Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

First Hearing on Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) to be New DHS Secretary; Senate Hearing on Worldwide Threats With Trump Intel Officials. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired March 18, 2026 - 10:00   ET

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

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): -- did not say I supported it.

[10:00:01]

I said I understood it. There's a difference. By calling you -- by calling you --

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): And so that means you really didn't approve of that.

You just completely understand it.

What do you think most people would interpret completely understand to be support for or a condemnation of the violence?

MULLIN: Sir, as I said, we can -- we can have our differences. It's not going to keep me from doing my job as Secretary of Homeland Security. I'm going to secure Kentucky and take care of Kentucky as...

PAUL: If this...

MULLIN: ...as much as I am (ph) Oklahoma.

PAUL: If this were a one-off, it would be one thing. If you just disliked me so much that you approved of violence against me, people could just write it off or maybe they hate each other.

But really, there's a pattern of this. Let's go ahead and roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MULLIN: You know where to find me. Any place, any time cowboy.

Sir, this is a time. This is a place you want to run your mouth. We can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here.

SEAN O'BRIEN, TEAMSTERS PRESIDENT: OK, that's fine. Perfect.

MULLIN: You want to do it now?

O'BRIEN: I'd love to do it right now.

MULLIN: Well, stand your butt up then. O'BRIEN: You stand your butt up.

(UNKNOWN): Hold -- stop it.

(UNKNOWN): Is that your solution to every problem (ph)?

No, no. Sit down.

(CROSSTALK)

SEN. BERNARD SANDERS, I-VT.: Sit down. Look at you.

You know, you're a United States senator.

(CROSSTALK)

MULLIN (?): OK. OK.

SANDERS: Sit down, please.

MULLIN: All right.

(UNKNOWN): Can I respond...

(CROSSTALK)

(UNKNOWN): Hold it. Hold it.

(UNKNOWN): If he got up too, would you have -- would you have gone at it right there in the hearing room?

MULLIN: I would've -- yes, I would've probably jumped over the dais at that point.

You have to be called on off (ph). Not this guy continues to get away with this stuff and it's just -- you know, it's silly, it's stupid. But every now and then, you get punched in the face.

Well, go back to the 1800s and 1700s, they used to have caning (ph)...

(CROSSTALK)

SHAPIRO: And duels -- and they used to have duels.

MULLIN: And duels.

SHAPIRO: Yes,

MULLIN: Right. And those are way that many use to settle their differences. I ignored him four times be, I mean, prior to that, and people say, yes, you're supposed to ignore it.

Well, I'm not a very good Christian, I try to be a good Christian, and I know people say you're supposed to turn the other cheek. I prefer the David method. Yes.

SHAPIRO: But we need to move from an almost...

(CROSSTALK)

MULLIN: And by the way, I'm not afraid of biting. I will bite.

SHAPIRO: Biting?

(CROSSTALK)

SHAPIRO: Well, I mean...

MULLIN: Yes. I'm going to fight -- I'm going to bit. I'll do anything. I mean, I'm not above it. And I don't care where I bite, by the way. It's just -- there's going to be a bite.

BASH: In hindsight, any regrets?

MULLIN: No, I really don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: So no regrets? In fact, even after your anger had cooled, you were still bragging that, if he'd only been brave enough to stand up, you'd had jumped over the dais and taught him a lesson because that's how men should settle their differences.

Do you think fighting as a resolution for political difference is a good example for the men and women of ICE and Border Patrol?

[10:05:00]

MULLIN: As you can notice over my shoulder here is my good friend Sean O'Brien. Both of us had had conversations, both of us have shaken hands, and both of us agreed we could have done things different.

Sean is someone that has become a close friend. We talk all the time. I've been on his podcast. We talked through this. That's how you handle your differences. Not like this, Chairman.

PAUL: I'm glad you guys are friends now and that you've reconciled. But really, it doesn't get to the real point whether or not you think violence is the way we settle things.

The -- in the days after the fight, you said and I quote, "Sometimes people just need to be punched in the face." Is that still your opinion that political disputes can sometimes and often only be resolved by violence?

MULLIN: No, I don't -- I don't always agree with that. I don't believe in political violence. I've made that very clear. But sometimes people do need...

PAUL: It's perpetrated on me.

MULLIN: Theoretically speaking -- sir, I get it. It's about character assassination for you. That's the way this game is played. I understand it. Ad you are making this about you, which is fine, but that doesn't keep me as Secretary of Homeland Security...

