Senate Hearing LIVE | Pete Hegseth Interrupted Mid-Testimony As Chaos Breaks Out In Senate Hearing

Uh, with general officers. We will continue to make changes as necessary with general officers, and they will be in keeping with the trajectory of where we would like to take the department, but it doesn't take away from the service of those. And I think you, you will note that every officer that's been, um, asked to leave has been treated with respect.

>> Interesting. Uh, of the two dozen officers that you have fired for reasons unrelated to performance, since you have not indicated any cause, 60% are black or females. Uh, now, did the president direct you to single out female and black officers to be dismissed?

>> Um, Senator, of course not. And as we've emphasized at this department from the beginning, the only metric is merit. Uh, this, this members on this committee and the previous leadership of this department were focused on hype, you know, social engineering, race, and gender in ways that we think were unhealthy for the department, focusing on those things, making decisions based on those things. In President Trump's War Department, we make decisions based on only one thing: merit. And that's how we've made decisions going forward. That's how we've made them, and that's how we'll make them going forward.

>> May I go back to General George? Uh, what did he fail in terms of his lack of merit to continue serving?

>> As I, as I said, I don't talk about the nature of dismissal out of respect for these officers, but ultimately, we want to take the department in a particular direction, certain services in a particular direction, and we want leadership that's running as fast in that direction as possible. And in some cases, we make changes accordingly, uh, but do so out of respect to those officers.

>> Well, I think that direction from your behavior is, uh, an intense interest in Christianity, uh, in nationalism, and in, uh, not, uh, recognizing the talents of women and, uh, non-white gentlemen, and that's the wrong direction.

>> I, I don't know what you're insinuating, Senator, but I'm not ashamed of my faith in Jesus Christ.

>> Well, I'm, I, you shouldn't be ashamed.

>> And if you want to shame me for it, go ahead.

>> I'm not shaming you. But are you, uh, critical of other faiths?

>> I am a believer. I'm quite open in that, and our department allows for a multitude of faiths. So, I don't, I don't know what you're suggesting. I've heard the likes of things that people like you suggest,

>> Uh, but you said you would

>> my character, and I won't give in to it.

>> No. I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, but uh, broadcasting before the national, uh, religious broadcasters stressing the need for more Christianity in the military forces doesn't seem like a neutral position in which you tolerate and accept all religions. Let me move on. Uh, the strategic aspects of this operation in Iran. Uh, the president declared that we're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. And after more than 13,000 strikes, unclassified assessments conclude that Iran retains more than 40% of its drone arsenal and 60% of its ballistic missile launches compared with pre-war, pre-war levels. That's one of his objectives. The, uh, second objective was, uh, regime change. "To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand, and we will finish, take over your government." Well, when we finish, we'll take over government. That has not succeeded. And then, uh, one of his other things is the onset of the war, the president said, "We will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon." Military operations in Iran have not achieved that goal yet. And it also seems to, uh, indicate that his pronouncements about Operation Midnight Hammer obliterating the nuclear, uh, policy and structure of the Iranians was false. So, you have not achieved any of the objectives yet that the president mentioned.

>> Well, in this setting, I won't talk about the nature of metrics which are, which are classified, as you know, Senator. But I can say that looking at the objectives we set out to achieve from the beginning, some of which you laid out, uh, our military cap-, our military objectives have been, uh, stunningly effective. Uh, look, take for example, their defense industrial base. They're completely incapable at scale, at any level, of reconstituting the capabilities you referred to, which is a devastating result for any country, uh, especially one whose ambitions are as wide as Iran's. Uh, so, we've put the president in a very strong position to ensure, uh, Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. That's, that's the takeaway that's been underneath every single aspect of this. For 47 years, Iran's trying to blackmail its way to a nuclear weapon. They were closer than ever before because of bad deals under previous administration. President Trump was willing to do something about it and not allow their conventional missile shield. That's the North Korea strategy. That's to be clear what Iran was pursuing: hiding their nuclear ambitions, revealing them over time, and then building a conventional shield of missiles so powerful that no country would challenge them for fear of what would happen if they unleashed that arsenal. Weakened after the 12-day war in Midnight Hammer, which did obliterate their, their, their sites, President Trump saw an opportunity because their ambitions continued to ensure that umbrella of nuclear blackmail, uh, did not allow them to get to a nuclear weapon. And the world is safer because of his bold and historic choice.

>> Mr. Secretary, I think that's rhetorical but not factual. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Hurst, General Keane, welcome. Over the last several months, I've worked closely with some of the new direct reporting program managers, and I've been encouraged by how they're approaching the department's most complex acquisition systems. General White's pulled forward the next milestone for the Sentinel program by at least six months. General Gutlein has completed the initial blueprint for the Golden Dome architecture and is beginning to build it out. For years, this committee has known that we must improve our ability to defend our homeland against a wider variety of threats, and we finally have a partner with the full backing of the department to lead the charge. Mr. Secretary, what's the advantage of this new type of program management structure?

>> Well, thank you for the question, Senator. It's, it's acquisition authority, technical authority, contracting authority. It's consolidating decision-making in one place under a highly screened, highly capable general in General White and General Gutlein, who know that terrain extremely well, uh, and understand what mistakes have been made in the past in programs of that magnitude, and that are given the authority to cut through the red tape. They, that's the key. There's, there's, it's success or failure lands with them, and they know it, and as a result, they're incentivized to ensure that program and then given every dollar and authority needed to move it as quickly as possible. So, whether it's Sentinel, whether it's F-47, whether it's Golden Dome for America, these critical strategic assets, the direct report, uh, construct along with Deputy Secretary Feinberg, who is a national treasure, uh, and is changing the way we do business at this department. It's giving us a chance to ensure these critical systems are delivered.

>> Thank you. And General Keane, can you give us your thoughts on why the Golden Dome received the, why they must receive that requested $17 billion in funding for the fiscal year '27?

>> Well, Senator, it's, as you know, it's, it's an essential part of our homeland security layered defense, and as, as General Duty line begins to do the work that you're asking about and frankly helping to advance, you know, the, the insurance around that down payment charging the defense industrial base with those capital allocations will allow them to get after it much, much quicker. We appreciate the help.

>> And if there's a delay in that funding?

>> Well, I, I hopefully there won't be, Senator, because we've got a leader on that account 24/7, 365. But if we do, we'll always, um, of course, come back and and talk to the Congress, but also figure out what has to be true to, uh, help that constraint get removed in that production system. And that's really what we're asking these leaders to do is to be able to get past the theory of constraints.

>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Secretary Hixeth, I agree with your statement on nuclear deterrence. When you said nothing else matters if we don't get this right, so we will. We need a modernized nuclear triad and NC3 architecture that can credibly deter multiple adversaries instead of an insufficient nuclear force structure based on fundamentally flawed assumptions made 16 years ago. Our presidents must also have a more diverse set of options so that they can effectively manage more complex nuclear escalation dynamics.

>> [laughter]

>> So, Mr. Secretary, how does this budget request achieve those objectives?

>> Well, [clears throat] thank you for your leadership on this issue for a very long time. Uh, first and foremost, it, it invests in it. $71 billion in our, our nuclear triad and NC3, understanding that if you get that wrong, you get everything else wrong. Frankly, it's why the Iran effort is so important. Imagine what the situation in the region would look like if Iran also wielded a nuclear weapon and the limits it would put on our capabilities in those situations. Our adversaries have to deal with that dilemma because of the strength of our nuclear triad. So, that $71 billion investment, the DERP-Ms that have been put over top of it to move those systems left, as you acknowledged, uh, it, it's, it's just been a priority since we came in into the, into the building, and we're funding it accordingly.

>> And Chairman Cain, uh, Secretary Hicks, uh, whoever would like to answer this, should our nuclear command, control, and communications systems, like the SEOC, be given the same level of priority as Congress considers the department's budget request as our, as our triad?

>> I, I think so, but I defer to the chairman.

>> Yeah, yes, ma'am. We got to be able to see to anything. So, yes, ma'am.

>> Thank you. Senator Shaheen, you are recognized.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Secretary Hicks, uh, Congress enacted $400 million to provide security assistance to Ukraine in January. Now, the committee received a notification just yesterday confirming only that the funding would go toward Ukraine. It contained no details about the type of equipment, no delivery timelines, nothing that is typically included in these notifications. And when asked about the delay in funding, the committee was told that Bridge Colby was developing a spend plan, but we've received nothing. So, when can we expect the full spend plan for this appropriation? And Madam Chair, can I, if this is not all already part of the record for the committee, can I, um, enter it into the record?

>> Without objection.

>> We acknowledge and are on our executing on the European capacity building amount of of $400 million that you referred to. Uh, Under Secretary Colby's done a great job looking at, uh, options and worked very closely with our European commander, uh, General Wolters. So, his requests of what makes the most sense will inform what ultimately, uh, is invested in.

>> Well, this notification says that UCOM coordinated on the spend plan in March, but General Wolters told this committee on April 16th that he had not yet been asked to review any spend plan for this appropriation. So, General Keane, have you received the spend plan for funds in Ukraine, and have you asked the UCOM commander for his concurrence?

>> Uh, I do not believe so, but I will find out, Senator, and get back to you by the end of the day.

>> Thank you. Um, and yesterday, Mr. Hurst, you told the House that you needed to seek legal review to appropriate the funds as Congress intended. So, can you share with us what the nature of that legal review is? And seems to me the law was pretty clear. I saw it. It was part of the, um, defense appropriations bill that we passed in January. And as you know, violating congressional intent on appropriating funds is a violation of the Impoundment Control Act. So, what's the nature of the legal review that you have to get?

>> Thanks for the question, Senator. What we were looking at is if we could use the funds in the same manner as USAI. And we had our counsel look at that. Uh, and so they provided us a legal opinion on how the funds could be used to support European capacity building.

>> And can you share with this committee what that legal opinion is?

>> Ma'am, I don't have a copy of that, but we can ask the OGC office if they can supply it to you.

>> Um, Madam Chair, can we ask that that, um, legal opinion is shared with the committee? Officially? Thank you. Um, also, I don't know [clears throat] who can answer this, but it says that, um, consistent with the President's priority to shift the financial burden of Ukraine support to European partners, the United States will seek commensurate financial contributions via the prioritized Ukraine requirements list or Pearl from the European partners for this program. So, um, what's the justification for using Pearl when there's $400 million in appropriated funds? Can somebody answer?

>> Pearl, Pearl is a reflection of the President's priority in the belief that any weapons that are supplied are paid for by European partners and used as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or somewhere else.

>> the intent of Congress in providing that $400 million. As I understand the Pearl program, um, the Europeans purchase those weapons from the United States and they pay for them. But this appropriation was $400 million that Congress expected to be provided to Ukraine, not paid for by the Europeans, but provided from the United States to support Ukraine. So, again, um, I don't understand what the justification is for using Pearl when that's not the intent that Congress provided.

>> Uh, we're, we're following the intent of European capacity building, uh, and but at the same time recognizing that wherever Pearl can be utilized so that the Europeans contribute to that fight, uh, per the burden sharing approach this president takes, is important.

>> intent, and that's what I'm asking you, why you're using Pearl to do something that Congress intended to go directly to Ukraine.

>> Well, we look forward to working with you on

>> that? What was the legal opinion on this? Have you asked the attorneys if the $400 million could be used for the Pearl program?

>> Let's get back to you. We'll take it for the record, ma'am.

>> Thank you. And what portion of the funding that's committed from the Europeans under Pearl is being used to assist Ukraine rather than restocking our own shelves? Can you answer us that?

>> Um, that's up to, that's up to Europe. Ultimately, uh, Europe pays for any weapons that we provide, and they can utilize them as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or otherwise.

>> So,

>> Thank you, Senator Shaheen. There've been a number of times when our witnesses have, uh, stated both in the closed hearing and up here that they will get back to us, and we, we certainly hope that will happen, um, very expeditiously. So, thank you very much, and thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Cotton.

>> Thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance today. Um, Mr. Secretary, you provided us with a chart here entitled "The Arsenal of Freedom," um, which includes a lot of sites that you visited. My, my favorite one is down here in South Arkansas, Camden, where you and I had a chance to visit just a couple months ago, um, highlighting the great work that the people there are doing to help rebuild, um, our arsenal of freedom. Um, thank you first off for being there and for your kind words for the workforce of the people of South Arkansas. Uh, isn't it fair to say that that the war in Iran, just like the Ukraine war, uh, before it and still today, hasn't caused any challenges with our munitions the way some of our Democratic colleagues would say, but it's exposed a decades-old problem of brittleness and fragility in our defense industrial base before you and General Cain took over, and that we're trying to address right now?

>> Um, in many ways, that's precisely what we're trying to address. We also have a situation where President Trump rebuilt our military in the first term, and a lot of those munitions and a lot of those capabilities were sent to Ukraine under the previous administration to the point where when we ask our commanders or when we look at O plans, the answer often is, "That was sent to Ukraine." So, the recognition of those two things has, as the President gave us a charge from day one to rebuild the arsenal of freedom, to fast forward, not to provide a little bit more of each thing, but 2X, 3X, 4X the number of exquisite munitions that we need. The expenditures that we've seen under this administration, we can, we can account for them, and we ensure that other O plans and elsewhere are well taken care of. So, on the munitions front, we're in really good shape, but we need to accelerate, and that's exactly what we're doing.

>> And I think that's an important point you make is that we're not just trying to fill a hole that was created by Epic Fury or, or by support for Ukraine. We're going to fill that and then go much beyond that for our needs in the future. So, we're never caught where we were, um, over the last several years, uh, with what, what these worries about munitions running short. Is that right, Mr. Secretary?

>> That's exactly right. The President has charged us with not just replacing anything, but filling it up, as he might say, to the tippy-top, and make sure that the remainder of this term and future presidents have all the munitions they need for any level of contingencies, especially considering the dangerous world we live in.

>> I want to turn now to Operation Epic Fury. It's been a smashing military success. Unfortunately, we have suffered casualties, to include soldiers killed in the line of action. Obviously, our military takes the greatest steps possible to protect our troops, whether they are in action or whether they are on bases in the region. No war, though, is antiseptic. Mr. Secretary, could you explain some of the steps we've taken to try to minimize, to the greatest extent we can, the number of casualties we've taken in the Middle East?

>> First of all, every, every day we live to ensure that we follow through on the legacy of those who gave everything. So, that's front and center for us. But, I can also say, and and the chairman may want to weigh in. From the beginning of looking at the, the, the possibility of this contingency, setting the defense and ensuring that Admiral Cooper and everyone throughout CENTCOM had every possible measure they could to ensure that our troops are protected and force protection was maximized was the top priority. Moving assets to the region, we integrated our air defenses with local Gulf, with Gulf countries to ensure our shot doctrine was maximized, whether it's ballistic missiles or on drones. Flowing in the most recent capabilities to ensure we can intercept drones. Moving troops off the X. I think what people mostly don't know is that a massive effort was undertaken before this conflict to move as many humans off of targets to other places and maintain operational security about where they might be to minimize the space with which Iran could hit. We always knew something getting through was, was a possible, was a tragic possibility. But, I can assure you from our perspective that was priority number one, as it was Admiral Cooper's, to ensure that fortification and missile defenses were right there when we went on offense if we had to.

>> General Keane, do you have anything to add?

>> Well, in addition to just again mourning our fallen from the 103rd, what I'll add to the secretary's comments is after every tragic loss, commanders at every echelon within our joint force are going to go back and look at what was our plan and what lessons we can learn from this so that we protect and defend, uh, our soldiers, sailors, and other members of the joint force the next time.

>> Thank you. And, and I know you do, and I just wanted to give you the opportunity to speak to what you've done to try to prevent, um, casualties and, and minimize them. Obviously, again, no war's antiseptic. One final question, I understand you've been accused of lying to the president. Uh, Mr. Hexath, have you lied to the president at all about what's happening in Iran or Epic Fury?

>> I only tell the truth to the president.

>> General Keane, have you lied to the president about what's happening in Iran or Operation Epic Fury?

>> Never.

>> I suspected that would be your answer, but since you're accused of it and deep staters are leaking to the media about it as well, I just wanted to give you a chance to answer on the record that of course you've always given the president a completely accurate picture of what's happening. Thank you, gentlemen.

>> Thank you very much, Senator Cotton. Senator Gillibrand and then Senator Rounds.

>> Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before this committee, and thank you for the closed session prior to this. I don't know if you fully appreciate how much the American people do not support this war. It is an unauthorized war. Normally, when you come to Congress, it's a way for the American people to be part of that discussion. The American people, particularly in this, my state of New York, are upset for a lot of reasons. First of all, this war is costing so much money. Over $25 billion already, estimates a billion dollars a day, and they're feeling it every single day at the gas pump with higher prices for both fuel, for diesel, for gasoline for their cars. They're also feeling it with higher grocery costs, and they're exhausted. They are truly exhausted. On top of that, on top of that, they have so many grave concerns about how this war is being prosecuted. They read in the paper that 22 schools have been hit. They read in the paper about a girl's school, hundreds getting killed. We have a debate going on in this country about AI. A serious debate about AI. And I haven't heard yet from you that you will not allow AI to make final the targeting determinations even when nuclear weapons are being used. That's a huge issue that we need to discuss. So, I want to start from the top, Secretary Hass.

>> Seth.

>> Why do you continue to prosecute a war that the American people aren't behind?

>> Uh, first of all, I appreciate the opportunity for that closed session where we had a, unsurprisingly, very different discussion than we have here with the cameras on. Um, we support this.

>> My job is to represent New Yorkers, and I can tell you when I talk to them all across my state, they are furious, and they expect me to explain to them why they are furious.

>> And Senator, when I talk to Americans, and especially when I talk to the troops, they are grateful for a president who has the courage to take on this threat after 47 years of what Iran has done targeting and killing Americans and what it would mean to the world if Iran's nuclear ambitions were actually achieved. So, the question I would ask to you and to others is, what is the cost of a nuclear-armed Iran? What is the cost to the American people if the world's most dangerous regime has a nuclear weapon?

>> But the truth is, they don't want war coming to this shore. And when you do a decapitation operation, the likelihood is going to be exchanged in the United States. There's no evidence that we are safer because of this war. We did not have any evidence that Iran intended to imminently attack this country in any way, shape, or form. So, I disagree with your assessment that we were under threat.

>> Do you not believe them when they say "Death to America"?

>> Listen, our adversaries use rhetoric all the time. What I'm concerned about is we are not safer, and I would just like to know why you have not sought the support of the American people. And three out of five Americans are against this war today.

>> Um, I believe we do have the support of the American people, and we have briefed regularly what this mission looks like and why it's a critically important that we undertake it. And I would remind you and this group that we're two months in to an effort, and many congressional Democrats, as I pointed out, want to declare defeat two months in. Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? And they were nebulous missions that people went along with. This is different. This is a defined mission set that we have had great success in pursuing against a determined enemy who seeks nuclear weapons, and I'm, and I'm

>> So, Mr. Secretary, you don't care that the American people are not supporting this war. You don't care what the American people are supporting this war.

>> But the American people and their, the American people are quite smart. They understand and see through spin. They know that a regime that says "Death to America," that seeks nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver. Did they lie about the range of their missiles?

>> How much more are you asking the American people to pay for this war? Right now, do you want it a billion dollars a day? Do you want it two billion dollars a day? You're asking for $200 billion more to fund this war and to make sure we have a

>> ask for $200 billion. I don't know where you got that number from, Senator. I think you got it from the news, which you should be careful where you, what you read in the news.

>> Okay, Mr. Hexeth. Here, Secretary Hexeth, here's a few more. Let's talk about how you're prosecuting the war. What is your response to targeting that has resulted in the destruction of schools, hospitals, civilian places? Why did you cut by 90% the division that's supposed to help you not target civilians? And do you know the impact of a strategic failure at a war when you have so many civilian casualties? You may have tactically completed a mission well, but strategically is not meeting your goals because of the harms to civilians. What is the cost of that?

>> Time for an answer.

>> Uh, no military, no country works harder at every echelon to ensure they protect civilian lives than the United States military. And that is a ironclad commitment that we make, no matter how, no matter what systems we use.

>> And why did you cut the department by 90%?

>> Thank, thank you, Senator Gillibrand. There'll be other rounds of questions. Um, Senator Rounds, you're now recognized.

>> Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you to all of you for your service to our country. Um, let me just allow you to finish the answer a little bit with regard, uh, to the senator from New York. Does the United States military ever target a civilian center?

>> Well, thank you, Senator. Unlike our adversaries, unlike radical Islamists, unlike those that target civilians or use civilians as shields, the United States military ab-, never targets civilians and puts constructs in place to ensure that the maximum extent possible we do not harm or, or hit civilians. Do you still, Is war, is war a difficult place with a lot of complexities? Absolutely right. But no country does more and no department does more than, than our department.

>> Do you still have all of the resources necessary to assure that every, uh, uh, opportunity to eliminate that as a threat in terms of that happening? Do we still have the resources available in the department to make sure that we do the best we can never to hit a civilian target?

>> Every resource necessary at every echelon is available, legal, intel, and otherwise, to ensure that we minimize at every extent possible civilian casualties. And the suggestion was made that somehow AI might be used without a human in the loop, which is a classic anthropic talking point, which is half of what, uh, talked about previously. Uh, there is a human in the loop on decisions that are made. Uh, and to suggest otherwise is to suggest that somehow AI is running targeting.

>> Thank you. Um, right now, part of what we're also talking about is not just are we engaged right now in terms of trying to eliminate the threat from Iran in terms of being a nuclear-armed country, but we've also got staring with us as well the fact that we have an ongoing principal threat with regard to a pacing threat with China. The dual-capable B-21 Raider will be a critical part of both our conventional and our nuclear deterrents against China and Russia. As you know, the Air Force's program of record includes plans to procure 100 B-21s, but many national security experts and leaders, including STRATCOM Commander Admiral Richard and INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Paparo, are calling for a greater number of B-21s. Admiral Paparo testified here last week that he would favor buying 200 B-21s. Uh, Secretary Heckseth and Chairman King, could you speak to the progress and the importance of the B-21 program? And if you agree with the growing sentiment that the US needs to revisit the B-21 program of record and assess the requirement for at least 200 B-21s to match the global threat, would you, would you speak just to exactly what that would mean and what the probability of that is?

>> [clears throat]

>> Thank you for the question, and, and I appreciate the fact that you're listening to and hearing from combatant commanders, cuz that's who we listen to as well, who are looking at the operational plans and what would be required to ensure we deter and if necessary defeat. Assets like the B-21 or the F-47 are critical to that. That's why we're funding them and increasing the funding and where necessary would increase the allocation. Uh, and I think you see a, a budget that reflects the, the reality that we have to invest in more capabilities to include the B-21, which is ahead of schedule, and will, we will be funding to the tune of $6 billion, and we believe will be required a lot more over 100 in the future, but I'll defer to the chairman.

>> Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Working, working through the, the J-Rock and the, and the vice chiefs, all absolutely stack hands around assessing the requirement, and we're glad to see B-21 on the, on the flight path, no pun intended, that it's on, through, through operational testing. On the, on the specific numbers, the one sort of big picture strategic thing I want to say is we will make, we want to make sure as we think through what is air power, the future look like based on the evolving threat, that we're staying well in front of it. And so that's the only thing we'll look at in the assessment, but I, I'm on board with assessing the numbers. I want to make sure we're buying ahead of the technology development curves so that we give all those young war fighters out there the capabilities that we need well into the future.

>> Is there any question at all that we're going to need more than 100 B-21s?

>> I want to go back. Here's how I'll look at it, Senator. I want to go back and look at the old plans right now that we have to make sure that we allocate those numbers. So, I, I, I don't believe so, but I, I do want to take the due diligence time, if you'll allow me, to look at that, Senator.

>> I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you and to clarify.

>> Absolutely.

