indo-Pacific and the
troops we have there, the capabilities we have there, the
facilities we have there, the forward posture we want to
maintain there, Guam being a central part of that.
So seeing is understanding. We came back from that with an
even better understanding of what that island and other parts
of multiple island chains needed to consider deterring China.
And our group went right to work, responsive to many of the
things we spoke about, but also to ensure that this budget
funds those priorities. So indeed the Pacific Deterrence
Initiative is increased robustly through this budget and then a
lot of other ways in which Guam will be part of the future
fight.
Mr. Moylan. I thank you and I also ask for your continued
support. Our main workforce there is the H-2B workers which we
will be looking at to extend once again with your support. So
thank you, Mr. Secretary.
One thing that would be helpful for our contractors on Guam
is regarding the design bid, bid and build. So this makes a lot
of delays and change orders and cost overruns due to our site
location and our logistical complexities. As the Department or
I ask the Department also to review some lessons learned from
the design/build versus design/bid/build models instead. That
will really speed things up and I am hoping your project will
enable more flexibility for our contracting strategies to do
just that.
Secretary Hegseth. One of the core pillars of how we are
changing MILCON acquisition is flexibility with a recognition
that each site, CONUS [Continental United States] or OCONUS
[Outside the Continental United States], or more far flung, has
unique complexities, workforce complexities, logistical
challenges, resourcing challenges that need to allow the local
leadership there to adapt as quickly as possible and the last
thing the DOD usually does well especially the bureaucracy is
adapt. So we are trying to give maximum flexibility and
latitude, sir.
Mr. Moylan. That will be extremely helpful. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
And then, General Caine, with the transition to fully
integrate Guam's Defense System, GDS, how are we synchronizing
the existing capabilities like THAAD [Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense]and Aegis Ashore and the Golden Dome architect
plans to ensure seamless integration with global missile
warning and reconnaissance systems?
General Caine. Well, sir, thanks for the question, and
thanks also for your service in the Army previously. You know,
the importance of integrating our defense capabilities is
critical. And as we look at systems like THAAD and Aegis
Ashore, you know, the Department is looking carefully at what
has to be true to make sure that the other systems like GDA
[Global Dome for America] are able to bring forward a layered
defense system from sensing layer all the way through the
kinetic layer to ensure that we don't have any gaps. And so
that is something I know the team that is running GDA, the team
that is running THAAD and Aegis, are doing, sir, down in the
services.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you. And I think a lot of research will
be done for the island of Guam to make sure this is right to
protect our nation and our island. That is such a forward
proximity. And then this lessons learned from that will help
our nation build on the Golden Dome. Would that be a correct
statement?
General Caine. Sir, I think, you know, our goal is to share
lessons from not only your home, but the other places that GDI
and Golden Dome will be a part of. And so they do accelerate
our learning, sir.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Jersey,
Ms. Sherrill.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Hegseth, Chairman Caine, that you both for being
here today. Mr. Secretary, your testimony over the last several
days before Congress I have heard you speak about all of your
supposed accomplishments from your time at the Pentagon. I have
to say your training at Fox News has let you spin months of
dangerous dysfunction and incompetence into catchy phrases like
restoring the warrior ethos and increasing lethality, but the
truth is it is really been chaos at the Pentagon under your
leadership.
You have clearly shown you are unable to manage the
Department of Defense, but what I am most concerned about are
three specific areas: your operational incompetence, your
managerial incompetence, and your budget incompetence. So let's
start with operational.
According to news reports in your first week on the job you
got confused in a National Security Council meeting and thought
President Trump wanted you to stop all aid to Ukraine. And
while functioning in administration you would have asked for
clarification before making that seismic policy shift, but
instead you ordered vital military aid heading to the front
lines turned around, costing the U.S. millions and depriving
Ukrainian soldiers of equipment they needed to fight Russia.
So, Mr. Secretary, can you explain how exactly you
misunderstood such a monumental presidential order?
Secretary Hegseth. One of many fake news headlines we have
dealt with.
Ms. Sherrill. So President Trump told you to halt military
aid to Ukraine on January 30?
Secretary Hegseth. As is often the case, highly ideological
and very ill-informed reporters love to speculate about things
they know nothing about in order to spear President Trump and
myself.
Ms. Sherrill. So it sounds like actually the reporting is
correct because I will say if it wasn't, why--if it wasn't a
mistake, why did aid restart only a few days later?
Secretary Hegseth. Again, we would take complete issue with
what would--some call reporting and others call a hatchet job.
Ms. Sherrill. So why did aid start just a couple days
later?
Secretary Hegseth. I am saying the reporting is inaccurate,
ma'am.
Ms. Sherrill. I don't think that is correct. So let's move
onto your managerial incompetence. I think we can see why you
misunderstood the President because you are obviously
misunderstanding my questions.
Less than a month into the job you fired the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, C.Q. Brown, and the Chief of Naval
Operations, Lisa Franchetti, without cause. And to this day you
still have not provided an adequate explanation for removing
them. As far as I can tell, you fired C.Q. Brown because he was
black and Lisa Franchetti because she is a woman. So nearly 4
months later we still don't have a new nominee for Chief of
Naval Operations. News reports, and you can contest it, but I
would love to hear your answer, say that you haven't nominated
someone because qualified admirals keep turning the position
down.
So tell me, Mr. Secretary, when will Congress receive your
nomination for the next Chairman of the Naval--the next Chief
of Naval Operations?
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, with all due respect, I would
suggest not believing every headline you read.
Ms. Sherrill. With all due respect, I would like your
nomination. When will we see it?
Secretary Hegseth. There is not a single admiral or any
military official has turned down a position that has been--
Ms. Sherrill. So when will see your nominee for the Chief
of Naval Operations?
Secretary Hegseth. In due time, for all the right reasons.
Ms. Sherrill. Again, I think we have seen the managerial
incompetence.
Okay. Let's move on to budgetary incompetence. You missed
the deadline to submit a draft defense budget to Congress which
makes it impossible for us to complete our work on the NDAA or
appropriations and makes it more likely you will receive delays
in funding you need for new acquisitions, programs, and other
priorities. Additionally, you are blowing money on poorly-
conceived operations and vanity projects for President Trump.
Retrofitting the Qatari jet to serve as Air Force One will
cost about $400 million. The parade in D.C. this weekend will
cost upwards of $40 million. Your bombing campaign in Yemen
cost about 1 billion and a week later they were having missile
strikes in Israel. Your operations in L.A. will cost tens of
millions of dollars. And you claim to be cutting costs at the
Pentagon, but all I see are wasted dollars better spent
addressing our most pressing threats like China.
So, Mr. Secretary, what priorities have you cut funding for
to pay for these projects?
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, I would just say your list left
off securing the southern border.
Ms. Sherrill. So, Mr. Secretary, what priorities have you
cut funding for to pay for these projects?
Secretary Hegseth. We make tradeoffs every day and I would
imagine what we want to spend on is quite different than what
the previous administration did.
Ms. Sherrill. Well, I think the American--
Secretary Hegseth. We made those changes quickly and they
are reflected in this budget, and we are very proud of them.
Ms. Sherrill. I think the American people can see why I am
so concerned about this incompetence.
Thank you and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Mills.
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary and panel, let me just go ahead and commend
you on an amazing job that you have done, not only in
highlighting the importance of the war fighter, but also
guaranteeing that our recruitment and retention is at the
highest levels that we have seen. This is due to good
leadership, not managerial problems, as one of my colleagues
just tried to reiterate, and will note for the record is
walking away because they know they don't want to hear the
actual facts and truth.
I am going to go through a couple of things. They keep
bringing up this plane, this aircraft. Well, let's go through
history. This has been a long-standing cultural share as
aviation was one of the most remarkable things that man had
innovated. And in 1945 President F.D.R. actually gifted a
Douglas DC-3 to King Abdulaziz, which marked the beginning of
civil aviation in Saudi Arabia.
The airplane is nothing more than a reason to complain
about the President advancing U.S. interests. And this is more
to conflate optics than actual outcomes. But we will let them
go ahead and spin their wheels on a $400 million upgrade, not
realizing the total cost of an aircraft. I think that is a good
cost savings; a good negotiation.
Now they talked about the Golden Dome. There are a lot of
things that is intentionally left off operationally and
classified to ensure that we can keep the sovereignty and
protection of our nation without our adversaries actually
knowing it. Our colleagues know this, but they want to try and
highlight it in a way that brings about that you are trying to
hide or not being transparent as opposed to operational and
communications security.
But what they should be realizing is that there is a real
violation of the 1962 Outer Space Treaty, that when the leak
was made about Sputnik 2's capabilities and what Russia was
trying to do to arm and weaponize from a nuclear capability in
space that maybe we should take a vital interest in not just
what we are seeing here on earth, but what we are seeing abroad
as well. The President knew this in his first administration,
which is why he created Space Force.
I will also go ahead and talk about DEI. Our recruitment
and retention is high because we are no longer factoring
diversity, equity, inclusion. We are focused on increased
lethality, readiness, and being properly equipped. The war
fighter ethos that he claimed was so intact--if it was intact
we wouldn't lower our standards. And our standards aren't
arbitrary. The standards that you are setting for our Armed
Forces are based on real military and combat needs that we have
seen and evaluated and usually lessons that are left from
bloodshed and loss of life that we then base our standards upon
to guarantee that we have the best, strongest, and most
prepared war fighters and the greatest voluntary force in the
world.
With programmatic reform I love the fact that you are going
after the ideas that it is not about trying to have the most
expensive at 100 percent, but what actually functions, works,
and saves cost-effectiveness, and readiness, and having it on
the table for our war fighter now, not in 5 years from now. So
again, a great achievement.
When we talk about recruitment and retention one of the
things I wanted to bring up, and I hope that you will address,
is those who were in my opinion unconstitutionally purged from
our military for actually having their medical and religious
rights denied. And I would like to see these individuals who
were wrongfully purged given the opportunity to not only return
to serve in our Armed Forces and our nation, not a political
agenda, but to also have the ability to be re-incentivized by
having back pay, full benefits, and being able to be returned
to the ranks that they deserve without it being politicized.
I think that we should start naming a lot of our cities in
Texas and New Mexico and Arizona something that was by a
Ukrainian city. Then our colleague might actually care about
the protection of our borders. This is one thing that you have
actually done great by sending our military down there. And we
have a 600 percent increase in apprehension rates and a
complete decrease in human and sex trafficking and fentanyl and
opioids that are killing Americans by the thousands.
Now when it comes to the cartels, the President has
designated our cartels, rightfully so, as a foreign terrorist
organization. What can Congress provide to DOD in order to
better support the mission, the physical security of
servicemembers in the southern border, and is there a
possibility of maybe a Title 55/Title 11/Title 10 combination
that will allow us to be able to work with DOD and the IC
[intelligence community] to be able to start going after those
cartels?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, I appreciate those comments, sir.
And as I mentioned earlier, it wasn't really an authorities
issue when it came to securing the southern border. The
previous administration claimed they needed new policies. No,
we needed a new President who was serious about it and so we
have focused on rightly designating those criminal cartels as
foreign terrorist organizations.
Right now we believe we have those authorities. If
necessary we would come to Congress for additional ones.
Mr. Mills. Thank you so much. And again, I want to commend
you as well on the operations against the Houthis the previous
administration had delisted as a terrorist organization which
was disrupting 12 percent of global trade in addition to the
Bidenflation that was sinking the middle class.
So thank you for what you are doing. We stand by--support
you. I am going to support you from day one, as I always have.
Keep fighting and let's go ahead and go after the war fighters.
Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both for being here. We have all worn the
uniform, we have all served in combat, we all love our country,
and we all revere our troops. And I really want to speak with
you both not as partisans, but as patriots. And I want to talk
specifically about the events at Fort Bragg the other day.
General Caine, I want to start with you. As a junior
officer were you ever required to make a pledge of political
loyalty, yes or no?
General Caine. Sir, as you know, we are--
Mr. Ryan. General--
General Caine.--an apolitical military, so--
Mr. Ryan.--I have limited time.
General Caine.--you know, no.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. At any time in your 30-plus years of
incredibly distinguished service did you have to make a pledge
of partisan or political loyalty?
General Caine. No, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. Did you ever serve in any unit or
command at any level where servicemembers were required to make
a pledge of political loyalty?
General Caine. No, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. And I want to commend you. I have been
on the record on this including in your confirmation hearings
where you clarified, quote, ``I've never worn any political
merchandise or said anything to that effect.'' I appreciate
that. That is the standard. And I commend you for saying so and
continuing to model that.
General Caine, one last question for you. Should soldiers
have to pledge political loyalty to participate in an event
with our Commander in Chief? Yes or no, please.
General Caine. Sir, I am not first, no. I don't I am not
aware of any time in history that soldiers, sailors, airmen,
Marines have been asked to do that. I think it all--
Mr. Ryan. And I am sorry, general. I do want to--just in
the interest of time I want to talk about what happened at Fort
Bragg 2 days ago.
There was guidance put out, and this has been verified by
multiple independent news outlets, saying, quote--these are to
the soldiers of the 18th Airborne Corps and the U.S. Army--``If
soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the
current administration, then they need to speak with their
leadership and get swapped out.'' This is swapped out of the
event with the President.
In addition, in an incredibly disturbing incident, there
was a pop-up shop selling MAGA merchandize on post at Fort
Bragg. And to summarize this, there was a commander from Bragg
who said on the record, quote, ``This has been a bad week for
the Army, for anyone who cares about us being a neutral
institution. This was shameful.''
If those are the facts, and I know the Army is
investigating at least the MAGA pop-up shop, is that
appropriate General Caine?
General Caine. Sir, I haven't seen any of these reports.
You know, I am not familiar with them, but as I mentioned
earlier and in my confirmation hearing, you know, the nation
demands an apolitical, nonpartisan military.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate you saying that and happy to share
those reports.
Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with DOD Directive 1344.10,
Political Activities of the Members of the Armed Forces?
Secretary Hegseth. Well first off, I don't--
Mr. Ryan. Are you, yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth.--buy into the insinuation--
Mr. Ryan. Are you familiar with--
Secretary Hegseth.--that pledges are being done under this
administration. That is--
Mr. Ryan. I reclaim my time. Are you familiar with this DOD
directive?
Secretary Hegseth. There is never one time in my service or
in this Defense Department--
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Secretary, will you please answer these
questions?
Secretary Hegseth. I am answering your questions. Where
politics has been considered for servicemembers.
Mr. Ryan. Are you familiar with this directive? Yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth. Which directive?
Mr. Ryan. DOD Directive 1344.10. I am happy to provide you
a copy. There is even a one-page red and green cheat sheet. Are
you familiar with it? This is the same directive from when we
were all in uniform.
Secretary Hegseth. I am sure I am.
Mr. Ryan. Has anything changed in that directive under your
guidance given what happened 2 days ago at Fort Bragg? Is there
a new policy change that we are not aware of?
Secretary Hegseth. Again, I totally reject your
insinuation.
Mr. Ryan. Is there a policy change to DOD Directive
1344.10?
Secretary Hegseth. I know what you are attempting to
insinuate, but there is been--
Mr. Ryan. I will take that as a no.
Secretary Hegseth.--policy change and there is no policy
change.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Secretary, have you ever work a MAGA hat in
front of the troops?
Secretary Hegseth. I own plenty of MAGA hats, but I don't
think I have.
Mr. Ryan. Have you ever one in front of the troops at an
official event? I don't believe so.
Secretary Hegseth. That I am aware of.
Mr. Ryan. I don't believe so. Do you think it is
appropriate for the President of the United States to wear
political merchandise including a MAGA hat at official events
including West Point commencement?
Secretary Hegseth. The Commander in Chief--
Mr. Ryan. Yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth.--can wear whatever hat he wants to
include the phrase ``Make America Great Again,'' because I
would like make--
Mr. Ryan. So you think that is--
Secretary Hegseth.--America great again as well.
Mr. Ryan. So you think that is appropriate?
Secretary Hegseth. The Commander in Chief has the right in
front of his troops to wear whatever he would like.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. I strongly disagree with you. And I urge
you both, especially you, General Caine, as we have seen
increasingly political rhetoric, including from the Secretary,
to please for the good of our troops--this is an incredibly
difficult moment and we need leaders like you to continue to
echo the apolitical nature.
I have 12 seconds. Mr. Secretary, I don't say this lightly.
I have to say this on the record. I think your tenure as
Secretary of Defense has been shameful and weak and you should
resign. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Fallon.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Secretary, we will have a little bit of
time to talk about all that.
General Caine, is it true or not true that in 1988 you were
at Plattsburgh Air Force Base as an ROTC cadet?
General Caine. Yes, sir. I think I was, yes.
Mr. Fallon. Do you recognize the person you are addressing
right now?
General Caine. Yes, I actually do. Yes, sir. Please don't
tell anybody how we did out there.
Mr. Fallon. We did. We were athletic officers in 1988.
General Caine. Yes, we were.
Mr. Fallon. I believe you worked for me at the time.
General Caine. I did, sir. I still do.
Mr. Fallon. Kind of, yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fallon. And just for the record, there was a Commandant
Award recognizing the best cadet of all 200. And they got that
right because it was the man sitting in front me, General
Caine, who won that.
[Applause.]
Mr. Fallon. I got out as a captain, so you are winning.
General Caine, I want to talk to you about the lessons
learned in Ukraine and how important it is--I also sit on the
Intelligence Committee--and how we can best detour in the Indo-
Pacific because that is of vital import. We don't want to get
into a war with a peer adversary. And then if you could also
just touch on the importance of innovation and acquisition
reform?
General Caine. Yes, sir. Well, as I have talked about
before, the entrepreneurial spirit out there in Europe is one
that we have all learned from. And as we look at creating
multiple simultaneous cognitive fiscal and physical dilemmas
for our adversaries around the world, we have to take that same
entrepreneurial spirit and bring it back here to our nation,
both in our national and our industrial base. So the importance
of mass scale building a DIB [defense industrial base] in a
national base that can provide the combat capability that our
war fighters need at the tactical edge is something that both
the secretary and I, as well as the Services, are very focused
on.
Mr. Fallon. Well, thank you. And you are both a breath of
fresh air.
Mr. Secretary, I want to visit with you a little bit about
recruiting first and then I do want to talk about politics in
the military.
We have seen recruiting bump, thank the Lord. Over the last
3 or 4 years it was a crisis. And if we don't--if we didn't
solve it, I don't know what we were going to do. So I would
like to ask you, because I have asked each of the secretaries
of each branch, to really do a deep dive and come back to
Congress and let us know--because I want to start with doubts
and end in certainties--find out the reasons why we--why the
change, whatever they may be because whatever we are doing
right, we need to continue to do so we don't get in this
situation. And if you all need some extra funding, if you have
folks that are willing to come in, I would rather have a few
more than a few less.
And also I want to talk about the fact that I think you are
a breath of fresh air, not only the general, but yourself,
because the first thing that you said to us was you were going
to reintroduce war fighting and lethality and force projection
into our military.
And you specifically said that you did not want to see
politics infest. Because we had people up here in the last few
years that were clearly like a Democratic general. I never want
to see that again. I don't want to see a Republican general. I
want to see American generals and American generals only ever
address us. And I thought it was a travesty. And I have a case
in point.