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: Character assassination when you were the one lauding the assault? Who do you think started that character assassination?

I'm just repeating what you have done in character assassination. I'm repeating your support for the assault. So that's somehow something I started?

MULLIN: No, sir. What I'm saying is you're adding a lot to it.

PAUL: Yes.

In the days after the fight, you did many interviews, in which you justified the violence as historically justified by precedents, such as caning and dueling.

Is it today your opinion that the caning of Charles Sumner was not only justified but argues, still, for resolving our political differences with violence?

MULLIN: What I will simply point out is some of the rules that still apply to this body, for instance, dueling, with two consenting adults, is still there.

I was pointing out what is still different...

PAUL: It's been illegal for 170 years. There's no precedent for legal dueling, even then they fled the country.

Do you realize that the man that beat Charles Sumner with a cane, he beat him until he was unconscious? You know why no Senators intervened, because his friend held a gun on the other Senators, and he kept beating him and beating him until he crushed his skull.

That's what you're insinuating as the President of the Senate, and that's what you live by, and that is a very, very dangerous sentiment.

After a half a dozen victory lap interviews where you pointed out that the union guy was just lucky that fear kept him from standing up. Dana Bash asked you if you have any regrets about bringing violence to a Senate committee, and you replied that you have no regrets.

Today, you've said you have no regrets about being happy, being completely understanding why I was attacked from behind. You had no regrets about instigating a brawl in a Senate committee hearing.

Are those still your opinions?

MULLIN: Mr. Chairman, you're going to have your opinion. I'm going to have mine. As Secretary of Homeland Security, I'm going to bring peace of mind and security to this country, and I'm going to stay laser focused on that.

Senator Peters. PETERS: Senator Mullin, you have made several public statements, suggesting that you are involved in special security forces or combat operations overseas. In 2023, you said in a Senate Republican conference podcast, and I say, quote, "There's another side of my bio that I don't ever talk about, nor will I. I had to go do something overseas."

On March 2nd of this year, you told Fox News interview, quote, "War is ugly. It smells bad. If anybody has ever been there and been able to smell the war that's happening around you and taste it, and feel it in your nostrils, and hear it, it's something you will never forget."

On March 3rd in a podcast interview you stated, quote, "I did special assignments outside of DOD, now DOW. I never wore the uniform or the flag on my shoulder, but I might have been in the same area."

Your statements in public interviews and your responses to the committee are quite -- frankly, are confusing and they are inconsistent. And I'd like you to clear this up. You're under oath. We can clear it all up right now.

And first, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record my letter to you on March 11th and your addendum to the committee of March 12th regarding any overseas special assignments.

PAUL: Without objection.

PETERS: So my question for you, sir, is, before your time in Congress, other than on vacations with your family, have you ever traveled to a foreign country?

MULLIN: No.

PETERS: You've never traveled to a foreign country?

MULLIN: Outside of vacation or mission work? No.

PETERS: OK. Have you -- your FBI report does show some travel. I think it was to Georgia and Azerbaijan. You marked that that was not for tourists.

MULLIN: Are you referring to August of (inaudible) when we went to go get the Americans out of Afghanistan?

PETERS: I'm just saying...

MULLIN: That's what that travel is for, which...

PETERS: OK.

[10:10:00]

MULLIN: ...we did -- we did clarify that.

PETERS: So you had -- you have -- you have traveled? So you've traveled to Azerbaijan and Georgia? That was in your FBI report, although you said...

MULLIN: We...

PETERS: ...you've never traveled.

MULLIN: Sir, we were -- I thought you were referring to a different time. But, in 2021, it was well-documented. In fact, it was all over the news. And I actually did say that and we put that down on the report.

But that was -- that was us, which was all over the news, trying to go with a extremely experienced team...

PETERS: No. I've got other questions. Thank you.

MULLIN: Yes.

PETERS: But -- so you have traveled overseas despite your previous comment.

Were you ever -- excuse me, ever an employee, volunteer, or otherwise involved with the Department of Defense, a State department, or other U.S. agency or contractor for any of those departments?

MULLIN: No. And, Senator, I think there's a misunderstanding here that I could clear up if you want me to clear up for you.

PETERS: Please.

MULLIN: OK. So, which -- this is a -- it's -- this is official trip and it is classified. But, in 2015, I was asked to train with a very small contingency and go to a certain area, which was scheduled for 2016. During that time I was asked to go through -- had to meet certain training qualifications -- certain qualifications, had to go through to SERE training.

