Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Hegseth Confirmation Hearing; Hegseth: Sexual Assault Allegation Part of a "Smear Campaign"; Hegseth Denies Allegations, Says He's "Not a Perfect Person". Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired January 14, 2025 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

REED: Excuse me. All of your public comments don't talk about meritocracy. They talk about liberal democratic efforts that are destroying the military, that those people are enemies. That's not meritocracy, that's a political view. And your goal, as I see emerging, is to politicize the military in favor of your particular positions, which you've outlined extensively, which would be the worst blow to the professionalism of the United States military and would undercut readiness, undercut retention, because I can see officers receiving these e-mails beginning to wonder very seriously if they should continue.

Let me change subjects for a moment here. You've been instrumental in securing pardons for several convicted war criminals. In at least two of these cases, the military personnel who served in combat with these convicted servicemembers were not supportive of the pardons. They did their duty as soldiers to report war crimes. Your definition of lethality seems to embrace those people who do commit war crimes, rather than those who stand up and say, this is not right.

So, what's the response to your servicemembers who personally witnessed these and took, courageously reported them to their superiors?

HEGSETH: Senator, as someone who's led men in combat directly and had to make very difficult decisions, I've thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality. Ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy, and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way.

I'm not talking about disavowing the laws of war or the Geneva Conventions, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Sir, I'm talking about restrictive rules of engagement that these men and women behind me understand they've lived with on the battlefield, which has made it more difficult to defeat our enemies.

In many of the cases you're talking about in particular, sir, there was evidence withheld. There was prosecutorial misconduct. And as someone who looks case by case, and defaults to the warfighter, to the men and women with dust on their boots, not the second guessers in air-conditioned offices in Washington, D.C.

REED: (Inaudible). HEGSETH: I look at case by case, and was proud to work with President Trump to understand those cases and ensure that our warriors are always looked out for.

REED: Those cases were adjudicated or by adjudicated by who? People in Washington or fellow non-commissioned officers who had also served, to sacrificed and believed in the ethic of the military? Who were the court -- who were the court martial trial...?

HEGSETH: Senator, in multiple cases, they were actually acquitted, but charges lingered, regardless of where those convening authorities were. Yes, sir.

REED: Some were, but others were convicted and you asked for pardon. That's the only reason you asked for a pardon, because they were convicted.

But the other factor too, is you've already disparaged in writing the Geneva Convention, the rules of war, all of these things. How will you be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principal elements is discipline, respectful lawful authority?

You have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a JAG officer. Well, by the way, would you explain what a JAG officer is?

HEGSETH: I don't think I need to, sir.

REED: Why not?

HEGSETH: Because the men and women watching understand.

REED: Well, perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand.

HEGSETH: It would be a JAG officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the war fighters. Their promotions, their medals in front of having the backs of those who are making the tough calls on the front lines.

WICKER: Thank you, Senator Reed.

REED: Interesting.

WICKER: Thank you, Senator.

HEGSETH: Thank you very much.

WICKER: Senator Fischer.

FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. Hegseth, to you and to your family. Thank you for the meeting that we had. We talked about a number of things.

First and foremost, was that nuclear weapons are foundational to our national defense. And having a safe, effective, and credible nuclear deterrent underpins our alliances -- and, as you note, deters our adversaries. Nuclear deterrence has been, and you and I, I believe, agreed on this, it must continue to be unequivocally the highest priority mission of the Department of Defense. But deterrence only works if our adversaries believe our nuclear forces are effective and credible. All three legs of our triad are undergoing that generational recapitalization programs, and we cannot afford any more delays in those programs.

[10:35:00]

Sir, do you believe and agree with President Trump's 2018 nuclear posture review that preventing adversary nuclear attacks is, quote, "The highest priority of the United States?"

HEGSETH: Senator, yes, I do.

FISCHER: If confirmed, will you commit to supporting all three legs of the nuclear triad and to using every tool available to deliver these systems on schedule?

HEGSETH: Senator, yes, I do, because ultimately our deterrence -- our survival is reliant upon the capability. The perception, and the reality of the capability of our nuclear triad, we have to invest in its modernization for the defense of our nation.

FISCHER: While former secretaries of defense have stated that nuclear deterrence is the highest priority, we haven't really seen that translated into budget requests or using the tools like the Defense Production Act.

