    [Senate Hearing 119-110]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-110

                                 OPEN HEARING:
                        NOMINATIONS OF AARON LUKAS TO BE
                     PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
                    INTELLIGENCE, JOSEPH KENT TO BE DIRECTOR
                    OF THE NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER,
                       OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
                    INTELLIGENCE, AND JOHN ANDREW EISENBERG
                        TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
                      FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION,
                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

                                     OF THE

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 9, 2025

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

    �                               __________

    �                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-886                    WASHINGTON : 2026
    =====================================================================�

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

               (Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.)

                         TOM COTTON, Arkansas, Chairman
                    MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman

    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JON OSSOFF, Georgia
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  MARK KELLY, Arizona
    TED BUDD, North Carolina

                      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ex Officio
                    CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio
                    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Ex Officio
                      JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio
                                  ----------

                           Ryan Tully, Staff Director
                      William Wu, Minority Staff Director
                         Kelsey S. Bailey, Chief Clerk

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 APRIL 9, 2025
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Tom Cotton, U.S. Senator from Arkansas...........................     1
    Mark R. Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia.......................     3
    Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, U.S. Representative from Arkansas.....     5
    Christopher C. Miller, Former Acting Secretary of Defense........     6
    John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas.............................     8

                                   WITNESSES

    Aaron Lukas, Nominee to be Principal Deputy Director of National
      Intelligence...................................................     9
        Prepared Statement...........................................    12
    Joseph Kent, Nominee to be Director of the National
      Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National
      Intelligence...................................................    16
        Prepared Statement...........................................    19
    John Andrew Eisenberg, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General
      for the National Security Division, Department of Justice......    22
        Prepared Statement...........................................    24

                             SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

    Nomination Material for Aaron Lukas
        Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........    46
        Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.............................    60
        Post-Hearing Questions.......................................   109
    Nomination Material for Joseph Kent
        Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........   115
        Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.............................   133
        Post-Hearing Questions.......................................   164
    Nomination Material for John Andrew Eisenberg
        Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........   178
        Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.............................   201
        Post-Hearing Questions.......................................   238

    OPEN HEARING: ON THE NOMINATIONS OF AARON LUKAS, TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
     DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; JOSEPH KENT, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
       NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
       INTELLIGENCE; AND JOHN ANDREW EISENBERG, TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
       GENERAL FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
                              Select Committee on Intelligence,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m., in
    Room SH-216, the Hart Senate Office Building, the Hon. Tom
    Cotton, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Cotton (presiding), Warner, Risch,
    Collins, Cornyn, Young, Budd, Wyden, King, Bennet, and Kelly.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COTTON,
                      A U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS

        Chairman Cotton. This hearing will come to order.
        I want to welcome our nominees: Aaron Lukas, to be
    Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence; Joe Kent,
    to be Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; and
    John Eisenberg, to be Assistant Attorney General for National
    Security at the Department of Justice.
        As an initial matter, Committee rule 5.4 states that unless
    otherwise ordered by joint determination made by the Chair and
    Vice Chair, no confirmation hearing shall be held sooner than
    seven calendar days after receipt of the background
    questionnaire, financial disclosure statement, and responses to
    additional prehearing questions. While the Committee received
    most of the nominees' materials at least seven days in advance,
    we received a final batch of documents within that seven-day
    timeframe. Nevertheless, the Vice Chairman graciously has
    agreed to a joint determination to hold this hearing so we can
    get them done before our upcoming recess.
        Also, I would like to remind all those in attendance, that
    while you are welcome to observe today's hearing, Vice Chairman
    Warner and I are in agreement that we will not allow
    disruptions by the audience.
        Audience members may not verbally or physically distract
    from the hearing, including by shouting, standing, raising
    signs, making gestures or blocking the view of the other
    members of the audience or otherwise annoying the Chairman.
    Those who do so will be immediately escorted from the room.
        Our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable the
    committee to begin consideration of the nominees'
    qualifications and to allow for our Members' thoughtful
    deliberation. Each nominee here has provided substantive
    written responses to dozens of questions presented by the
    committee. Today, of course, Members will be able to ask
    additional questions and hear from the nominees.
        The nominees before the committee today are exceptionally
    well qualified, capable, and impressive individuals with
    accomplished careers in public service. Their records and
    achievements speak for themselves.
        First, Mr. Lukas has made an outside impact on our national
    security through his service as a career CIA officer and
    station chief and through joint duty rotations at the National
    Security Council and the Office of the Director of National
    Intelligence. With more than 20 years of intelligence
    experience, Mr. Lukas has the knowledge, know-how, and
    expertise needed to assist Director Gabbard in returning our
    intelligence community to its core mission of aggressively
    stealing secrets from our adversaries. He is joined today by
    his wife.
        This Committee is eager to see the return of the ODNI to
    its original size, scope, and mission, which is why I am
    pleased to support President Trump's decision to nominate Mr.
    Lukas to be the Principal Deputy Director of National
    Intelligence.
        Next, Mr. Kent's 20 years of military service during the
    War on Terror provides him with the experience and knowledge
    needed to lead the fight against terrorism as the Director of
    the National Counterterrorism Center. Serving as a Green Beret
    and later CIA officer, Mr. Kent has dedicated his entire career
    to courageously hunting down terrorists and keeping Americans
    safe. He knows firsthand the threat that terrorism presents to
    our homeland and the devastation it causes. His first wife,
    Shannon Kent, was killed while serving in Syria in 2019, for
    which we all express our continued sympathy and gratitude for
    her service.
        Mr. Kent is a soldier and patriot. He is the right person
    to lead the National Counterterrorism Center.
        Last but not least, Mr. Eisenberg's national security
    expertise as legal counsel has proved indispensable to the
    President and senior government officials. In the first Trump
    administration, Mr. Eisenberg served as the legal advisor to
    the National Security Council, assistant to the President and
    deputy counsel to the President for national security affairs.
        He also previously served at the Department of Justice
    where he advised the Attorney General and numerous other senior
    officials on complex matters, including counsel in the
    intelligence community. I commend President Trump for
    nominating Mr. Eisenberg, who has the experience with national
    security and foreign relations law necessary to serve as the
    Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division
    at the Department of Justice.
        Finally, I want to note that Mrs. Lukas, Mrs. Eisenberg,
    and Mr. Kent's family are here today to support our nominees.
    They have also supported our nominees in their years of service
    to our country, and I thank them all for being here.
        I now recognize the Vice Chairman for his opening remarks.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER,
                      A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

        Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
    apologize to the Committee, I thought we were going to wait
    until after the third vote--my mistake--although, obviously,
    the Democrats didn't fully push it. And I come running in and I
    think, I just saw Chairman Crawford last night and now Chris
    Miller. Did you guys switch up on me in the 11th hour? I know
    you are here to introduce the nominees and the nominees are
    behind us and I did promise the chairman that I will maybe cut
    my rant by a minute or two because of my tardiness.
        A minute or two only, Jim Risch.
        I want to welcome our witnesses and congratulations. As the
    chairman said, you have all been nominated to serve in very
    important positions and you have obviously provided service to
    our country before.
        I do want to remind you and I find this to be terribly
    important. When you raise your hand to serve, you are taking an
    oath not to one person, but to the Constitution. And every
    single American who has put their trust in that document. These
    three positions are all terribly important. They were all
    created after 9/11 to make sure we wouldn't have that type of
    tragedy again.
        To make sure that we prevent that, I think you all will
    have to both ensure that you are able to maintain trust not
    only with the American people but also quite candidly with our
    allies and partners. You are going to have to inspire a
    workforce that candidly has been locked in the opening days of
    this administration. And most importantly, and I will try to
    drill down on this, you have got to be willing to speak truth
    to power, even if that means costing your job.
        Mr. Kent, you have been nominated to lead the Agency most
    central to our fight against foreign terrorists. Echoing what
    Senator Cotton said, I would like to thank you again for your
    willingness to serve once again and after such a long career in
    both the military and IC, and echoing the loss that your family
    took defending our Nation.
        Given your background, you clearly have the experience to
    do this job. I have no question about your patriotism or your
    commitment. I do have some questions about your judgment, and
    we will get into that in this hearing.
        As I said, when we met, I have particular concerns you made
    during your congressional campaigns where you called for
    defunding the FBI and cutting the CIA. Or when you called
    Zelenskyy a thug--``a thug installed by a U.S.-backed counter-
    revolution,'' and obviously, I hope you will clarify those
    comments in your statement and in your questioning.
        Mr. Lukas, as a former CIA officer who has served in the
    field, you understand better than most the importance of
    building trust. I've got to ask you, though, how can our allies
    and partners be expected to trust our world when we do things
    like threaten to kick Canada out of of the Five Eyes or impose
    tariffs even with the new delay on partners like Australia who
    we actually have a trade surplus with.
        I worry when we see that reliance on our partners when
    sometimes classified information has been treated so casually
    and carelessly that literally this information was getting out
    about an attack on the Houthis while the pilots were flying. It
    concerns me greatly. And the fact that nobody has been held
    accountable, that continues to bother me.
        And lastly Mr. Eisenberg, your role will take on increased
    importance in the coming year as your team will be responsible
    for the reauthorization of FISA section 702. We know that 702
    makes up about 60 percent of the President's Daily Brief and
    obviously it has challenges. I think we made strong reforms,
    but taking that role is going to be a challenge.
        If confirmed, the three of you will not have easy tasks.
    The world has obviously become more complicated and dangerous.
    And I question at times the fact that it appears the
    administration, particularly vis-a-vis our friends and allies,
    is actually making America less prepared to take on this
    challenge.
        I have shared with my colleagues and I have not had a
    chance before in a public setting, I was deeply concerned when
    the President fired the Director and Deputy Director of the NSA
    and several senior staff at the NSC, including, I would argue,
    a number of well respected Republican staffers, staffers who
    worked for Members of this Committee, all because of this
    individual, Laura Loomer, who claimed that 9/11 was an inside
    job; claimed that a weather machine controlled by Nikki Haley
    caused snow storms in Iowa or Italy; that the First Lady of
    Florida, Casey DeSantis, lied about her cancer; and that school
    shootings are staged. I don't know that any administration
    would let anyone with those views within 100 yards of the Oval
    Office, let alone giving the President a hit list of who to go
    after.
        We also know that one of the President's first actions was
    celebrating the arrest of the terrorist who planned the Abbey
    Gate bombings; but the truth is, the President before that time
    fired the FBI leaders who were in charge of that investigation.
    I question how any of these actions make our country safer.
        They were firing the folks who were responsible for the
    security of our country's nuclear stockpile or I increasingly
    worry about the firings and the potential additional firings at
    CISA when we still have China and potentially other countries
    deep into our telecom networks and taking advantage of those
    vulnerabilities.
        We have also obviously seen, and I know there are more
    firings to come at like the CIA. We finally documented that
    close to $400,000 to get a CIA officer through security
    clearance and training. And just firing folks because they have
    been hired in the last two years, as a former business guy,
    makes no sense to me.
        We also know, and again, we have litigated this at times,
    but the notion that the information--classified information
    that was relayed on Signal is enormously troubling to me that
    there has been no accountability. We still don't know if the
    phones used have been scraped for malware; and we have learned
    subsequently that there were 20 additional group chats that
    included discussion of matters like Ukraine and Gaza. Why was
    that done and why hasn't there been any accountability?
        Again, as I mentioned earlier, the firings of people like
    General Haugh at NSA and Admiral Chatfield at NATO.
        I will skip the part where I was down in Hampton Roads
    where the Truman had been deployed from. I am not going to skip
    any of this. The community there was frankly incensed about
    this information getting out because they have loved ones on
    the Truman and they know if that information had gotten out and
    gotten into the hands of the Houthis it could have been a real
    tragedy.
        Again, we know and you all as intelligence professionals
    and the folks who are going to introduce you know that we are
    made safer by our collaboration with our allies; and I worry
    whether our allies are going to continue to share information
    with us when we don't keep classified information classified--
    and we will never know for sure what they haven't been willing
    to share.
        So I think the actions of this administration--I appreciate
    your willingness to serve, but I will continue to come back to
    that point, that will you be willing to speak truth to power,
    even if it costs your job, because that is the only way having
    an independent nonpolitical IC can we actually guarantee
    national security.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        As the Vice Chairman alluded to, there are ongoing votes on
    the Senate floor and in addition there is at least one other
    committee meeting. So if Senators are coming and going, it is
    not because we find you boring, it is because we have to get
    through other business and maybe we think that you are going to
    be easily confirmed on a large bipartisan vote.
        Before we get to the witnesses, we do have three
    distinguished officials to introduce them. For Mr. Lukas, we
    have the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and
    Congressman from the finest State in the Union, Rick Crawford.
        Take it away, Rick.

             STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
                  A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS

        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the opportunity to introduce the Committee to
    Mr. Aaron Lukas, the nominee for Principal Deputy Director of
    National Intelligence. As I am sure you would agree Mr.
    Chairman, as with oversight of the intelligence community, what
    our IC today needs is more leadership from Arkansas.
        Aaron grew up in Jacksonville, Arkansas, where his family
    moved before his first birthday. He attended school right next
    to Little Rock Air Force Base, which likely influenced his
    interest in serving his nation on the frontlines of our
    national security challenges.
        Aaron attended the University of Texas. I will try not to
    hold that against him. He traveled the United States and began
    to expand his understanding of foreign cultures and languages
    by traveling and teaching English in former Warsaw pact
    countries.
        Like many in his generation, the al-Qaida attacks on
    September 11, 2001, drew Aaron to public service. An economist
    by trade, he began work for the U.S. Trade Representative and
    was subsequently recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency
    to work as an analyst. Wanting to expand his service, Aaron
    moved to the CIA's Directorate of Operations and served
    globally, with distinction. After proving himself in the field,
    Aaron was called to leadership, serving in the Office of
    Director of National Intelligence and the National Security
    Council staff. Aaron has served under multiple administrations
    from both parties with the appropriate integrity of an
    intelligence officer. It certainly will be good to have someone
    with his operational background in the ODNI leadership. Mr.
    Chairman, I am confident your committee will give him proper
    review given his extensive and honorable public service, and
    with that it is my pleasure to introduce and recommend to the
    Committee Mr. Aaron Lukas.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Crawford.
        You are welcome to stay for all of our festivities. I know
    you would find them fascinating. But I also know that there is
    a lot of business in the House and you need to get back over
    there.
        For Mr. Kent, we have the former Director of the National
    Counterterrorism Center as well as former Acting Secretary of
    Defense, Christopher Miller.
        Mr. Miller, take it away.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MILLER,
                   FORMER ACTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

        Mr. Miller. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice
    Chairman, and Members of this incredibly important Committee: I
    am Chris Miller. I had the privilege of being unanimously
    confirmed by this Committee and the Senate in August 2020 to
    serve as the seventh Director of the United States National
    Counterterrorism Center.
        When I left public office in 2021, I vowed never again to
    appear before Congress but when your Army buddy Joe Kent, an
    Army buddy who is universally known in the Fifth Special Forces
    Group, that was the organization that we served together in, he
    was known as the best soldier in the unit. When he asks you to
    introduce him for this confirmation hearing for the same
    position I once held, it was incomprehensible for me to say no.
        Joe, this is an honor of a lifetime. Thank you for your
    willingness to reenter public service after an enormously
    impactful career as an Army Green Beret and a member of our
    Nation's most elite counterterrorism and hostage rescue task
    force, followed by continued service in harm's way after your
    retirement from the Army as a CIA paramilitary officer.
        I was beyond gratified when after you left public service,
    you decided to run for Congress to represent a new generation
    of Americans that surely understand the life and death
    consequences of the decisions that are made in these chambers.
    Your willingness to run for elected office when you experienced
    the essence of our political experiment that those sitting
    before me know all so well was an act of commitment and moral
    courage that oftentimes concerned me. I was frankly mortified
    as your good name and stellar reputation for principled
    leadership and selfless service were attacked. I am sure there
    were times when embroiled in political combat you thought you
    would rather be in foreign fields of strife in battle. But I
    was always reminded of President Theodore Roosevelt's thoughts
    about being in the arena and it is not the critic that counts.
        Thanks for being the defining leader of your generation.
    And thank you, the Members of this important committee, for
    your willingness to be in the arena and your service to our
    Nation in this time of profound change and risk. It is with
    enormous honor and humility that I introduce Joe Kent for your
    consideration to be the next Director of the National
    Counterterrorism Center, one of the most unknown yet impactful
    organizations in the intelligence community.
        Established by this Committee after al-Qaeda's 2001 assault
    on America, it has developed the most cutting-edge tools,
    processes, and procedures undergirded by a fervently dedicated
    cadre of analysts to guarantee that our Nation never suffers
    such a cataclysmic attack again.
        But the most dedicated and skilled people, technology or
    standard operating procedures and frankly support of this
    Committee are meaningless without thoughtful, purposeful, and
    principled leadership. With your foresight and support, that
    leader will be Joe Kent, of the State of Washington. A former
    Army Green Beret Special Operator and paramilitary officer who
    has not only consumed intelligence on the ground throughout the
    world, but has conducted all aspects of the intelligence cycle.
    He is uniquely qualified to bring an operator's view to the
    halls of the NCTC.
        But he also has a unique perspective on what happens when
    our intelligence community fails. On January 16, 2019, his soul
    mate and wife Shannon, a senior Navy Chief Petty Officer and a
    trail blazer in our Special Operations community, and most
    significantly, birth mother of their two sons, was killed in
    northeast Syria when a human intelligence meeting was
    compromised.
        Guaranteeing that no other family ever experiences that
    unfathomable heartache is Joe Kent's professional purpose in
    life. Boys, thanks for being the joy of your father's life and
    his inspiration. Heather, thank you for serving in our Nation's
    Army and now in your next career, thank you for your love and
    support of Joe and the boys and being the foundation of such a
    wonderful family.
        I don't need to tell this Committee that we are in the
    midst of an epical change of the global order and our national
    security enterprise is woefully behind in transforming to keep
    pace with the threats. There is no one, and I mean no one, more
    qualified in this nominee to lead the National Counterterrorism
    Center into this next era.
        This Committee is vital to overseeing the essential eyes
    and ears of our national security enterprise so we maintain
    deterrence through world-class intelligence capabilities to
    provide decision makers such as yourself and our field
    commanders with decisive advantage. But the old ways of
    throwing more money and people at a problem after catastrophic
    surprise will no longer suffice. We need people with vision and
    experience. Joe Kent is that person of vision and experience to
    lead the women and men of the little known treasure of the
    National Counterterrorism Center in the future.
        Joe Kent is a man of enormous courage, integrity, morality,
    and understands better than anyone in this room the meaning of
    sacrifice and importance of accountable leadership. It is with
    enormous gratitude to our great nation in this Committee that I
    present to you for your constitutionally mandated role Mr. Joe
    Kent of Washington for your consideration for service as the
    ninth Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
        Thank you very much for your time.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
        And for Mr. Eisenberg, we have our own distinguished
    colleague, Senator Cornyn.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
                       A U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