We have here this individual who was I believe a major in
the Army--was exulted and venerated above all 2 million Active
and Reservists by the DOD, the former DOD. Why? Was there any
excellence that was done? Was there a life saved? Was there a
computer program written by cyber? No. It was because this
person was transsexual. And they had a political flag in
uniform and they were waving it. That was disgusting, not
because it was a transsexual. Because that was a political
statement. And this person did nothing of excellence at all to
be recognized.
And instead we should be venerating people like Gary Gordon
and Randy Shughart who gave their lives to save Mike Durant and
won the Medal of Honor. That is the lethality. That is what
will deter the Chinese and that is what will deter our enemies.
And I would like to give you a minute and 13 seconds to
expound on that and maybe answer Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Secretary Hegseth. Well, amen. And you are exactly right.
That is precisely what we want to return to and restore. And
every accusation and insinuation that that is politicizing is
blatantly false and they know it. Ultimately, there were
ideologies and particular political perspectives being injected
into our Forces. Call it political correctness. Call it DEI.
Call it CRT [critical race theory]. Call it what you want. They
were being injected in.
Our job has been to remove those political ideologies and
go back to basics. High standards that are the same. We are not
looking at race. We are not emphasizing your differences. We
are focusing on our unity, which is the point of any formation.
Every formation I have ever looked at I didn't look at the race
or background of the people in that formation. I wanted the
most capable leader, squad leader, team leader across the
spectrum able to do the job. Because when it hits the fan, that
is what I need. And our enemies need to see that.
Let me say something about the chairman. He is the most
professional apolitical military expert I have ever worked
with. And our country is grateful--should be grateful to have
him at the helm because they are in very steady, apolitical
hands and he--
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr.
Vasquez.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I understand that the border is a top
priority for you and the Department of Defense. Well, it is
also one of my top priorities in my border district. That is
why I have introduced bipartisan legislation to stop fentanyl
at the border, secure our ports of entry, hire more CBP [U.S.
Customs and Border Patrol] personnel, and combat the cartels,
areas that I am sure we agree on.
Now DOD has spent more than $525 million on the--from the
defense budget on military operations on the border. You have
done it by diverting over $1 billion from military
modernization and quality of life programs like housing. And as
such, I am sure you are well informed as to what your war
fighters are doing on our border and the characteristics of the
border itself.
Secretary Hegseth, do you know how many border miles there
are in New Mexico?
Secretary Hegseth. Not the exact number of miles.
Mr. Vasquez. Can you give me a round figure.
Secretary Hegseth. Hundreds.
Mr. Vasquez. Okay. 180 miles. Can you tell me where the
border wall starts and ends on this map of New Mexico?
Secretary Hegseth. I am not properly oriented to your map,
but I know that unfortunately because of the administration
previous they did not have the opportunity to finish the border
wall--
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Secretary.
Secretary Hegseth.--and let it rust on the ground instead
of putting it up--
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Secretary.
Secretary Hegseth.--our border.
Mr. Vasquez. And you have been to New Mexico. Could you
tell me where in New Mexico you have been to?
Secretary Hegseth. I have been to the border twice to look
at--once at our national defense area down there because it--I
can't recall a time when a Secretary of Defense has gone down
in the first 4 or 5 months of his tenure to the border to
better understand the situation there.
Mr. Vasquez. Was that in an urban area or in a rural area?
Secretary Hegseth. Both areas. Traversed rural areas and
urban areas.
Mr. Vasquez. Okay. So you must be familiar--
Secretary Hegseth. Some with walls, some without.
Mr. Vasquez. Secretary--
Secretary Hegseth. And President Trump has actually
supported you have a border wall.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Secretary. I reclaim my time.
So the most remote part of New Mexico is called the
bootheel. And I am not sure that you spent any time in the
bootheel of New Mexico. Mr. Secretary, I was raised on the
border. I lived there my whole life. I have worked alongside
ranchers, farmers, landowners, wildlife biologists, and other
stakeholders for over a decade. I headed a border security task
force in my district before coming to Congress. I have traveled
with border patrols on ATVs, I have hunted the border on
horseback, and hiked dozens of miles in the most remote
stretches of the border in this region.
Now do you happen to know why there hasn't been a border
wall built in the bootheel?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, based on what you just described
you should be a big fan of what our administration is--
Mr. Vasquez. Well, Secretary, I am asking why a border wall
has not been built. Funds have been allocated for other parts
of the border, but not--
Secretary Hegseth. Well, here is what I know: Our commander
is on the ground and others and our engineers would understand
what goes where and why and where there should be a border
wall. There will be a border wall.
Mr. Vasquez. Okay. Secretary--
Secretary Hegseth. It will be funded through
reconciliation--
Mr. Vasquez. Secretary, are you familiar with the Animas
Mountains, with Alamo Hueco, with San Luis Mountains, Guadalupe
Pass, or Long Canyon?
Secretary Hegseth. Again--
Mr. Vasquez. Critical border areas.
Secretary Hegseth. I am aware that there are gaps in
different places where walls are not as much--as effective as
other places. And I get that. We are applying infrastructure--
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Secretary. I appreciate your answer
on that.
Secretary Hegseth.--where it makes the most sense,
because--
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you.
Secretary Hegseth.--we are going to get 100 percent
operational--
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Secretary. So you agree then that a
border wall doesn't make sense for the entire country?
Secretary Hegseth. I think we need a border wall across our
entire border.
Mr. Vasquez. Okay. So you should know then why it is almost
physically impossible to build a border across the Animas
Mountains and the terrain challenges that that poses and the
billions of dollars. Do you know if there are roads on those
mountains currently?
Secretary Hegseth. If we are going to spend money as a
government--
Mr. Vasquez. Okay.
Secretary Hegseth.--it should be--
Mr. Vasquez. I will take that as a no.
Secretary Hegseth.--to secure our southern border.
Mr. Vasquez. Well, the point I am trying to make,
secretary, is that if this is so important to the military and
you as the Secretary of the Department of Defense should know
more about the border. Mr. Secretary, I urge you to skip the
photo ops next time that you go to a port of entry and spend
time on the ground in places like the Diamond A Ranch.
Secretary Hegseth. I think you should ask the soldiers on
the border whether they have been photo op visits or not
because I spent a lot of time--
Mr. Vasquez. Secretary--
Secretary Hegseth. --on the ground--
Mr. Vasquez. Secretary, are you--
Secretary Hegseth. --with the soldiers getting an
understanding of what--
Mr. Vasquez. Secretary, I am going to ask you a question--
Secretary Hegseth. --they are facing, what they are doing,
what their capabilities are--
Mr. Vasquez. Secretary, I reclaim my time.
Secretary Hegseth. --not for photo ops.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you. Secretary, I reclaim my time.
Secretary Hegseth. --understand what our troops do and
why--
Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Chairman, may I reclaim my time?
The Chairman. The gentleman reclaims his time.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you. Secretary, do you know what a
tethered aerostat system is?
Secretary Hegseth. I do.
Mr. Vasquez. Okay. Well, great. Then you know that this
type of surveillance technology is superior to having thousands
of troops sitting in trucks looking at an empty desert. I have
requested funds for more tethered aerostat systems. We haven't
had a response from your Department.
Are you familiar with ASTs [autonomous surveillance tower]?
Secretary Hegseth. What is an AST?
Mr. Vasquez. Well, it is an autonomous surveillance tower.
They are equipped with these advanced cameras that have the
capability to relay critical information to border agents on
the ground. And this type of technology is badly needed on the
bootheel. And it is a much better expenditure than a border
wall is--
Secretary Hegseth. I have seen those towers in use.
Mr. Vasquez. Great. Well, these technologies have been
described to me by both border patrol and CBP as force
multipliers allowing the personnel to focus on law enforcement
efforts while leaving this mundane surveillance task to much
more efficient and cost-effective technology, a much more
efficient way to surveil that part of the border.
Now, Mr. Secretary, I have serious concerns with your
fundamental lack of knowledge about the U.S.-Mexico border
considering the billions of dollars that DOD has slated to
spend on this mission with little clarity to those of us who
live there. I would encourage you to do some homework on my
region and learn what will actually make our border more secure
and more safe.
Thank you, chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Dr.
McCormick.
Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I think it is great that Democrats are
finally concerned about the border. It is fantastic. I hope
more of them join that fight in the future. It is fantastic
especially after 4 years of allowing millions upon millions to
cross the border without any concern until now.
When we talk about politicizing the military I find it also
very laughable when, for the first time,--if you were to wear a
make the military accountable to the mission again hat, would
that be considered political?
Secretary Hegseth. I think in many ways that is one of our
slogans.
Dr. McCormick. Okay. Exactly. Mission accomplishment. When
I was a young Marine, and an old Marine, we were always focused
on mission accomplishment. One of the greatest things you have
done is brought us back to our focal point. The ethos of the
warrior. Make America Great Again also I disqualify as
political. That is something every politician should want to do
let alone any military or non-military person that lives in
America. So I dismiss that as political.
I am glad that you brought the mission back to all
services. As a matter of fact, when I was down at University of
North Georgia--and we challenge you to come down to one of the
Elite Eight--I was really impressed. I have always made fun of
the Army; no offense to my Army comrades, about their PT
[physical training]. They were bringing it. They made
scientific. They are mission-oriented. They are absolutely
focused 100 percent in large part because of the new leadership
of the military, which I am really excited about, and I am
looking forward to getting you down there.
One of the interesting things that happened recently is the
activation of the National Guard in California. This had to be
done because, quite frankly, California didn't take care of its
own. We actually recently sponsored and wrote legislation that
would make those states culpable for the finances that are
spent on those National Guardsmen when the governor or the
local magistrates don't do what is required to take control of
their own problem that was created because of their lack of
action.
Do you think that is a good idea or do you have a better
idea for motivating people to do what is right instead of
having the President step in?
Secretary Hegseth. I think what the President has done here
is common sense. If a governor and a mayor will not protect law
enforcement officers in the execution of their basic functions,
then the military, whether it is the National Guard or the
Marines, is constitutionally or through statute allowed to come
in and provide that security. That is precisely what we have
done. The President, unlike in 2020 in Minnesota when Governor
Waltz allowed a precinct to burn down--President Trump said
that will not happen. We will get in front of this. We will not
allow this to cascade. We will protect our law enforcement. And
he has provided that clarity and common sense and we are proud
to be on that mission.
Dr. McCormick. I am glad the President stepped in where
local Democrats have not stepped up to the plate.
One of the things I noticed in my recent experience as a
veteran is I had to go down to the DEERS [Defense Enrollment
Eligibility Reporting System] Office. In person. Take a half a
day off. Now, luckily, I have staff that can help me arrange
those things, but I had to send in a form where my son--just to
prove my son is still in college. Instead of emailing it or
faxing it or whatever we do in the modern technology, I do it
at the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles]. I would hope that
you and your leadership would help us a veterans make the--it a
much more friendly 21st century experience. And I would hope
that you would look at that just in your administration. I
appreciate you very much.
Finally, I want to give you an opportunity to talk about--a
little bit about Ukraine. One of the things I have said all
along is the President's one of the most peaceful presidents
there is. When they worry about invasions of foreign--this
president has avoided war like no other president in modern
history. He has actually been very good at foreign relations
despite his lack of previous experience. Now he has a lot of--
and he did the Abraham Accords.
One of the things that I thought would be interesting
from--we talk about peace from strength. The United States and
Europe combined have a $50 trillion GDP [Gross Domestic
Product]. Russia has two. We decimated them. We, meaning the
Ukrainian forces with our support, decimated 50 percent of
their armor and about a million casualties just based on the
little bit they have given.
Do you think according to the Supreme Allied Commander, who
has testified here before, that if we gave them wholesale
support we could end this war very quickly, if Russia won't
come to the table per President Trump's guidance?
Secretary Hegseth. There are multiple ways in which we
could help affect the front line and negotiations. And the
department is prepared to support what might be necessary to do
so, but our overall message is--and there has been billions
spent already. And there are presidential drawdown authorities
that exist right now that are still going in support of
Ukraine, but our encouragement is that our European allies
continue to step up as well.
Dr. McCormick. General Caine, what do you think about
Ukraine? You got about 10 seconds. Sorry.
General Caine. Well, sir, I think, you know obviously the
killing has got to stop on both sides. And that is all of us.
You, thank you for service. As a war fighter knows--
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Deluzio.
Mr. Deluzio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Caine, I want to start with commending what you
have said here today to Mr. Ryan and others about the
apolitical nature of our military. I know it is a set of values
that any of us who have served understand, that the military
respects deeply civilian control. And that certainly runs up to
Secretary Hegseth and to the Commander-in-Chief, no matter
which party happens to be in the White House.
I think even a pretty powerful example of that is when we
have the State of the Union, you and the other members of the
Joint Chiefs typically don't applaud for the more partisan
parts of any president's remarks.
Briefly tell us why that is even a norm we should care
about? Why the American people should care about that norm?
General Caine. Well, sir, that is codified in the oath of
office, our constitution, and our commission. So it goes all
the way back to the beginnings and that has always been our
tradition.
Mr. Deluzio. I think it is an important tradition and I
think it is one that we should care about no matter which side
of this dais we are on, Democrats or Republicans. I think we
should demand and expect that our most senior military
commanders understand that partisan loyalty doesn't matter.
What matters is the oath to the constitution that we all take
here, that any of us who have worn the uniform have taken.
And I want to just ask some questions about the kinds of I
think difficult positions commanders are going to be placed in
given what I saw happen at Fort Bragg, the guidance that exists
now already for the military. And I ask this of you because you
are not just the President's principal military advisor, you
are the senior officer in our Armed Forces.
If you or any other commander were ordered to attend a
campaign rally, you would decline. Am I right?
General Caine. Sir, you know, per the Hatch Act, which we
get briefs on every year, it outlines pretty clearly what you
can and can't do when you are in active service. And so I
completely trust and believe in the professionalism of the
United States Armed Forces, as does the Secretary, and, you
know, we follow those guidelines.
Mr. Deluzio. And I agree with you. And my concern here is
less that we are going to see bad decisions made by our troops
or their commanders. I don't think it is the problem. I think
the problem is they are going to be placed in really difficult
positions by civilian leadership, and the Fort Bragg episode to
me is one of those examples. And I will talk about some of the
things, and we have heard some of it brought up here today. And
again, my questions are to help give you a chance to put out
for the public what you expect of our senior military leaders.
So some things that the President said in his remarks
referring to a political rival, the Governor of California, the
Mayor of Los Angeles. Called them incompetent in front of the
troops.
Referring to Governor Waltz, reference back to the debate
between him and now-Vice President J.D. Vance saying, ``That
was a good debate. J.D. against this guy. Remember how bad he
was? He was one of the worst. I think he is running for
president to--can you believe it, but he is a radical left
lunatic.'' That is a quote.
Referencing the continued lie that he didn't lose the 2020
election, President Trump said, and I quote, ``I was thinking
about running because the election was rigged and stolen. We
all know it,'' end quote.
That is what the Commander-in-Chief is saying in an event
with troops who were ordered to attend. And let me be clear:
presidents for a long time have always had the prerogative to
compel the attendance of our troops to be there as the
Commander-in-Chief. I get it. But this is different to me.
You heard discussion of the campaign merch being sold on
the base. Another piece of this; and let's bring this up,
invitations to the event went out from Donald Trump's campaign.
Had an invitation right there taken to you--taking you to a
place where you can contribute to Donald Trump,
donaldjtrump.com.
So my question, my concern is of course you and--I don't
think any commander would agree to attend a campaign rally, but
you are brought to something that traditionally troops have
attended, as they should, with the Commander-in-Chief, but it
turns into something that is a campaign rally. What should our
commanders be doing when they are put in this position,
General?
General Caine. Well, sir, I hope you will allow me to
answer this by--even my engaging in answering this question
that is making my job involved in politics. And so while I
appreciate the question, I think the Chairman and the Force
should stay out of politics. And if I engage in this question,
and with deep respect and appreciation for your question, I
don't think it is an appropriate question for me to answer.
Mr. Deluzio. General, that is--I agree with the way you are
approaching this. And that is what we should expect of our
leaders. In the 10 seconds or so I have left I will tell you I
am very concerned for the position that you and other senior
leaders are being placed in by this administration. I would
urge you as the President's principal military advisor to give
him advice to knock it off.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Van Orden.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, did you take an oath to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes, I did.
Mr. Van Orden. General, did you?
General Caine. Yes, I did, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Well, let's delve into that document.
Article 2, Section 2, The President shall be the Commander-in-
Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and the militia
of the several states.
So when people are listening to the Commander-in-Chief,
they are actually fulfilling their constitutional duty that
they took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. And
what these folks are saying is absolutely shameful. Because
when they are calling you incompetent, Mr. Secretary, guess who
is listening? Our enemies. The people that are plotting as we
sit in this comfortable room in an air-conditioned beautiful
space. They are plotting the deaths of us, Americans. And it's
shameful and I wish my colleagues would come back in here and
apologize to you personally.
Let's cover a couple other things here. When someone has
gender dysphoria and they decide to mutilate their genitals and
they are taking cross-sex hormones, they are out-of-pocket for
about 3 years.
How many countries is the DOD involved in right now? What,
50, 60, 80, 100, whatever it is, right? Okay. Someone is going
to get on a plane and leave their family and potentially leave
their wife a widow or their husband a widower because somebody
has decided to self-actualize. We are going to go forward and
we are going to complete the mission because that is what we
do. And a lot of my colleagues simply don't understand that or
they are trying to ignore it.
Clear up a couple things: The former Chief of Naval
Operations was incompetent and gave the Red Sea to the Houthis.
The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff let so much
DEI garbage fly around that it almost destroyed the military.
That is why they got fired.
Okay. As far as standards, the standard is the minimum.
That is the minimum level of performance that someone will
reach or they are not qualified for the job. The NFL [National
Football League] does not have a standard for females. If you
are a lady and you want to join the NFL, go try out for the
team. How many women play on the NFL? Anybody? The answer is
zero. Why is there an NBA [National Basketball Association and
a WNBA [Women's National Basketball Association]? Why? Because
they acknowledge biology.
So we can have as many whiz-bang, high-tech things
available, but at the end of the day to win a war you need
someone to go in room and beat someone to death with their
hands. That is a fact. And all this other stuff is meaningless.
The Chinese Communist Party does not care what your pronouns
are. They care if they know we will be able to destroy them,
crush them, and grind them into dust if they mess with the
United States of America.
Mr. Secretary, there is five SOF truths: The first one is
that people are more than--more important than hardware. Do you
concur?
Secretary Hegseth. I would concur with that and all of your
previous statements.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, sir.
General, do you concur that humans are more important than
hardware?
General Caine. I do along with the other SOF truths.
Mr. Van Orden. All right. Well, good on you.
So here is an issue that I am having right now: It doesn't
matter how great our people are if they are not upholding this
oath and understanding that the President of the United States,
Donald J. Trump, is the Commander in Chief and that you are the
Secretary of Defense and that you are the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
And we have had a rash of incidents around bases that can
only be described as insubordination, taking down the
President's portrait, turning yours around, turning the Vice
President's pictures around, removing them from stations,
covering them with flags. That is insubordination. And
insubordination is a crime according to the United States--the
UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So what I just need to hear from you, Mr. Secretary--and I
commend you for your performance or what you did for Fort McCoy
in my district. I need to hear from you that you are actively
trying to find the people that are subverting the chain of
command and then you will deal with them in the appropriate
manner.