The training and stuff was kind of fun. The SERE training was absolutely awful. And I have spoke in general about my experiences, but I've never spoke specifically on details, on dates, or on the mission, and that was official, and there was nothing in the report to the committee. Actually, it said, you do not have to claim any official trips. And like I said, that was an official trip that is classified.

PETERS: This is an official trip while you were a Member of Congress?

MULLIN: Yes. 2015-2016, I was a Member of Congress.

(CROSSTALK)

MULLIN: Some of it may be public, but it would be very small most of it, because my recollection which we're going back 10 years, I think, there's only people -- only four people written (ph) on it.

PETERS: So where was that trip?

MULLIN: I just said it's classified, sir.

PETERS: It's classified? So, the letter that we sent to you said that we need to have information of any of these activities.

(CROSSTALK)

MULLIN: It said not official trips. Your paperwork was very clear, excluding any official trips. This was an official trip as a Member.

PETERS: Well, we have more questions. We're going to have to ask -- I -- in the -- in the FBI report, I asked, is there anything in that report that is classified -- that you are involved in any kind of classified operation at all, and there's none. In the FBI report...

MULLIN: It was also excluding -- it also said excluding official duties. It says that. And you guys had the paperwork in front of you, and it always says excluding official duties.

We had this committee come to us and ask the same questions. We talked about doing mission work. We talked about doing mentorship. But they said official duties that was -- in your official capacity, does not have to be talked about.

PETERS: So where did you smell war.

MULLIN: Sir, I just said that this was classified, and the dates, locations and admission, I've never spoke specifically details about.

PETERS: Well, we can get that information.

MULLIN: That's fine.

PETERS: Mr. Chair...

MULLIN: You're welcome to get it.

PETERS: We will -- we will want to find out more information about that.

MULLIN: That's perfectly OK, Senator.

PETERS: We're going to have the truth here and you're portraying yourself in a truthful way...

(CROSSTALK)

MULLIN: Sir, I'm not portraying myself in any way other than -- you're asking the question, I said I would try clearing up for you.

PETERS: We'll continue to work on that.

MULLIN: Thank you.

PETERS: After DHS officers shot and killed two American citizens this past January, you joined top administrative officials in publicly blaming and disparaging the victims. Following the killing of Renee Good, Secretary Noem called her a domestic terrorist. You, sir, you called Alex Pretti, quote, a deranged individual that came in to cause max damage.

Could we expect those kinds of quick responses, if you are confirmed as Secretary? Would you be basically -- Well, you -- you did. You responded as Secretary Noem. Are we going to just expect that same behavior all over again?

MULLIN: No, Senator. I have a deep amount of respect for you. We've had our differences, but I do respect you. I think I said this privately when we had a conversation. Those words probably should have been retracted. I shouldn't have said that. And as Secretary, I wouldn't. The investigation is ongoing, and there is, like I said, there's sometimes I'm going to make a mistake, and I'll own it. That one, I went out there too fast. I was responding immediately without the facts. That's my fault. That won't happen as Secretary.

PETERS: So, you -- you regret that statement?

MULLIN: I already said that. Yes, sir.

PETERS: Would you want to apologize to the family of Alex Pretti?

MULLIN: Well, sir, I just said I regret those statements.

(UNKNOWN): Is that the same as an apology?

MULLIN: I haven't seen the investigation. We'll let the investigation go through, and if I'm proven wrong, then I will, absolutely.

PETERS: How -- How would you -- would you characterize your relationship with President Trump?

MULLIN: He's a -- He's a friend.

PETERS: How frequently have you spoken with him in the past year?

MULLIN: Often, most time about my family. If you want to explain the friendship, I'll tell you, my wife will tell you the same thing. When someone loves your kids, when they're going through a difficult time, like we have, the amount of outpouring of support from the President and the friendship we saw going back to 2000 or 2020 was quite remarkable. And so I speak to the President on -- from a friend level more than I do a policy level.

PETERS: OK. I have more questions, but my time is up.

[10:15:00]

MULLIN: Thank you, Senator.

PETERS: We'll be doing something (INAUDIBLE).

MULLIN: Okay, thank you.

PAUL: Senator Moreno. SEN. BERNIE MORENO (R-OH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown. You're in The Situation Room.

