[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]