[0:01]Do you think political allegiance to Trump is a requirement for serving our nation either in uniform or a civilian in the department? I'm incredibly proud as our millions of American. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not not today, Hegseth. Yes or no? Congressman, you know what a silly question that is. But silly enough to warrant a very straightforward answer. Yes or no? We all support and defend the Constitution of the United States. You know what? I'm not going to waste my time anymore. You're not worthy of my attention or my questions. You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead and there's been bipartisan members of Congress that have called for your resignation. You should just get the hell out and let somebody confidently lead this department. Mr. Chairman, do we have any decorum in here? Thank you very much. I yield, I yield my time. Gentleman yields his time. And I would urge everybody to remember and maintain the decorum suitable for this chamber. there for further comments. uh the chair and I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DeJarlay. Thank you, Chairman. Um, Mr. Secretary, I said in your hearing when you, when you had your confirmation hearing that my biggest concern, um, with you at the helm was the potential use of the military in ways that contradict the Constitution, or that taint what I hope we all want, which is an apolitical military. And when I asked you about whether you would accept an order, um, that was actually given to your predecessor, Secretary Esper, Trump's Seff, um, to deploy uh, active duty troops against unarmed protesters, and to and and Secretary Esper's words, shoot at them, shoot at their legs. Um, you said this was all theoretical. Here we are a few months later. You've deployed 4,700 troops to Los Angeles and it against the wishes of the governor. And my colleague across the eye was right. It is the first time since 1965, um, that we have deployed uh, guard troops without the permission of the governor. In all the instances he laid out, the president had sent in, sent in the military to protect protesters, not against the protesters. So you may dismiss it, but I feel like this is a fundamental issue of American democracy. If you love your country and you want an apolitical military, then it should be the last resort, not the first resort in our country to use them. So, to get to the non-theoretical, have you authorized uniform military to detain or arrest protesters in Los Angeles?
[2:43]Um, Senator, I would just start by saying, You're not a protester if you're throwing concrete at law enforcement. 100% Arrest those people, throw them in the jail. 100%. But what you're doing is something different. Everyone knows this is a political decision, right? So we don't trust that you're using the best interests of the military, certainly, and of democracy on top of that. So, have you given the order? That's all I want to know. It's not theoretical. For the US military, military, not law enforcement. They can arrest all day long, that's their job. Do they have the ability, the uniform military to arrest and detain protesters currently today? Um, I It's a yes or no thing. Authority. I sort of it's sort of amusing the extent to which the speculation is out there. These troops are given very clear orders to Then what is the order? Then list it out for us. Be a man. List it out. Did you authorize them to detain or arrest? That is a fundamental issue of democracy. I'm I'm not trying to be a snot here. I'm just trying to get the actual, did you authorize them to do that? All of these orders and their and what they're sent there to do are public. They are there to protect So say it. So say it. Yes or no? I'd like to. Please, yes or no. As I've said time and time again through interruption, they're there to protect law enforcement, ice officers or trying to do their job to boarding illegals who were allowed in by the previous administration. So they cannot arrest and detain citizens of the United States, the uniform military. As we've stated, if necessary, in their own self-defense, they could temporarily detain and hand over to ice, but there's no arresting going on and you know this better than. Have you given the US military cyber tools to investigate people participating in these protests? Certainly, in no way that I'd be aware of. Okay, that's good. I love that answer. That's great. Have you given the order, um, for to be able to shoot at unarmed protesters in any way? I'm just asking the question. Don't laugh. Like, the the whole country and by the way, my colleagues across the aisle. What is that based on? What if it evidence would you have that an order like that ever been given? It is based on Donald Trump giving that order to your predecessor, to a Republican Secretary of Defense, who I give a lot of credit to because he didn't accept the order. He had more guts and balls than you because he said I'm not going to send in the uniform military to do something that I know in my gut isn't right. He was asked to shoot at their legs. He wrote that in his book. That's not hearsay. So your pooing of this, it just shows you don't understand who we are as a country. Who we are and all of my colleagues across the aisle, especially the ones that served, should want an apolitical military and not want citizens to be scared of their own military. I love the military. I served alongside my whole life. So I'm worried about you tainting it. Have you given the order? Have you given the order that they can use lethal force against unarmed? I want the answer to be no, please tell me it's no. Have you given the order? Senator, I'd be careful what you read in books and believing it, except for the Bible. The Oh my God. So your former predecessor, I guess that's not enough for you. Okay, on Iran. I don't think there's a debate, there's like a cat fight going on in your own party about whether to go after Iran. Have you commissioned any day after planning? So any force protection, any use of ground troops in Iran, any um cost assessments, because I don't think we doubt what we can do as a country in the attack. It's the day after with Iraq and Afghanistan that so many of us have learned to be so deeply concerned about. Have you authorized day after planning? As I've said, we have plans for everything, Senator. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Chairman, uh, in response to my colleague from Oklahoma, I believe the Secretary of Defense has just responded last week and admitted that. The one billion dollar mission that he led against the Huties who do not have a navy, uh uh has not restored the transit of US flag commercials vessels through the Red Sea and in fact, has resulted in the loss of two F 18 uh hornets to the tune of 200 million uh $60 million a piece as well as I believe the last count was seven Reaper drones to another $200 million.