We have been listening to this confirmation hearing from Markwayne Mullin, President Trump's pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

CNN Correspondent Priscilla Alvarez is here with us as well. Priscilla, there were some major fireworks right out of the gate in the exchange between Senator Markwayne Mullin and the chairman of the committee, Rand Paul. It got pretty ugly. Tell us a little bit about that.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. This was immediately an intense hearing at kickoff between the Republican chairman, Rand Paul, and Senator Markwayne Mullin dating back to some history the two of them have specifically as it relates to an attack by Rand Paul's neighbor in 2017 and the comments made by Markwayne Mullin at the time.

And so Rand Paul and Senator Markwayne Mullin were going back and forth about that exchange, and Rand Paul pressing him on whether he regretted anything that he said then, not only that, but also the way that he confronted a witness during a separate hearing a couple of years ago as well. Essentially, the argument being made was whether he felt that he had the temperament to be the Homeland Security secretary and whether this was the model that he intended to -- role model rather for the federal agents within the Department of Homeland Security.

Now, the senator didn't necessarily respond to that. He pointed back to Sean O'Brien, who he's had disputes with before, saying that now they are friends. He also did not apologize to Senator Paul over his comments at the time over that 2017 attack.

But all of this really manifested in this very intense start to this hearing again between two Republican senators, the chairman and Senator Markwayne Mullin, who is testifying for this role of Homeland Security secretary.

I will also say beyond that, there have been some notable comparisons and contrast being made between the senator and Secretary Noem. For example, he said that he would own his mistakes. He also said, quote, my goal in six months is that we're not in the lead story every day. He also went on to say that he regretted his statements after the shootings of the two U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis, saying that he, quote, went there too fast.

So, as this hearing is going you can already start to see how he's trying to differentiate himself from Secretary Noem, who, of course, was under immense scrutiny for the way that she managed the Department of Homeland Security, not only among senators but also within the department itself. BLITZER: All right. Priscilla, thank you very, very much. Stand by, we're going to get back to you. Pamela?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Lauren Fox, I want to pick up on the point that Priscilla just made about how Senator Markwayne Mullin is setting himself apart from the former DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, who refused to ever apologize or acknowledge that she could have made a mistake by calling the victims of Minnesota, the U.S. citizens, Alex Pretti, Renee Good, domestic terrorists. In contrast, you just heard the senator say that he wishes he hadn't called Alex Pretti a deranged individual, that he should have retracted that statement, quite the contrast.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's absolutely the case, Pam. It is a contrast. And, you know, the fireworks in the early moments of this hearing have kind of been tremendous. I don't know if I've ever seen an opening statement like the one that Rand Paul gave. There were really few niceties in that statement. He got right to the point of his deep concerns that Markwayne Mullin could sow political violence across the country at a moment when that is the last thing that the country needs right now.

You know, you also are starting to watch very closely how Democrats are handling this hearing. Gary Peters, the ranking member, has already gone after Mullin on a few key points, one of which we talked about, the fact that Mullin called Alex Pretti a deranged individual shortly after that shooting took place in Minneapolis.

Also, he pushed him on experiences he has had overseas repeatedly. Markwayne Mullin in interviews has referred to some smell of war in a former Fox News interview. He's also talked about just being in situations that are tense, sort of alluding to some kind of conflict zone, but never making clear exactly what that is.

Gary Peters was pushing him very hard to explain himself, in part because Mullin is not a veteran, he is not someone we know is a member of the Armed Services. So, that is another line of question you can expect from Dems.

The math will matter here because it looks like Rand Paul is already making clear he has issues with Mullin's nomination. They are going to need a Democratic vote. Fetterman has made clear he will likely vote for Mullin. Does that change over the course of this hearing? I think that's going to be really interesting to watch because the math matters in this committee. Pam?

BROWN: The math does matter. All right, Lauren Fox, Priscilla Alvarez, thank you all.

We'll continue to monitor this hearing as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, where top intelligence officials are testifying. That should be very interesting to amid the war in Iran and lots of questions after a top national security official resigned yesterday from the Trump administration in opposition to the war.

We're going to take a quick break. Stay with us. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

BROWN: All right. Also on Capitol Hill, right now, as you see, the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee is holding its annual worldwide threats hearing amid the war with Iran.

BLITZER: Top members of the Trump Administration, including the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, the FBI director, Kash Patel, and the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, they're all testifying.

I want to listen in. Listen to Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence,

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: -- FBI, DIA and NSA.