>> what that number should look like in the near future.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Moran. Senator Blumenthal.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. I want to talk about the costs of war. The cost of war include caring for our veterans. We've had an estimate from Mr. Hirsch yesterday that the cost to date in dollars for this war has been $25 billion, which, which I believe is well below the actual cost based on everything that I've heard, everything available to us in various kinds of settings, and I'm going to ask for a more accurate assessment. But, we also know that about 400 service members have been wounded as a result of this war. When they retire, when they come home, their retirement pay will be docked dollar for dollar for every disability benefit dollar they receive. Secretary Hagseth, I'd like your commitment that you will support the Major Richard Star Act, that will eliminate this wounded warrior tax. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Tens of thousands of servicemen and women now are reduced in their retirement pay, literally for every dollar of disability benefits they receive.

>> Well, I appreciate your focus on this issue, and I will tell you, of the, you mentioned roughly 400 that that have been injured. Thankfully, over 90% have returned to duty. Uh, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have a residual challenge, uh, and we're tracking that at point of injury to ensure that that is noted, even though they're returned to duty.

>> But, but what I'd like is your commitment that you will support the Major Richard Star.

>> As I have said in the past to other organizations, we support the Richard Star Act.

>> Thank you. Uh, on the issue of cost, uh, Mr. Hurst, uh, does that $25 billion estimate include all of the costs in terms of damage to our bases, the need to replace planes and munitions, and the costs of injuries to our servicemen and women?

>> Mr. So, uh, for the mill con facilities replacement cost, that's probably the hardest thing to estimate right now because we don't know what our future posture is going to be or the future construction of those bases.

>> Well, you owe it to us. You're here to ask for appropriations, and, uh, I would like a more accurate estimate of what has been done that will require replacement and renovation, as well as the other costs. And I think $25 billion is probably less than half, maybe less than a quarter of the total cost of war, which is the reason why the supplemental request is much higher. So, I think you owe it to the American people to give us the straight talk about what the costs have been. Mr. Secretary, um, I know you have characterized this war as an astonishing military success, to use your words yesterday. But, the American people aren't buying it. And I know you feel the American people are seeing through the abstruse stuff that is thrown at them, but one point is irrefutable, which is America never succeeds in war unless the American people are behind it. And if what you're seeing as success now is winning, I would hate to see what losing looks like, because none of the shifting and contradictory objectives of the war so far have been achieved. Likewise, let me ask you, yesterday the president said that Ukraine has been quote, "militarily defeated." I assume you don't agree with that assessment.

>> The negative nature in which you characterize the incredible and historic effort in Iran is part of the reason, Senator, why the American people view it the way they do. It's why I looked at our press corps at the Pentagon and called them the Pharisees in the press. It's because they look for every problem, that you look for every problem that exists, and you miss the point. You believe that Iran has been militarily

>> You missed the point. I would submit, based on my nine trips to Ukraine, that is a false narrative that the president's buying into from the last couple of weeks, and that Iran has been militarily defeated. They are bravely fighting our fight, and that is the reason that I'm pursuing the Russian sanctions bill, which is bipartisan along with Senator Graham, and why I hope we will recognize our obligation to release that $400 million which we've appropriated. That is a false narrative that the president's buying into from the last couple of weeks, and that Iran has been militarily defeated. They are our fight. And that is the reason that I'm pursuing the Russian sanctions bill, which is bipartisan along with Senator Graham, and why I hope we will recognize our obligation to release that $400 million.

>> Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Ernst.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. I really do appreciate your time to be with us. Before I I begin some of my questions, I do want to start with something personal, and both to you, Secretary Hagel, and to the chairman. I want to thank you both for the time that you take to recognize our fallen and those that have given, of course, during this administration, given their all. You have traveled to Dover and have been there to greet those families and to welcome home the fallen. I've been there with you, and Iowa has been hit in particular very hard. We lost two of our Iowa National Guardsmen from the Second Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division. Secretary Hagseth, you know full well the 34th, um, but, uh, we also lost six members from the 103rd Sustainment Command Expeditionary, uh, based out of Des Moines, Iowa, during this current conflict. And again, uh, your presence there meant a lot to the families. Um, it also meant a lot to me. So, I thank you very much for taking the time to do that. Um, Secretary Hagseth, you and I have had many discussions, um, over, uh, the course of many months now, regarding general officer positions. And you know, I, I believe that we were operating in good faith as we talked through a couple of those in particular to Iowans, General Mingus and General Randy George. Um, I was disappointed to see that that their retirements were hastened, um, over what I, I believed, uh, had been had been set out by you and the administration. So, I just want to take the time to list out some of General Randy George's accomplishments as Army Chief of Staff. Uh, he pulled the Army out of its worst recruiting crisis since the Vietnam era, exceeding fiscal year 2024 recruiting goals and welcoming more than 61,000 new soldiers. Um, recruitment numbers that both you and the president talk a lot about, and rightfully so. He cut 5% of general officer positions, 12 positions that were deemed as non-essential in the Army. And he reduced the Army headquarters by 1,000 personnel. He co-authored the Army Transformation Initiative, which is a comprehensive response aligned with your directives. And he testified here in front of Congress and took a lot of heat defending that Army transformation. Um, he was suddenly let go at the beginning of April 2026. Um, General George's merits, which I firmly believe in, he enlisted at the age of 17. He is a West Point graduate. He had four combat deployments. He served in Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He had 38 years of honorable service. He achieved the greatest Army recruitment and modernization effort in a generation. So, I want to thank him, um, for his service. And I would like to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, uh, the speeches that I did honoring General Randy A. George on his retirement and General James J. Mingus on his retirement, as well.

>> Without objection, they'll be admitted.

>> Thank you very much. Um, I'd like to to talk a little bit about the audit, Mr. Secretary. Um, I saw the video that you posted this week calling on the department to pass, pass a clean audit. And thank you for doing that. It's something that we talked about during your confirmation hearing. Uh, fiscal responsibility at the department has been a priority of mine for a very long time. And I think it's time that we build on that momentum. It's extremely important. And that's why I'm pushing for my RECEIPTS Act in this year's NDAA. It's focused on improving financial traceability and accountability across the department. And if you could talk a little bit more about the efforts in making sure that we are being much more accountable to our taxpayers, what is that effort going to entail? When will we see a clean audit?

>> Uh, as I said, Senator, thank you for your work on, on the audit. Uh, that has been a priority of our department from day one. Uh, and we put in place, uh, goals and benchmarks to get to FY28, get to '28 for a clean audit. The joint task force audit, which we announced, was a reflection of even more capabilities we want to push forward and centralize authority to make sure it happens. Jay's been involved from the beginning. We also have a new IG who, the new IG's focus, one of his focus points, is precisely this, and he hit, he's prepared to work with us to ensure we reach it. So, I think at every level and through this budget, it's a focus.

>> Okay. Thank you. We look forward to seeing a clean audit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

>> Thank you, Senator Ernst. Senator Hirono.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questions, I'd like to take a moment to highlight the true costs of this war, both for the military and everyday Americans. Uh, the true cost of the president's illegal war with Iran. And since the start of the war, 13, 14 brave US service members have been killed and more than 400 have been wounded. We've burned through over $25 billion in taxpayer money with no end in sight. And the fiscal year '27 budget request is a massive 42% increase from last year. Hundreds of critical munitions have been expended, and the deployments have been extended, directly impacting service members' quality of life, military readiness, and our ability to deter our adversaries. The relationships with our allies, some of our closest allies and partners have been fractured. And the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which somehow caught the president by surprise, even though he had to have been warned, is directly contributing to the affordable crisis that Americans are facing. Energy costs are skyrocketing with the price of gas now at its highest level in almost four years. Instability has driven interest rates to its highest level since September of last year. The cost of fertilizer is spiking, which will have a direct impact on the cost of food. This illegal war is driving up costs, undermining readiness, and alienating our allies with neither a clear rationale for starting this war nor an exit strategy. And when the president was asked how long he'll let this war continue, he said, "Do not rush me." I have a question for our General Keane relating to women serving in combat. And I'd like to hear your best military advice. Does the mere fact of women being in combat arms units lower standards or readiness if they meet the physical standards?

>> Well, ma'am, the, the standards are, are, are set by the civilians. We have examples of women leading well across the joint force. I'll highlight some of our current commanders engaged in the fight in Epic Fury. Specifically, one of our bomb squadrons are led by an extraordinary female leader who's doing great work. And but those standards are set by, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to step on your.

>> I think that your answer is that in fact it does not lower standards of readiness. Readiness. Second question, should every service member, regardless of gender, be permitted to serve in any role, including the combat arms, if they meet the standards established? Yes or no?

>> Is that to me, ma'am?

>> Over the last decade, [clears throat] since combat arms have been open to women, have you personally seen any instance where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness?

>> Apologies, I didn't hear your first question. The, the, you know, people policies are all set by the civilian leaders in the government.

>> Could you repeat the question again? I'm sorry, ma'am.

>> Over the last decade since combat arms have been open to women, have you personally seen any instance where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness?

>> Um, again, I'll highlight that the standards are set by our civilian leaders. Women continue to perform, uh, well across a range of, of MOS's and jobs and AFSCs that are out there.

>> No. I do need to get to a question for Secretary Hicks. Prior to your nomination hearing, you said women shouldn't serve in combat arm units. At your confirmation hearing, you reversed course. And, excuse me. And you basically said as long as the women meet the standards, they should be able to serve. But on recently, you ordered a review of the effectiveness of women in combat roles. And I am concerned you are laying the groundwork to reverse the policy allowing women to serve in these units because, uh, by not current law, if you want to change this policy, uh, current law requires you to submit a report to Congress justifying such a change. So, uh, did you order the review to support a potential decision to overturn the policy of having women in combat roles?

>> Uh, we are These are focused on standards. The highest male standard for every combat arms position should be the standard. And 10 years into this, we are reviewing it, which is what the American people would expect. Also, there's nothing illegal about a war that defends the American people and prevents Iran from having a nuclear bomb.

>> Secretary, you know, you didn't answer the question because the reason that you're asking for this review, I think has to do with your earlier position that you don't think women should serve in combat roles. So now we have the study, and I'd like to ask you, will you, will you reveal the study to the public, to the American people, will

You make the study public? >> Will you make that study? >> Yes or no? >> We're doing the study for that very reason to ensure that real science is applied to this this question and not social engineering like the previous administration. >> Your assurance that that will be made public. >> Yeah, I think it's really important that the study be made. >> Thank you, ma'am. Senator Scott. >> Thank you. >> Well, first, thanks. Thanks each of you for being here. Secretary Hicks, can you talk about you've had the job for a little bit. What's your what are you most proud of and what are your biggest challenges? >> Well, I appreciate the question. And what I'm most proud of is the incredible men and women who serve in our nation's in in uniform and what they are capable of when they're given a clear mission and unleashed to do it. And I think the best reflection of the success of President Trump and this war department is the historic recruiting success and the historic morale amongst our ranks. I would encourage every member of this committee, Democrat or Republican, go into the formations. Go into the Air Force formations, the Army formations, the Marine Corps formations and talk to corporals, talk to sergeants, talk to lieutenants, talk to captains, talk to colonels. And what you will find are men and women more inspired to serve in the military than they have been in a generation. And you see that in the young Americans who are rushing to to recruiting stations at at historic numbers, 30-year highs across the force. We're hitting our recruiting numbers halfway through the year. Why is that? Because the American people look at what we're doing at the war department by getting back to basics and they're attracted to that. Same with our retention rates, which are now merit-based. Our best sergeants, our best leaders are staying. That's exactly what we want. So, we've made changes to change the environment. Uh the renaming of the department to the war department is not just a name. In fact, it's restoring it to the original name of the department set by George Washington. But, it's an ethos as well. That that warrior ethos lives inside the heart of each one of these men and women, and we're unleashing it. Uh I'm proud of of the, I mean, you name it. The border, the missions, yes, those are all incredible demonstrations of that, but it's the people and the urgency of Americans to want to be a part of it that is the best affirmation, Senator.