Secretary Hegseth. Every place where we find incidents like
that or others, they are immediately addressed.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you.
General Caine, do you think it would be a political act for
someone to be held accountable for insubordination? If you did
that as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff holding
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Guardians?
General Caine. Well, Congressman, of course you would have
to have the context around that.
Mr. Van Orden. Right.
General Caine. So I would want to know more information,
sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay. I want to commend you for your
performance today and your restraint by not lashing out at some
of the most disgraceful comments I have ever heard in my short
tenure in Congress. And with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii,
Tokuda.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I agree we have had
many performances today, but what we would like is some
answers.
Mr. Secretary, did you invite Elon Musk for a briefing on
war plans with China to the Pentagon? Yes or no is simple.
Secretary Hegseth. There has been a lot of hyperbole and
incorrect reporting around that situation, but we did invite
Elon over to come talk to us generally. But there was not war
plans being discussed.
Ms. Tokuda. Okay. So whose idea was it to invite him to the
Pentagon for a briefing? You mentioned you served at the
pleasure of the President. Was it the President's will to have
him come and be briefed?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, as you know, at that time Elon
Musk was leading up DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency]
efforts.
Ms. Tokuda. Yes.
Secretary Hegseth. And we have taken a great investment in
DOGE at DOD. And so getting his input on how we make DOD more
efficient makes a great deal of sense.
Ms. Tokuda. Okay. But don't you think it is a conflict of
interest for the world's richest man--many of the contracts
that the DOD is engaged in, billions of dollars of contracts
going to his company and he is--as to your point, was leading
DOGE which was involved in cutting hundreds of contracts, but
also becoming intimately aware of the platforms and the
requirements that would be given out for new contracts? Did you
not think it was a conflict of interest to invite someone with
financial interests into the Pentagon to have firsthand
knowledge of what they could then bid on for their own
enrichment?
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, it was just an informal
discussion, but I will tell you anyone that knows our Defense
Department knows we show no preference to any company other
than what your capabilities are. And we are grateful for the
places where his companies benefit our national defense in--
Ms. Tokuda. So for a $280 million donation the world's
richest man with companies intimately linked and involved in
billion dollar contracts with the Department of Defense gaining
access into the Pentagon--so would you say that any company
right now that has multi-billion dollar contracts with the
Department of Defense has access to the Pentagon right now, 1-
hour briefings with you personally?
Secretary Hegseth. On the regular basis--
Ms. Tokuda. I think the answer is--
Secretary Hegseth. --I meet with many people and many
different companies in many different aspects of our defense
industrial base to ensure we have the best possible
capabilities. It would be imprudent to--
Ms. Tokuda. Well, I am sure if an investment of $280
million Elon's investors are quite happy that it has come out
into the billions.
I want to jump questions right now. Mr. Secretary, on
January 6, 2021, rioters and looters attacked federal law
enforcement officials, vandalized and destroyed Federal
Government property and caused an estimated $2.7 billion
damages right here at the Capitol. Would you have sent the
National Guard and the Marines in on that day?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, unfortunately--
Ms. Tokuda. A yes or no would be--
Secretary Hegseth. --President Trump requested the National
Guard in advance and that was--
Ms. Tokuda. It took him quite a long time. I am asking you
as Secretary of Defense, would you have sent in the National
Guard and the Marines on that day? We had 140 Capitol Police
officers injured. One died the next day. Would you have sent in
the National Guard and the Marines?
Secretary Hegseth. As I said, President Trump directed
National Guard to be there in advance.
Ms. Tokuda. And I think you can look at the record of how
long--
Secretary Hegseth. For whatever reason--
Ms. Tokuda. --it actually took for him to actually send
them in. But it is good to hear that it sounds like you would
have sent in the National Guard and the Marines on that day in
which the insurrection was taking place right here at the
Capitol.
Mr. Secretary, during your confirmation hearing you failed
to deny the conclusion that you would carry out an order to
shoot protestors in the legs. So let me be direct: Given what
we are seeing across the country right now, would you carry out
or issue an order by the President for our military to fire
upon protestors actively engaging in their civil right to
exercise free speech, their First Amendment rights? would you
give that order from the President?
Secretary Hegseth. I assume you are insinuating what is
going on in Los Angeles and I wouldn't call that a peaceful
protest.
Ms. Tokuda. Not just Los Angeles. If we take a look at
protests throughout the country,--it is a simple question. If
directed by the President, would you order our military to fire
upon protestors? Simple yes or no is fine.
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, we have--as you know and as this
committee knows, we have standard rules of engagement that are
in place that give guidance to our troops and they abide by
them.
Ms. Tokuda. I am asking what you would do. Again, you said
you serve at the pleasure of the President. Is that not true?
Secretary Hegseth. I do serve at the pleasure--
Ms. Tokuda. So if the President told you shoot people in
the legs, would you do so? Now you failed to answer question as
well during your confirmation hearing when asked by members of
the Senate.
Secretary Hegseth. Because I refuse to accept a false
hypothetical that is attempting to put me in a corner and make
it look like a--
Ms. Tokuda. At a time when we have more--
Secretary Hegseth. --standard rules of engagement--
Ms. Tokuda. --Marines and National Guard--
Secretary Hegseth. --and they are followed.
Ms. Tokuda. --in Los Angeles than we do in Syria and Iran
alone, I don't think this is a hypothetical. This is an actual
situation that we are dealing with right now. So again, I will
ask the question in the last 14 seconds I have. Would you order
our military to shoot at their fellow countrymen if ordered by
the President?
Secretary Hegseth. I think it is interesting that for 4
years insurrection was the left's favorite word--
Ms. Tokuda. I think we know your answer.
Thank you,. Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Secretary Hegseth. --and that was invoked in L.A. They
were--
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady's
time is expired.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. McGuire, is recognized.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
To all of our men and women who have served or are serving,
your mission is important and we would not have a country
without you.
Secretary Hegseth, I last saw you at Memorial Day. We
really appreciate your remarks as we honored and remembered our
fallen.
Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, thank you both for
being with us here today. General Caine, I would like to say
congratulations to you on your recent confirmation as the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. President Trump has put
his trust and confidence in two great patriots to lead our men
and women in uniform.
To me MAGA, Make America Great Again, means America first.
And that is America first or Make America Great Again for all
Americans regardless of race, religion, or creed. And your
policies are working and day by day, week by week, all
Americans are safer at home and abroad. So we commend you for
your efforts. If you had a basketball team and you hated your
team, you probably wouldn't win any games. And so I love the
emphasis. All of us love the emphasis on patriotism and love in
our country.
Secretary Hegseth, I would like to also thank you for all
that you have done to restore the Department of Defense's focus
on lethality and the warrior ethos. Facts don't care about your
feelings and our enemies don't care about our social
experiments. I have a quote from the Commandant of the Marine
Corps. I hope I don't mess it up. But he said, quote, "Our job
is to stick bayonets in the hearts of our enemies, and these
social experiments detract from that mission."
I get messages from my Navy SEAL brothers and other
veterans all the time applauding the work that you are doing.
The distractions of the last 4 years of the Biden
administration are finally out of the Department of Defense.
DEI, which to me is Marxist, and it stands for ``didn't earn
it,'' no longer takes precedence in our military. Merit is once
again valued. We are no longer worrying about the gender
dysphoria or woke books in our DOD schools and those policies
that have been erasing women. Climate change is no longer the
concern of the war fighter. And by the way, I am looking
forward to celebrating with you guys on Saturday, 250 years of
a story that must be told of the U.S. Army.
I want to thank President Trump restoring American history.
I know you had to jump through some gymnastics to do it by
returning the names of our bases that many of us called during
our time in service. And thank you and President Trump for
showing the United States and the world that we are a nation
built on law and order by the Department's response in the Los
Angeles riots. Through your leadership and help of this
committee, we will realize peace through strength and our
warrior ethos.
So, Secretary Hegseth, Section 866 of the Fiscal Year 2025
National Defense Authorization Act directs the Department to
submit a strategy to ensure that solid rocket motor programs of
record are adequately supported by the domestic industrial
base. Yet solid rocket motor production is critical to a
variety of systems like President Trump's Golden Dome we have
been lacking.
I would say, Mr. Secretary, what progress has the
Department made in developing a solid rocket motor industrial
base strategy?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, I would say in particular--in
general the defense industrial base is a focus of ours, the
projectiles and other capabilities being a huge part of that
munitions. But particularly on solid rocket motor projection, I
would have to hand it to my colleague, Bryn, if she has it on
that line item.
But if it was a priority that this committee identified and
that we identified, then you can count on with a 13 percent in
this budget it has been plussed.
Mr. McGuire. Well, we really appreciate that. By the way,
in my district, Virginia's Fifth Congressional District, we
applaud what you guys are doing to protect our country. We have
a place called ATDM, Accelerated Training and Defense
Manufacturing. As I toured the new Columbia submarine and the
new Enterprise aircraft carrier, the Secretary of Navy said the
welders have the same level of training as a neurosurgeon. And
we don't have enough of those guys. But they are doing that
right there in my district. And if your schedule ever permits
it to come visit, I would love to tour that with you folks. And
again, we appreciate all you are doing.
So under President Trump's leadership you said that
recruitment is up in the Army and I think you said all services
is up? Is that right?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Awesome. I appreciate that. And maybe getting
rid of these divisive ideologies and focus on more what unites
us has something to do with that. Would you agree with that?
Secretary Hegseth. Very much so. It is the leadership from
President Trump and the environment they are entering into,
which is back to basics.
Mr. McGuire. By the grace of God. And I would say morale
amongst our enlisted servicemembers and across our military is
up. Would you guys agree with that?
Secretary Hegseth. I have seen that.
General Caine. Yes, sir. The Force is united against the
problems that we have out there.
Mr. McGuire. Well, we are lucky to have you. Thanks for all
you are doing. If we could be of help, reach out any time. God
bless you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. And to
General Caine.
``The radar just lit up and at that point we were in an
hour-long fight just trying to kill whatever we could.'' These
were words of a pilot at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
speaking of a deployment that occurred on April 13, 2024, in
the Middle East where pilots shot down rockets and drones
heading to Israel from Iran. Another pilot said it was a
deployment like we have never seen before.
Mr. Secretary, I am incredibly proud of the airmen at
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. And I was glad to join the ACC
[Air Combat Command] commander at a decoration ceremony
recognizing 31 of the airmen and what they accomplished, and
they accomplished the mission on April 13.
As you have highlighted the war ethos, lethality, and
readiness, I cannot think of a better example than what we saw
on April 13. There was not a lot of time. There was a lot of
scrambling. They packed up, took those F-15s to the Middle
East, and they got the job done.
Seymour Johnson plays a key role in our national defense.
It also is the location of the Air Task Force. We have one air
task force which aims to generate more efficient, integrated,
and deployable units.
Mr. Secretary, the Air Force has conveyed a commitment of
plans to bring back F-15Es with the 229 engines from
Lakenheath. Meanwhile, we are working right here trying to
prioritize operational and maintenance needs at the
installation. We also help to come back and address the
training needs.
In your opening statement you mentioned NGAD, the F-47.
Could you please just briefly expand further in terms of your
vision of NGAD and looking long-term at the potential of
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base and others to deliver and ensure
the nation's continued air superiority in the face of growing
global threats?
Secretary Hegseth. I will take it briefly and then hand it
to the chairman. I have met some of those men and women from
April 13. Impressive Americans. Some of the refuelers I have
had a chance to talk to from that evening.
We are investing in NGAD in a historic way in the F-47. A
lot of its capability is obviously classified, but with six-
generation fighter of that type it shows to our adversaries
that we are prepared to project power in the future. And where
those go and where they are stationed is an open question, but
we are happy to take a look. And I will hand it to the
chairman.
Mr. Davis. And thanks for speaking with our airmen, Mr.
Secretary.
General Caine. Yes, sir. First, thanks for your service in
the Air Force and in the Joint Force as well. You know, just
piling on here, that particular day for the Air Force--not just
with those Strike Eagle crews, but also the maintainers on the
ground who were loading missiles up while there was engagements
going on right over their heads. So extraordinary acts of
bravery under fire out of your home district there.
Mr. Davis. Thank you so much. General Caine, thank you too
for your service. In the opening statement you shared that you
were honored to serve alongside some of the most incredible
warriors and civilians and their families. And you didn't stop
there. And I appreciated it. You said I always especially
remember our fallen and their families who demonstrate true
sacrifice, courage, and commitment to our families.
Corporal Ryan Russell was a medic. The 2nd Battalion, Fort
Bragg. Was killed March 5, 2007 in Iraq. I talked to his
mother. He was 20 years old. Putting a face on this. 20 years
old. Killed with others about the same age. And she--the only
thing she missed the most was his smile.
My question is: We have--for instance we can't bring back
those loved ones, but we have the Honor and Remember Flag.
Representative Kiggans, myself. If you could take a look at
H.R. 1363, I would ask you to do.
And, Mr. Secretary, I would simply ask what else are we
doing to honor our fallen?
Secretary Hegseth. We will take a look at 1363. I will tell
you we initiated the first ever advisory board for Gold Star
families at the Defense Department to follow through on their
families as well and finding every way possible to recognize.
Mr. Davis. I too heard your Memorial Day comments. Thank
you. And I yield back.
Secretary Hegseth. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. His time is
expired.
We will now go to another North Carolinian, Mr. Harrigan,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harrigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary and
Chairman Caine. Thank you all for your testimony today.
I would like to first identify with my colleague's comments
from Wisconsin, but I would like to take it a step further. I
think you all are owed an apology. And although I really wish
that all of my Democratic colleagues' comments were of the
nature of my colleague from North Carolina just a minute ago,
that is not what happened today. And all we saw was flagrant
disrespect towards both of you. And that is not what this
committee is about. We should be able to disagree without
showing disrespect. We should be able to have discourse without
sewing discord. And we should be able to question without using
words that you can't take back. And that is not what happened
today from the other side of this committee. We need to do a
lot better than this.
But I will say, gentlemen, that you handled those questions
with humility and grace. And today many of my Democratic
colleagues have struck out. And it is the second day in a row
that many of my Democratic colleagues have struck out.
So with that, I have got a couple questions for you today.
Mr. Secretary, I want to talk about Army Transformation
Initiative. I want to thank you for the bold work that you have
done to reshape our nation's Army. Purging our Department of
Defense and our Army of legacy weapon systems, force
structures, and contracting mechanisms that have not helped us
win the last 30 years of war are not relevant to helping us
deter or defeat China is something that this country
desperately needed. It is something that American taxpayers
desperately needed. It is something that our service men and
service women have desperately needed.
What is your plan to iterate the Army Transformation
Initiative across both our Navy and our Air Forces?
Secretary Hegseth. It is a great point. I want to first
compliment Army Chief General George as well as Army Secretary
Driscoll for their initiative out the gate to not waste any
time in recognizing precisely what you said, that we need an
Army structured and prepared to fight the wars of the future.
We owe it to the Service. We owe it to the American people. And
they followed in large part a Marine Corps that led the way
overall in those, as sometimes they do. Often.
But I recognize other services: the Navy and the Air Force,
could do more in that regard as well. Different ships you might
say to steer than an Army and how you effectuate that
modernization or that shift. We think the hard choices we are
making in platforms and capabilities in those services mirror
the kind of hard choices we are making in the Army. And that is
what we see as our job in this moment right now considering the
threats we face, the world we live in.
I am going to spend the capital I have to, be happy to take
the arrows of constituencies or districts, say no, we are going
to put forward what is best for the Army, or the Marine Corps,
the Navy, or the Air Force. And we are going to make the tough
calls. And that might create some consternation. And that is
okay, but our job is to ensure our budget matches those
capabilities. Army Transformation is a great example, and we
are going to look for it in other services, too.
Mr. Harrigan. I very much look forward to seeing what you
will have the Navy and the Air Force do and we will be behind
you 100 percent of the way.
And, Chairman Caine, a lot of talk today about the Golden
Dome. I don't really fully appreciate some of my Democratic
colleagues not knowing what that is about or knowing the
threats behind why we have to have the Golden Dome, but I also
believe that we have to have mini domes all across our country.
As we have seen we have had very low-cost, high-impact
technology proliferate all around the world. And I think we
need to look no further than what happened in Ukraine just 2
weeks ago where you had $100,000 investment by the Ukrainian
scuttle over $7 billion worth of hardware by the Russians.
I think that we have to look forward into the future and
anticipate that we may face the exact same threats, maybe not
against our military, but against our infrastructure, against
our stadiums, against our city centers. And we need mini domes
to protect this country against those threats.
How are you all working that problem set?
General Caine. Well, sir, first thanks for the question.
Thanks for your service. You know, one of the things that we
are learning is the nature and way we fight wars is changing.
We are starting to face, as you are alluding to, problems of
mass where numbers of exchanges, kinetic exchanges, and frankly
non-kinetic in the cyber domain, are increasing exponentially.
So we have to match networks with networks and mass with mass.
And so as we move forward to create the force of the future
that is on our radar.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Cisneros.
Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, so many topics to cover. I represent
California's 31st District located in Southern California where
you have deployed the National Guard and Marine combat
battalion in an effort by this administration to provoke a
confrontation. God only knows for what reason.
As my colleague from Tennessee mentioned, the military has
been activated before by the President, but let's tell the
whole story. President Johnson federalized the troops after the
governor of Alabama activated them to keep Black students out
of the University of Alabama. President Johnson did it so the
students could attend the university. He did it for the right
reason. He corrected a wrong.
California did not ask the President for help. And the
presence of the military is an effort by this administration to
intimidate and incite fear and violence amongst its citizens.
You failed at ensuring basic operational security by
sharing classified data over an unclassified network. This was
blatant, lazy, and put servicemembers' lives at risk. And
knowing that your office is a SCIF [Sensitive Compartmented
Information Facility] I hope you are not bringing in your
devices, your personal cell phone or even your work phone,
because that is not supposed to be in there either, right, your
cell phone, into your office to send these Signal chat texts.
Your blatant lack of basic OPSEC [operational security] would
have gotten you resigned--forced you to resign from any other
administration.
You are requiring 8 percent cuts across all services, not
to save the taxpayers money, but to fund President Trump's pet
projects. You talk about quality of life for our
servicemembers, but yet you take a billion dollars away from
the Army that was meant to improve their barracks and their
[inaudible][RK1]. You said that money [inaudible], but we don't
know that yet because we haven't see a budget.
If the President has projects he wants funding for, you
need to come before this body and provide reasoning, not just
shift money around. Right now, you are stealing from our
servicemembers, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Now you have repeatedly said that you will judge every
individual on their merit. Is that true?
Secretary Hegseth. Unlike the previous administration, we
are focused on--
Mr. Cisneros. Well, yes or no? For our service--
Secretary Hegseth. They are at their job, yes.
Mr. Cisneros. But, yet, you are separating thousands of
servicemembers who are performing and doing their job at a high
level. They are being separated not based on merit. You know,
some of them have been recommended for early promotion, and
have gotten awards, and are doing a great job. But you are
separating for no other reason than, frankly, you just don't
like them.
And you are classifying many of them as a national security
threat, which is simply not true.
You asked the Secretary of the Navy to change the name of a
ship, the ship because Harvey Milk didn't meet your definition
of warrior ethos.
If a Korean war veteran and a Navy diver who gave his life
for standing up for his beliefs doesn't meet your definition, I
don't know what will.
