Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senate Confirmation Hearing for Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth; Hegseth Asked About His Views on Women Serving in Combat Roles; Hegseth Asked About Allegations of Nonprofit Mismanagement. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired January 14, 2025 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

GILLIBRAND: So please explain these types of statements because they're brutal and they're mean and they disrespect men and women who are willing to die for this country.

[11:00:00]

HEGSETH: Well, Senator, I appreciate your comments, and I would point out I've never disparaged women serving in the military. I respect every single female servicemember that has put on the uniform past and present.

My critiques, Senator, recently and in the past, and from personal experience, have been instances where I've seen standards lowered, and you mentioned 11 Alpha, 11 Bravo, MOS, places in units, and it -- the book that has been referenced multiple times here, The War on Warriors. I spent months talking to active-duty servicemembers, men and women, low ranks, high ranks, combat arms and not combat arms, and what each and every one of them told me, and which personal instances have told -- shown me, is that in ways direct, indirect, overt and subtle standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, infantry battalions to ensure that commanders...

GILLIBRAND: Give me one example. Please give me an example. I get -- you're making this (inaudible) statements.

HEGSETH: Commanders meet quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers or infantry enlisted and that disparages those women...

GILLIBRAND: Commanders do not have to be quota...

HEGSETH: ... who are incredibly capable of meeting that standard.

GILLIBRAND: Commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry. That does not exist. It does not exist. And your statements are creating the impression that they're -- that these exist, because they do not. There are not quotas. We want the most lethal force.

But I'm telling you, having -- having been here for 15 years, listening to testimony about men and women in combat and the type of operations that were successful in Afghanistan and in Iraq, women were essential for many of those units, when Ranger units went in to find where the terrorists hiding in Afghanistan, women or in Iraq. If they had a woman in the unit, they could go in, talk to the women in a village, say where are the terrorists hiding? Where are the weapons hiding? And get crucial information to make sure that we can win that battle.

So just -- you cannot denigrate women in general and your statements do that. We don't want women in the military, especially in combat. What a terrible statement. So please do not deny that you've made those statements you have, we take the responsibility of standards very seriously, and we will work with you. I'm equally distressed. You would not meet with me before this hearing. We could have covered all of this before you came here.

So, I could get to the 15 other questions that I want to get to. So women, you have denigrated. You have also denigrated members of the LGBTQ community. Did you know that when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was in -- in -- in place, we lost so many crucial personnel, over a thousand in mission critical areas. We lost 10 percent of all our foreign language speakers because of a political policy. You said in your statement, you don't want politics in the DOD. Everything you've said in these public statements is politics.

I don't want women. I don't want moms. What's wrong with a mom by the way, once you have babies, you therefore are no longer able to be lethal. I mean, you're basically saying women after they have children can't ever serve in the military in a combat role. It's -- it's -- it's a -- it's a silly thing to say. It's a silly thing to say beneath the position that you are aspiring to.

To denigrate LGBTQ servicemembers is -- is a mistake. If you are a sharpshooter, you're as lethal, regardless of what your gender identity is, regardless of who you love. So please know this to be a true statement. So you say -- you say, it was a political thing. You say it undermined us social engineering. I don't know why having someone having to publicly say or not publicly say who they love is social engineering. I think having that policy in the first place was highly problematic.

And as you said in your statement, do you agree anybody should be able to serve in the military if they meet the standards?

HEGSETH: Senator, as the President has stated I don't disagree with the overturn of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

GILLIBRAND: Great. Because I don't want you thinking, can't serve if you're a mom, can't serve if you're LGBTQ, and then last can't serve if you're a leftist. The statements you said about people who have views differently than you, that we're the enemy. Are you saying that 50 percent of the DOD, if they hold liberal views or leftist views, or are Democrats are not welcoming the military? Are you saying that?

HEGSETH: Senator, I volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan under Democrat president, Barack Obama. I also volunteered to guard the inauguration of Joe Biden, but was denied the opportunity to serve because I was identified as an extremist by my own unit for a Christian tattoo. WICKER: Thank you very much. Senator Gillibrand, you -- you held up a document and referred to it during your questioning. Would you like that entered into the record?

[11:05:00]

GILLIBRAND: (OFF-MIKE)

WICKER: OK, we'll delete it...