>> Thank you. So, we've talked about the importance of not um relying on Chinese drugs uh for our military. Can you just talk about what um the um what you're doing to make sure that we don't continue to rely on China for anything, including our our drugs? >> Oh, drugs. >> Yeah. >> Um absolutely. Uh we can't be dependent on China on anything that's critical to our supply chain, even if it's the national industrial base and not just the defense industrial base. Uh and you've been a leader on that. This committee's been a leader on that. Onshoring meant bringing manufacturing here, bringing critical capabilities here uh is central to the interagency and the NSC, but also our department. Uh if any critical weapon system is reliant upon something China could change at a moment's notice, then we have a uh a a true challenge to our ability to produce for the American people. And so, we're finding all of those, changing them, onshoring it, reviving the divestiture invest the defense industrial base allows us to ensure we're separated from China in anything that's critical.

>> Thank you. Can you talk about the importance of foreign military sales to our allies and our partners and what you're doing to make sure that that um that whether it's what you're doing right now in Iran or any potential conflict in in Asia, you our partners have the best um assets to be able to be a great partner. >> Absolutely. Foreign military sales uh has been a huge problem for a long time because the department didn't prioritize it and organized to deliver efficiently on it. So, we're working with the State Department. We've changed the way we do business internally. The executive order, the America First arms strategy, prioritizes what we sell and to whom, a catalog approach, but it took us, you This committee would be astonished to to to know how long it took us just to get our arms around who we're selling to what and by what processes, which means there was no strategy behind ensuring we're sending the proper demand signal to industry and delivering those systems on time and under budget to those countries, which you can imagine is frustrating to partners who are relying on those to be able to step up and burden share. So, foreign military sales is critical to our own defense industrial base. More customers, more customers for our companies that employ more American workers to ensure our allies are properly armed for the fights and they can stand alongside us. So, FMS is a is a big one for us, Senator.

>> General Keane, I just want to commend you and everybody in the military for what you did in um Venezuela and then what you've done in Iran. Um can the willingness of the American military to to fight and win, do you think it's changed the calculus for um Beijing and Moscow? >> Well, Senator, I'm I know they're watching and I'm incredibly proud of the joint force and their ability to integrate and synchronize a range of activities and I suspect that my counterpart in China is watching very closely and envious of what our joint force is capable of doing if ordered to do so.

>> All right. Well, thank each of you and thank everybody that serves under you. >> Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Kaine. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hurst, I want you to just confirm something for me about the president's submitted budget. $1.5 trillion is about a 40 plus percent increase from FY26. Am I right that not a penny of that is to go to a pay raise for the 800,000 civilians who work for the Department of Defense? >> We have a 4.2 point or 4.2% of a civilian salary set aside for bonuses to make sure we can recognize high performers in the civilian workforce and >> But you have guaranteed pay raises for the active duty in the Guard and reserve component, but no guaranteed raises for >> There are guaranteed raises for the military, but you know, the last year this department's given out more civilian bonuses. >> Well, I you know, if we're if we're going to increase the defense budget by that much, I would hope the committee would take a look at this. Um Chairman Kaine and I like the sound of that, Chairman Kaine. Um General Cain, I want to ask you a question about Southern Spear. It's an operational question. I know from your background that you carefully act to keep military actions within the rules of war. What legal justification could there possibly be that would allow the US military to strike boats in international waters and kill the occupants of those boats without a showing of evidence that there's narcotics on those boats? >> Well, sir, as as you know, our our job is to show the range of options, the associated risks, and then take those execution orders, transmit them down to the COCOMs on legally appropriate and legally backstopped actions. >> Could you could you get me a a legal justification >> Well, sir, the execution order I don't have >> boats that do not have evidence that they're carrying narcotics? >> I don't have I apologize. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I I don't have a copy of the the order issued to SOUTHCOM with me today. It's classified in its own right, which clearly articulates, >> [snorts] >> uh based on a variety of criteria, what constitutes a valid military and legally valid target in that theater. And I know I I just want to say I know and trust that our commanders at echelon are rigorously following that legal opinion and those legal boundaries upon which we've been issued those orders.

>> And and and General Keane, I would encourage again my colleagues, I am at a disadvantage. I've seen the legal opinion, but I can't talk about it cuz it's classified. I've seen the targeting criteria, but I can't talk about them because they're classified. I've seen the secret list of DTOs against whom we have declared war that even they haven't been informed of, but I can't talk about it because it's classified. But I would urge all of my colleagues to go to the SCIF and read the targeting criteria and get briefed about it. And then also look at all of the files of all the strikes that have taken place. I've done that with the first 46 strikes or so. And I think there's a profound mismatch between what is occurring and the underlying assumptions in the legal opinion. And I would just encourage my colleagues to dig into this. To Secretary Heckseth and General Keane, the War Powers Resolution specifies that a war initiated by a president without congressional approval must be concluded within 60 days. It can be extended by an additional 30 days if, quote, the president determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the US armed forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. We're right at the 60-day deadline. Is the president intending to either seek congressional authorization for the war in Iran or send us the legally required certification that he needs an additional 30 days to remove US forces from the war. >> Just briefly on the previous question, there we do know that these are designated terrorist organizations, so we treat them like the Al-Qaeda of our hemisphere. Just as a note. >> but that was not the question I asked. >> I know I know there's more to that question. I just think it's important for the public to understand that. There's no willy-nilly targeting of of drug boats. We know exactly who these people are affiliated with. >> asking about what's on the boats. >> On the on on on Iran, ultimately, I would I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that. However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire. So, they're not in That's it's our understanding, just so you know. >> Okay, well, I I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow, and that's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration. There We have serious constitutional concerns, and we don't want to layer those with additional statutory concerns. I yield back, Mr. Chair.

>> Uh thank you very much, Senator Sullivan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. Uh Mr. Secretary, I'm I mentioned in the classified hearing today, but I do think the $1.5 trillion top line is historic, it meets the needs. And the other thing is, I mentioned in our earlier meeting, um you know, the president's done a really good job of getting other allies, NATO and Asian allies, to step up, meet a 5% GDP of defense spending, and um in many ways, that's what this is doing as well. So, isn't that important as well in terms of our global leadership, what you and the president are uh providing as that example as well? >> I think uh the more we step up, the more the world should look at the American leadership and example and step up as well. >> And they're going to do that. It helps. >> We will It remains to be seen whether some of our allies actually step up to their commitments, but that is that is the hope.

>> Let me uh go to an element of that budget that I I mentioned in the classified hearing. You know, I always like to put this chart up in different hearings. Do we have the the examples? So, we have a lot of our adversaries, the Chinese, the Russians, in my AOR in the Arctic and the North Pacific. These are the numbers just recently, eight days incursions, easy incursions by the Russians, by the Chinese. By the way, the green ones are joint Russian-Chinese strategic bomber task forces, joint Russian-Chinese naval task forces. Uh this is America, right? This is a really important part of uh our national defense. So, I was pleased to see that one of the elements in the budget was what's referred to by the Air Force as the JBER fighter town recapitalization, given how strategically important that Air Force base is. Um General, can you talk a little bit about that recapitalization? It's uh uh for uh building out what is a very strategic base, but old. A lot of these uh facilities are from the 1950s. The goal in the Air Force's language was to have a recapitalization to provide a new state-of-the-art fighter facility capable of supporting multiple platforms now and well into the future. $6.9 billion total authorization and $2.2 billion apropos for this year. Can you talk about the importance? I was glad to host you at JBER recently. Can you talk about the importance of this element of the president's budget? >> Yes, Senator. Thank Thank you for for that. And you know, our investment up at JBER is essential to modernizing the nation's ability to project power and capabilities, and really bolsters our effort in not only the Indo-Pacific, but also in the high north in the Arctic, which I know is something that's passionate to you. The The Arctic is certainly becoming more operationally and strategically valuable, and we need to be thinking proactively around how we're going to set the conditions for us to offer a range of options to the secretary and the president about power projection across a range of capabilities, and fighters is certainly one of them in the recap effort that's there. Um, you know, it is uh it is our ability to protect that flank is a national imperative and something that we want to keep focused on, and we appreciate the efforts across this committee and the rest of the Congress to help us with that.