You keep talking about recruiting. Well, let's face the
facts here, right. Recruiting started improving before
President Trump even came into office. And the reason that
changed was because of the investment that was put into
recruiting.
Now, I was at the Pentagon at the time, and I know how much
we invested in it, and I know how much of the services. And
when you take away that investment you are going to get exactly
what happened in President Trump's first administration. In
2019, we had this same recruiting crisis, you know, back in
2019 when he was President the first time.
You continue to attack diversity. But I have always said
diversity is about creating opportunity. And I have seen plenty
of individuals, many of them enlisted members who, when given
the opportunity have succeeded, not because of their sex, not
because of color, not because of their sexual identity, but
because of their work ethic, ethic and merit.
Mr. Secretary, when using your definition of DEI I think
there is only one individual at the Pentagon right now who got
his job based on that merit, and that is you. And you got it
because of sucking up to your boss.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Messmer.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, for
being here today.
Secretary Hegseth, I would like to start by following up on
some questioning from Mr. DesJarlais this morning regarding
SLCM-N. I really appreciate your response regarding the
importance of the program.
I want to add my voice to the chorus of those who believe
the SLCM-N is a vitally important program. And I am looking
forward to the budget boost that you mentioned for its
development and deployment.
Is there anything else you would like to add about your
view of the importance of investing in the SLCM-N program?
Secretary Hegseth. No. I have nothing to add to what I said
previous.
I think it is an important part of the dynamic battlefield
of the future to continue to maintain the proper level of
deterrence.
Mr. Messmer. Excellent. Thank you.
General Caine, in response to a question in front of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense about non-strategic
nuclear capabilities you spoke about the four C's across
enterprise that you also mentioned here this morning.
I would like to focus my question on the competition piece.
General Caine and Secretary Hegseth, can you elaborate on the
strategy related to competition in the department?
And would you agree, in general, the Department achieves
better outcomes and programs when it engages industry in a
competitive process?
General Caine. Yes, sir, absolutely we do.
I mean, there are many case studies over the arc of the
last 30, 40 years that show how the taxpayer gets a better
deal, the warrior gets a better deal when multiple entrants
come to the table to drive better outcomes out of each of those
producers.
And as we look at the House's efforts, the Senate's efforts
to work together, along with the Department and the other
leadership to generate the national industry and defense
industrial base of the future, I really hope we encourage
competition, not just with the existing primes but new entrants
and even start-ups.
You know, I spent some in the private sector as a, as an
entrepreneur, and realized quickly the value of competition to
get to better outcomes.
Mr. Messmer. Outstanding.
Secretary?
Secretary Hegseth. To echo the chairman, I think we are at
a special moment where a lot of younger, scrappier, dynamic
companies want to enter into the market. And our job is to open
that up so that not just the big guys who have mostly defense-
related industries at this point, not as much of a commercial
base in some cases, it is that aperture has widened to, to
those other smaller, medium-size companies that invest a lot of
their own money in R&D [research and development] in hopes that
they can cross the Valley of Death and actually participate in
larger systems.
So, we want a lot more competition.
Mr. Messmer. Excellent. Thank you.
Are you considering an open competition process for
development of the SLCM-N missile system?
Secretary Hegseth. I don't know the particulars of the
competitive process of the SLCM-N. But we can get that to you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 159.]
Mr. Messmer. Okay, that would be great. Thank you.
Secretary Hegseth, on the HAC subcommittee hearing you also
mentioned our AUKUS partnership and how you have been working
with Mr. Marles and Secretary Healey, not only relying upon the
previous administration's Pillar II framework but also finding
new way, new ways to supercharge Pillar II, and setting up new
signature programs under the AUKUS framework.
What are the best capabilities in the near-term that AUKUS
Pillar II can deliver to our warfighters?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, I don't want to get ahead of our
discussions with Marles and Healey, and Australia and the U.K.
in particular, but they are ongoing, they are recent, and with
an interest in identifying precisely those projects that we
share mutual interest in that are part of the--our future fight
where all of our defense industrial bases can contribute and
benefit from collaboration. So, we are, we are looking for
that, and we will.
Mr. Messmer. Excellent.
Would you anticipate hypersonic capabilities, like a
hypersonic live vehicle or new electronic warfare systems would
be potential programs that AUKUS could focus on delivering?
Secretary Hegseth. I think you were at our meeting, sir.
Yes, long-range fires is something we are definitely, we have
definitely been a part of our conversations.
Mr. Messmer. Thanks for that.
Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, we know that China is
developing new technologies at an alarming pace, mainly
hypersonic weapons. The previous administration, sadly, did not
seem to understand the gravity of this situation and did not
prioritize funding for our missile defense and hypersonic
programs.
Can you speak about the Trump administration's and your
Department's views about the importance of prioritizing
investment in hypersonic and missile defense?
General Caine. Well, sir, I will defer to the--the
prioritization to my civilian leadership.
What I am trying to create is a global integrator along
with the incredible work by the Joint Chiefs and the services,
is the mix of capabilities that we need, to include hypersonics
and other long-range fires to achieve the effects at the
tactical edge so we can win in the future, and continue to win
the way we do now.
Mr. Messmer. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire,
Ms. Goodlander.
Ms. Goodlander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
We have one really important thing in common: we all swore
an oath to this great document, the United States Constitution.
We swore that oath when we joined the military. And we swore
that oath when we began the jobs that we are holding now.
And I want to begin at the beginning of this document and
at the beginning of your testimony, Mr. Hegseth.
In the first sentence of your testimony you said you are
here today to testify about the fiscal year 2026 budget for the
Department of Defense. You are required under law to submit
this budget to the Congress, because we have got the power of
the purse after all, by the no later than the first Monday in
February.
Here we are in the second Thursday in June. We don't have
your budget as the chairman, the ranking member, and many of my
colleagues on this committee have pointed out.
You have testified that you want to be accountable for
every dollar, every taxpayer dollar, where it goes. We can't do
our job without your budget.
When can we expect your budget, Mr. Hegseth?
Secretary Hegseth. As I also acknowledged in my opening
remarks, in the first year of an administration it does take
more time. We expect--
Ms. Goodlander. Mr. Hegseth, please, reclaiming my time.
Secretary Hegseth. --to be longer addressing the priorities
of the previous administration.
Ms. Goodlander. When can we expect your budget?
Secretary Hegseth. You have details of it already. And you
will have it very soon.
Ms. Goodlander. Can we expect the budget before the end of
the month?
Secretary Hegseth. I would, I would defer to, to Bryn, who
is working that. But I know there are a great deal of detail
that is already with the committee.
Ms. Goodlander. Okay. Let the record reflect that you
haven't given us a commitment, but you are required by law to
do so.
You are also required by law to pass an audit. That has
been true since the 1990s. The Department of Defense is the
only department that has continually failed an audit.
You have committed to passing an audit in 2028, but we
expect you to pass an audit this year, and hope that you will
work with us to achieve that goal.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your testimony and
what, what you have said about the threats that we face in the
United States, threats from China, Russia, and Iran. And I want
to ask briefly questions about each.
Mr. Chairman, you said that the Chinese Communist Party is
advancing an unprecedented military modernization effort with
cutting edge technologies, including artificial intelligence.
Do you agree that the United States military must have more
powerful AI capabilities than China?
General Caine. Well, ma'am, first, thank you also for your
service in the Navy.
I think LLMs [large language models] and AI really
underpinning all of our command and control capabilities will--
is now and will be in the future a key and essential tool for
decision-making.
Ms. Goodlander. Thank you.
I agree that American AI dominance is extremely important.
General Caine. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Goodlander. Mr. Hegseth, should American AI dominance
be up for negotiation with China in any trade talks that are
underway?
Secretary Hegseth. As the chairman said, we are very
focused on AI dominance as central to maintaining our cutting
edge. And we are doing that.
Ms. Goodlander. Good.
Well, I hope will you commit to telling the President not
to sacrifice American AI dominance in any of his negotiations
with the Chinese?
Secretary Hegseth. The President is not surrendering any of
our, any of our dominance to the Chinese.
Ms. Goodlander. Good. I will take that as a yes that you
will be advocating for that. Thank you very much.
I hope you will also, you have both spoken to the
importance of competition in the defense industrial base. I
agree with that deeply.
I would point out that 40 percent of small businesses have
left our defense industrial base supply chain in the past
decade. And trade wars that have caused unprecedented
uncertainty are going to drive more small businesses out of
business. And that is something I hope we can work together to
try to prevent because it is very real in my home state of New
Hampshire.
Mr. Hegseth, did you order a pause in offensive cyber
operations against Russia?
Secretary Hegseth. That, I know the story you are referring
to and it is false. We said it then and I will say it now.
Ms. Goodlander. So, it is your testimony that you never
ordered a pause in offensive cyber operations against Russia?
Secretary Hegseth. We did not.
Ms. Goodlander. Okay. Let the record reflect that. And we
will be following up on that.
I am going to skip around because there has been a lot said
in this hearing that has given me grave concerns.
One of the things that has been said in this hearing, Mr.
Hegseth, was I want to give you the opportunity to correct the
record and make clear that you will abide by, that you will
obey a ruling of the United States Supreme Court.
Secretary Hegseth. I don't believe we have any cases
pending before the Supreme Court right now.
Ms. Goodlander. I want to ask you will you abide by a
ruling, by a decision by the United States Supreme Court if it
is issued and you are asked to do so?
Secretary Hegseth. What I have said, and I will repeat, is
that district courts should not set the policy, the foreign
policy of the United States of America.
Ms. Goodlander. Mr. Hegseth, this is a fundamental
principle of the United States Constitution. The--
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr.
Schmidt.
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Secretary and General, thank you for being here and
for your extensive commitment of time today. We are grateful
for it, and it is the way the system is supposed to work.
I want to ask, Mr. Secretary, on the servicemember family
health care side, in your opening statement you haven't talked
much about it today. But you brought up quality of life
improvements made, partnership with Congress in prior years and
going forward and your commitment to it.
I jotted down what you said, which is, the quality of care
given by the defense healthcare system is an important priority
for you.
At the end of the last year, prior to the current
administration's service in office there was concern in many
base towns, Army base towns, about what we viewed as a push by
the Biden administration to downgrade a number of our
healthcare facilities. I represent, among others, Fort Riley,
for example, and we were very concerned about the future of
Irwin Army Hospital.
We thought we had that sidetracked, and perhaps we do. But
we have heard some concerns sort of bubbling up again that
perhaps DHA's [Defense Health Agency] taking another look. And
I just want to make sure that it is on, on your radar screen.
We understand some of the resources is one of the issues.
And in respect to Irwin in particular, it is a wonderful
facility. I have had a chance to be out, and we would invite
you, too, to come out to Fort Riley, or Fort Leavenworth, or
both. Irwin's a state-of-the-art physical facility. One of the
challenges is the physical plant is under-utilized.
One of the ways we have attempted to respond to that on my
watch, which is now 5 months old, is to work with the command
staff and his team at Riley to connect them with appropriate
high-grade civilian providers in the area to try to bring more
specialty capacity there, to look at other ways to fully
utilize that capacity for our servicemembers and families,
veterans in the area, perhaps others, maybe be creative.
We want to grow our way out of any back-of-the-envelope
challenges. We don't want to shrink our way out of it.
So, I just wanted to be sure to bring that to your
attention. I guess I would ask, do we have cause to be
concerned?
Can we at least have an assurance that if there is cause to
be concerned you are going to take another look at this and
engage us fully before we have any surprises?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, we will certainly take a look in
particular, I would say, that we are increasing our
expenditures on, on the healthcare side to make sure we are
addressing the needs properly.
We are also willing to get creative. And one of those, it
is not precisely what you addressed, is working with VA. I
mentioned it earlier in this hearing where there are places we
can cross level to mutual, in a mutually beneficial way that
ensures the throughput necessary, the skillsets necessary at
different facilities. That makes sense also.
But looking into the civilian side is another alternative.
So, I don't know if, Bryn, you have particulars on that
facility, but we will get more information to you.
Mr. Schmidt. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. And if there
is something else I need to know now, I will take it otherwise.
Maybe we can follow-up with you.
But we, we want to get creative. It is a great asset. And
for Riley in particular, as you know, it is an old cavalry
post, not unlike Fort Carson for my colleague to the right
here. Provides relatively large maneuver space in the middle of
the country. You can't get that back. We want it to survive and
thrive in a 21st-century warfighting environment.
And in order to do that we have got to make sure we are
doing the small things that are critical, including providing
the right kind of health care to our troops. It is a great
family post by the way, so.
Let me ask you, shifting gears a bit, and I don't know if
this is appropriate for the secretary or the general. I would
direct it to your discretion.
But with respect to sort of the future of the E-7, another
issue that we have some Kansas-based interest in. But obviously
we are more, more interested, more broadly in what we are going
to do for aerial surveillance aspects. There has been some
discussion that the E-7 might be under consideration for, for
reconsideration going forward. And some talk about perhaps the
E-2 being a bridging platform.
What can you tell us about the thinking there?
And, in particular, are you--what level of confidence do
you have that the E-2 has the capacity to do the INDOPACOM
operations that we need to be able to do, and it is a long
distance.
Secretary Hegseth. I would file the E-7 under the top
choices file for us for sure. Our assessment that, you know, it
was gold-plated, it was late, and it was over cost.
And if we look at the future fight, extending the E-2D is
our view, alongside we believe that space-based ISR
[Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] is the
capability of the future, not a prospective hopeful future but
the technologies are there to begin to deliver even more
robustly than an aerial platform.
So, our budget does reflect those top choices.
Mr. Schmidt. Can the E-2 do what we need it to do over the
Pacific?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, we know that the E-7 being late to
cost may not make it in time. And that is part of the
consideration that we are looking at.
Mr. Schmidt. Understood.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms.
Elfreth.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to our witnesses today.
I want to echo, first, my colleagues and their concerns
surrounding a number of issues, including the deployment of
Marines to Los Angeles, the importance of supporting our ally
in Ukraine, the alarming security breach that was Signalgate,
and the unjust termination of members of our military from
diverse backgrounds who simply want to serve our nation.
But before I get to my questions, Mr. Secretary, I want to
just follow up on my colleague from New Hampshire.
Setting aside district courts, do you believe you have the
authority to defy a Supreme Court ruling? Yes or no?
Secretary Hegseth. We are not here to defy a Supreme Court
ruling.
Ms. Elfreth. Okay. I will take that as a win.
I want to move on to CYBERCOM [United States Cyber Command]
in my state.
Mr. Secretary, earlier in this year General Haugh was
relieved of his command of CYBERCOM and NSA [National Security
Agency] following a Tweet that accused him of being disloyal to
the President. And the oath that you took, the oath that I
took, does not demand loyalty to any president but to this
Constitution. I, too, brought my copy from college with me.
And, yet, as of this date, General Haugh, his successor has
not yet been named. And you have stated many times the
lethality of the military is critical. So it is difficult to
understand how this administration would allow any, any billet
to remain unfilled, especially those who lead our combatant
commands.
I join my colleague Congressman Bacon in my grave concern
that both the firing and the delay in hiring of a leader of
CYBERCOM only gives assurance and comfort to our adversaries.
So, I am sure you would agree that any combatant command
cannot be at its most lethal if a commander remains absent.
When will the President announce the new commander of
CYBERCOM?
Secretary Hegseth. I would note there is a very highly
capable deputy there. So, it is not--
Ms. Elfreth. Absolutely. I agree.
Secretary Hegseth. --at risk at all.
We recognize that, and we are in the process of ensuring
that slot is filled.
Ms. Elfreth. And in the next month, 2 months period?
Secretary Hegseth. It, it will not be that long.
Ms. Elfreth. Okay. I appreciate that.
General Caine, during your confirmation process you stated
that the dual-hat arrangement provides the ability to look
across both organizations and has empowered both USCYBERCOM and
the NSA to fulfill their missions better than each could do
alone.
Can you confirm for this committee that you hold that view
to this day and, in one sentence or less, speak to the
importance of that dual-hat arrangement?
General Caine. Yeah. That, that reflects the current policy
of the administration. The Secretary, of course, as does the
President, reserves the right to re-think that.
Both organizations are critical. And whether they are a
single-or dual-hat relationship, if directed, we will take a
look at the risk associated with each one of them and come back
to our civilian leaders with those risks and let them make a
decision on it.
Ms. Elfreth. But you are in the room, are you not, advising
the President as to what is best for our national security?
General Caine. I am in the room, yes. Thankfully.
Ms. Elfreth. And can you commit to--I agree--can you commit
to continuing your advocacy for that dual-hat relationship?
General Caine. After some analysis. At the time I wasn't
even in the military, I was still coming back in.
Mr. Elfreth. Yes.
General Caine. So, if directed to take a look at it we will
carefully, ma'am, measure the goods and others of each of
those. But you have my commitment that I will continue as I
have, giving my candid, forthright military advice on the
each's and other's of all this to the Secretary and the
President.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
I want to move on to sexual assault in the military. And it
remains a stain in this DOD and this entire nation. It erodes
cohesion. It brings a lifetime of pain and recovery for
victims, including my constituents.
It is important to members of this committee that funding
for SAPR, in particular, increases, and that any flatline of
that funding would be viewed as a decrease.
In preparation for and during your confirmation, Mr.
Secretary, you made commitment that you would support a robust
sexual assault program and response, program that "seeks to
drive sexual assaults in the military down to zero."
I commend you for that commitment. I agree with it. And,
yet, it has been brought up many times we have no budget by
which to measure your commitment and your promises.
So, can you commit today that when we do, at last, receive
your final fiscal year 2026 budget we will see an increase to
SAPR [Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office] funding
and a plan from you as to how to drive sexual assaults down to
zero?
General Caine. As I said in my confirmation, I applaud
Congress for the efforts that have been ongoing to address that
issue, which we do need to drive to zero. That funding has not
been reduced.
We have looked at a lot of places for efficiencies. That
has not been one.
And I think you have seen the same news I have that,
thankfully, sexual assaults are coming down. And we continue to
want to do that.
Ms. Elfreth. But we have to remain ever vigilant, which is
why I hope it is not level funded. I hope we can continue to
drive that down. So, I look forward to that final budget
whenever we do receive it.
Lastly, and I will take this for the record, moving on to a
similar topic which is rape kits for DOD civilians overseas.
In April, DOJ [Department of Justice] issued a memo denying
DOD non-beneficiary civilians who are victims of sexual assault
and rape access to rape assault evidence collection kits.
If I could get for the record your explanation for this
decision, civilian support by DOD. It is incredibly important
that we fund and bring justice to those victims. And I look
forward to working with you on it.
And I will yield back my time, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Crank.
Mr. Crank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary and General, thank you for being here.
And I want to first, kind of apologize for the sort of
personal attacks. My mom and dad taught me to be different. You
won't get that from me, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, we have heard multiple
times this year that we can't do Golden Dome because it will
just cause China and Russia to build better missiles to get
around our defenses. For that logic to make sense it would mean
that China and Russia aren't already advancing missile
technology and have stood pat on the missile technology they
had 20 or 30 years ago.
I founded the Golden Dome Caucus here in the House. Is that
an accurate statement that they have stood pat on missile
technology or are they advancing, our enemies, on missile
technology?
Secretary Hegseth. I think it is fair to say, like us, they
are attempting to advance in every way possible.