[7:03]You are blowing through money like my cadets and I did in our first liberty after basic camp. Luckily, I didn't end up with a questionable tattoo. Your failures, Mr. Secretary, since you've taken office has been staggering. You sent classified operational information over signals to chest thump in front of your wife, who by the way has no security clearance, risking service member lives in the process. You blew the 1 million, 1 billion dollar uh fight against the Huties, whom um again as my colleague says has no navy and yet you lost all of those aircraft. You've created such a hostile command environment that no one wants to serve as your chief of staff or work with you in other senior DD leadership roles. But what we should all be talking about more than all of this is that you have an unjustified un-American misuse of the military in American cities, pulling resources and attention away from core missions to the detriment of the country, the war fighters, and yes, the war fighting that you claim to love. I don't know if this is because you are too inexperienced and incompetent to understand the real threats facing our country, or if it's because you are just an unqualified yes man who can't tell the president how to keep Americans safe. You're focusing on renaming bases for Confederate generals. You said just now to Senator King that uh to a man and to a woman, we would rather be associated with the old Confederate names. Well, I am one of those women. I served at Fort Rucker, Alabama, a base that was named for a traitor who took arms against the United States of America, led troops to kill Americans. It was renamed from Mike Novacel, a medal of honor recipient who in his citation for the Medal of Honor, includes that he saved 29 American lives to include hovering backwards in a helicopter towards an enemy bunker where a wounded American was laying and saved that and saved that person, including after being taken fire himself. I know a little something about what it takes to fly a helicopter when you've been hit by enemy fire. That was heroic. I'd rather be associated with Mike Novacel than a failed Confederate traitor. I don't know whether you are inexperienced or too incompetent, but I wonder when you will actually focus on our nation's war fighting mission. We know that California is just a deliberate systematic political and dangerous campaign led by you. We should not be using our military to play cops against Americans. General Caine, as chairman, a key part of your job is to coordinate military planning across the joint force. Is the department currently incorporating into any military plans expanding the use of the reserve forces to include the national guard or active duty troops to support domestic law enforcement, including in other locations in the United States? Uh Senator, you know, we, we, uh, carefully Yes or no, general. Well, it's it's uh, it's not really a yes or no question, Madame Senator. We, we plan all kinds of different things. I think it is a yes or no question. I'm not aware of any, I'm not aware of anything, but the reason why I'm answering is the tags may be looking at something that I'm not aware of. What are you doing at your level? You are not aware of that being happening at your level because we know that on his first day, President Trump directed US Northern Command to revise its unified command plan to add new planning requirements to combat and I quote, criminal activities. A series of follow-up executive orders continue to redirect DoD priorities to supporting domestic law enforcement, including one in April that tells DoD and I quote, use national security assets for law and order. In other words, do law enforcement's job. I'd like to enter these executive orders into the record, Mr. Chairman. Is there objection for the objection, so were you. Mr. Hegseth, you say you are focused on war fighting and warriors. These are your words. Yet you are diverting untold DD resources and attention to fundamentally non-military mission of domestic policing. Across the country, we have qualified police officers who are trained for that mission. They know those streets better than the Marines you deploy to Los Angeles, who normally focus on the Indo-Pacific. And you recently approved 700 more troops in three other states to do admin and logistics works for ice. You say all of this is valuable training, but I would much rather have our troops do tough realistic training relevant to high-end combat. Instead of typing in spreadsheets for ice, they should be conducting live fire maneuver exercises. Instead of patrolling American neighborhoods and standing in front of federal buildings, they should be rehearsing call for fire emissions. We have local police who can stand in front of those federal buildings. And the list of distractions goes on. You are encouraging the DoD workforce to go work for DHS in increasing numbers. You're pulling the military away from facing foreign enemies, who literally say things like death to America. And you're putting troops with weapons aimed at Americans. Mr. Secretary, let the military get back to its real job, stop forcing them to do DHS's and if you want to be the DHS Secretary, maybe you can apply for that job when you're fired from this one due to your incompetence.