        Senator Cornyn. Thank you, colleagues.
        I am pleased to introduce John Andrew Eisenberg, President
    Trump's nominee to serve as Assistant Attorney General for
    National Security at the National Security Division of the
    Department of Justice.
        Mr. Eisenberg currently serves as the senior counsel to the
    Attorney General, Pam Bondi. During President Trump's first
    term, he served as assistant to the President, Deputy Counsel
    to the President for National Security Affairs, and as a legal
    adviser to the National Security Council.
        But his government service did not start there. Mr.
    Eisenberg has a long history of government service,
    particularly in national security matters. Between 2004 and
    2009, Mr. Eisenberg served at the Department of Justice as an
    Associate Attorney General in the Office of Deputy Attorney
    General, as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, the Office of
    Legal Counsel, and as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney
    General, and as a Special Assistant for Counterterrorism.
        He was a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence
    Thomas and for Michael J. Luttig on the U.S. Court of Appeals
    for the Fourth Circuit. He earned his Bachelor of Science
    degree in mathematics from Stanford and his law degree from
    Yale. His wide breadth of experience will serve him well for
    the challenges that lie ahead.
        Our Nation and the Department of Justice face many
    challenges from unrelenting foreign adversaries who want to
    weaken the United States. I am confident that Mr. Eisenberg
    understands the gravity of these threats. He knows firsthand
    the constant vigilance required and the authorities needed in
    order for the Department of Justice alongside of the
    intelligence community to successfully and effectively protect
    Americans and American interests.
        One such example is his understanding of the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act, section 702 authority, and its
    value in the interests of the United States. I have had
    discussions with FBI Director Patel and CIA Director Ratcliffe
    about this on a number of occasions and how we must not
    willingly or inadvertently impair law enforcement and the
    intelligence community's ability to identify national security
    threats in real time. Mr. Eisenberg shares these views and I am
    grateful for that.
        This is just one compelling example of the depth of
    knowledge and experience that Mr. Eisenberg will bring to this
    important role in President Trump's administration. I am
    confident that he will serve our country honorably and always
    put America first.
        Mr. Eisenberg, congratulations on your nomination, and I
    look forward to voting for it at the first opportunity.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Cornyn.
        If our witnesses could please take your seats at the table.
        Gentlemen, before we move to your statements I need you to
    answer five routine questions that the Committee poses to each
    nominee who appears before us. They require a simple ``yes'' or
    ``no.''
        First, do you agree to appear before the Committee here or
    in other venues when invited?
        (Chorus of Yes.)
        Second, if confirmed, do you agree to send officials from
    your office to appear before the Committee and designated staff
    when invited?
        (Chorus of Yes.)
        Third, do you agree to provide documents and any other
    materials requested by the Committee in order for us to carry
    out our legislative and oversight responsibilities?
        (Chorus of Yes.)
        Fourth, will you ensure that your office and your staff
    provide such material to the Committee when requested?
        (Chorus of Yes.)
        Fifth, do you agree to inform and fully brief to the
    fullest extent possible all members of this Committee of
    intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only the
    Chairman and Vice Chairman?
        (Chorus of Yes.)
        Thank you all very much. After the hearing today, it is my
    intention to move quickly to convene a Committee business
    meeting to vote on the nominations and report them to the
    Senate for a prompt vote there as well.
        We will now proceed to opening statements, after which I
    will recognize Members by seniority at the gavel for five
    minutes each. We will start with Mr. Lukas, followed by Mr.
    Kent, and concluding with Mr. Eisenberg.
        Mr. Lukas.

       STATEMENT OF AARON LUKAS, NOMINEE TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
                   DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

        Mr. Lukas. Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee: It is an honor to
    appear before you as President Trump's nominee for Principal
    Deputy Director of National Intelligence. I want to thank the
    President for his confidence in me. I also want to thank the
    Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, for her
    outstanding leadership of the organization so far.
        Finally, and most of all, I am grateful to my wonderful
    wife Carrie who is here today, and to my five children who,
    unfortunately, could not attend. Without their steadfast love
    and support over the years, I have no doubt I would not be
    sitting before you right now.
        I will confess, it is a strange feeling to be in the public
    spotlight today. For the past 20-plus years, I have worked as a
    CIA operations officer in the shadows, never calling attention
    to my real work, staying away from social media, and being
    active on the frontlines of intelligence. I've lived my covers,
    sometimes even operating under different names.
        I was honored to serve my country in this past capacity, to
    support America's political leaders and warfighters alike with
    unbiased, apolitical intelligence and I was privileged to work
    with many, many dedicated patriots at the CIA and across other
    U.S. Government agencies.
        Not long ago, Director Gabbard sat before this Committee
    and discussed her determination to rebuild an intelligence
    community with a laser like focus on our essential mission,
    ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American
    people. I whole-heartedly share this vision as do countless
    other career intelligence officers.
        What I have seen from the inside, unfortunately, is an IC
    that is too often aimless, bloated, risk averse, and
    disconnected at times from the core mission of intelligence. My
    aim, if confirmed, is to support Director Gabbard by giving a
    voice to those unknown and unsung officers doing the hard work
    of intelligence every day: the operations officers, the
    analysts, the covert action specialists, the technical
    collectors, and all those people who support them.
        The men and women of the U.S. intelligence community do
    dangerous, important work that is critical to our Nation's
    security. But that doesn't mean that all is well within the IC.
    Over the decades, America's intelligence agencies have morphed
    into large bureaucracies in which the majority of people have
    little to no direct connection to how intelligence is
    collected, analyzed, and presented to policymakers.
        Reporting chains have grown unwieldy at times, paralyzing
    even simple decision making. Managers are incentivized to avoid
    risk and not rock the boat. Huge sums of taxpayer money are
    spent on technology projects that at times are outdated before
    they are deployed or worse, lack any connection from the
    beginning to the actual need of operators and analysts.
    Priorities that have nothing to do with intelligence have taken
    center stage, at times distracting us from mission.
        President Trump and Director Gabbard have already taken
    important steps to reverse the decline of the IC, most notably
    by getting rid of a toxic diversity, equity, and inclusion
    political dogma that at best was a distraction and at worst
    pitted IC officers against one another. I will never forget the
    first Chief of Station seminar that I attended where the senior
    most directorate of operations human resources officer blithely
    informed the attendees that ``It does not matter how good your
    operations are in station. Unless you advance a major DEI
    reform, you will not get promoted.''
        Think of that. Chiefs of Station, who also serve, by the
    way, as DNI representatives are supposed to be in those
    positions because they have proven they are capable field
    officers, because they are the best at doing real intelligence
    work, working with our partners at stealing vital secrets. And
    until the recently, the official message was: ``Your job really
    is to advance a political agenda, not to protect the country.''
        As one of those field officers and a former analyst, I can
    tell you there are huge numbers of dedicated patriots in the IC
    who are thrilled we have an administration that just wants them
    to get back to work. It wants them to use their talents and
    skills to protect the American people, to keep politicization
    out of intelligence, to have high expectations and take
    reasoned risks. An administration that understands that risky
    ventures mean there will at times be failures, but that
    timidity is not an option.
        To those dedicated professionals in the IC, I promise you:
    If confirmed as PDDNI, I will always have your backs even when
    you fail, as long as you are doing your best for the American
    people. And I will be supporting a Director who feels exactly
    the same way.
        ODNI has a unique role to play in the IC. It is the
    institution where all streams of foreign intelligence and law
    enforcement information come together. The DNI is the
    President's principal intelligence advisor and the ODNI
    presents the President's Daily Brief. Taking direction from the
    White House, it sets collection priorities, deconflicts on
    budgets, works to fund and deploy cutting-edge technology,
    ensures agencies are respecting the privacy and civil liberties
    of Americans, and keeps Congress informed so that legislative
    oversight is meaningful.
        These are all important tasks. But since its creation, many
    have asked whether the ODNI should even exist. My answer to
    that question is yes, but like the other IC elements, it must
    be focused on its unique mission. Too often, ODNI has grown
    without regards to that mission and has engaged in business
    that properly should be conducted by other agencies. Director
    Gabbard has said she is committed to ensuring ODNI is focused
    only on what it can do which will make it a stronger and a more
    effective leader of the IC. If confirmed, I will give her my
    full support in this endeavor.
        I want to be clear. My aim is to make ODNI better, not to
    undermine it. What I bring to this role is the perspective of
    an intelligence officer who has worked both on the frontlines
    overseas and as a consumer of intelligence at the National
    Security Council.
        For every program, every position, every taxpayer dollar
    that is spent, I will ask: How does this advance the IC's core
    mission?
        How does it serve policymakers; and, if it doesn't, why are
    we doing it?
        I believe asking these questions is how we make the IC
    stronger and better able to do our duty to protect the American
    people.
        Once again, I thank the Members of the Committee for their
    consideration, and I look forward to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lukas follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        Mr. Kent.

     STATEMENT OF JOE KENT, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL
                        COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER

        Mr. Kent. Thank you, Chairman Cotton, and thank you, Vice
    Chair Warner. I want to thank the President of the United
    States and DNI Gabbard for the trust in my leadership and for
    giving me this opportunity to continue my service to our Nation
    and what I view as the fight of my lifetime and the fight of my
    generation, and that is the fight against terrorism. Before we
    get into that, I want to thank Chris Miller for coming here
    today and saying all those great and wonderful things about me.
    Twenty years ago, Chris was my battalion commander in Iraq. We
    were knee deep in that fight, and today, this fight still
    continues. And it is in the honor of all of those who gave
    their lives in our nation's longest war, in the war on terror,
    our generation's war, that I continue this fight for my wife
    and everybody buried in section 60 at Arlington National
    Cemetery.
        Before I talk about my vision as the leader of the National
    Counterterrorism Center, I really want to thank my family: My
    wife Heather is here. Heather served in Iraq, served in
    Afghanistan. And after we lost my late wife Shannon in a
    suicide bomber attack in Manbij, Syria, Heather came into our
    lives. I truly think she is a gift from God. I have been
    blessed twice. First, by Shannon who gave me my sons Colt and
    Josh, and then by Heather, coming in and helping us pick up the
    pieces so we could continue to serve our country. So, I
    couldn't be more grateful that she is here with us today.
        Of all the titles I have had in my lifetime, as Green
    Beret, as a Special Missions Unit Operator, as a CIA
    paramilitary operations officer, the best title I have is Dad.
    And Colt and Josh bless me with that every single time they
    call me dad. They are here today, too, and I couldn't be more
    honored. My father Chris Kent is also here. My dad basically
    has had my back and been my role model for my entire life. So I
    couldn't be more honored to have my dad here. My mom is tuning
    in somewhere on C-Span as well. She is taking care of my niece
    who just joined the world. Amber Grace is the newest addition
    to the Kent family. So I have got a whole slew of Kents out
    there watching us on C-Span. So I appreciate all their support
    and love as well.
        Joining us from the great State of Washington, we have got
    a couple of our local sheriffs that are here as well. We've got
    Sheriff Garcia and Sheriff Swank. So I can't thank them enough
    for being here to support us.
        I couldn't be more honored to be by President Trump and I
    think this is a very critical time for us to continue to fight
    against terrorism. I would like to say that, hey, we have
    accomplished our mission and terrorism is fading into the rear-
    view mirror. I know a lot in our national security
    establishment and I know a lot of people in America are sick
    and tired of us talking about terrorism and the threat that
    terrorists face to our country and pose to our country.
    However, the fight continues and, as a matter of fact, I think
    the threat posed by terrorists is even worse than it ever has
    been in years previous to this.
        For the last 4 years we have had a wide open southern
    border thanks to the policies of the Biden administration. That
    let in countless terrorists from newly designated foreign
    cartels and also from violent gangs that have gone so far as
    taking over entire apartment complexes inside the United
    States. This is a direct result of the wide open southern
    border policy that Joe Biden had. And President Trump is
    committed to identifying these cartels and these violent gang
    members and making sure that we locate them and we get them out
    of our country. We deport them by any means necessary. And I am
    honored to support his quest to do that, to secure our country
    once more.
        We also have massive terrorist threats coming from overseas
    and a lot of this is due to the debacles of the Biden
    administration. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was
    catastrophic. It was a horrible way to end one of our Nation's
    longest conflicts; however, it has given terrorists sanctuary
    to ISIS and to several other terrorist groups right now that
    are exploiting that ungoverned space and the leadership of the
    Taliban.
        We also had the Biden administration's horrible debacle
    where they brought tens of thousands of unvetted Afghans into
    the United States of America. NCTC has done their job and they
    have identified over 1,400 of these Afghans as having ties to
    ISIS and other terrorist groups. Yet, Biden let them into the
    interior of the United States.
        Same thing with a bunch of ISIS-affiliated Tajiks and
    Uzbeks who came into the United States of America as well.
    There is around 600 of them that were also identified by NCTC
    that are here in America right now because the Biden
    administration has allowed them to stay inside of our country.
    Locating these Afghans--locating these Tajiks, Uzbeks, and
    anyone else who has come into our country who have any ties to
    any foreign terrorist organization will be one of my top
    priorities so that we can locate them and we can get them out
    of our Nation to keep our country safe.
        Another major challenge that we have that I am honored to
    support President Trump's prioritization of is actually
    securing our border. NCTC plays a vital role in screening and
    vetting anyone who seeks to come into our country and maintain
    that database and being able to look into the IC's data and
    being able to look into local law enforcement data to make sure
    that we connect all the dots and we don't let any known or
    suspected terrorists into our country. This is something that
    the President takes very seriously, and I look forward to
    supporting him in securing our country and making sure no more
    terrorists come into the United States of America.
        The third mainline of effort that we have in NCTC and I
    think as a counterterrorist enterprise in general, is we have
    got to be proactive against the terrorist threats that are
    emanating from overseas. I already talked about Afghanistan. We
    have a major terrorist sanctuary there. Due to the failed
    regime-change policies in Syria, we now have an al-Qaeda
    affiliate that is being paraded around as the representative of
    the Syrian government that is actually being led by a former
    member of al-Qaeda who was hand-selected by Ayman al-Zawahiri,
    one of the 9/11 attack planners, who has now been installed as
    the President.
        This sanctuary in Syria poses a major threat to our
    national security that we have to address, and we have to
    address this in a very pragmatic way. The past 20-plus years of
    endless wars and endless deployments overseas have quite
    frankly not addressed the terror threat that we faced after 9/
    11 and the terror threat that we face right now.
        We have to find a way to strike a reasonable balance and
    have sustainable counterterrorism efforts that mostly focus on
    enabling partners, allies, surrogates, and proxies. And
    underpinning all of this is accurate intelligence. And that is
    what NCTC and the intelligence community can provide.
        Accurate intelligence will prevent us from having more
    endless wars. It will tell us exactly where the terrorists are
    overseas so we can take them out before they come here.
    Accurate intelligence will stop terrorists from coming into our
    country and accurate intelligence is going to help us run down
    every single terrorist, every single cartel member that is
    inside the United States of America and get them the heck out
    of here.
        Again, I an honored to be here. I am honored to be
    supported by President Trump and DNI Gabbard, and I look
    forward to our discussion today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kent follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        Mr. Eisenberg.

        STATEMENT OF JOHN A. EISENBERG, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
          ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION

        Mr. Eisenberg. I would like to begin by thanking you,
    Chairman Cotton and Vice Chairman Warner, for holding this
    hearing, and I would like to thank Senator Cornyn for his
    gracious introduction. I would also like to thank President
    Trump for the honor of this nomination and the Attorney General
    for her support and her confidence in me.
        I am so fortunate to have the love of my life and my best
    friend here, my wife Kathryn. Somehow, she manages to have a
    full-time job and take care of the rest of the family. It is no
    exaggeration to say I wouldn't be here without her support. Her
    support and encouragement throughout most of my life and during
    the hardest times have made all the good things in life
    possible and have made the rest of it livable.
        My son Paul and my eldest daughter Sarah couldn't miss
    school today. I don't remember having that view when I was
    their age, but that was theirs. My youngest daughter Evie can't
    be here with us because she has something called 22Q disorder,
    which is a microdeletion on chromosome 22, and causes
    developmental delays among a lot of other things. Evie is an
    inspiration to everyone who knows her. She doesn't let her
    disability get in the way and she greets just about every day
    with delight. Paul and Sarah aren't that bad either. Kathryn,
    Paul, Sarah and Evie are the joys of my life, and without them
    life itself would be unimaginable to me.
        I learned the importance of family from my mom who is about
    five feet tall and is the most powerful woman that anyone has
    ever met. No one ever wanted to mess with Rhoda. Because of
    her, my sister Nancy, my brother Ethan and I couldn't be
    closer. While my mom passed away more than 10 years ago, I am
    fortunate to have a stepfather and father who are actually here
    today who are very supportive. I also count a small number of
    friends as family, and they know who they are.
        I would like to say something about colleagues. There are
    too many to name here, and I have had the privilege of working
    alongside in all my years of government service and during my
    time in private practice. I am truly blessed to have worked
    with so many who are the embodiment of dedication, blazing
    intelligence, and integrity. Serving with them has been an
    honor of a lifetime and I am so grateful to know them.
        National security is the thread that runs through my
    professional life. I was in Alexandria on September 11, 2001,
    when terrorists attacked our Nation, resulting in the deaths of
    some 3,000 people in coordinated attacks on the World Trade
    Center and the Pentagon. I think it is hard for people who
    weren't adults in 2001. At least I think it is hard for people
    who weren't adults in 2001 to understand the effect these
    attacks had on so many of us. It is easy to forget that follow-
    on attacks were thought to be very likely. Indeed, our success
    in thwarting other attacks of that magnitude led many to wonder
    if the threat had been overblown.
        But I can't forget that day. I heard explosions caused by a
    commercial aircraft colliding with the Pentagon and I saw smoke
    rising from that building. My wife couldn't come home from her
    office in Washington for hours because the necessary Metro
    lines go through the Pentagon, and that was still burning. I
    saw F-16s trailing commercial airliners, I suppose escorting
    them out of the area. My country had really become a
    battlefield.
        In my past government jobs, I focused on national security.
    The events of 9/11 instilled in me the need to be part of a
    response to terrorism. My recent government service has shown
    me the importance of protecting a nation from myriad threats,
    and I am deeply committed to the rule of law and the
    Constitution. But I also believe that the government has a
    solemn obligation to do what it can within those limits to
    protect the Nation and its people.
        I was in the Department of Justice when it stood up the
    National Security Division, and I was part of a team that
    helped propose and implement the necessary changes to bring NSD
    into the world. It would be a great honor to lead that Division
    and the dedicated public servants who go to work there every
    day and who do so because they share the vision of which I
    spoke to protect this Nation.
        To everyone in NSD, I look forward to working together,
    should I be confirmed, to protect this great nation and its
    people from the range of national security threats facing them.
        I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Eisenberg follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        Mr. Lukas, Congress created the Office of the Director of
    National Intelligence to eliminate stovepipes of intelligence
    and to ensure integration across the elements while working
    hand in hand with the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Intelligence and Security. That's the Director of Defense
    Intelligence and the principal adviser to the DNI on defense
    intelligence to ensure that national and military intelligence
    needs are met. Congress also sought to ensure analytic
    objectivity standards were set and they were met.
        Will you commit to working with this Committee to restore
    the ODNI to what it was originally intended to be?
        Mr. Lukas. Yes, Chairman, if confirmed I would commit to
    that.
        Chairman Cotton. In your experience is ODNI on the path of
    becoming just the bureaucracy that it was created to eclipse?
        Mr. Lukas. Thank you, Chairman. As I said in my opening
    remarks, I had seen ODNI grow over the years, often without
    regard to its original mission. So, yes, I would agree with
    that statement. As I said earlier, I believe ODNI has an
    important role to play, but we need to ensure it is focused on
    that role and not left to business that is properly left to
    other IC agencies.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you. One point in particular is the
    relationship between the IC, the intelligence community, and
    the Department of Defense. I am not aware of many processes or
    procedures, at least effective ones, for ensuring the needed
    collaboration between the DNI and Under Secretary of Defense
    for Intelligence and Security. What are your thoughts on how we
    can improve that relationship?
        Mr. Lukas. Senator, I do agree that is a critical
    relationship. The DOD brings a lot to the intelligence
    community--a lot of resources, a lot of individuals, a lot of
    power.
        My understanding is that currently there is a weekly sync
    between the Director's advisers for military affairs and OSD,
    INS. If confirmed, I would certainly expect that I would also
    have regular communication with that same office, with the
    Under Secretary, and I would be willing to work with the
    Committee to look at whether we need any sort of formal
    processes or procedures to put in place to ensure that
    coordination is continuing as it should.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Let's turn our attention to
    China. This year's Annual Threat Assessment stated ``China
    stands out as the actor most capable of threatening U.S.
    interests globally.''
        There is of course bipartisan support in Congress for
    ensuring that the Chinese Communists don't achieve their goals
    in replacing the United States as the world's dominant economic
    and therefore military superpower.
        What is your opinion on whether the intelligence community
    is currently properly postured to address the threat posed by
    Communist China?
        Mr. Lukas. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I have seen over many years as an intelligence officer that
    the IC has assessed that China is a key adversary and has
    placed a high priority on collecting and analyzing information
    to provide to policymakers regarding China's plans and
    intentions. If confirmed, I would certainly look forward to
    working with the IC agencies themselves to ensure they are
    adequately resourced and are placing those resources in the
    areas that they need to be, vis-a-vis China. That is of course,
    if I am confirmed.
        I lack that bird's eye view, quite frankly, right now about
    which agency is doing, but certainly that would be a priority
    for me if confirmed.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        Mr. Kent, I want to turn to the threat of terrorism. China
    is without question our most serious long-term threat--the only
    nation that has the size and wealth and power to potentially
    replace the United States as the world's dominant power. But as
    you say in your opening statement, the threat of terrorism
    remains serious and ongoing. To borrow from a quote sometimes
    attributed to Trotsky: You may not be interested in terrorism
    any more, but terrorism is still interested in you.
        Is that correct and something that Americans need to
    understand?
        Mr. Kent. Thank you, Senator. I think that is 100 percent
    accurate. I mean, look. We have real threats that come from the
    Chinese Communist Party and other traditional state actors.
    However, terrorists want to kill us right now in this moment,
    and tragically, many of them are already here inside the United
    States. And there are countless other adversaries we have that
    are terrorists overseas that are planning to kill us right now.
    So we have to stay vigilant.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        Vice Chairman.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again,
    gentlemen, thank you for your willingness to serve again.
        Mr. Kent, you are currently acting chief of staff to
    Director Gabbard, right?
        Mr. Kent. Yes, Senator.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Was Director Gabbard consulted before
    General Haugh was fired as NSA Director?
        Mr. Kent. I was not aware of any conversations that took
    place, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
        Vice Chairman Warner. I just feel like if she wasn't, I
    just would be even further concerned that you are taking a 30-
    year career veteran that had, I believe, almost uniform
    support, and I think the firing was uncalled for and I would be
    concerned if the director hadn't been notified.
        And we talked about this before, but I just want to go
    through it again. You participated in a group chat that was the
    subject of the Atlantic article published by Jeffrey Goldberg
    on March 24, 2025, correct?
        Mr. Kent. Was I in the chat?
        Vice Chairman Warner. Yes.
        Mr. Lukas. I was, Senator.
        Vice Chairman Warner. You were on the chat?
        Mr. Kent. Yes, I was.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Did you use a personal phone or a
    government phone during that chat?
        Mr. Kent. There is currently ongoing litigation, Senator,
    so I really can't give any more details.
        Vice Chairman Warner. I am pretty disappointed by that
    answer. What about this: Do you know whether your device has
    been actually taken and scanned for any malware that might have
    been put into it?
        Mr. Kent. We followed all the security procedures and took
    all security precautions.
        Vice Chairman Warner. You took all security procedures and
    did everything appropriate?
        Mr. Kent. (Nods in affirmative).
        Vice Chairman Warner. Again, I don't question your
    patriotism and commitment, but I find that an astounding
    answer. I mean, there have been reports that there were 20
    other group chats that Director Waltz had that included
    subjects like Ukraine, China, Gaza. Were you involved in any of
    those chats?
        Mr. Kent. I was not.
        Vice Chairman Warner. So any of the other 20 that have been
    reported, you didn't participate at all?
        Mr. Kent. As I said, Senator, there is ongoing litigation
    right now, so there is not really much more I can say.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Has anyone with classification
    authority reviewed the information--and I don't have to read
    through the comments you made in that chat, but others--are you
    stating before this Committee that information relaying the
    timing of an attack from American Forces that if it had been
    discovered could have cost our pilots' lives, and you are still
    making the statement that none of that was classified?
        Mr. Kent. There was no classified information in the chat.
    And all the circumstances around it are currently under ongoing
    litigation. So there is not much I can say, Senator.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Again, as I said at the outset, I
    don't doubt your patriotism, but I really doubt your judgment
    on that.
        I will go to you, Mr. Lukas.
        You also said and I was really kind of astounded in your
    prequestioning hearing, quote, ``Based on your experience, the
    information presented in the media related to The Atlantic
    article could reasonably have been deemed unclassified.''
        You have been a CIA agent a long time. Are you familiar
    with other times when a Defense Secretary was willing to share
    impending military operations on unsecured devices before the
    operations took place?
        Mr. Lukas. Thank you, Senator. I am a career intelligence
    officer, I am not a military officer, so I have not been privy
    to any war plans in any form, classified or unclassified, so
    that is really not a question I can comment on.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Let's put it this way: If you as a
    CIA officer had released this kind of information or put it on
    an unsecured device, wouldn't you have been reprimanded or
    fired?
        Mr. Lukas. Senator, really all I can say is both the White
    House and Department of Defense have said that the information
    in that chat had not gone through a classification process. I
    have no reason to doubt that. So otherwise, I----
        Vice Chairman Warner. Giving out--Sir, again, I respect
    your service. But giving out on an unsecured commercial
    connected device information that relays the specifics of an
    American attack on a foreign adversary, that if had gotten
    out--I would love both of you gentlemen to come down to
    Virginia Beach and meet with the 800-plus Virginians who I met
    with who many of them knew sailors on the Truman and the crowd