Mr. Crank. Secretary Hegseth, El Paso County is the fastest
growing county in Colorado. It is projected to see significant
population growth over the next 3 decades. And we are proud
that the region has become such a desirable place for families.
But that growth has to be balanced with protecting critical
operations of our five military installations.
And that is why initiatives like Security, Open Space, and
Agricultural Resiliency, or SOAR, initiatives are so important.
Through a combination of private funding, USDA's [United States
Department of Agriculture] Regional Conservation Partnership
Program and the Department of Defense's Readiness and
Environmental Protection Integration Program, or REPI, this
initiative supports targeted land acquisitions near military
bases. These efforts help conserve wildlife habitat, preserve
agricultural interests and, of course, maintain the necessary
buffer zone--the most important part--that allows military
missions to continue.
Does the Department of Defense plan to continue to support
the REPI program in the fiscal year budget request to Congress?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes, sir, it does. But I can get back to
you with a specific number.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 159.]
Mr. Crank. That would be great. Thank you.
Additionally, the Colorado Trust for Public Land has been
awarded an $18.5 million USDA RCPP grant to help leverage DOD
REPI funds and reduce future land use conflicts around
installations like the U.S. Air Force Academy. However, I
understand that USDA is currently holding the funds under
review.
While I recognize this may fall outside of your direct
jurisdiction, the success of this land acquisition is essential
to protecting the Academy's training capabilities.
Can I count on your assistance in working with USDA to find
a solution that protects the readiness of the Air Force Academy
and responsible federal funding?
Secretary Hegseth. Yeah. We are happy to look at that with
you.
Mr. Crank. Great. Thank you.
I also would like to talk a little bit about the--the
border. My district is home to U.S. Northern Command. We are
very proud of, of what U.S. Northern Command has done with the
new authorities that on January 20th the President gave
Northern Command on the southern border
And, in addition, 4th ID [infantry division] has troops
down there.
Could you talk a bit about some of the great work that the
U.S. military is doing in support of securing our southern
border?
Secretary Hegseth. We think it is foundational and
fundamental work to the security of our nation. And as I have
said before, because the previous administration allowed 21
million illegals from places we don't know to enter our
country.
Thank you for asking that because it gives me a note, an
opportunity to sort of--I, I see questions that are
specifically meant to sow discord between the chairman and I,
knowing you are going to get different answers based on our
positions. And he has said, you know, the technicalities of an
invasion.
Well, we are not talking about an invading army here. So,
of course, everyone is trying to spin his words.
What we are talking about is the invasion of human beings,
mostly military-age males from all around the world. We have no
idea what their intentions are and they facilitated under the
previous administration.
So, me in my position I can happily--not happily--I can
clearly state that it is an invasion. And we are proud to have
the military at the border to interdict that, and that every
single day through increased authorities are working together
with Border Patrol goes from 99.9 percent to 100 at the
southern border.
I cannot commend the Joint Staff, NORTHCOM [United States
Northern Command], and our military for reacting to that in the
early days of the administration, orienting their focus to the
southern border, and applying the manpower, expertise
necessary. Because for 2 decades we spent, we spent 20 years
guarding other people's borders and we got really good at it.
And it is about time we take that expertise and apply it to
ours.
And I commend our military for following those lawful
orders and executing it incredibly well.
Mr. Crank. They did a great job. And it is very similar to
what is happening right now in Los Angeles. It is a support
role. They are not down there arresting people. They are not
doing that but they are doing a great job supporting.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back.
Mrs. Kiggans [presiding]. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Whitesides.
Mr. Whitesides. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service
to the country.
I am a new member of Congress from the north side of Los
Angeles. And I am proud to represent a region with both a large
veteran community and a world class aerospace production base.
It was our area that broke the speed of sound for the first
time, that assembled the space shuttles, and that now builds
many of the most advanced aircraft that this nation depends on
for its national security.
I want to start by communicating my deep concern for the
deployment of military troops to the streets of Los Angeles
County. Over the past few days, I have received briefings from
military leadership, including the Marine Corps and National
Guard, and one thing is eminently clear: so far this operation
has been poorly planned and poorly executed, and is not an
example of the operational and logistical excellence that the
Department of Defense is famous for.
Our servicemembers have been sleeping on the concrete
floors of federal buildings, and even outside on roads. No
contract has been made to feed them or adequately house them.
NORTHCOM was not given adequate time or resources to
prepare to absorb these guardians. The lines of command are
muddy at best. I have personally heard that NORTHCOM is the
lead agency, that DHS is the lead agency, that the FBI [Federal
Bureau of Investigation] is the lead agency, or that your
office, Mr. Secretary, is the lead agency.
It is unclear whether the Marines who have been deployed
have even completed their full training for this civilian-
focused non-lethal mission. The briefings that we have received
to date indicate that only a fraction of the assigned forces
are actually being utilized on a day-to-day basis.
On top of this, yesterday we heard in your testimony, Mr.
Secretary, that the Department may start sending troops to
other cities and states. And early today you refused to say
whether you would follow the Supreme Court on the legality of
the deployments of the National Guard and the Marines.
We are on an extraordinarily dangerous path. The nation's
founding fathers were rightfully deeply skeptical of domestic
deployment of federal troops. That skepticism stretches all the
way back to the Boston Massacre, and is a skepticism based on
blood. Going forward, I would urge you to avoid politics and
actually pay attention to what law enforcement officers are
saying on the ground.
Now, we talked a lot today about leadership and
accountability. I have been lucky to work for several inspiring
leaders. When I was NASA [National Aeronautics and Space
Administration] Chief of Staff, my boss was Administrator
Charlie Holden, who you may know. Served as a decorated Marine
general as well as a space shuttle commander.
This is a Marine who flew more than 100 combat missions in
North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. He commanded the
mission which deployed the Hubble Space Telescope which, at the
time, was the largest object ever deployed by the shuttle. He
is a serious man and an American hero.
I haven't been a member of the Armed Services Committee for
very long, just over 5 months, but in that time, I have had the
privilege to meet and talk with the senior-most members of our
military. I have met men and women who have served for decades
in our armed services, who have served for years in combat
zones.
What have I learned from these American heroes? Leaders
don't just speak, they listen. They are strong but they show
humility. They are curious, and they learn from all members of
their team, even people that they disagree with.
You and your team have made multiple serious errors:
putting our pilots and troops at risk by disclosing operational
details in unclassified communication channels, firing general
officers with unique experience and leadership skills, hiring
senior team members who seem to be unable to work together well
and who seem unable to hold confidential information private.
We need the Department of Defense to be run well so that
our troops are led well and our nation is protected. In order
for that to happen, Mr. Secretary, I suspect you will need to
listen more and talk less. You will need to be more curious and
capable of learning from different voices.
I know that that is not the style of this administration.
But you now have the lives of millions of servicemembers and
hundreds of millions of Americans depending on your capacity to
learn and change. I sincerely hope you can do it.
And I yield back my time.
Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes 5 minutes for myself.
I have the privilege and honor of representing a district
that has a huge Navy presence. I want to switch gears and talk
about naval aviation.
I, although I am the daughter of a Green Beret who served
in Vietnam, I had the privilege of serving 10 years as a
helicopter pilot. I am married to a 20-year veteran who flew F-
18s. And now a proud mom of a naval aviator, and a son who
graduated from VMI [Virginia Military Institute] about 3 weeks
ago. So, big military family, and I represent a district where
naval aviation, really the heart, heart of East Coast aviation,
the East Coast Master Jet Base.
Yesterday we spent some time talking about the importance
of the East Coast. I understand the importance of the West
Coast very much in this potential China fight that we are all
thinking of every day. But it can't be understated the value of
what the East Coast brings when our battle groups and our
carrier strike groups are deployed, the people that live in my
district.
So, it is a little disheartening when I read about and
think about the future of naval aviation when I heard from the
Department of Defense that about $500 million that was
appropriated for the next generation strike fighter in the form
of the F/A-XX is to be reallocated to the Air Force.
And then when I read memos from this committee, that this
committee is unaware of any changes to the Navy's requirements
justifying the procurement of F/A-XX and continue to support
efforts to award the F/A-XX development and design contracts to
the Navy.
So, we are trying to piece together--and I asked the same
question yesterday, and I echo the comments of my colleague
from Virginia, Congressman Wittman. But that piece is very
important. Right now I house very aging F-18 squadrons. There
is no prioritizing or no commitment from the Navy to give me
even F-35 squadrons. I have four F-35 squadrons that the Marine
Corps has on the East Coast.
But you all know better than anybody that putting all your
eggs in one basket is one of the worst strategies.
At the West Coast, Naval Air Station Lemoore, West Coast
Master Jet Base, looks great. We have been out there to visit
just to compare. They are slated to have, I believe, eight F-35
squadrons. And there is even an F-35 Center for Development
that they want, or Center for Excellence that they want to put
there, with no mention of the East Coast Master Jet Base.
So, I just want to hear from you all, I will start with
you, Secretary Hegseth, but could you explain a little bit
about your comments, why that is, and what your plans are to be
supportive of our East Coast Master Jet Base that is, that is
equally if not more important?
Secretary Hegseth. I think it is a fair point. And I do
think it is equally important.
On the F/A-XX we are reviewing it. No doubt, it is fair to
say the budget does provide for a completion of the design. As
I have stated, the F-47, the NGAD program, is a priority in
this budget to get that moving.
So, we are invested in 6th gen, and we do recognize the
Navy's unique power projection capabilities. The F-35 factors
into that also. And, so, we are looking at its development in
the future. And we will take into consideration those options
and certainly make sure, if we are planning, it is considered.
Mrs. Kiggans. That base needs it.
And, General Caine, I would love to hear your thoughts,
too. You, to quote you, you said, "We need a capability that is
mobile. There is nothing more mobile than a United States
aircraft carrier."
General Caine. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Kiggans. And when I turn on the television and we want
to talk about dropping bombs on Houthis in Yemen, who do they
show? They always show my husband taking off F-18s. And I get
very jealous.
I know there is a helicopter over there in starboard D,
just waiting--
General Caine. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Kiggans. --for something to happen.
General Caine. Yes.
Mrs. Kiggans. But that is what they show, it is naval
aviation.
General Caine. Right. Or fish somebody out of the water.
Ma'am, thank, thanks for the question. Thanks for your
service. Thanks for your husband's service. And congratulations
to your son. That is a, that is a big, big deal.
You know, obviously the Navy is working all those issues,
East Coast/West Coast power. But, you know, as a global
integrator, having 5th gen on the West Coast that can go on
those carrier air groups and get out there and provide
deterrence and/or capabilities is key.
You know, I will echo the Secretary's comments, I will get
with the Navy and--and take a look at their fourth rail in
terms of 5th gen and moving forward.
And, of course, the F/A-XX timing is a policy decision, so
defer to my leadership.
Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you.
Well, and also just I know that you all are aware of our
work we did in this Congress last Congress with quality-of-life
initiatives and for the infrastructure needs at our bases. But
that base is hurting and, again, that is our East Coast Master
Jet Base. And we all know money follows the new toys sometimes,
so, so please think of that and please prioritize and at least
give us a commitment that that is coming our way.
And in closing I just want to talk about I am the co-chair
of the Women, Peace and Security Caucus which we have here. We
have had, this is a 2017 Trump--Trump bill that was signed into
law, co-sponsored then by Senator Marco Rubio, strongly
championed by Ivanka Trunk--Trump. It is a design for military
readiness, strengthen our allies, promote lasting stability,
for the inclusion of women in peace and security efforts.
Just please be mindful of that. It is a cheap $3 million in
fiscal year 2024 but having been in a lot of meetings with a
lot of our allied partners, it is a cheap form of just
maintaining those relationships and really giving, giving a
role to the roles that women want to play. I mean, it is an
important role for us.
I will say this, I will say that we are watching. Women are
watching. And as a person who was commissioned in 1993, which
was the first year that women could fly in combat, it was an
important piece in my decision to serve.
So, so I just would love to hear your thoughts about the
future of Women, Peace and Security.
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, my issue is not what Women, Peace
and Security was, it is what it became under the Biden
administration.
So, our review showed that what it became, which was far
more ideologically focused, was not what it should be. And so,
our decision there was driven by removing that aspect.
Mrs. Kiggans. I don't disagree. And happy to be a part of
the solution to fix that.
And my time has expired.
And the chair now recognizes the Senator from California,
Mr. Tran.
Mr. Tran. Oh, got promoted.
Mrs. Kiggans. I am sorry. Congressman.
Mr. Tran. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Mrs. Kiggans. Sorry about that.
Mr. Tran. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Secretary, I just got word that Senator Padilla from my
great state of California was physically assaulted and arrested
for attending Secretary Noem's press event. The mere fact that
he showed up, he was forcibly removed.
Is this how you would treat a member of Congress who
attends your press event, whether invited or not?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, I have been here for 5 hours, sir.
I don't know about that.
Mr. Tran. I am just asking, would you have me forcibly
removed from your press event--
Secretary Hegseth. I am not--
Mr. Tran. --if I walked in?
Secretary Hegseth. I am not going to speculate on a
hypothetical. I am sure there is more context.
Mr. Tran. I will take that as a yes.
Mr. Secretary, does the DOD have any plans to allow the
military to follow the orders of President Trump when his order
violates the Constitution? Yes or no.
Secretary Hegseth. I reject the premise of that question
which is that President Trump is ordering unconstitutional
orders.
Mr. Tran. I will take that as a yes as well.
Mr. Secretary, the deployment of active-duty Marines to
California is incredibly disruptive to the lives of
servicemembers who are being drawn into the President's
publicity stunt. And I want to know how you are planning to
take care of these troops.
So, will you commit to sending my office and this committee
a detailed plan on how you plan to house and feed the 700
Marines, and potentially thousands of Marines?
Secretary Hegseth. What is disruptive is when concrete
blocks are thrown at the heads of ICE officers. And so, we are
proud that National Guards and the Marines have responded in
real time to help defend the law enforcement officers.
Mr. Tran. So, do you have a plan? Do you have a plan to
house and feed the Marines?
Secretary Hegseth. Not only do we have a plan, but it has
been a focus of mine, who has held--I have held a riot shield
before in a riot. I recognize what it means to respond in real
time without--
Mr. Tran. I reclaim my time.
Secretary Hegseth. --enough time. And--
Mr. Tran. Mr. Secretary, will you get me that plan, please.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 159.]
Secretary Hegseth. --do everything they can as fast as they
can. And we have a plan for that.
Mr. Tran. Mr. Secretary, I reclaim my time.
Chairwoman.
LA Mayor Bass stated that the area placed under the recent
curfew is around one square mile. Is that the same area where
servicemembers will be deployed?
Secretary Hegseth. Servicemembers are in Los Angeles to
defend law enforcement,--
Mr. Tran. Do you know?
Secretary Hegseth. --ICE agents, and facilities.
Mr. Tran. So, essentially you are telling me that American
people, the American people, that a one square mile block of
LA--and for the record, LA County is over 4,700 square miles--
warrants the deployment of 700 Marines and the federalization
of 4,000 California National Guardsmen.
You testified earlier that you were sending the military to
protect local law enforcement. Did LAPD [Los Angeles Police
Department] Police Chief McDonald ask you for your help?
Secretary Hegseth. I read reports on a regular basis--
Mr. Tran. Did he ask for your help?
Secretary Hegseth. --from ICE agents who couldn't--
Mr. Tran. I will take that as a no.
Secretary Hegseth. --be more grateful--
Mr. Tran. Did LA Sheriff Luna ask--
Secretary Hegseth. --and happy to see--
Mr. Tran. --for you to send in the military, Mr. Secretary?
Did LA Sheriff Luna ask you to send in the military? Yes or
no.
Secretary Hegseth. I don't work for the LA Sheriff, sir.
Mr. Tran. Well, you said you sent them in to support the
military, but they didn't even ask for you--to support law
enforcement, but they didn't even ask for your help.
Have you been to Los Angeles in the last 7 days?
Secretary Hegseth. My team is from the top down focused on
making sure Los Angeles--
Mr. Tran. I will also take that as a no.
How did you arrive at the decision not to coordinate with
local law enforcement and the Governor's Office on the initial
deployment?
Secretary Hegseth. It would be great if the Governor
attempted to actually coordinate instead of grandstanding.
Mr. Tran. All right. So, I believe your secretly
coordinating troops in an area without coordinating with local
officials is somehow not disruptive to the logistical and
operational conditions on the ground; do you agree with that?
Secretary Hegseth. I would need you to repeat the question,
sir.
Mr. Tran. Does the Department plan on coordinating with
Governor, Governor Newsom's office on local law enforcement
and--law enforcement going forward, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Hegseth. We have coordinated with local law
enforcement quite well, but the Governor has been an
obstruction to that, of course.
Mr. Tran. All right. Secretary Hegseth, this political
stunt, and by your own admission, is expected to cost the
American taxpayer at least 134 million and will disrupt the
lives of hundreds, and potentially thousands of active-duty
Marines, and 4,000 National Guardsmen. That is 134 million and
thousands of personnel diverted away from critical missions in
the Indo-Pacific where China is rapidly expanding, from Europe
where NATO needs U.S. support with growing Russian aggression,
and from CENTCOM where tensions are escalating so critically
that your own General Kurilla had to cancel all his testimony
in Congress today.
Your redirection of combat-ready troops from real world
national security threats to manage a domestic protest is gross
mismanagement and a slap in the face of servicemembers whose
lives are disrupting--disrupted throughout this event.
As a veteran myself, it is a disgrace and you should be
ashamed.
I yield back.
Mrs. Kiggans. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Mills. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, can we have in the
record, please that the gentleman from California just stated
that it was okay to have one mile of complete criminality in LA
so long as it doesn't cover--
Mr. Tran. That was not my statement.
Mr. Mills. Madam Chair, we have--
Mr. Tran. Mr. Mills has not been recognized.
Mrs. Kiggans. The Chair now recognizes the congressman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing it
down a notch there.
It is always fascinating to observe folks talking about
things they never experienced with a great deal of authority up
in this bizarre body, reading scripted, hateful, planned
rhetoric, and directing it at you gentlemen who do indeed know
what it is to stand at post.
Let me address first to General Caine. I have to say this,
sir, that researching your service career, my goodness
gracious, 35 years of distinguished, exceptional service. I
can't imagine that there is a better American man to be the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Thank you, good sir.
As an enlisted Army grunt, I thank you for being where you
are and for your 35 years of service.
Mr. Secretary and General, I have plenty of questions that
I don't have to get to because you are almost finished with
this thing. I have questions on recruitment, and training, and
Fort Polk, and software modernization, artificial intelligence,
shipbuilding, our new Army rifles, which I find questionable by
the way.
But when I met with you in the Pentagon a couple of months
ago, Mr. Secretary, to dive deep into reconciliation
considerations in a budget, what the DOD would need, and
primary threats facing our country, I had never really sat down
with you like that before. But what struck me, good sir, was
that, was that you are a committed and dedicated patriot. And I
know that I can expect that sort of transparency, and
accessibility, and candor from your office.
So, I will get to these questions down the line. I know you
will answer the phone and your people will respond because that
is the man that you are.
You have covered a tremendous amount today and you have
been subjected to some politically motivated vitriol. On behalf
of Congress, I apologize for that.
So, let me just state that from my humble position I am
going to make a promise to you two gentlemen, and by extension
to the country that we love and serve, whatever you need to
accomplish your mission we are going to work very hard to
provide. May God give you strength, and may He provide shields
of protection and peace for your families, because I know you
are nicer, although you are probably each working 20-hour days
every day.