GILLIBRAND: We'll submit a clean copy.

WICKER: Without objection, that will be admitted at the -- at the point of your question. And I would like to enter into the record at this point, a letter of support from retired Air Force Colonel Melissa Cunningham, Colonel Cunningham supports Mr. Hegseth and mentions his warrior ethos, combat effectiveness and maintaining military training standards.

So without objection, both of those will be admitted.

And I now recognize Senator Rounds.

ROUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, good morning. I'd like to thank you for your service to our nation in uniform and also your work on behalf of your fellow veterans and for your willingness to enter into this Maelstrom of public service. I think the presence of so many veterans who have showed up to support you speaks volumes.

I also want to recognize your family service and sacrifice. You know, as well as anyone that it's not just the man that enters the arena, but it's the entire family who also works their way through this process as well. I appreciated our meeting with you and with your wife, Jennifer, this last month, I thought that we had an excellent conversation and I appreciate your statement and your answers to the advanced policy questions, especially your desire to bring a renewed focus on warfighting and lethality back to the Pentagon.

I also respect and I appreciate my friend and colleague, Senator Gillibrand, and some of her questions. And I know that she had a number of them in there. You had an opportunity to respond very briefly. Were there any other responses that you would like to make or clarifications that you would like to make before I move on to my questions.

HEGSETH: Senator, thank you very much for the opportunity to meet and for the question. I would -- I would also acknowledge you were mentioning female engagement teams which have shown a great deal of success on the battlefield. It would be and universally acknowledged as such. I've been in Iraqi homes where the language and gender barrier was real and the ability to have someone there to help in that process would be a massive accelerant in mission success. I recognize that reality.

I also recognize that female engagement teams assigned to a SEAL team or a green beret team meet different standards also, which is OK because of the duty positions involved in that job.

As far as politics Senator, I -- it has been the joy of my life to lead men and women in military outfits. When you're in combat or -- or in training, there's a lot of conversations that happen and you start to realize that a lot of people you're serving with share your political ideas or they don't. you find out there's Republicans, there's Democrats, there's libertarians, there's independents, there's vegetarians. Everything in between.

None of that matters. It never mattered in how I led men and women, how I interacted with them, what missions we undertook. Politics has nothing to do with the battlefield, which is why President Trump has asked me to say, let's make sure all of that comes out. This is about warfighting capability, setting standards high and making sure we give our boys, our men and women, everything they need to be successful on the battlefield.

So, politics can play no part. In that, and I look forward to infusing that as we always have inside our units.

ROUNDS: I appreciate you making that very clear. And I -- one of the areas that we want to do our best is to provide for the equipment. And the technical capabilities so that no young man or woman enters into a battle as a fair fight, and that they always have the advantage. Those are the types of questions that I'd like to get into right now, and I -- I want to start by talking about something that sometimes gets a little bit into the weeds, but I think it's critical.

Mr. Hegseth, from what I've heard from 24 senior DOD officials in hearings, over the last two years, including the Secretary of Defense, every service chief and eight combatant commanders is that sharing the portion of the spectrum (ph) and this is in the weeds, I know, but I'm going to ask it to get it on the record, the 3.1 to 3.5 gigahertz band would have extremely serious consequences and very costly conflict consequences on our war fighting capabilities. In fact, the department of the Navy alone has estimated that relocating their systems to a different part of the spectrum band would cost them $250 billion. That's just for the destroyers that defend our coasts with the radars that they have in them.

[11:10:00]

If confirmed, what will you do to make sure that the Department of Defense can maintain its access to end the use and to be able to maneuver within the electromagnetic spectrum at home and abroad, and would you be willing to literally go to the mat with the interagency to protect warfighter requirements for the use of the spectrum.

HEGSETH: Well, Senator, thank you for the question. And my job in part will be to go to the mat when necessary for things I believe are an absolute requirement for the Department of Defense and the men and women in uniform, there's no doubt about that.

On this -- in this particular case, as far as spectrum I look forward, as I've said before, getting a full class -- because this issue has come up a number of times in meetings. It's critically important with how -- how our warfighters communicate across all services. So, I'm going to get a classified briefing immediately about what that would, how it would impact the spectrum if it were to allow other companies or other it to be (inaudible)...

ROUNDS: Rest assured China would have to know. China would love to have our ability to use that part of the spectrum restrict. They would love that.