You've spoken about increasing lethality. You've spoken about getting programs done faster. How would you actually implement a culture change so that we can see these delivery schedules move forward, be rewarded?

I can tell you in most every briefing we have, the schedules we're on are too late. So, what would you do?

HEGSETH: We'll, ultimately, focused first on the things that are most important as we have discussed, Senator, the nuclear triad, understanding whether it's the B-21 or the Minuteman to the Sentinel, all aspects of the Columbia class, submarines, ballistic missiles.

What are the priorities that need to be focused on and ensure that in those particular cases -- you mentioned it, Senator -- the Defense Production Act, emergency powers. If we're at a place where our nuclear capabilities are perceived to not be what they are, that is an emergency.

And we have an ally in our incoming commander-in-chief in President Donald Trump who has spoken about these things, understands the power and strength of nuclear deterrence, will not allow them to be de- prioritized.

FISCHER: It's the existential threat. It's the existential threat to this nation. How do you change the -- how do you change the culture? It's not just the production act that's going to be able to do it. How are you going to move forward faster?

HEGSETH: Competition, Senator, is important, critically important. The Death Valley that was talked about, leveraging the innovation of Silicon Valley, which for the first time in generations has shown a willingness, desire, and capability to bring its best technologies to bear at the Pentagon.

A Pentagon that has become too insular, tries to block new technologies from coming in. So, we have to embrace that, provide -- there are some great Office of Strategic Capital, DIU, initiatives that provide loans to companies to participate, because you have to invest in the defense industrial base for the longer-term projects.

We have the capability, the missiles, and the munitions, but also to rapidly field emerging technologies that we need on the battlefield right now. So, as we learn things, say, in the war in Ukraine, those technologies, as we look at threats we're going to face, find ways to rapidly field those using off-the-shelf technologies or standard designs, modular designs.

Another easy one, Senator, that became evident in the process is digital designs. The Pentagon often builds entire systems without first using a digital design.

FISCHER: OK.

HEGSETH: Which means you build prototypes and then scrap them and start over again. No private sector business could survive doing business that way. So, there's a lot of innovation, and I'm going to hire a lot of smart people already have to help with that.

FISCHER: OK. In the 2025 NDAA, it was established to a new position, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Deterrence, Chemical and Biological Defense Policy and Programs, and that was established so we could cut through a lot of the bureaucratic stovepipes that we see in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

If confirmed, will you direct the Department of Defense components to expeditiously implement this reform?

HEGSETH: It sounds -- I want to look directly at exactly...

FISCHER: It is great.

HEGSETH: ... what that reform is.

FISCHER: It is great.

HEGSETH: I take your word that it's great, Senator. I will review it robustly and I look forward to implementing it.

FISCHER: OK. Thank you. During the first Trump administration, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that the U.S. needed to once again develop and deploy a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, known as SLCM-N, to offset significant Russian and Chinese advantages in theater-range nuclear capabilities. [10:40:00]

Since then, Congress, on a strong bipartisan basis, has directed the Navy and the National Nuclear Security Administration to continue this effort. Do you support the SLCM-N program?

HEGSETH: As of right now, Senator, based on what I know, I do. But one of my answers I'll have repeatedly throughout this morning is getting an opportunity to look under the hood, a classified material, get an understanding of true capabilities, vis-a-vis enemy capabilities.

Because what we know right now on the nuclear -- sorry, Senator. What I know on the nuclear side is that Russia and China are rushing to modernize and build arsenals larger than ours. We need to match threats to capabilities. And the systems we elevate will be tied to whether those capabilities are needed based on the adversaries we face.

FISCHER: Would you -- would you ensure that this program is executed according to law?

HEGSETH: Absolutely. Absolutely, Senator.

FISCHER: What -- short here -- what is your plan to revitalize the industrial base in this country?

WICKER: It needs to be real short.

HEGSETH: Serious investment, targeted at systems that we truly need by also incentivizing competition, and laser focus from the OSD, from the Office of Secretary of Defense, to all the particular strategic initiatives to revive them so it's not just one system, it's multiple systems.

WICKER: You may want to expand on that on the record.