    was 90 percent veterans.
        Gentlemen, your answers would not stand. They would hoot
    you out of the room when that kind of information is so
    carelessly handled. Again, I can't believe any of the three of
    you would on your own have ever done this and I find it really
    disappointing that you are still standing by the flimsy,
    careless behavior and somehow defending it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Collins.
        Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kent, you have an extraordinary career serving your
    country, 20 years in uniform in the war against terror. You
    also have worked at the CIA. You are now acting chief of staff
    at the DNI. So with all that experience, when you were part of
    the group chat on Signal, did it occur to you during the
    conversation that: Hey, maybe I should say something. Some of
    the information that is being talked about could jeopardize our
    warfighters or be useful to the Houthis, or did you have that
    thought at any point during the discussion?
        Mr. Kent. I did not, Senator.
        Senator Collins. So that raises in my mind whether there is
    routine use of the Signal application platform in order to have
    conversations about very sensitive information. Maybe it hasn't
    gone through a classification review, but if you are talking
    about war plans, that's pretty sensitive information. Is Signal
    used commonly to your knowledge for those kinds of discussions?
        Mr. Kent. Signal was installed on my government work phone
    when I received it, Senator. And Signal has pretty adequate
    two-way encryption, so Signal is routinely used and approved by
    the chain of command.
        Senator Collins. Does it concern you that one of the people
    on the group chat was in Russia at the time? We know that
    Russia is trying very hard to penetrate our communications
    systems?
        Mr. Kent. There was no classified information discussed on
    there, Senator, so that was not a concern to me.
        Senator Collins. Well, I hope this is something, should you
    be confirmed, that you will take a hard look at.
        I, too, have the Signal application on my phone, but I
    don't use it to discuss highly sensitive information. And I
    think we need perhaps guidelines that are clearer to members of
    the intelligence community and to the Department of Defense to
    make sure that we don't have a repeat of this. I know that at
    least you must be concerned that there was a reporter on the
    phone--does that concern you?
        Mr. Kent. Most certainly, Senator.
        Senator Collins. I wanted to turn to a different issue, and
    as I left to vote you were starting to get into this.
        When I look at the most imminent threats facing our Nation
    right now, to me it is the counterterrorism attack. And ISIS is
    growing. It is operating in Somalia, Afghanistan, ISIS K,
    Pakistan, where over 700 attacks in Syria in 2024 alone. Al-
    Qaeda is reemerging as well. We know about the Houthis' attacks
    on our naval ships on the international shipping.
        My concern is that we have had a shift away from focusing
    on counterterrorism and instead on great power competition,
    which certainly is important. But if I look at what I am most
    worried about happening tomorrow is a terrorist attack. Could
    you comment on that issue and how you think we balance the
    competing needs?
        Mr. Kent. Certainly. I share your concerns and I share your
    view. The terrorist threats posed by al-Qaeda, by ISIS, by the
    Iranian threat network, they are countless and they are
    unrelenting. And as you pointed out, they have only grown in
    recent years because of all the different sanctuary countries
    that terrorists have been able to cultivate. So I think we have
    to strike a balance where we have constant vigilance. And I
    think a lot of this ties back into who we let into our country.
    I think right now all the lights are blinking red because we
    had open borders for the last four years and we don't know who
    is in our country.
        When NCTC did what they were supposed do and they
    identified terrorist threats, they were ignored by the last
    administration. So this is why I am concerned.
        So focusing heavily on making sure that we locate all the
    terrorists inside of our country, including the cartels and
    criminal terrorist gangs, getting them out of our country,
    securing the border. That is essential. And making sure we keep
    a finger on the pulse overseas, and we do that by enabling our
    intelligence community.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. Gentlemen, as I alluded at the outset,
    there is other business on the Senate floor to which I have to
    attend. I am going to step away and I am going to put the
    Committee in the capable hands of Senator Budd who graciously
    agreed to stay for the duration of my absence. I cannot say how
    long it will be. I guess it depends in part on how persuasive
    my Democratic colleagues find me over in the Senate. So it may
    be a long time. But in the meantime, I will recognize Senator
    Kelly for his five minutes and turn the gavel over to Senator
    Budd.
        Thank you again.
        (Senator Budd assumed the Chair.)
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kent, on May 2, 2011, the U.S. conducted Operation
    Neptune Spear in which Seal Team 6 shot and killed Osama bin
    Laden. That occurred in Abottabad, Pakistan.
        Mr. Kent, you are a Special Operator; is that correct?
        Mr. Kent. That's correct, sir.
        Senator Kelly. Would it have been appropriate for the Obama
    administration to share on an unsecured app 2 hours prior to
    that mission that Navy Special Operators were in-bound to
    Pakistan to conduct that specific operation?
        Mr. Kent. On an unsecured app, absolutely not.
        Senator Kelly. Absolutely not. OK. I just wanted to clarify
    based on what the Chairman just asked you.
        Mr. Kent. Signal is a government-approved, two-way
    encryption app that wasn't available in 2011.
        Senator Kelly. That is an unsecured platform. It's an
    application available to the general public. And if you have
    any experience with the intelligence community, which I think
    you do, Mr. Kent, is that correct?
        Mr. Kent. That's correct.
        Senator Kelly. You would understand that it is not a secure
    platform.
        I want to go on to something else. This concerns January
    6th. Do you believe that the violence on January 6th was
    intentionally organized or directed?
        Mr. Kent. That is still under investigation. We are looking
    into whether elements of the government could have enhanced the
    criminal acuity of some of the rioters that day.
        Senator Kelly. You said on Twitter that the FBI and the
    intelligence community were involved in planning and directing
    the riot; is that correct?
        Mr. Kent. Sounds like something I said, yeah.
        Senator Kelly. What evidence do you have for that claim?
        Mr. Kent. So we have already identified that there were
    multiple confidential human informants ran by the FBI and other
    law enforcement agencies that were present in the crowd that
    day directing, removing barriers, those types of things. This
    has been investigated widely. We are continuing to look into
    it.
        The intelligence--I would say the FBI and other elements of
    the law enforcement apparatus attempted to suppress the fact
    that there was undercover confidential HUMINT informants that
    were part of these different groups.
        We also had intelligence leading up to January 6th that
    there was going to be violence that day. So that speaks to some
    degree of intelligence infiltration into some of these
    organizations.
        Senator Kelly. Who within the FBI?
        Mr. Kent. We are looking into that right now.
        Senator Kelly. Which departments of the FBI?
        Mr. Kent. Probably the Washington Field Office.
        Senator Kelly. So you believe the Washington Field Office
    was involved in the planning of the violence in the building
    next door on January 6th?
        Mr. Kent. It is being looked into. I mean, we had----
        Senator Kelly. And who is looking into it?
        Mr. Kent. We are in the intelligence community. We are
    looking into it right now.
        Senator Kelly. Do you believe that the IC conducts actions
    of this nature against Americans?
        Mr. Kent. Does the IC--both the FBI and other law
    enforcement agencies entrapping individuals?
        If you look at who was running the Washington Field Office
    during January 6th, it was Steven D'Antuono. He was also
    running the field office in Michigan where many of the
    defendants were let go after they were accused of attempting to
    kidnap the Governor because of the vast majority of them were
    undercover FBI confidential informants. So unfortunately this
    behavior does happen by members of law enforcement and the
    intelligence community, and it is incumbent upon us to make
    sure we are transparent with the American people.
        Senator Kelly. Mr. Kent, would you be willing to share this
    evidence of this investigation with this Committee?
        Mr. Kent. I look forward to it, Senator.
        Senator Kelly. Are you aware that procedures for
    considering candidates for U.S. security clearances have long
    considered attempts to overthrow the government as a serious
    red flag?
        Mr. Kent. Yes.
        Senator Kelly. Would you have concerns about giving a
    security clearance to someone who participated in violent acts
    at the Capitol on January 6th in an attempt to overturn an
    election?
        Mr. Kent. I have consistently condemned anyone who used any
    act of violence against law enforcement or anyone else.
        Senator Kelly. So in your current role as chief of staff to
    the DNI, you would not be in favor of approving any kind of
    clearance for somebody who participated in any violence against
    the United States?
        Mr. Kent. No, if you commit an act of violence against a
    police officer or anybody else, you've got nowhere to go. You
    get your day in court and that is it.
        Senator Kelly. Traditionally, the IC's counterterrorism
    efforts have focused on foreign terrorist organizations, FTO
    designated groups. The cartels have now been similarly
    designated.
        Would you seek to expand that to other groups you have
    proposed treating like terrorists?
        Mr. Kent. We have our work cut out for us right now with
    imminent threats coming from ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Iranian threat
    network. The cartels and violent gangs were just designated.
    So, I think if another group rises to the threshold of
    presenting a threat we present that to the President and give
    him the option of designating them.
        Senator Kelly. Do you think there are other groups that
    have risen to that level?
        Mr. Kent. As of right now, no, I do not.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Budd. Senator Cornyn, you are recognized.
        Senator Cornyn. Mr. Lukas, as you and I discussed in my
    office, one of the problems we have had, the U.S. Government
    has had generally is a lack of trust in our government and
    government institutions because of the misconduct of
    individuals who have created a lack of confidence in our
    intelligence community, including the CIA and other agencies.
    But my hope is that now that the new administration is in place
    that that will no longer be the concern that it was previously.
        Specifically, you and I talked about FISA 702, the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act, 702. In your lengthy experience
    as an intelligence officer, have you found that authority to be
    useful?
        Mr. Lukas. Thank you for the question, Senator, and I
    appreciated our chance to chat in your office. As a career CIA
    officer, I used information collected under FISA section 702
    information on a very regular basis. As I expressed to you in
    our previous chat, I believe that this authority is critical to
    U.S. national security. I believe that while valid concerns
    have been raised at various points about how the process is
    used, that the reforms that were undertaken last year largely
    addressed those concerns, and that this is an essential tool
    that should be reauthorized.
        Senator Cornyn. And you don't see a need for any additional
    reforms at this time?
        Mr. Lukas. Senator, I would just commit that if confirmed
    that I would be happy to work with the oversight committees to
    look at whether additional reforms are needed; but personally,
    I am confident that sufficient safeguards currently are in
    place to ensure the privacy and the civil liberties of
    Americans are respected.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
        Mr. Kent, let me ask you, Senator Kelly talked about
    foreign terrorist organizations. As you know, the cartels in
    Mexico have now been designated as such. And obviously the
    scourge of fentanyl is the leading cause of death of young
    people between the age of 18 and 45 in this country.
        Unfortunately, Mexico has a serious problem with the
    cartels and the fact that corruption makes it exceedingly
    difficult for us or for the Mexican government itself to deal
    with this threat. How would you prioritize the threat of drug
    trafficking organizations like the drug cartels in Mexico?
        How would you approach that and are there things that are
    not being done now that you think should be done?
        Mr. Kent. Thank you, Senator. I agree with President Trump
    that we have to take on these cartels like we take on
    terrorists. The cartels have killed hundreds of thousands of
    Americans over the years with fentanyl, so I am glad we are
    finally taking this seriously.
        So No. 1, I think supporting what is taking place right now
    on the southern border and making sure we have strong border
    security so we can prevent the fentanyl from coming into the
    country. That is essential. I think we also need to work hand-
    in-hand with the Mexican government. I think most of us in the
    intelligence community have been pleasantly surprised to see
    how cooperative the Mexican government has been. It seems they
    want to take out these cartels as well. So working with the