HEGSETH: Absolutely right. And so, I will go in with eyes only toward ensuring we have the capabilities we need and there's no disruption when I take that brief.

ROUNDS: Thank you. In your advanced policy questions, you recognize a cooperative approach by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea to undermine U.S. influence around the world. As you point out, aggression by one -- by any one actor would be an opportunity for others to engage the U.S. on multiple fronts along the continuum of the conflict.

As we discussed in my office, neither of us wants to send our troops into a fair fight. We want to make sure that they have every advantage that the United States can give them, and that requires resources and reforms.

Given the growing potential of a multi theater conflict involving near peer adversaries, what steps would you take to prepare the Department of Defense to simultaneously execute and sustain operations across multiple regions while maintaining readiness and deterrence globally. And I just have to make note, and I want to make it clear we have language in this year's fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act calling for a review of the Department's operational plans. And I just want to make sure that you've, that you're aware of that and that we will have, if we have a fight with one, the chances are very good that we're going to have two battles or two different battlegrounds at the same time.

Senator, which -- which is why I believe our country's incredibly fortunate to have a new commander-in-chief in Donald Trump, who through the strategic approach he has taken with allies and against foes has prevented wars and is determined to do the same. That's our chief job, is deter and prevent wars.

My job, should I be confirmed at the Secretary of Defense, is to ensure we have the right prioritization of assets and strategy, and then the tools in the toolbox necessary, the pointyous possible spear for President Trump to wield if necessary, as the last resort. So, President Trump at the helm, I think we'll go a long way in making sure our enemies know there's a new sheriff in town.

ROUNDS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

WICKER: And thank you very much. Senator Blumenthal.

BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this hearing. Thank you for being here, Mr. Hegseth, and I want to join in expressing appreciation and respect for your service to our country. And thanks to all the veterans who are here today. And thank you for your service as the ranking member of the veterans affairs.

I mean, I hope we can focus on doing better for our veterans and doing better in management of the Department of Defense, there's always room for improvement. I think what we need in that position is not just better, but the best in financial management, because those decisions are life and death decisions affecting the 3.4 million Americans who serve our national security and our national defense and put their lives on the line.

I want to talk about financial mismanagement at the two organizations that you headed which are the only test of your financial management that we have before this committee the Veterans for Freedom and Concern Veterans for America, you took over the Veterans for Freedom in 2007. In 2008, you raised $8.7 million, but spent more than $9 million creating a deficit. By January, 2009, you told donors that the organization had less than $1,000 in the bank and debts of $434,000. By 2010 revenue at the Veterans for Freedom had dropped to about $265,000. In the next year, it had dropped further to $22, 000. You don't dispute these numbers, do you?

[11:15:00]

HEGSETH: Senator, I'm extremely proud of the work me and my fellow vets did at Vets for Freedom. A bunch of young vets with no political experience, a small group, working hard every single day, we raised donor funds. And I took -- and we have letters submitted for the record from almost everyone that worked with me every single day, including our chief operating officer, who will attest that every dollar we raised was used intentionally toward the execution of our mission, which is supporting the warfighters. Exactly why we're here today. The warfighters in the Iraq surge. There was a campaign in 2008, Senator. Barack Obama versus John McCain.

BLUMENTHAL: If I could just ask you another question.

HEGSETH: We believe John McCain would be the right person to win, and so we spent war...

BLUMENTHAL: Because I have the tax returns from that organization.

HEGSETH: I'm glad they're for the record.

BLUMENTHAL: Which I'm going to ask to be entered into the record, Mr. Chairman.

WICKER: Without objection.

BLUMENTHAL: These tax returns are yours. They have your signature. And I'm going to ask that members of the Committee review them. Because they're the only documents. I've asked for others. I've asked for the FBI report that would presumably document, it should have documented this kind of financial mismanagement. And these are the 990s from that organization.

By the year of 2011, donors had become so dissatisfied with that mismanagement, they in effect ousted you. They merged that organization with Military Families United. And thereafter, you joined a second organization as executive director that concerned veterans...

HEGSETH: In between, Senator, I went to Harvard University for two years and Afghanistan.

BLUMENTHAL: I want to ask you questions -- I want to ask you questions about Concerned Veterans for America. Again, another set of tax returns. The 990s from that organization. I asked they'd be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

HEGSETH: Without objection. Both of those returns are now part of the record.