>> Thank you. Miss Secretary, one of the things that I've been talking about and I think is really important now is American energy and us being an energy dominant. President put a recent executive order out highlighting the need to accelerate uh the ability to produce LNG uh in America. Uh we have a huge LNG project that we're getting close to getting off the ground in Alaska. It'd be huge for our military in terms of uh energy for our military, huge for our allies. And can I get your commitment to work with me and this committee you mentioned in your testimony the office of strategic capital. This to me is one of these uh projects uh that I think would be absolutely critical for our national security. We talked about this just in uh Admiral Paparo's testimony last week. He was talking about the Alaska LNG project as hugely strategic, kind of a private sector American counter to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. I think it'd be a great opportunity to work with the office of strategic capital. Can I get your commitment, Miss Secretary, to do that on this project? >> Yes, very aware of that project, and I think it's a the office of strategic capital is a is a great place to look at partnering. >> Right. I appreciate that. Uh finally, I'm just going to ask um 47 years of war that we've had with Iran. Um my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that you know, they talk about uh the civilian uh casualties. These are all horrible, horrible whenever there's any civilian casualties, but just general um do our forces target civilians ever? >> Uh sir, not never intentionally and I don't know in any particular case of unintentional, but we don't do that. That's not core to our American [clears throat] values or how we approach things. >> As one one do our adversaries target civilians? >> Yes, sir. >> Like the Quds Force? >> Yes, sir. >> I think it's really important as we keep bringing this topic up uh to remember who we are and who our adversaries >> Senator Solomon, do you ask unanimous consent to have the two exhibits added to the record? >> Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. >> Without objection, that will be done. Senator King. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've had a lot of discussion about Iran. I'd like to talk about several other aspects of the budget. The first is the way the budget's been constructed. Uh ever since I've been here until last year, we've had bipartisan budgets and bipartisan National Defense Authorization Acts and uh passed by majorities. I voted for all of them. And all of a sudden, in this year, 25% of the budget is essentially out of the process and will be passed presumably through some kind of reconciliation, which is by definition a partisan exercise. Uh Mr. Secretary, why not what all those items of housing or golden dome, whatever, why aren't they in the in the regular budget? Why do we suddenly have a two-part budget where the this committee and the Congress generally has oversight and and and input to a process where a quarter of the budget is is essentially a slush fund. >> Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. I wouldn't characterize a quarter of it as a as a slush fund, but I recognize that we see it as a in totality as a $1.5 trillion budget. >> But why the why the separation? Why the two pieces? >> Multiple vehicle As you know, there are multiple dynamics that play into why there are multiple vehicles, but we are fully committed with working with the committee to ensure that the right vehicles are utilized to get precisely this amount, $1.5 trillion. >> Why should we You didn't answer my question. Why are there two pieces? Why why not for time immemorial we've done budgets here we've never to my knowledge we've never used this reconciliation process for a defense budget before. What's what's what's going on? Why not >> My understanding of the reason for the vehicles is to ensure we actually get to $1.5 trillion, which is the most important bottom line. The most important bottom line is that top line of $1.5 trillion to fund what we need and we think this process is the most effective way to get there, Senator. >> Well, it what you're really saying is we don't want to deal with that pesky Congress and their appropriation process. I I think it's I think this is significant, Mr. Chairman, that we're we're basically abdicating a quarter of our responsibility in terms of this budget. Let me move on. Um one of the factors of this budget that hasn't gotten any publicity is uh that there's zero funding for Ukraine. That's correct, isn't it, Mr. Hurst? >> That's correct. There's no USAI funding in this budget. >> And there was 400 400 billion 400 million that was appropriated last year by a bipartisan bicameral act of Congress. What's become of that money? My understanding is not a dollar of it has been dispersed. >> It was released uh very recently and and again we got these funds, I believe, in March. Uh and it takes time for funds to flow through the department, but it's going to get put to work very shortly. We're going to work with the EUCOM commander to make sure we use these funds in the most appropriate way possible. >> I didn't want Senator Sullivan to be the only one with an exhibit. Uh this indicates what's happened to our support for Ukraine over a period of years. The orange bars are US support. Uh the blue bars are Europe, as you see. Europe is 99% in the year 2026. Same thing with humanitarian and other aid uh to Ukraine. And yet, this is uh I believe an existential struggle for uh the future of democracy, where we had an aggressive country invade a neighboring country without any justification whatsoever. And by the way, that invading country is the major winner so far of the war in Iran. Uh they've gotten The estimates are 40 to 80 billion dollars of additional revenues from oil and the relief of sanctions as a result of the war in Iran. Secretary Hagel said, "Why are we abandoning Ukraine?" >> Senator, if if you would hold that chart back up, >> Yeah. >> I I think that's a beautiful chart. I think that's exactly what we want. We want Europe stepping up and funding and shouldering the burden. They're rich countries worth 20 trillion versus economy of 2 trillion. Europe can step up. Europe can fund it, and they have through our Pearl initiative and through our European command. That's exactly what the American people want to see is other countries stepping up and funding that. If it's if it's that important to Europe, which I understand why it is in the incursion of Russia and the bravery of the Ukrainians, then European countries should pay for it, and that's exactly what that chart says, and that's the administration policy. >> So, we don't have any We don't have any interest in what happens in Ukraine. Is that what you're saying? It's only the Europeans? >> I'm saying the threat is far closer to rich and capable countries in Europe, and they should step up to lead the charge, and that's why that chart is a good thing to see. >> They have stepped up. but I think the American people should understand that we've stepped back. In fact, stepped back to the point of abandoning >> This is a war that never would have happened under President Trump, and he supports ending it through a deal, and he's pursued that. >> So far it hasn't happened. Uh I'm at a time I want to talk about DTOs who designates, but we'll take that up later. Thank you sir. >> Senator King. Uh Um Senator Schmitt. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh it's apropos that I'm following my friend from Maine. Missouri and Maine came into the union at the same time, but we couldn't disagree more on this particular point. We may have to separate here. Um I actually think it's interesting that Ukraine just came up because we've heard uh from my colleagues on the other side um discussion about the cost of what the ongoing American effort. There was never a never a discussion about the 200 billion dollars we were sending to a foreign country that's not even in NATO. Never. In fact, when amendments were offered for independent audits of how that money was spent, there was bipartisan opposition to that kind of oversight. So I find it really rich now that there's a complaint that we're not spending money on Ukraine. And by the way, 30 billion for salaries for bureaucrats, pensions, and social safety net programs, and government operations to keep the state functioning during wartime. That's where American tax dollars were going, 30 billion dollars for bureaucrats in Ukraine. And we just heard a a a speech for more money for Ukraine. Yet, the 1.5 trillion for this country is being balked at. I mean, I've seen Ukraine flags all over this capital for 3 years. At the same time, the same people call the president of the United States of this country a Nazi. So I forgive me if if I if I feel like we've lost our bearings a little bit. So, I'm all for the America First agenda. I'm all for us realigning our priorities. I'm all for the national defense strategy that says our core strategic interests are the homeland, the Western Hemisphere, and the rising threat in China. And that means our European allies should step up. If Vladimir Putin is truly some existential threat and the next Hitler that's going to roll through Europe, you would think by the way he can't take Kiev. So, you can't have it both ways. He hasn't made it to Kiev, but they would step up. And we better start demanding that cuz if we want to meet the challenges of the 21st century and China, our priorities, our focus has to be somewhere else. It doesn't mean abandonment, it just means a true partnership with our European allies who for very, very long time have have not stepped up. I want to ask you uh Mr. Secretary in your first year, one of the things I think that's really gone towards this morale in recruitment boom that we've seen through your leadership and President Trump was finally taking on the sort of cultural Marxism that had taken hold from the highest levels of leadership from the President of the United States to your predecessor, this obsession with DEI. Could you just walk through maybe maybe a the worst example that you saw and the way that you addressed that and how it was affecting morale? >> Well, thank you, Senator. First of all, I want to uh fully associate myself with the first 2 and 1/2 minutes of your comments and I appreciate that perspective very much so. I I would note $30 billion for bureaucrats in Ukraine is more than the bill that we've talked about today uh for a existential and critically important war to ensure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. That's worth noting. Uh I I didn't haven't talked about it as much in these hearings um because this is a budget hearing about 1.5 trillion that's historic and significant. But underwriting the the The that we've seen in our department was a laser focus on getting back to basics. And the the keyword to that is merit. Uh we had a department that was that was obsessed with the gender ideology and race, diversity, equity, and inclusion. In fact, the mantra you would hear dripping from the lips of generals and with a serious look on their face was our diversity is our strength. Which is the single dumbest phrase in military history. Of course, our diversity is not our strength. Our unity is our strength. Our shared purpose. The flag we wear and who we and the Constitution we serve to defend. And when you clear that debris away, whether it's Marxist ideologies or social engineering or political correctness or quotas based on gender and diversity, you get the best of the best rising up regardless of gender, regardless of race, motivated by that environment where merit reigns, it's accountability, standards, lethality, readiness, training, all the debris wiped away. That is the secret sauce of the revival of the war department and why Americans are attracted to serving in it and why those inside it why morale is sky-high. And any insinuation that it is not are coming from folks who haven't been in our units recently. Go visit the troops at every level and their morale is at record level. >> And I want to talk about morale with the 15 seconds that I have left. I want to thank you for coming to St. Louis for your Arsenal of Freedom Tour where the next generation aircraft, the F-47, is being built by the hardworking men and women of Missouri who take a tremendous amount of pride for that aircraft that's going to go further, see see further, go faster, have a bigger payload, and I know there's another decision coming with the FA-XX, but really appreciate your leadership and thanks for coming. >> Thank you, Senator. >> Uh thank you, Senator Schmitt. Senator King, do you wish to ask unanimous consent to include your exhibit in the record? >> Yes, please. >> Without objection, that will be done. Senator Warren. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Americans are paying a high price for Donald Trump's war with Iran. We've got 14 service members who are dead, over 400 more who are wounded. Uh, prices are rising for nearly every American family. But, someone is profiting off Trump's war. Insiders who know what's going on and who place bets on that inside information. On March 23rd, just 14 minutes before Trump unexpectedly posted about, quote, "very good conversations on ending the war," traders suddenly bet $500 million on the price of oil, which, once Trump made his announcement, immediately dropped. It happened again on April 7th, and then again on April 21st. A surge in oil bets, then a Trump post, and then a huge shift in oil prices in just the space of minutes. It looks like insiders have been making out like bandits using secret information about the war. Now, one US soldier has been charged, but that was for betting on capturing Maduro months ago. Not a single person has been charged in the many, many, many trades over the Middle East war. So, Secretary Hagseth, do you have any explanation for these perfectly timed spikes in trading activity other than insider trading? >> Um, Senator, all I can tell you is that everything we've done in our department, everything we've done with information in working with the White House and across the inner agency has been completely above board. >> Well, so, what does it mean? Do you have any other explanation other than insider trading? Do you have a story for why just minutes before there's an announcement, there's a surge in trading activity? >> Uh Senator, I'm more than focused on doing my job and ensuring we execute properly, which thankfully under this administration uh our troops have done incredible things in all these missions. My job in all of those moments is to make sure we're prepared, and that's part of the reason why we've been so successful in these raids, in these efforts is that >> So you're saying you're not paying any attention to this insider trading. Is that what you're telling me? That you've paid no attention to this, you haven't noticed it, you haven't done anything about it? >> What I'm saying is we're focused on our mission of executing for the American people, and what happens in in markets is not uh in betting markets is not something we're involved in. >> in betting markets doesn't matter to you, even if the information may be coming from insiders in your office? >> Senator, it's not something we're involved in at all, and of course we take operational security at every level very seriously. In fact, no one's taken operational security more uh seriously than us. If you look at what it required to keep secret midnight hammer and operation Maduro, the absolute resolve with Maduro, and the steps we've taken, no one's been tighter about ensuring that operational security is ensured. >> deal with insider trading out of your office. >> I mean, we have we would ensure at every level that inside information is >> I'll take that as a no. >> properly safeguarded. >> Well, obviously you're not. Uh I'm also concerned about recent reporting on your own financial dealings with regard to profiting from the war in Iran. The Financial Times reported that your broker tried to buy hundreds of shares in a BlackRock fund invested in defense companies just before the war began. The law clearly prohibits the secretary >> That entire story is false, has been from the beginning, and was made up out of whole cloth and anybody that looks at it sees how it was worded from the beginning to make it look like I was involved in something I had nothing to do and never have. So, any insinuation that I've ever profited other than serving this nation, what what I give, what you give, what others give, I'm not looking for money. I don't do it for money. I don't do it for profit. I don't do it for stocks. And that's part of the reason why I'm able to be effective in this job cuz no one owns me. No one owns this department. No one owns this president and we can execute for the American people and we do. >> clearly prohibits the Secretary of Defense from owning stock in the 10 biggest defense contractors. Other senators and I sent you a letter with detailed questions about this and you have not given us a response. So, I'd like to hear you say, "Did you, through your broker at Morgan Stanley or otherwise, seek to invest in any defense-related funds right before Trump started the Iran war?" >> I'll give it to you as a big, fat negative. >> Then let me ask you a second question. Is your broker getting your personal sign-off on any investment in individual stocks >> Bigger, fatter negative. >> He's not getting your sign-off before he makes investments in defense stocks? Can I refer you to your >> I'm not making investments, Senator. >> asking, "Does he know that he has to get your sign-off before he does that?" >> Of course. I don't know what you're looking for, but you can find it. >> Thank you. Thank you, Senator. >> I would like to enter into the record the ethics agreement that the Secretary of Defense has signed that he will sign off personally before his broker makes any attempt to buy defense stocks. >> Is there objection? >> Thank you. >> Without objection, it will be admitted. Uh Senator uh Banks. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hagel, Seth, um you're doing a great job. I I I've been in Washington for 10 years, several Secretaries of Defense, now Secretary of War. You're You're the best that we've had since I've been in Washington. What you've done to restore readiness, uh restore military recruitment, get the Pentagon focused on war-fighting is is second to none. And I I I appreciate what you and President Trump and General Keane are doing very much. In fact, uh General Keane, according to the Department's 2025 China Military Power Report, quote, "China believes the next revolution in military affairs will occur when militaries transition to intelligentized warfare and fully integrate artificial intelligence, big data, advanced computing, and other technologies into the joint force." End quote. Can you describe, General, in greater detail how the P- PLA is using AI to enhance its military capabilities? >> Uh you bet, Senator. Um you know, they are attempting to integrate uh AI across the range of their war-fighting functions, which extends to uh command and control, information advantage, intelligence, um certainly kinetic uh and non-kinetic uh capabilities, and to a certain extent sustainment. I'll note that that so are we. And in many cases, we are out in front of them. I want to commend our Chief Digital uh and Artificial Intelligence Officers inside the Joint Force at the COCOMs, with the services, who are also leaning very far in as we uh march towards a digitized joint force that allows us to cease and see and uh command and control the force better. >> Uh the China Military Power Report also goes on to note that the Chinese AI sector remains, quote constrained by its limited access to high-performance AI chips. General Keane, how big of an advantage is it for the American warfighter that America's arsenal of compute is bigger than China's? >> Sure, it's a it's uh it's critical to us and you know, while I acknowledge there's there's all kinds of chip issues in this, it is important to us to uh to continue to scale at that and I'll highlight a lot of the work going on up at Fort Meade that the committee's helped to advance in the cyber capability. So, we appreciate the help with that. >> If that advantage were eroded and China were able to develop more advanced AI capabilities as a result, what are some of the potential consequences for American warfighters? >> Well, sure, it could it could certainly put us at risk and that's why we're leaning in so hard. Um there's always a balance between commerce and uh and and protection. I acknowledge those are policy matters, I think is what you're uh starting to get towards. Um but on a pure military-only standpoint, um we we would that we would see some defense in depth eroded from that. >> Secretary Heck, sir, do you agree that enhanced Chinese AI capabilities put could could put American service members at risk? >> Um Senator, we absolutely have to stay ahead. Uh the advantage that AI provides applied to any number of capabilities, whether it's domain awareness, targeting cycles, you name it. Uh AI and leveraging it and that's why we've made it the forefront. I mean, it's AI first with everything that we do, integrating it at every potential echelon to ensure we can respond faster. If If we're If we're better at that than any adversary is, it's going to give us an advantage and we have to maintain that. >> I agree. Do you agree that we should do everything in our power to ensure that American service members go into battle with an overwhelming and fear-inducing technological advantage, particularly with AI. >> Always. Overwhelming is is the goal in every scenario. >> Earlier this year, the Pentagon issued updated guidelines that prohibit department funds from supporting grants and contracts involving fundamental research collaboration with blacklisted Chinese entities. How important are those restrictions to safeguarding our technological leadership? >> Have to have them. Especially when you look at the power of models and all of those things. If you you you have connections to entities that could have connections to your adversary and you can you can have degradation of your advantage. >> Again, this is where I appreciate your leadership, Mr. Secretary, which has been second to none. And I know that you will work with Congress to help codify those restrictions and encourage taxpayer dollars that to to never advance the capabilities of our enemies and our and our adversaries. I appreciate both of your leadership. We've come a long way in a couple of years from I mean the night and day difference between the last administration and this administration is apparent to every Hoosier that I talk to. So, I appreciate your leadership. I yield back. >> Thank you very much, Senator Banks. Senator Peters. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, member. Gentlemen, welcome to the committee. I appreciate this discussion. I'll just start off though. The the number one question I get when I'm back home from people is basically very simply when when will this war end? We know the costs are that the American people are paying both the higher fuel costs. Our farmers are paying because of fertilizer costs. We We know that the the whole world economy is paying a great deal for this war. And basically when I is I think that true and this is what I want to talk to you about is that we we all know that it's a whole lot easier to go to war than it is to get out of war. That's always the tough question. And we've got to figure that out. And there are some folks who have written quite a bit about this. One one text on war by Carl von Clausewitz. Mr. Secretary, I'm sure you're familiar with the book. I know all of the men and women in uniform are. It's the most widely read most influential military strategy book in Western history, which is pretty pretty broad. And it is the core curriculum that is read in all the war colleges. I read it when I was in the Navy War College taking courses. It's part of what the US military thinks about when they go to war and then how to get out of the war. And one of those core principles it starts with is basically war is the continuation of politics by other means. That everybody knows that quote who's wearing the uniform and others too. It basically means there's two things about that. It's politics to get in the war and it's politics to get out of the war. And in between we rely on the men and women in the military to carry out those policies. So I want to be clear and I think I speak for all of my colleagues is that we know the military plays an important part. They need to do the job and nobody nobody questions the amazing work that our men and women in the US military have done and continue to do. They have performed absolutely brilliantly and we applaud all that they have done. However, what we do question is the politics part. It's a continuation of politics. So it's our political leaders that get us into war and our political leaders who have to get us out of that war, which falls on on you, Mr. Secretary HCSF and others in the administration including the president as commander in chief. So Secretary, are you familiar with the the concept in that book of center of gravity? >> Sure. So center of gravity is is basically as you know is it's the basically the hub of all the power and movement. Everything depends on it. As Clausewitz will say, if you don't take out the center of gravity, it's very difficult to win the war. You can have tactical successes, you can have military successes, but if you're not focused on that, you're not going to be able to win. Basically, he talks about military strikes are tactical, and and tactical success doesn't necessarily create the political conditions necessary to get the parties to the table to negotiate and get it done. So, we've got to focus on that. So, my question for you, Mr. Secretary, what is the center of gravity for Iran? >> Well, the center of gravity, as the president has seen it and as I see it, and he's talked about for 30 years, is is their pursuit of a nuclear weapon and what they could do with that in pursuit as an extension of the radical ideology they have professed since the beginning of their revolution. So, the the the the prophetic ideology they profess alongside the most dangerous weapon in the world would be the center of gravity of the rationality >> I appreciate >> undertaking which >> I appreciate. I'll I'll actually elaborate more. I appreciate it. General Keane, you know more about Clausewitz and strategy than I will ever know, including all the folks behind you. What would you consider the center of gravity as defined by Clausewitz in this type of war? >> Well, sir, I I I you're not going to love this answer, but I hope you'll respect it. War is politics by any other means. >> Right. >> And the political side of that necessitates that our political leaders determine what is the center of gravity associated with that. From a military only perspective, there's a variety of things academically that we could look at for center of gravities from leadership to will to capabilities to intent, but I'll defer to our political leaders to determine what it >> That's fair. I don't like it. You're right, but I don't >> I know. Sorry. >> know you know the answer to that, and you're just not telling me. I get why you're doing that. >> My inner marshal >> you know, other observers say that basically it's the it's not the leader. Usually, if you take out a leader, that doesn't necessarily take make the changes that in an Iran's case it's probably the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. That's the That's the center of gravity. They're the ones that control the country and they're very diverse to do that. The Americans center of gravity is probably our economy and our ability to maintain public opinion support. We already know the public isn't there. We know the impact to our economy. And central to that is the leverage. I'm running out of time here, but the central of leverage is the Strait of Hormuz. That that is bottom line. We have to open that up. We have to take that away from Iran. The fact that we haven't done that yet and we're 60 days in, we're just now bringing minesweepers from the Pacific. And Mr. Secretary, we've got to see action a whole lot sooner in the straits. The world community needs it. We're not going to bring this war to an end until we seize control of the straits in a way needs it. We're not going to bring this war to an end until we seize control of the straits in a way >> Which which in part is why we have a blockade that has been impenetrable for the Iranians because they don't have a conventional navy to contest it. Which means we control the straits. >> The time The time of Senator Peters has expired. Let me Let me observe that I very much appreciate the the Senator from Michigan suggesting ways in which our effort in Iran could be more successful. I do appreciate that. And let me also observe, Senator Kaine, that that civilian control goes back well beyond Marshall. It goes back to to George Washington, who was wise enough to resign his commission to the elected membership of the government at that time. Senator Shaheen, you are recognized. >> I think it's important to note that um the objective is not to get out of the war. The objective is to to the war, not to get out of it. And I think we've allowed the narrative to shift so off target here. President Trump did not start this war. We did not start this war. These radical barbarian savage clerics who have started killing Americans 47 years ago in a unilateral campaign of terror, murder, treason, kidnapping, torture, have been murdering our countrymen all over this world almost every single year, hijacking airplanes, hijacking cruise liners, taking our embassies, blowing up our embassies, blowing up our barracks, blowing up our ships, capturing our soldiers and murdering them in brutal ways. They started this war. And it would be a lot easier to beat them if we didn't have administrations shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars into their pockets while they're actively fighting our own people. While our own uniform service members have been fighting this murderous regime, and we have presidents quite literally shipping pallets of cash to pay these terrorists off. It's been a disgrace. It's been an embarrassment to this country for far too long. But back to the point, General Keane, I have a specific question for you. I think in this day and age we all know that basically every single operation that we partake in, whether it's stealth bombers, whether it's a blockade, our special operations forces are a fundamental uh shaping and priority component to all those. Would you agree? >> Uh yes, Senator, I would. >> And I think for the last about 15 years the special operations community budget has been largely flat, even adjusted for inflation. And yet continuously we call on those warriors uh to deliver the impossible. And they pretty much do.