    Mexican government, enabling them to take out these cartels,
    these cartel leaders.
        But then I do think we need to trace the precursor trail
    back to where it originates. Much of the precursors, the
    ingredients, for fentanyl are coming from China. Some of it is
    coming from India. We are going to need hard diplomacy. We are
    going to need to use economic leverage to make sure that we cut
    off the fentanyl precursors from actually entering Mexico as
    well.
        Senator Cornyn. Mr. Eisenberg, do you agree with me that
    the People's Republic of China under the control of President
    Xi and the Chinese Communist Party endeavor to undermine the
    United States at nearly all costs in order to achieve their
    ambitions of dominance?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Senator, yeah, I certainly agree that China
    is our main and most existential long-term competitor.
        Senator Cornyn. With that in mind, should American entities
    be investing in sensitive technologies in China only for them
    to develop, deploy, and weaponize them against us in
    furtherance of their goals?
        Mr. Eisenberg. That is a difficult question that actually I
    just never looked into.
        Senator Cornyn. I know it is a difficult question, that is
    why I asked you.
        Mr. Eisenberg. Can I phone a friend? [Laughter.]
        Senator Cornyn. Why don't you lean forward a little bit so
    that I can hear you.
        Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, that is something I would look into if
    I were confirmed. I can see issues on both sides of it. Why
    obviously there is a good reason to not do that if you are an
    American company, for example; but I can also understand why
    engagement is also a reasonable strategy. But if I were an
    American company, I would be very, very hesitant to get
    involved with that.
        Senator Cornyn. Unfortunately, the attraction of the huge
    Chinese market and the money that would be generated from that
    seems to drive decisions about investments in China. But we
    have, as you may know, the FIGHT China Act, the Foreign
    Investment Guardrails to Help Thwart China Act, is one that
    would provide some outbound investment transparency,
    particularly with the extensive technologies that we are
    working on with the administration. Right now we are working
    with the Treasury Department and others to try to provide
    technical assistance so we can get this right.
        But I look forward to working with you and the rest of the
    intelligence community to get this done.
        I think it is absolutely critical. Inadvertently American
    companies are providing the financial resources necessary not
    only to modernize the Chinese economy, but to help them
    modernize their weapons and their military in a way that would
    allow them then to achieve their ambition, for example, of
    taking Taiwan by military force.
        It makes no sense to me that we would inadvertently
    encourage or allow that and be blind to the consequences. So
    thank you for your answer. And thank you, each of you, for
    being here and your willingness to serve.
        Senator Budd. Senator King, you are recognized.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kent, thank you for your testimony. I walked in from
    voting when you were talking about the threat of terrorism and
    I am glad you identified that because I think it is a serious
    threat and I think we have sort of taken our eye off that ball.
    So I compliment you on that.
        I did want to ask you, though, that you mentioned that
    withdrawal from Afghanistan. Do you know when that decision was
    made and who made it?
        Mr. Kent. Withdrawal from Afghanistan?
        Senator King. Yes.
        Mr. Kent. It appears it was not very well coordinated and
    it probably wasn't made all at the same time but it was made
    around August of 2021.
        Senator King. Actually it was made in February of 2020 by
    President Trump when he signed the Doha Agreement, which
    basically said we will leave Afghanistan by May of 2021 as long
    as the Taliban doesn't shoot at us. That discussion did not
    include the Afghan government. So the decision to leave
    Afghanistan was actually made by the Trump administration a
    year and a half before the actual withdrawal. You are aware of
    that, I imagine?
        Mr. Kent. Actually, it happened in multiple phases.
    President Trump attempted to get us out ahead of that but then
    we had members of the intelligence community unfortunately and
    we had members of the media who spread an extension of the
    Russia hoax who said that Putin was putting bounties on the
    heads of American soldiers and that stopped Congress from
    allocating money----
        Senator King. The Russia hoax?
        Mr. Kent. Yeah, the Russia hoax.
        Senator King. The Russia hoax.
        Are you aware that on August 2, 2016, President then-
    candidate Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort had dinner in
    New York with an agent of Russian intelligence, Konstantin
    Kilimnik, and shared the internal polling data of the Trump
    campaign? Do you still consider that a ``hoax''?
        Mr. Kent. Senator, the Russia hoax has been widely
    debunked. What I was talking about in Afghanistan is that we
    had an agreement with the Taliban----
        Senator King. Not by you----
        Mr. Kent. We fought the Taliban from the negotiating
    table----
        Senator King. Please respond to my question. Are you aware
    of a dinner between a Russian agent and the chairman of the----
        Mr. Kent. Myself and the American people are aware of the
    origin of the Steele dossier and probably chapter and verse of
    the Russia hoax. It has been widely debunked.
        Senator King. You have done a pretty good job of not
    talking about the dinner. Have you ever been involved in
    politics? Do you know how significant internal polling data is?
    It tells you where your strengths are, where your weaknesses
    are, where the battleground States--where the issues are. I
    think that information being handed over to an agent of Russian
    intelligence--and by the way this was found unanimously by this
    Committee in our report on the Russian involvement in the 2016
    election.
        So let's move on. You mentioned several times there was no
    classified information in that telephone call, in that Signal
    chat.
        So you don't consider the timing of an attack, the weapons
    being used, and when those weapons are going to be deployed as
    sensitive and otherwise classified?
        I realize it wasn't formally classified, but if you had
    done that as a junior staffer at the National Security Council,
    wouldn't you have been fired--to hand out that kind of
    information on an unsecure public platform?
        Mr. Kent. There was no classified information in that
    Signal chat.
        Senator King. So--so, telling an adversary when the attack
    is going to happen, that is not classified?
        I mean, you are saying it is not classified. You are just
    giving it a bit of semantics; but any person in this room would
    tell us that attack plans involving timing and weapons would be
    of immense value. If it had been the Houthis instead of Jeff
    Goldberg, we would have lost pilots in that strike, would we
    not?
        Mr. Kent. There was no classified information and it is
    currently under litigation, Senator. So I can't say much more
    about the Signal chat.
        Senator King. And you can't tell us what telephone you were
    using? What possible litigation excuse is there for not telling
    us what phone you were using?
        Mr. Kent. The details of the Signal chat are currently
    under litigation. There is not much more I can say.
        Senator King. What is the litigation?
        Mr. Kent. There is litigation against multiple members that
    were in the chat group right now.
        Senator King. You say it is not classified. If it walks
    like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is
    classified.
        Mr. Eisenberg, the Annual Threat Assessment tells us that
    our adversaries, Russia, China, Iran, are stepping up covert
    influence, and yet in the administration in the Department of--
    I guess I would call it the department formally known as
    Justice--the administration disbanded the Foreign Influence
    Task Force and it has also stopped U.S. enforcement of the
    Foreign Agents Registration Act.
        How is that possibly going to make this country safer in
    light of the intelligence community's assessment a month ago
    that foreign influence was a rising threat to this country? I
    call that unilateral disarmament.
        Mr. Eisenberg. Senator, I believe the memo you are
    referring to----
        Senator King. Could you get closer to your microphone,
    please?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Sure. Can you hear me?
        Senator King. Yes, please.
        Mr. Eisenberg. The memo you referred to doesn't end all
    FARA enforcement. It limits FARA criminal enforcement to a
    specific set of works like traditional espionage with foreign
    powers. It really doesn't end all FARA enforcement. And the
    fact----
        Senator King. It narrows FARA enforcement, does it not?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, it narrows it. And the fact that an
    entity no longer exists doesn't mean that people that have the
    skills that were previously in the department are no longer
    there.
        Senator King. Do you know whether or not those people are
    there or have they been fired?
        Mr. Eisenberg. I do not. I am not in ISD now and I do not
    know.
        Senator King. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Budd. Thank you. I recognize myself. Thanks to each
    of you for your service and for your willingness to continue to
    serve.
        Mr. Eisenberg, you mentioned about the threat from China,
    but if you would elaborate a bit on that, and also talk about
    what changes or priority shifts are necessary to posture the
    U.S. to counter the threat posed by the CCP?
        Mr. Eisenberg. I think, first of all, I should say that it
    has been about four years since I reviewed intelligence, but it
    is clear that China is our main strategic competitor in the
    world and wishes us a long and happy retirement in which we buy
    their goods and they don't sell ours there. And I think that is
    a situation in which we should use all instruments of national
    power in order to help the United States get better footing in
    that war--in that battle. What exactly that looks like is
    something I can't say at the moment. It would be something I
    would look into if I am confirmed.
        Senator Budd. Thank you. Mr. Lukas, same question,
    particularly the part about what priority shifts are necessary
    to posture us to better counter the threat posed by the CCP.
        Mr. Lukas. Thank you, Senator. I do recognize and the
    intelligence community recognizes that China is America's
    strategic adversary. I can assure you that the IC is currently
    postured in a way that prioritizes collection on China across
    many fronts in terms of what additional posturing we might need
    to do in that area.
        Unfortunately, I am not in a position to comment on that
    right now. But if confirmed I would be happy to work with the
    committee and meet one-on-one to come up with a plan for moving
    forward in that area.
        Senator Budd. Thank you.
        Mr. Kent, I enjoyed time with you several weeks ago.
        As an experienced professional in the counterterrorism
    fight, what do you see are the benefits of applying the CT
    mindset that you used over the years to a counternarcotics
    problem that we see coming from the southern border--or maybe
    even the northern border, just the CT to the counternarcotics
    challenge.
        Mr. Kent. Thank you, Senator. I also enjoyed our
    conversation in your office.
        I think we learned a lot of lessons over the 20-plus years
    about how we defeat decentralized networks, the best way to
    attack those nodes. And in particular the best way to integrate
    intelligence, intelligence fusion, and making sure that
    intelligence is getting in the hands of those who are on the
    frontlines, whether that it is guys overseas kicking in doors
    or whether it is in the hands of our patrolmen and sheriffs
    deputies that are out there patrolling in our streets.
        Senator Budd. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Lukas, back to you. I enjoyed your opening comments and
    also your history. So you have been there. You have done that.
    But let me get your thoughts as a potential PDDNI, if
    confirmed.
        You are going to be responsible for the IC's budget--at
    least for crafting it. So what is your vision for making it
    more efficient while still being assured that we have the most
    effective intelligence capability?
        Mr. Lukas. Thank you, Senator. If I am confirmed as PDDNI,
    of course, my primary role would be to support Director Gabbard
    in her overseeing of the U.S. intelligence community budget.
        I think the key role for ODNI, the important thing to
    remember is deconfliction. That is what ODNI needs to do. We
    need to make sure from that position that the various
    agencies--the 18 agencies of the intelligence community--are
    not wasting money, spending on things that are duplicative. And
    that is the unique value that ODNI brings to that. So if
    confirmed, I pledge to you I will work with both Director
    Gabbard and with the IC's Chief Financial Officer to ensure
    that ODNI is carrying out that duty in a diligent way.
        Senator Budd. So, I think in life having a to-do list is
    second to having a stop doing list. Do you have in this setting
    anything that you could share with us that would be on the stop
    doing list?
        Mr. Lukas. Senator, I have over the years seen a lot of
    things that I think the IC should probably stop doing.
    Unfortunately, in this setting it is very difficult to speak
    about those because some of those are vulnerabilities and
    things that we would not like to discuss in an open hearing. I
    would be happy to come back to meet with you----
        Senator Budd. We will talk later.
        Mr. Lukas [continuing]. Or talk later in a classified
    setting.
        Senator Budd. Understand.
        Mr. Kent and also Mr. Lukas, if there is time.