BLUMENTHAL: 2011 to 2016. At the end of 2013, shortfall of $130,000. At the end of 2014, shortfall of $428,000. You had a surplus the following year, but then another deficit of $437,000. By the time you left, that organization had deep debts, including credit card transaction debts of about $75,000. That isn't the kind of fiscal management we want at the Department of Defense. We can't tolerate it at the Department of Defense.

That's an organization with a budget of $850 billion, not 10 or 15 million. Which was the case that those two organizations and it has command responsibility for 3.4 million Americans. The highest number that you managed in those two organizations was maybe 50 people. Let me ask you, how many men and women now serve in the United States Army? What is end strength (ph)?

HEGSETH: Senator, I would like the opportunity to respond to the impugning (ph) of my leadership of a veterans organization...

BLUMENTHAL: Well, I asked you a question. How many men and women currently serve...

HEGSETH: ... Concerned Veterans of America. You're on the VA Committee, sir, and I appreciate your service there. The VA Accountability Act and the Mission Act were all brainchilds of Concerned Veterans for America. We used our donor money very intentionally and focused to create policy that bettered the lives of veterans.

BLUMENTHAL: Mr. Hegseth, I'm asking you a very simple question. How many men and women currently serve in the United States Army?

HEGSETH: Senator, the United States Army? 450,000 on active duty, sir.

BLUMENTHAL: And how many in the Navy?

HEGSETH: And the Navy is 425, sir.

BLUMENTHAL: Well, it's 337 this year. How many in the Marine Corps?

HEGSETH: 175. 175,000, sir.

BLUMENTHAL: 172,300. Those numbers dwarf any experience you had by many multiples. I don't believe that you can tell this Committee or the people of America that you are qualified to lead them. I would support you as the spokesperson for the Pentagon. I don't dispute your communication skills, but I believe that we are entitled to the facts here.

[11:20:00]

I've asked for more documents. I assume you'd be willing to submit to an expanded FBI background check that interviews your colleagues, accountants, ex wives, former spouses, sexual assault survivors and others, and enable them to come forward.

HEGSETH: Senator, I'm not in charge of FBI background checks.

BLUMENTHAL: But you would submit to it and support it?

HEGSETH: I'm not in charge of FBI background checks.

WICKER: Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I, at this point, want to submit a letter from Captain Wade Zirkle, the founder of Vets for Freedom and the person who hired Pete Hegseth to run the organization. Although the 2008 financial crisis dried up fundraising for nonprofits, Captain Zirkle says, and I quote, Pete responded to this crisis with decisive action by reducing staff and renegotiating all debts with creditors until they were fairly resolved.

An impressive feat and a testament to Pete's character. Pete departed VFF in 2010 to take on a new role with Concerned Veterans for America. Pete departed on good terms. Without objection, that will be added to the record. Senator Ernst, you are recognized for seven minutes.

ERNST: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter submitted by Mr. Mark Lucas, who is a fellow Iowan and Iowa Army National Guard member. Mr. Lucas and I served together in the Iowa Army National Guard. He succeeded Pete Hegseth as executive director of Concerned Veterans for America.

And in his letter, Mr. Lucas says that Mr. Hegseth, quote, laid a strong foundation that postured CVA for long term success. End quote. And that Mr. Hegseth, quote, continued to be an invaluable asset to both me as a leader and the organization. End quote. So, I would ask for unanimous consent to enter this Washington Times article and the letter from Mr. Mark Lucas into the record.

WICKER: Without objection.

ERNST: OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Hegseth, and thank you very much. I appreciate your service to our nation. It's something that I know you are very proud of and it is something that we have in common and that we share. You and I have had many productive conversations and just for our audience, we have had very frank conversations. Is that correct, Mr. Hegseth?

HEGSETH: Senator, that is a correct characterization.

ERNST: You know that I don't keep anything hidden. Pull no punches. My colleagues know that as well. So, I do appreciate you sitting down and allowing me the opportunity to question you thoroughly on those issues that are of great importance to me. Just to recap those issues, three that are very important.

One is the DOD in making sure that we have a clean audit. The second is women in combat, and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. And the third was maintaining high standards and making sure that we are combating sexual assault in the military.