We were reminded just a few weeks ago, even after the amazing Maduro raid when we had to rescue one of our F-15 crewmen, yet again it's a SOCOM's budget, how we affect that, and how fast we can do it.

Well, sir, I'll just I'll just highlight my gratitude and appreciation for the entirety of the SOCOM joint force at echelon and the work that they do. You know, I'll leave the budget numbers and the increased percentages to my civilian leadership, but echo to your point the exponential return on whatever investment they give. These are incredible.

Many of these historic aspects, SOCOM should be part of that supplemental as well. Makes complete sense. Who's been shouldering a huge part of the burden? Special operation. Special operations command. So, whether it's a supplemental or this budget, I fully agree and I think we need to invest more. Great. And I'd ask that particular invest more. Great. And I'd ask that insightful exchange. Like hair to be given, uh the era of insightful exchange. Senator Kelly. Senator Kelly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Secretary Heggstad safe to say that our weapons like SM3s, Tomahawks, safe to say that our weapons like SM3s, Tomahawks, Patriot missiles have capabilities that are unmatched. That's why they cost a lot. This is a quote. This was a massive overwhelming attack across all domains of warfare striking more than 1,000 targets in the first 24 hours. On March 10th, you said yet again our most intense day of strikes inside of Iran. On April 6th, you said and this is another quote, the largest volume of strikes since day one of this operation. Your department has released video Patriots. I'm not even going to say the numbers, but a lot of Patriots, a lot of THAAD rounds, JASSM-ER, Tomahawks. Very expensive. JASSM-ER, Tomahawks. Very expensive. Exquisite. Expensive. Exquisite. We can't make these munitions overnight. We can't make these munitions overnight, and it's clear from your and it's clear from your budget request that you know that. Can you tell a budget request that you know that? Can you tell us how many years specific real time.

So, just to replace what we have expended months, and then you said years. Both it depends on the weapon system, but two to three four x of what we have today. So, yes, we're dealing with the reality under the previous administration of what they sent to Ukraine and what they allocated elsewhere.

I got it. So, we fired years worth of munitions.

I've got about a minute. And I want to go to another topic. I saw I want to go to another topic. I saw your hearing yesterday. I your hearing yesterday. And I'm going to give you one more chance to address a question. And I'm going to give you one more chance to address a question here. in here. It's my understanding that the definition of no court. Do you stand by that statement you made on March 13th?

We have untied the hands of our war fighters. We fight to win, and we follow the law.

Okay, so you're not clarifying. So, you stand by that statement. So, you're the Secretary of Defense. The things you say matter, and your response here right now makes it clear to the American and has taken military action in 10 places in the world in 15 months, more than any president in US history. Um I think President Trump has really become a foreign policy president, and many of those operations, you were on the news for a couple of days, but then the American public didn't feel them. And I think the difference with this war with Iran is that the American public is Um and we can block what they're trying to get through, but it nothing is moving and it's costing the American public. Um and I think that's a fundamental thing is moving and it's costing the American public. Um and I think that's a fundamentally different moment than the rest of the military action we've taken. Um mentally different moment than the rest of the military action we've taken. Um even in like Middle East 101 class, we used to talk about a few months ago he said that he regret even in like Middle East 101. A few months ago he said that he regretted that he ever a few months ago he said that he regretted that he ever that he didn't regretted that he ever that he didn't sign that executive order. So that he didn't sign that executive order. So the US military has sign that executive order. So the US military has The US military has never been deployed. You miscorrectly incorrectly said yesterday been deployed. You miscorrectly incorrectly said yesterday that they were deployed during different elections. Governors deployed them under to your predecessor. And your your predecessor. And your predecessor said publicly, "Thank God he we didn't actually go for Predecessor said publicly, "Thank God he we didn't actually go forward with it." What are you going to do? You're the guy here in the seat. It's not hypothetical. Tell the American people, will you deploy the uniform military to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines?

Are you accusing me of performing cuz you're per.

Secretary.

I've never been ordered to do anything illegal and I won't. That's goes without saying.

Thank you for the answer. Senator Duckworth, you're now recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um despite his campaign promise of no new wars, President Trump has been obsessed with using the military any chance he gets from deploying troops to American cities to propping up Maduro's chosen number two clearly now. And using force has made Americans in the Middle East less already seeing too clearly now. And using force has made Americans in the Middle East less safe or spiking costs for Americans here at home all through the to safe or spiking costs for Americans here at home all through the tune of 14 service members dead tune of 14 service members dead hundreds wounded billions of taxpayer dollars and untold costs to our military hundreds wounded billions of taxpayer dollars and untold costs to our military readiness. This administration claims to be focused on Iran came. Can you tell us the status of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps's navy that entity actively closing the strait?