But before I continue, on behalf of the intelligence community, I want to extend our thanks to General Hartman for his 37 years of service in uniform and closing out his 37 years with tremendous leadership of the NSA.

This briefing is being provided in accordance with ODNI statutory responsibility. I'd like to remind those who are watching what I am briefing here today conveys the intelligence community's assessment of the threats facing U.S. citizens, our homeland, and our interests, not my personal views or opinions.

In this assessment, we're following the structure of priorities that were laid out in the president's national security strategy, starting with threats to our homeland, and then shifting to global risks.

The defense of our homeland is of the utmost importance to the American people. And efforts by this administration have shown over the last year the results of bolstering homeland defense and the security of the American people. For example, the strict enforcement of U.S. policies at the U.S.-Mexico border and regionally have served as a deterrent drastically reducing illegal immigration.

[10:25:05]

Based on Customs and Border Patrol data January 2026, monthly encounters are down 83.8 percent compared to January 2025. Encounters declined 79 percent compared to 2024.

The drivers of migration are likely to continue. Potential worsening instability in countries like Cuba and Haiti risk triggering migration surges and smugglers who have long operated as transnational criminal organizations continue to view chaos as an opportunity for profit and will continue to look to profit from illegal immigration flows.

These transnational criminal organizations continue to pose a daily and direct threat to the health and safety of millions of US citizens, primarily and directly by producing and trafficking in illegal drugs. Under President Trump's leadership, fentanyl overdose deaths have seen a 30 percent decrease from September 2024 to September 2025.

President Trump's aggressive efforts to more directly and actively target these transnational criminal organizations and reduce the inflow of fentanyl precursors has already had a significant impact, which is likely to continue.

We've seen fentanyl potency also decrease, likely due to disruptions to the production supply chain. U.S. efforts to work with China and India to halt the flow of fentanyl precursor chemicals to North America are demonstrating some improvement, but there is more work to be done, as, sadly, there are still tens of thousands of fentanyl related deaths in America every year.

Mexico-based TCOs, like the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel, dominate the production and smuggling of fentanyl, heroin, meth, and cocaine into the United States. Colombia-based TCOs and illegal armed groups, like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia and the National Liberation Army, are responsible for producing and trafficking large volumes of cocaine to the U.S. and European markets with now some indicators of attempts to expand their market to the Asia Pacific region. Colombia remains the world's largest producer of cocaine and Colombian criminal groups have expanded their trafficking relationships with neighboring Ecuadorian and Brazilian gangs.

As you know, MS-13 is well established in cells within the United States and uses violence to intimidate the Salvadoran diaspora, engaging in murder, extortion, retail drug trafficking, firearms offenses and prostitution, fueling increased violence and instability. These and other TCOs continue to present a very tangible and individualized risk of violent crime to everyday Americans and contribute to regional instability.

As the president increases his focus on counterdrug and counter-cartel pressures, they're likely to seek ways to try to adapt their operations, including shifting production locations and trafficking routes and methods.

The United States continues to face a complex and evolving threat landscape with the geographically diverse set of Islamist terrorist actors seeking to propagate their ideology globally and harm Americans, even as Al-Qaeda and ISIS remain weaker today than they were at their respective peaks. The spread of Islamist ideology in some cases led by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood poses a fundamental threat to freedom and the foundational principles that underpin western civilization.

Islamist groups and individuals use this ideology for recruiting and financial support for terrorist groups and individuals around the world and to advance their political objectives of establishing an Islamist caliphate, which governs based on Sharia.

There are increasing examples of this in various European countries, and President Trump's designation of certain Muslim Brotherhood chapters as foreign terrorist organizations is a mechanism to secure Americans against this threat. In response to setbacks to their capabilities of conducting large- scale complex attacks, Islamist terrorist groups have shifted toward focusing on executing information operations to spread propaganda and inspire or enable individuals located in or with access to the west.

U.S. counterterrorism efforts primarily in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria in 2025 were instrumental in removing key terrorist leaders and operatives degrading the ability of Al-Qaeda and ISIS to quickly reconstitute its leadership and plan large-scale attacks against the homeland and U.S. interests abroad. Strict U.S. border enforcement measures and increased deportations of individuals with suspected links to Islamist terrorists have reduced access to the homeland and removed some potential sources of future terrorist attacks.

[10:30:00]

Since January, U.S. officials have only had a handful of encounters at our borders with individuals associated with terrorist groups.