OK. So, Mr. Hegseth, I'm going to address the issue, because this will tie into some of the financial concerns that have been raised here as well. And it's why, you know, I trusting my fellow Iowan, asked for unanimous consent of this (ph) letter to go into the record. But like me, a lot of Iowans are really, really concerned and upset about the wasteful Washington spending. And of course, in our Pentagon, it's an issue that I have been combating for years.

So, there's significant room for greater efficiency and cost cutting within the department. And the DOD is the only federal agency that has never passed an audit. As the Senate DOGE Caucus chair and founder, that's unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to you as well. So, I appreciate that you mentioned that in your opening statement. What are those steps that you will take to ensuring the Pentagon has a clean audit by the year 2028?

HEGSETH: Senator, I appreciate your work on this topic, which you've been involved in for a long time. You mentioned Concerned Veterans for America. I just want to clarify, we have very generous donors who set a very clear budget that we stuck to every single year. So, the latitude there was -- was restricted. And we worked very hard and diligently inside it. You've also been a leader on the Pentagon audit for a very long time.

[11:25:00]

I think when we met, Senator, I said 2014 was the first year we discovered a 2013 op-ed I wrote about the need for a Pentagon audit because an audit is an issue of national security, and frankly, respect to American taxpayers who give $850 billion over to the Defense Department and expect that we know where that money goes. And if that money is going somewhere that doesn't add to tooth and instead goes to fat or tail, we need to know that. Or if it's wasted, we need to know that.

So, I think previous Secretaries of Defense, with all due respect, haven't necessarily emphasized the strategic prerogative of an audit. And myself, my deputy, SecDef and others already know that a Pentagon audit will be the comptroller, others central to ensuring, we find those dollars that can be used elsewhere, legally under the law, inside the Pentagon. So, you have my word it will be a priority.

ERNST: OK, thank you. OK. Moving on to women in combat. And I had the privilege of serving in uniform for over 23 years between our Army Reserves and our Iowa Army National Guard, did serve in Kuwait and missions in Iraq. And so, it is incredibly important that I stress, and I hope that if confirmed, you continue to stress that every man and woman has opportunity to serve their country in uniform and do so at any level as long as they are meeting the standards that are set forward. And we talked about that in my office. I do believe in high standards. Now, I was denied the opportunity to serve in any combat role because I have a lot of gray hair. And the policy has changed since then. OK? So, I've been around for quite a while. But for the young women that are out there now and can meet those standards, and again, I'll emphasize they should be very, very high standards, they must physically be able to achieve those standards so that they can complete their mission.

But I want to know, again, let's make it very clear for everyone here today. As Secretary of Defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles?

HEGSETH: Senator, first of all, thank you for your service. As we discussed extensively as well.

ERNST: It's my privilege.

HEGSETH: And my answer is yes, exactly the way that you caveated it. Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, combat roles, given the standards remain high, and we'll have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded. In any one of these cases that'll be part of one of the first things we do at the Pentagon is reviewing that in a gender neutral way.

The standards ensuring readiness and meritocracy is front and center. But absolutely it would be the privilege of a lifetime, if confirmed to be the Secretary of Defense for all men and women in uniform who fight so heroic, they have so many other options they decide to put their right hand up for our country. And it would be an honor to have a chance to lead them.

ERNST: Thank you. And just very briefly, we only have less than a minute left, but we have also discussed this in my office. A priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members are treated with dignity and respect.

This has been so important. Senator Gillibrand and I have worked on this and we were able to get changes made to the uniform code of military justice to make sure that we have improvements and on how we address the tragic and life altering issues of rape, sexual assault. It will demand time and attention from the Pentagon under your watch if you are confirmed.

So, as Secretary of Defense, will you appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response?

HEGSETH: Senator, as we have discussed, yes, I will.

ERNST: OK. And my time has expired. Thank you for your answers.

WICKER: Senator Hirono.

HIRONO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hegseth, welcome.

HEGSETH: Thank you.

HIRONO: I am focused on your fitness to serve, including your character and temperament and your overall qualifications to do the job. And I do appreciate the comments of Ranking Member Reed, with his concerns regarding your nomination. Because I share those concerns.

As part of my responsibility as a member of this Committee to ensure the fitness of all nominees to come before any of the Committees on which I sit, I ask the following two initial questions.

[11:30:00]