Uh there are Senator apologies. I was listening to you. I was just trying to write it down. They're mostly develop capabilities that would be difficult to for a conventional US military forces to target. Iran's advantage is well known to anyone paying a Iran's advantage is well known to anyone paying attention. I've no doubt that competent planners in the Pentagon raised their concerns about a quagmire in the strait to leadership. The question is why their leadership did not pay attention to this sound advice. Hubris is not inventing a crisis boiling over into a war in the Indo-Pacific. General Kelly, do you agree that the military would benefit from signific in the Indo-Pacific. General Kelly, do you agree that the military would benefit from signific an inter inter inter interagency planning by the Department of Defense on actions short of war agency planning by the Department of Defense on actions short of war that can be taken if that can be taken if a crisis occurs.

Ma'am, I I appreciate that question. crisis occurs. Ma'am, I I appreciate that question. You highlighting the importance of that and.

This war of choice is draining our military resources. We need leaders who do everything they can to ensure war fighters only fight when they have to, not because of one man's whims and the lack of bravery among the yes-men he surrounds himself with. I thank you for your service uh General, um and I continue to look forward to working with you.

that the US government has already deemed contaminated, identifying those who served in such locations, and providing documentation of that service to the VA so that they can receive the veterans benefits um that they have earned.

You bet, ma'am. And and I'm you know, since our last taneously. So, before I ask you about the inconsistency, I just want you to reconfirm what it is you plan to use this technology for. Firm what it is you plan to use this technology for. It's been publicly reported It's been publicly reported that the decision to label Anthropic a national security risk was in ported that the decision to label Anthropic a national security risk was influenced by your personal influenced by your personal and very public contract dispute with Anthropic when the company terms of agreement with with Anthropic.

question. This is not about Anthropic. This is just an example. I want you to confirm that whether or not there will always be a human in the loop when AI is used in a kill chain for lethal targeting decisions. Will there always be a human in a size-appropriate levels of human judgment over use of force that is in the DOD.

That's why we follow the law, Senator.

So, the So, the answer is yes, Mr. Secretary.

The answer is we follow the law.

Absolutely.

I think this is more important than Absolutely. I think this is more important than following the law. I think that people want to know that AI isn't going to make lethal decisions, and it is critically important.

AI is not making lethal decisions.

That's what we want to hear. We're going to follow on that one. I have um just to say how we choose to say it. How do you justify using this language as Secretary of Defense. Words matter. You justify using this language as Secretary of Defense. Words matter. It's a hurt historically hurtful term. Why do you continue to use it? And what actions are you taking to prevent rhetoric like this from permeating throughout the department that is going to target specific groups or individuals of people based on their religion their religion.

Senator, I feel like it's a pretty Senator, I feel like it's a pretty accurate term be accurate term to for folks who don't see the plank in their own eye and always want to see what's wrong with an operation as opposed to the historic success of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. So, I stand by it.

You stand by calling people Pharisees. Sir, I cannot.

else is in the neighborhood. It looked like 1.7 to 1.8. So, it didn't decided we're going to build our own version. We're going to call it golden dome because the president likes the color gold. We've seen that. See it in the Oval Office. We're going to call it golden dome and it might cost somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion dollars. I've heard those estimates. By the way, on that problem, I know a little bit about intercepting stuff in space, it's really hard. And the physics on this favors the offense. There's some things in that program that I think is really important that we do and try to figure it figure it out. But space-based interceptors to hit multiple targets and by the way, it's important how you size the system. So, I'm trying to understand, Mr. Secretary, what kind of detail did you guys did you work out like a detailed plan and at the end of the day it came out oh, it just happens to come out to be 1.5 trillion dollars.

Senator, the exact The is actually 1.535 trillion dollars and it was a product of a highly rigorous process throughout our department from COCOM commanders to the services with our comptroller, with our deputy secretary, with the chairman and myself to ensure the budget reflects the realities of the world we live in and the capabilities we're going to need. And that's why there's 65 billion billion for shipbuilding, 120 billion for the defense industrial base, 331 billion for munitions, 44 billion for quality of life, 71 billion on our nuclear DIB. You name it, we're investing in it. And the biggest reason for it is the underinvestment of the Biden administration. I mean, what they spent on defense, the continuing resolutions and others undercut the buildup that the President Trump had created. So, yes, we're doing a lot of deferred maintenance here around the world and in our department and this budget reflects it and it's a commitment, a generational commitment to the security of the American people. And if the rest of the world won't spend on their defense, that's their fault. The American.

B-21, also supportive. And then, we want to make all these other investments in really inexpensive low-cost munitions because we suddenly realize that the expensive stuff even with through B-21, we can't really maybe not get close enough. But the whole idea behind B-21 and F-47 is we can penetrate further into the A2/AD bubble. So, there's some conflict there. So, I'm just encouraging you to go back and see you know, if there are some systems where we.

First of all, I want to thank uh you, Mr. Secretary, for your support for the Major Richard StarRax, which I think is tremendously significant. Uh I'm committed to getting it done as soon as possible. At least before Veterans Day and I look forward to your help in accomplishing that goal and other adversaries could do as well. General, can uh would you agree that there are lessons to be learned from Ukraine?

Uh you bet you bet, Senator, and there's lessons learned from everywhere, and that's really the culture of our joint force right now is to make sure that across.

Ukraine has been, quote, militarily defeated. In your professional judgment, has Ukraine been militarily defeated? defeated? In your professional judgment, has Ukraine been militarily defeated?

Sir, I haven't I haven't seen the president's quote that I started with, and that's the important of importance of me maintaining trust with Zelensky, but with our own mili- Zelensky, but with our own military on the ground, as well as our intelligence community. In fact, military on the ground, as well as our intelligence community. In fact, Ukraine arguably is winning. There is this false narrative Russia is winning. Putin wants that false narrative to be our official narrative. I'm not. And you don't have to respond. I understand your reasons for not responding, but the American people should know that the president of the United States is undermining our security because Ukraine is states.

Sir, I'd agree that China's watching Sir, I'd agree that China's watching everywhere, and carefully everywhere, and carefully thinking about what their force posture and thinking about what their force posture and approach will be. And I think their approach will be and I think they're learning a variety learning a variety of things, to include the tenacity and grit of the joint force around the things.

It It It will be It it's right now within the parameters of the length of time that normally these investigations take.

I'm I'm asking because in your final response to Senator Gillibrand, you said or Gillibrand, you said that great care is that great care is taken to avoid civilian casualties. Taken to avoid civilian casualties and it would be profoundly significant it would be profoundly significant if that report were made available in time again if that report were made available in time and way to show in fact the commitment and way to show in fact the commitment to avoiding civilian casualties and to avoiding civilian casualties and learning lessons from the mistake made and learning lessons from the mistake made there.

Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Um.

Hearing is in order. We completed a productive through classified session down in the SCIF. And now we will begin the public portion of this hearing. I welcome back Secretary Hexeth, General Cain, and our acting controller, Mr. Jay Hurst. Uh I thank all of them, including their families, for their service. For the dozens of Americans that regularly watch our hearings, my next remarks will be no surprise, but for new viewers, I want to reiterate some context for my remarks. I've said this at almost every hearing. We live in the most dangerous security environment since World War II. Every uniformed officer who has come before this committee has agreed with that statement. First and foremost, we're locked in a competition with Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. The competition is high stakes and it is about whether this will be an American-led century or a century defined by authoritarian, autocratic regimes that care little for the need needs of their citizens or those in neighboring countries. The Chinese Communist Party has accelerated its historic military build-up and its predatory economic practices against Americans and countries the world over. Xi Jinping leads not only China, but also an axis of aggressors. This growing alliance cannot be denied. It includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. They're united around this goal to oppose America's interests and the interests of other like-minded democratic countries across the globe. Vladimir Putin's war of choice in Ukraine has now entered its fifth year. In Putin's objectives, we hear echoes of the imperialistic ambitions of World War II's aggressors, including Adolf Hitler. Um Vladimir Putin has suffered 1.2 million casualties and failed him miserably in his military objectives. Along the way, he has transformed Russia's economy into one fueled by war, raising the prospect of an even more aggressive Moscow for the foreseeable future. Most of Iran's leaders are now deceased, but they and those who survived them have consistently sought violence against America, Israel, our Gulf allies, and the Iranian people. We saw this during the October 7th massacre. During their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas and in their desire to engage in nuclear blackmail, Iran's Ayatollahs have consistently represented a threat to American interests. Kim Jong Un has joined Mr. Putin's war of aggression. He continues a military and nuclear build-up that threatens South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Ties have never been closer among these four dictators. Among these four dictatorships. They support each other's aggressive endeavors. They prop each other up financially, and they scheme to undermine America's objectives. We should expect them to continue this behavior. This context plays out across every dimension of national power, the economy, technology, diplomacy, and more. But today we're here to talk about the military dimension of this competition. These regimes have regularly tried to take force take by force what they cannot secure through the political process. For that reason we must be ready to deter conflicts. And if necessary to win them. President Trump has used the US military appropriately and effectively for American interests. He has viewed our adversary adversaries as a united block and has taken action in light of that reality. In Operation Absolute Resolve and associated statecraft, the president removed an aspiring dictator off the board and set up Venezuela for a future aligned with democratic interests. In Operation Midnight Hammer, he sought to eliminate the Ayatollah's nuclear program. When the Ayatollah chose to double down, the president launched Operation Epic Fury. In that mission, he has worked to remove the regime's conventional military capabilities and force it back to the table for a permanent solution. While we all mourn the tragic loss of the 14 service members who've lost their lives in this conflict, we do so knowing the world is safer without a nuclear Iran. All of these actions are part of a peace through strength strategy. In this approach, we seek first to avoid war, but we take military action when necessary to achieve US interest. And so, Mr. Secretary, I'm pleased that you are here testifying today in support of President Trump's historic $1.5 trillion defense budget request. That sum will go a long way toward rebuilding our military capabilities for a generation. I should say upfront that this um may be a long hearing. There's much to discuss. This $1.5 trillion request is chock-full of important programs and initiatives that are absolutely necessary to secure American interest in the 21st century. I think this funding underpins and accentuates three comparative advantages the United States possesses over the axis of aggressors. The first comparative advantage America enjoys over our adversaries is that we have the best innovation and industry in the world. So, I hope our witnesses today will cover the progress we've made in just the past year rebuilding the American arsenal. Last year, our reconciliation bill combined with bipartisan appropriation bills achieved about a trillion-dollar defense budget. This year's request would represent a near 50% increase. Every penny of it should be money well spent making down payments on crucial transformational capabilities such as drone warfare, low-cost munitions, and missile defense. Also last year, Congress and the executive branch achieved historic acquisition reforms. Consequently, we're well positioned to make huge gains on efficiency this year and in the years to come. Making it much more flexible and a a more timely process. I look forward to discussing how we might accelerate implementation of these actions. In particular, I'd like to see the Pentagon do more this year to drive competition in the defense industrial base. Competition absolutely drives better outcomes for our service members and taxpayers. Of course, our people are the final comparative advantage we have over our adversaries. We've enjoyed significant improvements in recruitment and retention, but we need to solidify a merit-based environment that fully cares for our personnel. I commend you, Mr. Secretary, for your efforts over the past year to do just that. That task will never be finished, of course, but we embrace it gladly and we salute the progress. We will always be striving to care for and equip American service members as much as possible. I look forward to more work between this committee and the department this coming year. With that, I turn to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Jack Reed.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary Heckstall, General Keane, Mr. Harris, welcome. And please convey my appreciation, all of our appreciation, to our military service members and defense civilians. We owe them our deepest sense of gratitude. Mr. Secretary, this is your first public appearance before this committee in nearly a year. Since your last public testimony, you and President Trump have unwisely taken the United States to war with Iran. You ordered attack on Venezuela and have directed ongoing illegal boat strike campaign in the Caribbean and Pacific. At your direction, our forces have bombed Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, and Ecuador. In the United States, you have deployed thousands of troops to cities like Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland to police American citizens. And you have personally intervened to end the careers of dozens of military leaders without explanation. These actions will have significant and long-term consequences. Now, you Now, [clears throat] you appear before us to ask for a $1.5 trillion budget, a 45% increase above last year. I I must say I'm skeptical, and such a request demands intense scrutiny. 61 days ago, President Trump unilaterally began the war in Iran. He had no coherent strategy. He refused to make a case to the American people or consult Congress. He failed to present any evidence of an immediate a threat, and he ignored the advice of military and intelligence experts who warned him of the consequences. Today, our nation is in a worse strategic position. The Strait of Hormuz was open, now it is closed. 13 service members have tragically lost their lives, and more than 400 have been wounded. We have lost dozens of aircraft, sustained significant damage to our bases in the area, and expended a an alarming amount of our missile inventory. Morale and readiness across the force, especially among over-deployed units and vessels like the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, have suffered. Gasoline and fertilizer prices throughout the world have surged. American families are bearing the cost of a war they wanted nothing to do with and have gained nothing from. And yet, Secretary Esper, you declared victory a month ago. On April 8th, you said, in your words, "Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory." By any measure, Epic Fury decimated Iran's military and rendered its combat forces ineffective for years to come. Let me be clear. Tactically, the United States military performance against Iran has been remarkable. And I salute the service members who have executed this mission with skill and bravery. The problem with your statements, Mr. Secretary, is they are dangerously exaggerated. Iran's hardline regime remains in place. It still retains stockpiles of enriched uranium. And its nuclear program remains viable. Iran's military retains enough combat effectiveness to keep the conflict at an impasse. Its missiles and drones remain a far greater threat than you have acknowledged. And the regime has demonstrated it can effectively control the spread of its missiles when it chooses. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that you have been telling the president what he wants to hear instead of what he needs to hear. Bold assurances of success are a disservice to both the commander in chief and the troops who risk their lives based on them. Our military has performed heroically. But military force without a sound strategy is a path to long-term defeat. I'd like to know what options you are considering now given the cost from this war and the stalemate President Trump has put us in. More broadly, Mr. Secretary, too often you have made dangerous statements that are counterproductive to the mission. You boasted about, quote, "No stupid rules of engagement." Just days after hundreds of Iranian school girls were tragically killed in a missile strike. You have made troubling statements about showing no mercy and no quarter to the Iranians. Orders that would constitute war crimes. As importantly, while our men and women are fighting and dying overseas, you have focused unduly on your own personal agenda. In the past 2 months alone, you have taken upon yourself to overhaul the chaplain corps, cancel flu vaccine requirements, repeal firearm restrictions on military posts, and bar service members from attending certain universities. Just this week, you brought performer Kid Rock to an Army base to go for a joyride in an Apache helicopter after dismissing an earlier investigation into the pilots who recklessly chose to hover above his home. That runs directly counter to the chain of command and maintaining good order and discipline. Most disturbingly, during your tenure, you have applied dozens of our most senior military leaders and personally intervened to block the promotions of many others. That is a betrayal of the merit-based system that forms the foundation of our military. You [snorts] are hollowing out the military's bench of experienced and high highest performing senior officers while making young officers wonder if they should continue to serve. My colleagues and I have heard from countless service members throughout the ranks, many of whom will be watching right now, who are confused and disturbed by your actions. I hopefully you can explain them today. Additionally, this committee expects a fullsome update on Operation Southern Spear. This ongoing campaign against suspected drug trafficking boats has resulted in nearly 200 fatalities. The administration has failed to explain the long-term objectives of this mission or provide any evidence of reduced drug flows into the United States. I would ask for a credible answer to this most fundamental question, what is the operation actually meant to accomplish? Mrs. Secretary, you are here to promote the President's $1.5 trillion defense budget. While this budget provides funding for necessary programs, including shipbuilding and drone manufacturing, many other critical programs like barracks repair and aircraft procurement would rely on the passage of a party-line reconciliation bill. Further, this budget slashes research and development, provides no funding for Ukraine, and includes no funding for losses incurred from the Iran war. Yesterday, Mr. Hurst testified that Operation Epic Fury has cost $25 billion. If If nothing else, that helped clarify that we certainly do not need a supplemental anywhere near $100 billion, much less $200 billion. And in this record-breaking budget, there's no pay adjustments for the civilian workforce, and with inflation, that is a pay cut. After a year of DOD layoffs and a hiring freeze across the department, this is an insult to the 800,000 men and women who support our warfighters every day. I cannot imagine a faster way to erode readiness and distract from our abilities to deter our adversaries. Ultimately, Mrs. Secretary, I believe you are causing lasting harm to the military. Like many members of this committee, I had the opportunity and the privilege to serve in the military, and every officer knows they are duty-bound to give their best professional advice, even if it is not what their superiors want to hear because when leaders fear to speak honestly, people die, missions fail, wars are lost. The American people's trust in our military took 250 years to build. You are dismantling it in a fraction of that time. And trust once long can take generations to rebuild. Mr. Secretary, today I hope you'll take a step forward toward rebuilding the trust that has been lost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, you are now recognized for your opening statement, sir.