Thank you for that and being here today, for your
accessibility. May God bless you each.
Madam Chair, I yield.
The Chairman [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Vindman.
Mr. Vindman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an
article. A distinguished member of this committee--
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 149.]
Mr. Vindman. --confirmed that there was, in fact, a pause
in offensive cyber operations earlier this year. The SECDEF
just denied this.
This committee deserves to know whether the Secretary just
lied.
Mr. Secretary, many believe you are unqualified, under-
qualified for this role. You have been Secretary 4.5 months
now. For the sake of the American people and our
servicemembers, I hope you have done your homework since.
Let's talk INDOPACOM.
What year has the Navy publicly set as the benchmark for
being ready to fight a war with China?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, it needs to be right now. We know
what China--
Mr. Vindman. I am glad to hear that.
Secretary Hegseth. --has said. Right now.
Mr. Vindman. That there is a publicly set date.
Secretary Hegseth. We know--it wouldn't be prudent in this
environment to reveal when we think we are ready. That is what
China has said, and we understand what they are saying, and we
want to be capable and ready for it.
Mr. Vindman. Mr. Secretary, I asked for a year. Not a
filibuster. 2027 is the year. According to unclassified DOD
assessments, how many warships does China have in its Navy
today?
Secretary Hegseth. Many and growing.
Mr. Vindman. 370. It is the largest Navy in the world.
How many does the U.S. Navy have today?
Secretary Hegseth. Thanks to this budget, it is increasing
substantially.
Mr. Vindman. A number, I am looking for a number.
Secretary Hegseth. But it is just south of 300.
Mr. Vindman. 286. Pretty close.
How many ships is China expected to field by 2030?
Secretary Hegseth. I believe that is a classified number,
but it is going to go up at a rapid rate.
Mr. Vindman. In a DOD PR report that was released there is
an unclassified number.
Secretary Hegseth. It is going up at a rapid rate.
Mr. Vindman. Let me help you out: 435.
Let's see if we can do better in EUCOM.
What corridor in Eastern Poland is vulnerable and a
priority for U.S. reinforcements that connects Belarus to a
Russian region?
Secretary Hegseth. I am sure you can tell me.
Mr. Vindman. I can tell you. It is the Suwalki Gap.
Which heavily militarized Russian territory connected the
Suwalki Gap that contains nuclear capable missiles that
threatens all of NATO? It is right there in the middle, Eastern
Europe.
Secretary Hegseth. I see we are playing a quiz game here.
Ultimately, thankfully--
Mr. Vindman. It is the Kaliningrad Oblast.
Secretary Hegseth. --we are giving our NATO allies a step
up in their spending to make sure that they can hold the line.
Mr. Vindman. Mr. Secretary, I asked you a specific
question. Thank you.
It is the Kaliningrad Oblast.
So, what percentage of Ukrainian front-line casualties,
let's talk drones, are now caused by FPV drones?
Secretary Hegseth. A very large percentage. And we are
studying that conflict closely to understand--
Mr. Vindman. I hope so.
Secretary Hegseth. --that fact.
Mr. Vindman. It is over 70 percent.
And which U.S. service has written doctrine or standardized
procurement for integration of FPV drones?
Secretary Hegseth. That is the Army.
Mr. Vindman. I wish that were the case. But, actually, the
answer is none of them. So, we are not prepared yet, and we
need to get there fast.
Let me turn to a different topic. A few weeks ago when my
office opened up in Fredericksburg, I spoke to the mother of
one F-18 pilot who flew the March 15th mission over the Red Sea
and Yemen that you discussed over Signal. I spoke to her again
on Tuesday and asked her if there was anything she wanted me to
bring up.
She believes that you need to resign.
She also had several questions. But the one thing she said,
she would appreciate an apology, an apology for putting
classified information. Her son couldn't even tell her where
the Truman was going. But into the Houthi PC [Principals
Committee] small group Signal chat that risked her son's life
and the mission.
Mr. Secretary, yes or no, do you think you owe her an
apology?
Secretary Hegseth. Please make sure to let her know how
grateful we are for the skill and heroism of her--
Mr. Vindman. I am very much grateful. I am sure everybody
in this room is grateful. I am proud of what her son has done.
The question is, do you owe her an apology for your
actions? Are you going to be accountable?
Secretary Hegseth. It was an incredibly successful mission.
Her son did great work.
Mr. Vindman. He did a magnificent job.
Secretary Hegseth. And, thankfully, the Houthi campaign was
a success.
Mr. Vindman. Mr. Secretary, I agree with you. Magnificent
job, the performance of those pilots and Navy personnel.
Magnificent.
We are talking about what you did and accountability. Are
you going to apologize to the mother or not?
Secretary Hegseth. I don't apologize for success.
Mr. Vindman. You don't apologize for putting her son's life
in danger and for putting the mission in jeopardy.
Well, that is, that is very disappointing and not befitting
the tough leadership that our troops and families deserve. It
is, frankly, a stunning lack of OPSEC. Privates are trained to
do much better than that. It was reckless.
And sounds like that accountability doesn't extend as far
as the Secretary of Defense.
So, I think you should resign. The mother said she wants
you gone.
And with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Sorensen.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the Secretary and the General for joining
us today.
Mr. Secretary, I am hopeful that we can come to an
agreement that we need both sides of the chambers working
together for the betterment of the military.
Do you believe that bipartisanship is essential to the
mission of our Armed Forces? Yes or no? Bipartisanship?
Secretary Hegseth. Bipartisanship can be a wonderful thing.
Mr. Sorensen. Great.
Because I didn't come to Congress with political baggage. I
mean, I was called here because, you know, we believe, I
believe and my constituents believe that we need impartial
bipartisan people to find solutions to complex problems. But
today this nation is being pushed and pulled in so many
different directions.
I have a constituent this weekend that said, Eric, I don't
even know what to believe anymore. Facts don't matter.
Conspiracy theories run rampant like brush fires without anyone
to quell them.
So, I am hoping you can shoot straight from the hip with
me. We are almost done.
Do you have a targeted number of reductions in civilian
personnel in our Armed Forces?
Secretary Hegseth. We have very diligently tried to
identify the places where we might need to make changes. But
for the most part it has been a DRP [Deferred Resignation
Program] process, a volunteer process of civilians to try to
reduce the number for cost saving.
Mr. Sorensen. Is there an analysis that supports how you
are coming up with these decisions?
Secretary Hegseth. We looked at, we looked at about 8 to 10
percent, Congressman. But, ultimately, everyone here
acknowledges that the civilian size of the DOD has exploded
over the last 20 years.
And so, where there are room for efficiencies, we are
actively trying to find them and right-size those spots.
Because a lot of those places are not making us more nimble or
faster at what we do. And--
Mr. Sorensen. Right. What do we say to the people that have
strived their entire life, these are former, retired members of
the military working in as civilian backup, what do we say to
them?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, almost all of them took a
voluntary DRP to separate.
Mr. Sorensen. Do you have a timeline for making these cuts?
Secretary Hegseth. Like I said, almost all of them were
volunteers who themselves decided to retire early.
Mr. Sorensen. Okay. I want to reset for just a moment.
And I am going to be honest with you. I learned a lot about
military service from both of my grandpas who served and fought
in World War II. My Grandpa Sorensen was a proud Navy
photographer. You know, I have his photos framed above my desk
here on Capitol Hill. You know, I learned to be proud of him.
And from him I learned how to become proud of veterans,
which is why I want to talk about a different veteran, one who
served in the Korean war from 1951 to 1955. He served
courageously like my Grandpa Sorensen.
But unlike my grandpa this veteran was forced to resign
from the Navy--I am talking about Harvey Milk--because he was
gay. You see, as a kid all I wanted to be was the weatherman on
T.V. You know, I learned that I could have gone into the Army
or the Navy to learn meteorology, but someone like me wasn't
allowed. They didn't want someone like me, Mr. Secretary. There
wasn't anything that I could do to change myself or the way
that my nation thought of me.
And so, I want to keep this very simple.
Do you believe that Harvey Milk is a veteran who deserves
his country's thanks?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, the decision to rename the ship was
not--
Mr. Sorensen. I am just asking do you believe that Harvey
Milk is a veteran who deserves his country's thanks? Yes or no.
Secretary Hegseth. If his service is deemed honorable, yes.
Mr. Sorensen. Yesterday the Secretary of the Navy was in
your seat. He couldn't give me a straight answer.
I disagree with your leadership and his, because I believe
that every veteran deserves our thanks. We all walk in the
footsteps of leaders before us. And you may not find the value
in the fact that many of those people are women, with different
skin colors, different backgrounds, different talents,
immigrants, gay, straight, transgender, disabled. You may want
to change it, but you can't.
Because the America that you and I both serve is a place
where everyone has the ability or should have the ability to
grow up and be the hero that grandpa was. I wanted to do that
when I was a kid.
We are going back to that time. Gay kids like me, they
don't want to go into the Army, they don't want to go into the
Navy because you don't care for them. It is happening all over
our country.
My grandpa taught me never to judge the value of a
veteran's service. But I hope, Mr. Secretary, you learn to do
the same in your capacity and you can find it in your heart to
make that part of your process.
May God continue to watch over our troops, our veterans,
and our military families.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Bell.
Mr. Bell. Mr. Secretary, unlike my colleague down the dais,
I don't feel sorry for you. I have visited with soldiers in war
zones whose life, life was on the line. So, a few tough
questions. I think you will be okay.
And so, my first question is are you authorized to disclose
intelligence that would put our troops in harm's way to our
enemies?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, I reject the premise of the
question.
Mr. Bell. Just saying as a hypothetical, are you authorized
to do that?
Secretary Hegseth. I have not and do not.
Mr. Bell. Exactly. And I assumed that.
So, when you told our ranking member that everything that
you say is authorized, that wasn't completely accurate;
correct?
Secretary Hegseth. What I said is that every way that I
communicate is authorized.
Mr. Bell. No. You actually said everything that you said is
authorized. I wrote it down.
Now, with that said, and the reason I bring that up is
because it is about accountability. And we are talking about
this war ethos, the primary, the primary component of that is
accountability.
And indulge me in a quick analogy.
Republicans introduced a bill on the House floor a few days
ago, a resolution standing against terror, racism, hate,
antisemitism which, as an African, as an American, as a Black
man I am going to support, I am going to stand against those
things 6 times a week, twice on Sunday.
Now, the nefarious part was there a line that was stuck at
the end of that, that resolution that essentially gave a shout
out to law enforcement, which I do support, but also to ICE,
which right now a lot of Americans have a problem with the way
ICE is being deployed. And I am not happy with what they are
doing, nor do I want to shout them out for that.
And so, accountability was I didn't duck from the question,
I went and I talked to my constituents. I went on social media.
I did interviews to explain exactly where I stood, that I stand
against hate, I stand against racism, I stand against
antisemitism. And I hate that that line was stuck in there.
That is accountability.
So, when we are asking you these questions and you are
ducking, and you are not answering them directly, that is not,
that is not a culture of a war--what was the term, a war ethos,
a warrior ethos. I am looking at members of our, of our--who
served, and they are taking their lead from you. That starts
with you.
And if we have troops who are in war zones and they are
watching while they are risking their lives and you can't just
answer some tough questions, what kind of culture is that
setting?
So, as a prosecutor, when I think about what is happening
in California and around the country with ICE, it is not only
dangerous and unconstitutional but it raises serious public
safety concerns because we have people with masks that are
going around saying that they are ICE--and we have had reports
of that--saying that they are ICE and committing crimes. And
that is, that is a big problem.
But it gets me back to the point of the accountability
piece.
So, for example, do you believe quality military housing is
important? Yes or no.
And just keep your mike on for the time because I don't
only have a minute left.
Secretary Hegseth. Our budget commits to robust military
housing and barracks up to date.
Mr. Bell. Do you believe military children deserve a strong
education?
Secretary Hegseth. Our budget funds strong education and we
hope more educational choices for military children.
Mr. Bell. Love it.
Is it a priority to provide real reliable care to our
veterans?
Secretary Hegseth. Of course.
Mr. Bell. So, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, we have a
problem here because your answers don't match your budget
priorities. You said you mission is to restore this warrior
ethos and that threats we face are serious, but so must our
investments.
So, when we think of, for example, a $45 million parade, I
can think of 45 million things we could do more effectively
with $45 million than a parade, such as the things that I
mentioned: military housing, military children's education,
providing reliable care for our veterans. All of these things
would be higher on the priority than a parade.
And so the parade, and when we talk about, when we talk
about showing strength we are not talking about theater, we are
not talking about showmanship. We are talking about things that
actually make our military more lethal and keeps, and keep us,
keeps us safer.
And so, what I am saying is, is that, in my limited time
left is accountability goes matter. And this body cares about
what the what our military, what our military is doing because
we care about national security and we take it, and we all take
it very seriously.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Bell. My time has expired.
The Chairman. All time for member questions has expired.
The chair now recognizes the ranking member for any closing
comments.
Mr. Smith. I just want to thank the chairman for his
excellent leadership of the committee. Obviously a highly
contentious time.
The only comment I would make, a number of members from the
other side expressed outrage that we were critical of Secretary
Hegseth. I don't know how many of those members sat here when
Joe Biden was President, but the savage attacks on Biden, and
Secretary Austin, and Chairman Milley, I mean just the
hypocrisy of that was just breathtaking for me to behold.
And let me just say I think I agree with what Mr. Bell just
said, you know, tough job. Not as tough as our other jobs. Part
of it is you are accountable to this body. You are accountable
to answer questions even if sometimes they are obnoxious. That
is part of the gig.
And I do hope going forward that the Department of Defense
will have greater contact with this committee. I have not
spoken to you one-on-one in the entire time you have been
Secretary of Defense. Only interacted with you twice.
I have been through a ton of Secretaries of Defense that
served for presidents, including President Trump. Always had a
very good relationship and a very good conversation.
Your Department is cutting us off in a way that is not
helpful to any of the bipartisan hopes that have been expressed
by the other side of the aisle. I hope that will change. I hope
there will be interactions.
I will say, General Caine, you have been very generous and
reached out, effective communication, and I do appreciate that
because that is the responsibility of the job. I haven't met
too many people at the Pentagon that like coming over here. I
can't think of one. But it is part of the job in a
constitutional republic. We are the people's voice. We are
charged with conducting oversight.
So, I hope that interaction will continue. Criticism is
part of the game.
Again, I thank the chairman for conducting an excellent
hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, my friend.
And I would say, Mrs. MacDonnell, you crushed it today.
So, for your first--
[Applause.]
The Chairman. And to our other two witnesses, thank you for
your first appearance before the House Armed Services
Committee. Thank you for your service to our country.
And with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 12, 2025
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
June 12, 2025
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
June 12, 2025
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
June 12, 2025
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TRAN
Secretary Hegseth. To support the Marines conducting the
Federal Protection Mission, a logistics hub was established at
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. Contracted services provide
and maintain facilities including laundry, showers, food
distribution, climate-controlled tent billeting, and waste
disposal, ensuring continued support for the Marines. [See
page 96.]
------
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MESSMER
Secretary Hegseth. In the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year
2025, the SLCM-N program is planning a multi-phased, multiple
award contract through another transaction agreement for a
competitive missile prototype design for early underwater
launch demonstration. The SLCM-N prototyping effort intends to
evaluate proposed solutions through open competition that
assesses cost, producibility and manufacturability, operational
performance, and risk. [See page 83.]
------
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CRANK
Secretary Hegseth. The Department's Fiscal Year 2026 budget
request includes $158.3 million for the Readiness and
Environmental Protection Integration program. [See page 90.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
June 12, 2025
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
Mr. Wittman. The American biotechnology industry is at the front
line of innovation, enabling our warfighters to do more with less by
developing everything from high-performance coatings for ships to
increasing access to critical minerals. Domestic biomanufacturing is
critical to reducing vulnerabilities and securing our defense supply
chain. However, as stated in the National Security Commission on
Emerging Biotechnology's 2025 report, if we lose momentum in bio-
innovation now, we risk ceding ground to adversaries like the CCP that
are investing heavily in biotechnology for both offensive and defensive
capabilities. Given how much is at stake for our national security and
domestic biomanufacturing base, do you share the concern that current
DOD biotech investments are at risk and loss of such investments could
harm innovation and national security? And will you commit to
supporting sustained, robust funding of DOD programs to ensure that
small U.S. biotechnology companies can continue contributing to
creating a robust defense industrial base?
Secretary Hegseth. American technologies are always at risk because
we have superior innovation in U.S. companies that is desired by
adversaries and competitors, and biotechnology is no exception. The
Department is leveraging the ingenuity and bioindustrial manufacturing
advances of the industrial base to strengthen our defense supply chain,
and the People's Republic of China knows this and targets our efforts.
We take this challenge head on with our robust technology protection
program to support our investments in biotechnology and bioindustrial
manufacturing to bring superior performance to our weapons systems and
protect it from adversary acquisition. To support peace through
strength, the Department of War (DoW) will continue to invest in the
domestic biotechnology industry, and in protecting industry
intellectual property, US military advantage, and the American people.
The Department engages small U.S. biotechnology companies by maximizing
available authorities, such as through the Department's Office of Small
Business Programs and other transaction agreements with nontraditional
defense contractors.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS
Mr. Norcross. Can you describe in detail the changes you are making
to the staffing and budget of the office of the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)? How will you ensure that DOT&E continues
to fulfil its statutory role and that any changes to staffing or budget
will not have an adverse effect on the safety of our warfighters?
Secretary Hegseth. The Department implemented a strategic and
deliberate reorganization of the Office of the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to eliminate any non-statutory or redundant
functions, to reduce bureaucratic overhead and to drive greater
efficiency. The Department also provided guidance for DOT&E to deliver
its core statutory function through a reduced staff of 30 civilian
positions, with no more than one Senior Executive Service member and 15
assigned military personnel. DOT&E is being reduced to this size
through a targeted, deliberate, and expeditious civilian reduction-in-
force. To carry out this mission I appointed Mr. Carroll P. Quade, the
Department of the Navy's Test and Evaluation Executive, to perform the
duties of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. Mr. Quade
has assumed all duties of the Director, including overseeing the
transition and ensuring DOT&E's statutory requirements remain effective
and in compliance with statute. The Department is committed to adhering
to the statutory requirement for DOT&E to provide independent analysis,
evaluation and reporting of operational test and evaluation for
programs on the DOT&E oversight list. DOT&E is continuing to execute
oversight responsibilities of programs on the DOT&E oversight list, as
required by statute, and any changes to the oversight list are still
solely the responsibility of the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation.
Mr. Norcross. What is the Department's plan, in terms of timeline,
investments, and specific priority areas, for how to use the billions
of dollars included in the Reconciliation bill for improvement of
munitions production and the munitions industrial base? What
facilities, components, and elements of the workforce for munitions are
the Department going to invest this money in first?
Secretary Hegseth. The DoW and our Warfighters require a growing
munitions industrial base with a resilient supply chain independent of
adversarial foreign sources that remains flexible to respond to demand
signals across a changing national security environment. The
Department's goal for rapid investment timelines is to finalize
performance awards in less than six months using aggressive acquisition
processes. Specific DoW priority initiatives are dedicated towards
improving munitions and missile production capacity through advanced
manufacturing, reducing costs of components and integration through
automation, increasing capacity, and enhancing munitions capabilities
to meet service requirements.