        Mr. Kent, you served at the CIA. So how important is it
    that the IC not be politicized and that policymakers and
    operations officers are receiving unbiased objective
    intelligence?
        Mr. Kent. Nothing could be more important, Senator. We have
    to take the politicization out of the intelligence community.
    We have to make sure that the truth gets up to those who are
    making policy and to those that are on the frontlines in harm's
    way. So, if confirmed, you will have my commitment that NCTC
    will be nonpolitical and focused solely on going after our
    Nation's enemies.
        Senator Budd. Any thoughts, Mr. Lukas?
        Mr. Lukas. Senator, I absolutely share Mr. Kent's thoughts
    on that issue. The intelligence community has nothing if it
    doesn't have the trust of the policymakers that it seeks to
    serve. It is absolutely important and critical, in fact, for us
    to provide apolitical, unbiased intelligence that policymakers
    can rely on.
        Senator Budd. Thank you all.
        Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In my view, Mr. Kent's extremist views which are well known
    in the Pacific Northwest thoroughly disqualify him from any
    leadership position, certainly one that addresses who is and
    isn't a terrorist.
        So I am going to begin with your ominous record, Mr.
    Eisenberg. While working in the Bush administration's
    Department of Justice, you contributed to memos that authorized
    illegal surveillance, yet so far you have refused to provide
    any details about this work. Even worse is that in some cases
    you have refused to acknowledge that the reforms passed by
    Congress to address these abuses are actually binding.
        So, in 2008 Congress passed legislation reconfirming that
    the government needs a warrant to conduct surveillance in the
    United States. That was in direct response to the memo you
    helped write that said the President has inherent authority to
    conduct warrantless surveillance.
        I sent you a question asking whether the 2008 law requiring
    a warrant is binding. You said yes, but only to the extent that
    law is constitutional.
        So I would like to give you another chance. Is that law
    binding, or do you believe there could be some constitutional
    argument that would allow the President to get around the law?
        Mr. Eisenberg. As an initial matter, Senator you are asking
    me things I worked on 20 years ago that I don't have access to,
    so it is pretty hard for me to remember all of the details.
        Senator Wyden. It is not a complicated question, sir. It is
    about whether or not you are for warrantless surveillance, yes
    or no. Just tell me warrantless surveillance as a policy
    matter, because this is what it is about.
        Mr. Eisenberg. You are asking me if as a policy matter we
    should have warrantless surveillance?
        Senator Wyden. Yes. Certainly your answer when we got the
    response said: ``Yes, the 2008 law requires a warrant,'' and
    then you qualified it, ``only to the extent that the law is
    constitutional.''
        So what is your position on warrantless surveillance?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Those are two totally separate questions.
    Are you asking me as a policy matter what I think about
    warrantless surveillance or are you asking me as a legal
    matter?
        Senator Wyden. Is the law binding or do you believe that
    there could be some constitutional argument that would allow
    the President to get around the law?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Senator, so, without being able to talk to a
    bunch of other lawyers and think about all of the possible
    circumstances, I am just unwilling to say that a law could
    never be unconstitutional as applied. There is always a
    possibility for some application to be unconstitutional, and I
    think the careful lawyer would always note that.
        Senator Wyden. That is not what the law says. In 2015,
    Congress passed legislation prohibiting bulk collection of
    phone and email records. This was in direct response to the
    revelation that the government had collected the records of
    millions of innocent Americans.
        So here I ask you whether bulk collection is as Congress
    clearly intended, currently illegal. You responded that it
    depends on the facts and the law, and that it is a
    hypothetical.
        So, again, I would like to give you another chance: Is bulk
    collection of phone and email records currently illegal?
        Mr. Eisenberg. I can't say without thinking more about it.
    These are complicated questions of constitutional law and
    statutory interpretation. The OLC opinion on surveillance that
    we discussed earlier is like 80--70 pages or something. They
    are long and detailed arguments. It is not something I can give
    just an off-the-cuff answer with three minutes of looking.
    Those are difficult questions.
        Senator Wyden. You have been working in these areas for
    years and years, Mr. Eisenberg.
        The reality is these are straightforward propositions
    embedded in black letter text, and you won't give an answer.
        I am going to hold the record open so that you can continue
    to ruminate on this, which you apparently feel is necessary to
    answer what I think is a straightforward question.
        I will wrap up with one other and we will see what your
    response is on this:
        In October 2022, the Department of Justice issued a policy
    restricting collection of information on journalists. Director
    Gabbard said she supported continuing that policy. She said it
    was essential to protecting press freedoms and maintaining a
    critical balance between national security and upholding the
    First Amendment.
        Mr. Lukas who is sitting at the table with you agrees with
    Director Gabbard. So, once again, we are talking about a pretty
    straightforward policy position, and I would like to know what
    your views are, Mr. Eisenberg.
        Mr. Eisenberg. Senator, I am sorry. I can't answer what I
    think of a policy that I have never had an opportunity even to
    review.
        Senator Wyden. So Director Gabbard says she supports the
    policy, but that is immaterial to you?
        Mr. Eisenberg. No, that is not immaterial. That is
    something I would certainly lean into. But you are asking for
    my opinion and I am just saying I can't do that without having
    reviewed the actual policy you are asking about. I can't tell
    you what I think of a policy I have never seen.
        Senator Wyden. You haven't ever heard about this--this is
    an issue of first impression for you. You never heard about it
    until this afternoon?
        Mr. Eisenberg. The devil is in the details, Senator. So I
    do not know the details of the policy.
        Senator Wyden. This is black letter text.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Budd. Thank you. Senator Young.
        Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Eisenberg, the Trump administration has rightly put
    focus on disrupting and deterring China's malign influence
    within the United States.
        From a legal perspective, and with the tools and
    authorities of the Department of Justice in mind, what do you
    see as the most urgent actions--the most urgent actions that we
    should be pursuing to stop this malign influence, disrupt IT
    theft, and economic and tech espionage?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Thanks for the question, Senator.
        For a more complete answer I would certainly want to be
    able to discuss it with the professionals inside the NSD space.
        Senator Young. Okay.
        Mr. Eisenberg. But it seems to me that making sure that we
    have all the intelligence collection that we can in order to
    find our vulnerabilities and adequate cyber security would be
    very good starts.
        Senator Young. So, an inventory of the cyber capabilities
    and how would you go about that?
        Mr. Eisenberg. I would talk to the people who have those
    abilities and who are in charge of those around not just in the
    Department of Justice but around the intelligence community to
    see the status.
        Senator Young. People like----
        Mr. Eisenberg. NSA, various other intelligence
    organizations that do these things.
        Senator Young. If confirmed, what laws and regulations do
    you anticipate relying on in executing your role and NSD's role
    in this priority of cyber space?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Well, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
    would be one, to be able to collect the necessary intelligence
    to find our vulnerabilities. Essentially any tool to collect
    information that we have I think would be very important in
    order to ascertain, you know, to learn as much as we can about
    our various vulnerabilities.
        Senator Young. And have you reviewed and are you deeply
    familiar with the laws and regulations that would govern your
    position, your conduct, and your responsibilities?
        Mr. Eisenberg. I am quite familiar with some of them, but--
    the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but there are quite
    a number that the National Security Division administers, so I
    am more familiar with some than I am with others but
    fortunately we have a lot of experts around the Department on
    the various other authorities.
        Senator Young. Thank you.
        Mr. Lukas, I think we share a view that we need more people
    from all kinds of backgrounds and experiences as we reform and
    fix the IC's analytical enterprise, bringing different
    perspectives and ideas to the fore. If confirmed, can you speak
    to what your priorities would be in attracting, recruiting, and
    retaining such a workforce?
        Mr. Lukas. Yes, thank you, Senator and I appreciated our
    conversation in your office where we talked about this topic.
        My view is that particularly the analytical cadre of the
    U.S. intelligence community needs a wide diversity of
    background skills and viewpoints. That is quite different than
    having a political dogma called Diversity, Equity, and
    Inclusion.
        Part of that would be reaching out in terms of our
    recruitment efforts, looking across the country to universities
    where the IC has not traditionally been active and looking to
    just bringing in a much broader community of new analysts who
    would be able to work on the questions facing our nation.
        Senator Young. Thank you. I find that any organization runs
    best if it is open to free exchange and an honest, even a
    brutal confrontation with the truth and have heated arguments
    behind closed doors before important decisions are made and all
    the rest. And it seems like you embrace that ethic and culture.
    Is that an accurate characterization?
        Mr. Lukas. Yes, Senator, that is an accurate
    characterization.
        Senator Young. What tangible directions would you recommend
    to of the Director in furtherance of good decisionmaking as it
    relates to receiving different ideas and perspectives?
        Mr. Lukas. Advising the, Director, I think it would be
    critical for her to be in regular contact with the heads of the
    IC agencies to be understanding how they are conducting their
    recruitment, what sort of cultures they are trying to build
    based on objectivity and non-politicization of intelligence.
    She really needs to dig in and understand what problems the
    community is facing and I believe we have a Director who is
    already doing that.
        Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Young.
        Senator Collins has a follow-up question.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Mr. Kent, you had an exchange earlier about our country's
    withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, that withdrawal which was
    poorly executed and resulted in the deaths of 13 servicemembers
    occurred during the Biden administration, not the first Trump
    administration; is that correct?
        Mr. Kent. That's correct, Senator.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. I bet he is very happy you gave him a
    chance to correct the record on that one.
        Senator Warner, I understand you have one follow-up?
        Vice Chairman Warner. Again, I appreciate everybody's
    service. I have been pretty disappointed by some of your
    answers, and I just--Mr. Kent, again, I appreciate your service
    and you got two great boys there. And you have your absolute
    right to have the views of, you know, all these bad things
    emanated from President Biden and frankly on a number of those
    things, I agree.
        But I just say I don't expect a response or comment, but I
    just cannot believe that if Joe Biden's administration had as
    carelessly handled classified information that you wouldn't
    have been one of the first calling for accountability and
    responsibility. And I am disappointed that that's not the case
    here.
        And again, I will just go back to the comment I made, at
    the end of the day I imagine all three of you gentlemen will be
    confirmed. But when you take that oath, it is an oath to a
    Constitution and not a single individual. And I just hope and
    pray that when you are in these positions you will be willing
    to speak truth to power.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        Gentlemen, as I mentioned earlier, it is my intention to
    hold a committee vote on your nominations as soon as possible.
    Therefore, for planning purposes, any Member who wishes to
    submit questions for the record after today's hearing please do
    so by close of business tomorrow. I am confident that we can
    expect prompt answers from our nominees to those questions for
    the record.
        I do expect, given that many of our Members were absent due
    to other business this afternoon, you may have a few more of
    those written questions than normal. So we would appreciate
    your prompt attention.
        Mr. Kent and Mr. Lukas, I expect to move to your
    nominations when we return from our April work period in our
    States.
        Mr. Eisenberg, you still need to appear before the
    Judiciary Committee, and we will move promptly forward once
    that appearance has occurred.
        So, thank you all. The hearing is adjourned.
        (Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned at 4:28 p.m. )
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]