Well, Mr. Chairman, uh Ranking Member Reed, Senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of President Trump's historic, as you said, Mr. [clears throat] Chairman, $1.5 trillion fiscal year 2027 budget for the Department of War. The President's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing both the deferment of long-standing problems as well as positioning our forces for the current and future fights. I'm honored to appear alongside General Dan Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Jay Hurst, our Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller. I'd like to start by thanking this Committee and Congress for your partnership in securing the investments needed for a stronger, prouder, and more secure military. Your focus on acquisitions, your focus on efficiency are the reflection in our department as well and in this as well and in this budget. A nation's ability to build, to innovate, and to support the critical needs of its warfighters at speed and at scale is the foundation upon which its deterrence and survival rests. However, upon taking office on January 20th, 2025, President Trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America Last policies, resulting in a diminished capacity to project strength. Under the previous administration, we were offshoring, outsourcing, beset by cost overruns, and degraded capabilities. But under the leadership of President Trump, our builder-in-chief, we are reversing the systemic decay and putting our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. Urgency informs everything we do. We're rebuilding a military that the American people can be proud of, one that instills nothing less than unrelenting fear in our adversaries, and inspires historic morale and recruiting in its ranks. We fight to win in every scenario. The $1.5 trillion budget put forward by the President will build upon a previous $1 trillion FY26 topline, and will continue to reverse the 4 years of underinvestment and mismanagement of the Biden administration. The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure that the United States continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with a complex threat environment across multiple theaters. Not to mention, the budget also includes a historic troop pay increase, 7% for junior enlisted, and the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget.

By supercharging our defense industrial capacity and transforming how the department does business, we are restoring American commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations, transforming the defense industrial base from the broken, slow-moving systems of the past. We have flipped the Pentagon acquisition process from a bureaucratic model to a business model, decisively moving from a acquisitions environment paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape into an outcomes-driven organization focused on delivering the most for taxpayer dollars. Over the past year, through historic multi-year procurement agreements that this committee supported, we've cut smart business deals that have sent unambiguous demand signals to industry to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great American factories and a massive reinvestment in the skilled American workers who serve as the industrial muscle behind our warriors.

Further um interruptions of our hearing will will be treated in like manner. We appreciate the First Amendment rights of Americans to express uh themselves, but um disruption of this hearing will not be tolerated. So, Mr. Secretary, you may continue.

I'll brief I'll briefly provide some concrete high-level metrics of what we've accomplished over just the past few months. These are announced new facilities and investments to support American warfighters. The Department has helped stimulate more than 250 private investment deals in 39 states, 180 cities, and 150 companies worth more than 50 billion dollars. It's resulted in 280 new or expanded facilities, more than 18 million new square feet of American manufacturing, and more than 70,000 new jobs. These 50 billion in investments in new plants, new assembly lines, and new factories are private investments, not taxpayer dollars. By completely transforming our Department's business model. American companies are investing in America with their own dollars. A historic demonstration of American manufacturing and defense revitalization. All with their money, not Uncle Sam's. This has never been done before and is long overdue from a bureaucratic model to a business model. These investments equal great things for America, for American families and American workers to ensure that our warfighters have everything they need, all American made. Together with the help of the policy updates and appropriations passed by Congress, President Trump's War Department has begun to turn the lights back on in our manufacturing towns across this country forging a lethal arsenal of freedom. Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request serves to ensure that this department remains laser focused on increasing lethality and survivability from the front lines to the factory floor. This is a historic budget, as you said, Mr. Chairman. This is a fiscally responsible budget. And this is a warfighting budget. Speaking of warfighting, the topic of Iran, I'm sure will come up often today, which I welcome. I look forward to sharing the incredible success of our military effort achieved in a matter of weeks. President Trump has the courage has had, unlike other presidents, to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon and that their nuclear blackmail never succeeds. We have the best negotiator in the world driving a great deal. Unfortunately, as I said yesterday, and I'll say it again today, the biggest advocate adversary we face at this point are the reckless naysayers and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Defeatists from the cheap seats who, 2 months in seek to undermine the incredible efforts that have been undertaken and the historic nature of taking on a 47-year threat with the courage no other president has had to great success and great opportunity for preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Despite this, under President Trump, we are restoring the unbreakable might of American manufacturing. We're providing for our warfighters and we are putting the people and interests of this country first. May almighty God continue to watch over our troops wherever they are. And may we honor the legacy of those brave Americans that we have lost. This is our sacred mission and this is what we will continue to execute on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for that statement, Mr. Secretary. General Keane, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, members of the committee, and your staff who we never get to say thanks to. Thanks for having me today. I'm honored to be here alongside the Honorable Pete Hegseth and the Honorable Jay Hurst to testify on the President's fiscal 2027 budget. I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify today and I'm thankful for your continued partnership and support of our warfighters defending the homeland and our interests around the world. It's a privilege to speak with you today about the foundation of America's strength, the 2.8 million members of our joint force. And I am continually inspired by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, guardians, coast guardsmen, and civilians standing the watch for the nation supported always by their families. They could have chosen a much easier path, any other path, but they volunteered for a life of purpose and passion and service. And every single day they rise to meet the nation's challenge challenges from combat operations to critical support roles with the courage, tenacity, and grit that keeps our nation strong and secure. I would also like to express my deep gratitude for the 39 members of the Joint Force who've passed in operations, combat, and training during my time as the chairman. And specifically highlight the 14 who've passed in Operation Epic Fury. The secretary and I are deeply grateful for each of them and their families, and their names will never be forgotten. As the chairman, my duty is to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military options and the associated risks required to make the nation's hardest and most complex decisions. I owe the president, the secretary, and the Congress the truth at every turn. And my blueprint for this role has always been that of General George C. Marshall. His firm commitment to civilian control and non-partisan and a non-partisan military remains my constant standard, and I strive to emulate his candor delivering the facts leaders need to hear, not always what they want to hear. And once a decision is made, executing it with the absolute dedication while keeping the Joint Force precisely where it should be. That's the demand of our profession. As I sit before you today representing our incredible Joint Force, I want to emphasize my commitment to this committee and to the Congress. I will always follow General Marshall's steadfast example by providing clear and candid non-partisan military advice, working together to ensure the military remains squarely focused on one thing, being prepared to deter and if called upon fight and win our nation's war and that is our mission. America's joint force is operational at its core purpose-built for the realities in a complex world. We're organized, trained, and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision. And over the past year, our warfighters have consistently demonstrated exactly what it means to be the most capable and most professional force on Earth. Our shared goal is to ensure the joint force remains the strategic sustains the strategic initiative and advantage and ability to project power to respond to the global challenges on our nation's terms. During Operation Rough Rider, Midnight Hammer, Southern Spear, Absolute Resolve, and Epic Fury, the joint force executed globally integrated missions alongside our interagency and international partners. And once our leaders made a decision, our forces demonstrated the unmatched ability to seamlessly synchronize actions and activities from the seabed to cislunar space. We're able to accomplish these complex things that we are asked to do because we draw from a deep reservoir of training, professionalism, and commitment. Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it, rebuilding readiness every day, training professionals every day, and sharpening our edge every day. And I am incredibly proud of this joint force team and the leaders at every echelon who command it. As the chairman said, we are living in a complex environment. Today, I look forward to discussing how we can sustain America's military advantage. And I know this committee recognizes the challenges and the urgency in the environment that we face. We're operating in delicate and dangerous times where risk is scaling and the complexity of the modern battlefield demands America's constant adaptation, innovation, and partnership with Congress. As a joint force, we're up to the challenge.