Mr. Norcross. What is the Department of Defense's current
acquisition strategy for the E-7 Wedgetail, a successor to the E-3
airborne early warning and control aircraft? If the Department of
Defense is not going to pursue acquiring the E-7, what analysis can you
show to demonstrate that any resulting gap in capability would be
covered by alternative means on an operationally relevant timeline?
Secretary Hegseth. The Department believes it needs a layered,
multi-domain capability to ensure a robust, resilient, and global
Airborne Mission Target Indicator (AMTI) and Battle Management System.
The Department cancelled the E-7 Wedgetail program based on
programmatic delays, rising costs and alternate solutions. The AMTI
mission will be met by multiple platforms across multiple domains and
that we would be happy to discuss at a higher classification level. To
mitigate risk, the Department is procuring four additional E-2Dsin
Fiscal Year 2026 and keeping options open for potential future
investments.
Mr. Norcross. Considering that the Army is planning to stop
procurement of High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) as
part of the Army Transformation Initiative, is the Department of
Defense considering at all how to mitigate the rollover safety concerns
of existing Army HMMWVs? Will the Department maintain or accelerate
funding to retrofit HMMWVs with rollover mitigation kits now that the
Army is not procuring new HMMWVs with the safety modifications built
in?
Secretary Hegseth. The Army continuously addresses HMMWV rollover
concerns and will continue to address these concerns as long as the
vehicle remains in the inventory. Rollover data collection and risk
mitigation measures, and the associated lessons learned, are key
aspects of our communication and information-sharing with commanders
and leaders across the force. Safety Assistance Visits are one way that
this information is communicated, in addition to regular promulgation
of findings, advisories, and recommendations across the enterprise.
Additionally, information and data collection on rollovers are critical
to informing the Army's risk mitigation procurement options as the Army
persistently seeks ways to improve safety controls.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. Scott. How has the use of U.S.-provided systems in Ukraine
informed DoD's research, development, and procurement strategies, and
does this represent a tangible return on investment in terms of future
military capabilities?
Secretary Hegseth. The Department of War leverages intelligence
from all on-going conflicts to understand strategic, operational, and
tactical security challenges as the basis for the formulation of new
operational concepts and capabilities. The Department of War has
studied the ongoing war in Ukraine and has used the lessons gleaned
from the conflict to adjust our research, development, and procurement
strategies to make the Joint Force more capable and better suited to
respond to any potential adversary on accelerated timelines. Multiple
kinetic and non-kinetic warfare domains have benefitted from these
efforts, with potential capabilities undergoing detailed analysis via
modeling and simulation to ensure they will have the intended effect on
the battlefield. If proven to be effective, capabilities are further
developed as prototypes and undergo operational experimentation within
a relevant environment to validate and refine employment concepts. The
proven capabilities have been accelerated to the Joint Force via
multiple pathways including the use of new acquisition capabilities,
such as the Accelerate the Procurement Fielding of Innovative
Technologies program. Using lessons learned over the last two years,
the Department of War has accelerated new capabilities to the force by
as much as three years as compared to previous acquisition processes.
Mr. Scott. To what extent has the provision of stored or surplus
equipment to Ukraine allowed the Department of Defense to modernize its
own inventories, and how is this factored into the overall ROI of the
assistance program?
Secretary Hegseth. Funding appropriated by Congress for the
replacement of materiel provided to Ukraine has presented opportunities
to procure modernized equipment and munitions. Procuring modernized
equipment and munitions was a deliberate effort, aligned with Service
modernization plans and priorities. Specific examples include replacing
older M113 Armored Personnel Carriers and Bradley fighting vehicles
with the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and the updated Bradley
M2A4 respectively; HAWK missile systems with Patriot PAC-3 MSE
missiles; and outdated High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles
(HMMWVs) with Infantry Squad Vehicles (ISVs). The Department will
continue to ensure that the transfer of stored or surplus equipment is
in the United States' best strategic interest.
Mr. Scott. What metrics or outcomes does the DoD use to evaluate
the effectiveness of weapons, platforms, and ammunition provided to
Ukraine in enhancing its defense capabilities and degrading adversarial
military capacity?
Secretary Hegseth. The Department of War evaluates the
effectiveness of security assistance provided to Ukraine through a
multi-faceted framework that includes outcome-based performance
metrics, system-specific assessments, and real-time battlefield
feedback. Together, these quantitative and qualitative measures provide
a comprehensive picture of the effectiveness of U.S. security
assistance.
Mr. Scott. How can the Joint Staff enhance the integration of the
Joint Trauma System (JTS) across all Unified Combatant Commands to
ensure standardized combat casualty care protocols, particularly in
contested environments with prolonged field care scenarios?
General Caine. To enhance integration across all Unified Combatant
Commands (CCMDs), the Office of the Joint Staff Surgeon will need to
work closely with the JTS and the Defense Health Agency, to identify,
support, and prioritize CCMD Trauma System (CTS) requirements and the
modernization of the DoD Trauma Registry (DoDTR).
Mr. Scott. What measures are being implemented to address the
"Walker Dip" challenge, ensuring medical personnel maintain trauma care
proficiency during periods of non-conflict to support readiness for
large-scale combat operations?
General Caine. To enhance military clinicians' trauma care skills
for large-scale combat operations, the Joint Force is implementing
several strategies. Support and expansion of CCMD Trauma System (CTSs),
aligned under the JTS, to bring trauma system doctrine, oversight, and
data collection into theater-level operational plans and exercises.
Championing military-civilian clinical partnerships with Level I trauma
centers, enabling military providers to maintain hands-on trauma
experience in high-volume, real-world settings when combat deployments
are limited. Reinforcing that readiness cannot be sustained without
recapturing volume, acuity, and complexity in MTFs via the Military
Healthcare System Direct Care.
Mr. Scott. How can the DoD Trauma Registry (DoDTR) be further
leveraged to provide real-time, actionable data to combatant commanders
for optimizing trauma care outcomes, and what resources are needed to
expand its capabilities?
General Caine. To meet the demands of large-scale combat
operations, the DoDTR must be modernized from its current state. The
JTS is currently modernizing DoDTR which is supported by the Office of
the Joint Staff Surgeon and DHA leadership. In preparation for LSCO,
the DoDTR must evolve and modernize into a real-time, forward-
integrated, decision support platform that can inform battlefield
commanders at the speed of relevance. Enhanced analytics, predictive
modeling, and simplified interfaces will ensure the system delivers
value across all echelons of care-from Role 1 through strategic
evacuation.
Mr. Scott. What steps can the Joint Staff take to ensure the En
Route Care (ERC) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are uniformly
adopted and resourced across all services to improve patient outcomes
during evacuation?
General Caine. The Joint Staff uses CPGs to inform the development
of Universal Joint Tasks (UJT). These are assembled to develop a joint
Mission-Essential Task List (JMETL).
There are six UJTs related to patient movement, including OP
4.4.3.11 (Conduct Patient Movement), which addresses measures to ensure
personnel assigned to intra-theater patient movement platforms complete
education and training informed by the ERC CPG.
The Joint Staff is conducting a Capability Portfolio Management
Review to identify any gaps and risks Combatant Command and Service
Component Commands have related to conducting ERC to inform resourcing
solutions.
Mr. Scott. Are current training and resourcing for Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) trauma care, as outlined
in JTS CPGs, sufficient to meet the needs of joint forces operating in
high-threat environments? If not, what additional investments or
policies are required?
General Caine. Although the Joint Trauma System's Clinical Practice
Guidelines provide an improved foundation for CBRN trauma care, current
training and resourcing are not fully sufficient to meet the potential
demands of the Joint Force operating in CBRN-contested environments.
Gaps exist in several key areas, to include improving interagency
information sharing, ramping up CBRN exercise realism and complexity,
and more training on CBRN casualty management.
Mr. Scott. How can the Joint Staff support the expansion of frozen
and deglycerolized red blood cell programs to ensure blood availability
in austere operational environments, and what logistical barriers need
to be addressed?
General Caine. Blood requirements are determined by the Combatant
Commander - informed by the Command Surgeon and supporting staff using
scenario-based casualty estimates. The Joint Staff collaborates with
the Defense Health Agency in its role as a Combat Support Agency to
support Combatant Command requirements, including requirements for
frozen red blood cells (FRBCs). If the requirement for FRBCs increases
and additional deglycerolizing capacity is needed to convert these
units into transfusable products, the Joint Staff can advocate for
prioritizing resources to expand deglycerolizing capabilities.
Mr. Scott. Are there plans to expand or modify the scope of medical
support for Ukrainian soldiers in U.S. facilities given the opportunity
to enhance the combat trauma training of U.S. medical personnel?
General Caine. I defer to OSD Policy for any plans to expand or
modify the scope of medical support in U.S. medical facilities for non
US military personnel.
Mr. Scott. How is the U.S. military working with Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania to counter hybrid threats, such as cyberattacks,
disinformation campaigns, and irregular warfare, which are prominent
concerns in the region?
General Caine. USEUCOM maintains engagement with Latvia through
Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) initiatives aimed at bolstering
Latvia's cyber defenses, supporting its efforts to centralize its
cybersecurity and defensive cyber operational capacity under its Cyber
Command through existing legal frameworks, and advancing the
preparedness of its cyber workforce to mitigate risk.
USEUCOM's engagement with Lithuania, including ICB, has been
instrumental in its efforts to stand up a Cyber Command (established
January 1, 2025) and ensure its capability targets are aligned with
NATO's. USEUCOM continues to consult with Lithuania's Armed Forces
Cyber Command to ensure its progress toward operational capacity is
aligned with United States and NATO objectives in cyberspace. Exchanges
include Table Top Exercises, large-scale cyber exercises, such as Cyber
Flag and Cyber Shield, and training of cyber workforce personnel.
The United States is engaged in a bilateral project with Estonia to
jointly produce cyber incident reports for NATO standardization.
USCYBERCOM and Estonia's CYBERCOM (ESTCYBERCOM) have an established
partnership involving joint planning and information exchange, which
reduces the burden on USCYBERCOM and increases the cyber defense
posture of NATO Allies and other like-minded partner nations.
Mr. Scott. What steps are being taken to improve interoperability
between U.S. forces and the militaries of Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania, particularly in joint exercises and capability development?
General Caine. USEUCOM engages with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
through a robust program of joint exercises, security assistance, and
information sharing. For example; Exercise SWIFT RESPONSE 25
demonstrated significant improvements in the ability to effectively
respond to crisis situations as an interoperable, multi-national team.
Exercise BALTOPS 25 allowed the U.S. and NATO Amphibious Task Force
to demonstrate joint naval warfighting capability and strengthen
partnerships in the Baltic region.
The IRON WOLF and STRONG GRIFFIN series of exercises are brigade-
level maneuver exercises held annually to improve the integration of
fires, engineers, and maneuver elements of Lithuanian Mechanized and
Motorized Brigades. The goal is to ensure U.S. and Baltic forces can
operate seamlessly together to deter aggression and maintain regional
stability. USEUCOM will continue to work closely with the Baltic allies
to address the challenges and risks associated with improving
interoperability and to achieve shared security objectives.
Mr. Scott. Given the strategic vulnerability of the Baltic States
to Russian air and missile capabilities, what is the U.S. doing to
bolster integrated air and missile defense systems in the region?
General Caine. The U.S. assists the Baltic states in developing
their capability to individually and collectively detect, analyze,
coordinate, and respond to airborne threats under the Baltic Security
Initiative (BSI), which began in FY 2020. BSI funded programs improve
data sharing and command and control (C2) between the Baltics, the
U.S., and NATO by gradually introducing new equipment, training, and
processes through FY 2026. The Baltics are fielding C2 equipment and
expanding their integrated Integrated Air and Missile Defense networks,
as well as procuring sensors to increase their detection and tracking
capabilities.
Mr. Scott. How is the U.S. assisting Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
in modernizing their armed forces, including through security
assistance, training, and equipment transfers?
General Caine. As part of the Baltic Security Initiative (BSI), the
U.S. is assisting the Baltic states with delivering their NATO
capability targets, including targets for Integrated Air and Missile
Defense, Land Forces Capabilities, and Maritime Domain Awareness. U.S.
rotational forces partner closely with Baltic and NATO Allies to
conduct multinational training exercise to further enhance readiness
and interoperability.
Mr. Scott. How is the U.S. collaborating with Estonia, a leader in
cyber defense, to strengthen NATO's cybersecurity framework and protect
critical infrastructure in the Baltic region?
General Caine. USEUCOM is engaged in a bilateral project with
Estonia to jointly produce cyber incident reports for NATO
standardization. The partnership has provided six cyber incident
reports to NATO for review and distribution. This work with Estonia and
other NATO nations has been validated by NATO Exercise - Coalition
Warrior Interoperability Exercise to enable collective cyber defense
using new tools and technologies. Estonia has accepted an invitation
from United States Cyber Command to participate in Cyber Flag 25-2 from
8 to 25 July 2025.
USCYBERCOM and Estonia's CYBERCOM (ESTCYBERCOM) have an established
partnership involving joint planning and information exchange, which
reduces the burden on USCYBERCOM and increases the cyber defense
posture of NATO Allies and other like-minded partner nations. Further,
ESTCYBERCOM leads the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Community of
Excellence, which works to identify and coordinate cyber defense
education among member nations, and notably, organizes the annual
LOCKED SHIELDS cyber exercise.
Mr. Scott. What messaging strategies is the U.S. military employing
to signal resolve to adversaries while reassuring Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania of unwavering U.S. support?
General Caine. USEUCOM demonstrates resolve, readiness,
interoperability, and capability through joint exercises and military-
to-military cooperation with the Baltic states. U.S. rotational force
presence in the Baltics enables deterrence and increases
interoperability across NATO. The U.S. encourages NATO investment in
collective defense through Forward Land Forces (FLF) and the Baltic Air
Policing (BAP) mission. As demonstrated during the NATO Summit in The
Hague, U.S. leadership has contributed directly to Allied commitment to
increasing defense investment to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) to
fund the capabilities needed to deter Russia's continued aggression
toward Europe.
Mr. Scott. What is your assessment of how security assistance to
Ukraine contributes to long-term stability in Europe, and how is this
weighed against the immediate costs of providing military aid?
General Caine. I defer to the State Department and OSD Policy as
this is a whole of government matter. I will ensure the Joint Force is
prepared to provide a vast array of options to the President to achieve
global security objectives.
Mr. Scott. To what extent has the provision of stored or surplus
equipment to Ukraine allowed the Department of Defense to modernize its
own inventories, and how is this factored into the overall ROI of the
assistance program?
General Caine. While I defer to OSD Policy on this complex matter,
I do wish to highlight the necessity to revitalize the National
Industrial Base (NIB) to support the rapid reconstitution of critical
warfighting equipment and weapons systems. I greatly appreciate
Congress' continued work with our team to resolve the current NIB
challenges.
Mr. Scott. How do you assess the strategic return on investment of
security assistance to Ukraine in terms of advancing U.S. national
security objectives?
General Caine. I defer to the State Department and OSD Policy as
this is a whole of government matter. I will ensure the Joint Force is
prepared to provide a vast array of options to the President to achieve
global security objectives.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
Ms. Stefanik. Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, it's great to
see you both here today and thank you for your service to our country.
As the proud representative of New York's 21st District, home to Fort
Drum and the 10th Mountain Division, as well as the Air Force Research
Lab in Rome, I'm focused on ensuring that our military remains the most
capable and ready force in the world, and that the strategic assets in
my district receive the support they need.
Secretary Hegseth, the 10th Mountain Division continues to be one
of the most deployed units in the U.S. Army. I have been tirelessly
advocating for Secretary Driscoll to fast-track FY27 funding for
Wheeler-Sack Airfield, that is in desperate need of electric power
system repairs.
Secretary Hegseth, In 2019, the Department of Defense designated
Fort Drum as the preferred East Coast site for homeland missile
defense. I've worked across multiple NDAA and Appropriations cycles to
secure Fort Drum's central role in our national missile defense
architecture, including a requirement for the construction of an
additional homeland missile defense site on the East Coast to be
completed by 2030 with seed funding appropriated to accomplish just
this.
This parallels perfectly with President Trump's historic leadership
to implement the Golden Dome to modernize and strengthen our missile
defense capabilities in the face of rapidly evolving threats from our
adversaries. Given Fort Drum's proven strategic value, its designation
by DoD, and Congress's repeated support and funding, what is your
assessment of the critical role Fort Drum will play in bringing
President Trump's historic missile defense vision to fruition?
Secretary Hegseth. The President's Executive Order 14186 directs me
to deliver and maintain a next-generation missile defense shield to
defend against foreign aerial attack on the U.S. Homeland and to
guarantee a secure second-strike capability, known as Golden Dome for
America (GDA). To accomplish this, I have created the position of the
GDA Direct Reporting Program Manager (DRPM). The GDA DRPM is
responsible for creating a viable GDA architecture that develops and
accelerates contributing technologies to deliver on the President's
policies in Executive Order 14186. Now that General Michael Guetlein is
confirmed to the position, the GDA DRPM will have 60 days to deliver a
layered homeland missile defense architecture to the Deputy Secretary
of War. This will include evaluation of the requirement, location, and
details of an additional homeland interceptor site. Whatever site or
sites are selected, the GDA will protect your constituents, and we will
continue to rely on the contributions of the 10th Mountain Division to
the Joint Force.
Ms. Stefanik. Another unique aspect of Fort Drum is it's arctic
zone classification, meaning in New York's 21st District, the U.S. Army
is currently enhancing our soldiers arctic combat readiness. Can you
discuss how the FY26 budget enhances high-altitude and cold-weather
warfare training capabilities critical to the 10th Mountain Division's
mission readiness?
Secretary Hegseth. The Army strategically invests in the 10th
Mountain Division - including funding for cold-weather home station
training, the U.S. Army Mountain Warfare School, participation in joint
exercises like Arctic Forge with NATO Allies, and Arctic Soldier
organizational clothing and individual equipment - to ensure combat
readiness through specialized training and multinational exercises.
These financial investments, which represent an increase from FY25,
enhance the Division's expertise in arctic and high-latitude warfare,
supporting regional deterrence and collective defense objectives.
Ms. Stefanik. One of my top priorities has been improving the
quality of life for our service members and their families in New
York's 21st District. How is the Department allocating resources to
enhance housing, childcare, and access to quality healthcare at Fort
Drum?
Secretary Hegseth. The Army recognizes the importance of quality-
of-life investments and the FY26 President's Budget increases the
requests for barracks and childcare programs. The Army prioritizes
these investments through its Facility Investment Plan. At Fort Drum,
while near-term focus is on runway improvements critical to its power-
projection role, barracks renovations are ongoing and planned. A $33M
Child Development Center (CDC) is under design (PN 96977), utilizing
the $25M Congress appropriated for CDC designs. Construction funding
will be sought in future budget cycles. In addition, Fort Drum manages
91 Unaccompanied Housing (UH) barracks (9,334 bed spaces) and three
barracks Restoration and Modernization (R&M) projects, awarded in FY23-
24, are improving 272 bed spaces. Beginning in FY25, 100% of UH
sustainment requirements will be funded to mitigate facility
degradation. In June of 2021, Centinel Public Partnerships began
investing $41M in privatized family housing improvements (e.g., minor
renovations, HVAC upgrades, exterior siding, roof repairs, and
infrastructure upgrades), with $25.9M spent to date on renovations,
HVAC upgrades, and infrastructure.
Ms. Stefanik. AFRL in Rome is at the cutting edge of quantum
computing, cyber defense, and AI. The Future Flag testbed offers a
unique opportunity for the Department of Defense (DoD) to experiment,
test, and evaluate emerging technologies while they are in the hands of
operators. Can you speak to how the budget supports increased funding
and growth for these mission areas in Rome, and the expansion of its
partnerships with industry and academia?
Secretary Hegseth. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 President's Budget
Request provides the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Rome, NY,
with approximately $218M in science and technology funding for advanced
quantum computing, cyberspace dominance technologies, multi-domain
sensemaking, assured communications and networks, counter-unmanned
aerial systems technologies, and other areas. A portion of this funding
is directed towards advancing quantum computing capabilities, including
photonic chips, ion trap quantum computing, and secure quantum
computing facilities. The FY 2026 President's Budget Request also
supports university-based quantum materials applied research and
engagement with industry. While the Future Flag testbed is not
explicitly resourced in the President's Budget Request, the AFRL
Information Directorate Rome research site works very closely with the
operator community in experimentation, and the Department of War has
benefited greatly from congressional support in this effort.
Ms. Stefanik. What is the Department doing to ensure the continued
recruitment and retention of high-skilled talent, especially in cyber
and AI fields, for AFRL Rome and installations with similar vitally
important national security missions?
Secretary Hegseth. The Department attracts and retains the best and
brightest minds that advance national security at installations such as
the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) at Rome, NY. AFRL participates in
local STEM career fairs and community hiring events and offers a local
summer internship program as a vital talent pipeline. As well as
student programs like Premier College Intern Program and Palace
Acquire. In recent years, research internship participants accounted
for 20% of new science and engineering hires. Special hiring
authorities, such as AFRL Lab Demonstration, allows AFRL to recruit
from a national pool of highly qualified candidates who may not have
looked for a federal position via USAJobs. AFRL also provides
incentives such as science and technology reinvention laboratories
supplemental pay, lab demonstration bonuses, student loan repayment,
and developmental opportunity programs, which help retain and attract
high-caliber talent, recruit talent from outside of the geographical
area, and encourage highly specialized skillset building by allowing
the workforce to obtain advanced degrees.
Ms. Stefanik. Given AFRL Rome's growing mission and the evolving AI
and cyber threat landscape, are there planned infrastructure upgrades
or new construction projects planned to support expanded operations?
Secretary Hegseth. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
Information Directorate Rome Research Site in Rome, NY is currently
executing a lab upgrade to support the critical AI and cyber work
required to address the threat landscape. This upgrade is constructing
the Corporate Agile Spectrum Environment facility that will enable the
AFRL Information Directorate to execute radio frequency communications
and signal test activities at all classification levels. This is a
unique facility that will empower the AFRL Science and Technology
Enterprise to rapidly advance the state-of-the-art and accelerate
development & delivery of next-generation communications capabilities
to DAF warfighters.
Ms. Stefanik. Secretary Hegseth, I've led efforts in Congress to
prohibit the Department from procuring or operating drones made by
Chinese companies like DJI, which are controlled by the Chinese
Communist Party. While Congress banned the DoD from purchasing Chinese
drones, many federal and local contractors, some operating on or near
military installations, still use DJI or Chinese platforms.
Simultaneously, I have advocated for strengthening the U.S. domestic
drone industry. What steps is the Department taking under this budget
to support American manufacturers?
Secretary Hegseth. The DoW takes the threat to national security
posed by Chinese-made, small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) very
seriously and works diligently to ensure compliance with the laws
restricting the use of these systems. The DoW is also committed to
supporting American manufacturers, particularly in the dynamic industry
and has ongoing efforts to strengthen domestic sUAS production and
affordability. These efforts include creating consistent demand
signals, expanding acquisition programs, establishing common standards,
and incentivizing industry investment in increased production capacity.
The DoW is also focused on securing the supply chain by actively
identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities and promoting reliable, non-
adversarial sourcing of components to reduce uncertainty and encourage
manufacturers to invest in innovation and expanded production.
Furthermore, the DoW is directly investing in domestic sUAS production
through various programs," ensuring American manufacturers can meet the
warfighter's rapidly growing need for these systems.
Ms. Stefanik. Follow-Up to the Previous Question: What does the
Department need from Congress to make this happen?
Secretary Hegseth. Additional restrictions on adversary sourcing
for essential sUAS components like batteries and electric motors, which
are heavily reliant on Chinese suppliers, would further support
domestic sUAS production. This would mirror existing restrictions on
other components and not only reduce dependence on potential
adversaries but also create a strong demand signal for domestic and
allied suppliers. Increased capital investment is needed for motors,
airframes, and final assembly. Existing authorities like the Defense
Production Act, Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS)
funding, or programs managed by the individual armed services could be
utilized to facilitate this crucial expansion.
Ms. Stefanik. General Caine, given the proven risk of data
exfiltration and real-time surveillance by Chinese-manufactured UAS,
what specific steps are being taken to ensure that data collected by
any drone used on or near our military installations is secure from
foreign adversaries - especially China?
General Caine. I defer to OSD Policy and I&S, but I greatly
appreciate Congress' work on enabling the Joint Force to improve
installation security. This will be a whole of government effort,
especially as it will include federal, state, and local law enforcement
cooperation.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. DESJARLAIS
Dr. DesJarlais. I understand that current implementation of Clean
Sheet authority under 10 USC 4123 appears primarily targeted toward
major program offices, like Sentinel, that have an OEM under contract
to deliver an end system or platform.
We're interested in exploring whether this authority could be
expanded to accommodate multiple project sponsors supporting a test
operations contractor, such as at AEDC, where the work enables test and
evaluation across numerous programs but does not result in direct
system delivery.
Can OSD provide a read on whether the current statutory and
regulatory framework permits this kind of multi-sponsor application? If
not, what changes would be needed to enable this?
Secretary Hegseth. The Department has not considered whether to
seek to expand the authority under 10 U.S.C. 4123 to
accommodate multiple project sponsors supporting a test operations
contractor and would be interested in dialogue on the issue.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BACON
Mr. Bacon. I believe we on the same page that our adversaries are
not deterred from striking us through cyberspace. I also believe we
agree that we need to get more aggressive and less restricted in the
use of cyber capabilities. That means ensuring not only the right
policies, but also adequate capacity in terms of people and technology.
The Cyber Mission Force of today has grown by less than 5% since first
established in 2012. Can we count on the Department to finally grow
this force to meet the actual needs of the nation?
Secretary Hegseth. The Department of War recognizes the critical
need to enable the Cyber Mission Force (CMF) to meet the evolving cyber
threat landscape and is committed to increasing the lethality and
capabilities of the CMF. Therefore, the Department is building a world-
class cyber workforce through our 2023-2027 Cyber Workforce Strategy,
encompassing skills-based hiring, expanded training, and the Cyber
Excepted Service. The Department is also leveraging an advanced
analytics platform like ADVANA to assess the qualifications of our
current cyber workforce and execute a precise talent management process
to ensure we have the right workforce for the future.
Mr. Bacon. Just a few weeks ago, this committee received an
official notification that the Department would be unable to meet the
congressional deadline associated with the new force generation model
for cyberspace operations, or more commonly known as the Sec. 1533
efforts. From what I gather, your team is revising the work conducted
under Sec. 1533, in the meantime, can you please tell us what you want
to see specifically come out of this effort?
Secretary Hegseth. The revised Sec. 1533 effort will deliver a
revised cyberspace force generation model that enhances the
Department's ability to defend the homeland and project combat power in
support of the Joint Force. This model will align with our China
deterrence strategy and will incorporate lessons learned from other
Department models to ensure the greatest lethality is delivered to the
warfighter.
Mr. Bacon. I was disappointed to see that the Administration's
budget includes only a modest increase in the Air Force topline, and a
reduction in the Space Force topline. How is the Department of the Air
Force going to continue to evolve to keep pace with China and Russia
when we have flat budgets, which when you factor inflation in, is
actually more of a cut? How can we possible win a fight with China when
we are not investing in the capabilities that we need to defeat them
from the two services that I believe are the most critical to that
fight?
Secretary Hegseth. This FY26 budget makes tough choices in order to
propel a transformative leap to build a modern, agile, and lethal force
that projects power through Air Superiority and Space Control. The FY26
President's Budget Request includes a 13.9% increase for the U.S. Air
Force and a 39.5% increase for the U.S. Space Force from FY25 funding
levels. This increase is necessary to meet the high-end fight for
Nuclear Enterprise modernization efforts, F-47 and Collaborative Combat
Aircraft programs, and Golden Dome.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. MACE
Ms. Mace. As I highlighted in a hearing I chaired last week for the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, there are enormous
benefits to be reaped by the Federal Government using AI for both
civilian and defense purposes. Of course, however, AI carries some
risks if implemented improperly. Failing to properly label data before
it is ingested by AI systems almost inevitably leads to unauthorized
users gaining access to sensitive, even top secret, information. In
April 2025 alone well over 2 million tips on how to get AI systems to
create false or malicious results - known as "jailbreaking - were
shared by hackers on Telegram. Such facts are obviously very worrying
to me and my fellow Committee members, and so I'd like to ask you 1)
what (if any) data labeling tools are currently in use 2) identify the
open source intelligence capabilities you are utilizing to stay abreast
with what threat actors are doing to jailbreak or otherwise corrupt AI
systems being used by the Defense Department.
Secretary Hegseth. The Department of War (DoW) is committed to
ensuring data is appropriately classified, labeled, and protected. DoW
employs a range of industry-leading data labeling tools, best
practices, and associated techniques to ensure AI models are accurate,
trustworthy, and robust against adversarial attacks. The DoW
established the Data Readiness for AI Development (DRAID) basic
ordering agreement to partner with the best of industry to make data
"AI Ready" so DoW components can rapidly access, acquire, and reuse
commercial services across the AI lifecycle, including data management,
security, and ethical considerations. Lastly, the DoW Chief Digital and
AI Officer (CDAO), in partnership with the Defense Intelligence
Enterprise, leverages both open source intelligence tools and publicly
available information to stay at the forefront of emerging threat
streams.
Ms. Mace. Programs combining commercial and commercial off-the-
shelf software and hardware capabilities for defensive cyberspace
operations (DCO) operate throughout the Navy and Marine Corps Intranet,
ONENet, and InformationTechnology-21 networks and are critical to
protecting our forces. Will your March 20, 2025 directive entitled
Continuing Elimination of Wasteful Spending at the Department of
Defense have an impact on this effort? If funding cuts are anticipated,
has the Department evaluated the effects this may have on readiness and
and security of our Armed Forces?
Secretary Hegseth. No, my 20 March 2025 directive was focused on
the termination of wasteful spending on an over budget HR software
development program, grants not aligned with DoW priorities, and
contracts for analysis products that are not mission critical. In
contrast, conducting effective defensive cyberspace operations (DCO) is
essential for mitigating active threats to the DoW Information Network
and deemed mission critical. Besides leveraging government solutions,
our cyber forces wield commercial and commercial-off-the-shelf tools
for cyber defense efforts. In the unlikely event that funding
reductions were considered for tools supporting defensive cyberspace
operations, DoW would carefully evaluate any proposals to fully
understand the implications for security and readiness.
Ms. Mace. As I highlighted in a hearing I chaired last week for the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, there are enormous
benefits to be reaped by the Federal Government using AI for both
civilian and defense purposes. Of course, however, AI carries some
risks if implemented improperly. Failing to properly label data before
it is ingested by AI systems almost inevitably leads to unauthorized
users gaining access to sensitive, even top secret, information. In
April 2025 alone well over 2 million tips on how to get AI systems to
create false or malicious results - known as "jailbreaking - were
shared by hackers on Telegram. Such facts are obviously very worrying
to me and my fellow Committee members, and so I'd like to ask you 1)
what (if any) data labeling tools are currently in use 2) identify the
open source intelligence capabilities you are utilizing to stay abreast
with what threat actors are doing to jailbreak or otherwise corrupt AI
systems being used by the Defense Department.
General Caine. The Department of Defense currently employs several
data labeling tools to ensure accurate and secure data ingestion into
DoD AI systems. These tools include commercial capabilities and custom-
built solutions designed to meet specific mission needs. DoD
continuously develops rigorous technical tradecraft and validation
requirements to ensure model reliability and data integrity. These
requirements include protecting AI models that have been exposed to--or
trained on--classified data with the same stringent security measures
as the classified data themselves.
Traditional open-source intelligence (OSINT) techniques are
employed to monitor counter-AI and jailbreaking activities. These
include monitoring social media platforms and known hacker forums.
Analysis also incorporates public databases and repositories for
indications of adversarial AI development, to include leveraging threat
intelligence reports from industry partners, academia, and the
intelligence community.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FINSTAD
Mr. Finstad. Secretary Hegseth, in your opening testimony you
mentioned ongoing efforts to expand our Defense Industrial Base by
engaging with industry and non-traditional DoD suppliers. Could you
elaborate on any new programs or outreach initiatives aimed at
increasing the role of small businesses in our Defense Industrial Base?
Secretary Hegseth. Small and non-traditional DoW suppliers are
critical to expanding the defense industrial base (DIB) and ensuring
that the Warfighter has the most lethal and effective capabilities and
that our industrial base is resilient and hardened against adversarial
aggression or supply chain disruptions. The Department has several new
initiatives to strengthen our outreach and support to this critical
sector. We are improving our training and technical assistance to small
businesses through Project Spectrum, a cybersecurity and Foreign
Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) training tool, as well as
through the DoW Mentor-Protege Program, our APEX Accelerators program.
The Department's Small Business Programs Office has also conducted a
series of webinars to highlight and amplify how the Department can help
businesses navigate the complex Federal acquisition process. The
Department's Defense Industrial Base Consortium is a valuable forum for
amplifying the Department's priorities regarding strategic and critical
minerals, receiving industry input and proposals for strengthening
American critical mineral production. In addition, the Small Business
Integration Group, which was established earlier this year and which
consists of all small business leaders and stakeholders throughout the
DoW enterprise, is crucial to streamlining and synchronizing the
Department's internal efforts to increase the role of small businesses
in the DIB and send a unified demand signal to those businesses. I am
committed to working with Congress to support this Administration
priority.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. DAVIS
Mr. Davis. Do you agree that divesting older F-15E models, without
one-for-one replacements and investments in upgraded aircraft,
including F-15EXs, would undermine our national security?
Secretary Hegseth. We cannot sacrifice our combat capability today
by too rapidly divesting from legacy systems without alternatives, so
the USAF is working to balance sustaining systems essential for
deterrence while improving the way we develop innovative next-
generation platforms. A one-for-one replacement requirement would
restrict the USAF's ability to modernize strategically, so we are
employing a flexible and adaptable approach that prioritizes
capability. The USAF is actively pursuing both recapitalization and
sustainment to modernize its fighter fleet. This includes upgrading
existing platforms like the F-15E -229 fleet, post-block F-16s, and F-
22 Block 30/35s, developing new assets such as the F-15EX, F-35, and
future systems like the F-47.
Mr. Davis. Secretary Hegseth and General Caine: Albeit in an
unclassified setting, can you speak to the vital role F-15Es outfitted
with the new Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System further increase air
superiority in CENTCOM and INDOPACOM and how important it is that we
prioritize funding for our frontline fighter force across active duty
bases?
Secretary Hegseth. The F-15E and other 4th generation aircraft
equipped and outfitted with the new Advanced Precision Kill Weapon
System provided a cost-effective means to engage one-way drones, while
preserving other Air Force air-to-air munitions for the high-end fight.
In addition, the F-15EX has greater payload capacity and long-range
capabilities to complement stealth fighters like the F-35 and F-22.
Continuing to holistically modernize our fighter force is important to
our defense strategy and remains a priority. In PB26, the Department
keeps the F-15EX line open, preserving the defense industrial base and
supply chains which build the platform. The budget proposes to continue
procurement of the F-15EX instead of ending procurement in FY25 as
previously planned due to their value in long-range kill chains and
fighter force capacity.
Mr. Davis. Secretary Hegseth and General Caine: Do you believe
active duty bases, like Seymour Johnson, which have a history of
extended deployments, are ideal candidates for future positioning of
NGAD assets like the F-47?
Secretary Hegseth. The Department of the Air Force will use its
strategic basing process to determine the locations best suited to
support the F-47 mission. The process uses a criteria-based analysis,
combined with the application of military judgment, to link mission and
Combatant Commander requirements to the attributes of Air Force
installations to identify those locations. The results of this analysis
are used to inform the basing decisions made by the Secretary of the
Air Force or delegated authority. The process is deliberate,
repeatable, standardized, and transparent.
Mr. Davis. Ahead of Memorial Day, I had the opportunity to
participate, alongside fellow veterans, in the now annual Vietnam
Memorial wall washing. Days later, Secretary Hegseth, you stated during
your Memorial Day remarks that we honor the selfless sacrifice, duty,
and love of our servicemembers. Nevertheless, there is no single
national symbol that recognizes our fallen heroes.
To right this wrong, I have filed a bill, H.R. 1363, the Honor and
Remember Flag Recognition Act, to establish the flag nationally, which
is already officially recognized in 28 states. The legislation provides
days of the year, memorials, and other locations on or at which the
flag would be displayed, such as the U.S. Capitol, war memorials, and
national cemeteries.
My question to you, Mr. Secretary, is this: Will you, on behalf of
our nation's veterans and Gold Star families, in consultation with your
team, review this bill and consider finally supporting what would be a
historic first step in recognizing all those who have lost their lives
while serving our nation? It would make President Trump the first in
history to sign legislation designating an official symbol of
rememberance for all fallen servicemembers.
Secretary Hegseth. Thank you for your support of our Nation's
veterans and Gold Star families. Honoring those who made the ultimate
sacrifice in service to our Nation is a priority of the Department and
I commit to reviewing this bill.
Mr. Davis. Do you agree that divesting older F-15E models, without
one-for-one replacements and investments in upgraded aircraft,
including F-15EXs, would undermine our national security?
General Caine. We cannot sacrifice our combat capability today by
rapidly divesting from legacy systems without alternatives. Thus, the
USAF is working to balance sustaining systems essential for deterrence
while improving the way we buy innovative next-generation platforms.
Mr. Davis. Secretary Hegseth and General Caine: Albeit in an
unclassified setting, can you speak to the vital role F-15Es outfitted
with the new Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System further increase air
superiority in CENTCOM and INDOPACOM and how important it is that we
prioritize funding for our frontline fighter force across active duty
bases?
General Caine. The AGR-20 FALCO APKWS has proven highly effective
against one way attack unmanned aerial vehicles and is a low-cost
solution when compared to the AIM-9X or AIM-120. In a modern
battlefield, APKWS provides excellent counter drone capability for
fighter aircraft. As far prioritization, I defer to the Services as to
the best units and aircraft to fund for these capabilities.
Mr. Davis. Secretary Hegseth and General Caine: Do you believe
active duty bases, like Seymour Johnson, which have a history of
extended deployments, are ideal candidates for future positioning of
NGAD assets like the F-47?
General Caine. The Department of the Air Force will use its
strategic basing process to determine the locations best suited to
support the NGAD mission.
[all]