At this point, my colleagues, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter organized by a group called Flag Officers for America, which has 120 retired generals and admirals offering their support for Mr. Hegseth's nomination. I ask unanimous consent. Without objection, it is entered into the record.

Senator Shaheen.

SHAHEEN: Good morning, Mr. Hegseth .

HEGSETH: Good morning, Senator.

SHAHEEN: I was pleased when I was contacted on your behalf about meeting before this hearing. I've been on this committee since 2011. And during that time, I voted to confirm six nominees to be Secretary of Defense from three administrations, two Democratic and one Republican, the first Trump administration.

Every one of those nominees met with me and my Democratic colleagues on this committee before the hearing. So, as you can imagine, I was disappointed when no one ever followed up. When we followed up with your office, you were not able to meet.

Do you understand that if you're confirmed to be Secretary of Defense, that you will have a responsibility to meet with all members of this committee, not just Republicans?

HEGSETH: Senator, I very much appreciate and understand the traditionally bipartisan nature of this committee. The national defense is not partisan. It should not be about Republicans or Democrats.

SHAHEEN: Thank you.

HEGSETH: And so, I look forward to working together with you and your colleagues on priorities facing this nation. Yes

SHAHEEN: Yes. I think we would expect that. And one reason that I wanted to meet with you was because I thought it would be really helpful to better understand your views on women in the military, because you've made a number of surprising statements about women serving in the military.

As recently as November the 7th of 2024 on the Shawn Ryan Show, you said, and I quote, "I'm straight up saying that we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective." The quote went on a little longer, but that was the gist of it. That was before you were nominated to be Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Hegseth, do you know what percentage of our military is comprised of women?

HEGSETH: I believe it's 18 to 20 percent, Senator.

SHAHEEN: It's almost 18 percent. In fact, DOD's 2023 demographic report indicated that there are more women serving now, and there are fewer separations, so they make up a critical part of our military. Wouldn't you agree?

HEGSETH: Yes, ma'am. Women in our military, as I have said publicly, have, and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield.

SHAHEEN: Well, you also write in your book, "The War on Warriors", with the chapter "The Deadly Obsession with Women Warriors", that, quote, "Not only are women comparatively less effective than men in combat roles, but they are more likely to be objectified by the enemy and their own nation in the moral realms of war."

Mr. Hegseth, should we take it to believe that you believe that the two women on this committee who have served honorably and with distinction made our military less effective and less capable?

HEGSETH: I'm incredibly grateful for the two women who have served our military in uniform, and including in the Central Intelligence Agency, contributions on the battlefield, indispensable contributions.

[10:45:00] Senator, I would like to clarify. When I'm talking about that issue, it's not about the capabilities of men and women, it's about standards.

SHAHEEN: Well...

HEGSETH: And this committee has talked a lot about standards, standards that we, unfortunately, over time have seen eroded in certain duty positions, in certain schools, certain places, which affects readiness, which is what I care about the most, readiness on the battlefield.

SHAHEEN: I appreciate that.

HEGSETH: And so, my comments point..

(CROSSTALK)

SHAHEEN: But, however...

HEGSETH: ... time and time again to standards.

SHAHEEN: Your statements publicly have not been to that effect. After your nomination, you did state to a group of reporters that you, quote, "Support all women serving in our military today who do a fantastic job across the globe, including combat."

So, what I'm confused about, Mr. Hegseth, is which is it? Why should women in our military, if you were the Secretary of Defense, believe that they would have a fair shot and an equal opportunity to rise through the ranks if on the one hand you say that women are not competent, they make our military less effective, and on the other hand you say, oh, no, now that I've been nominated to be the Secretary of Defense, I've changed my view on women in the military?

What do you have to say to the almost 400,000 women who are serving today about your position on whether they should be capable to rise through the highest ranks of our military?

HEGSETH: Senator, I would say I would be honored to have the opportunity to serve alongside you, shoulder to shoulder, men and women, black, white, all backgrounds, with a shared purpose.

Our differences are not what define us. Our unity and our shared purpose is what define us. And you will be treated fairly and with dignity, honor, and respect, just like every man and woman in uniform, just like the men and women that I've worked with in my veterans' organizations, to include when I was a headquarters and headquarters company commander in the Minnesota National Guard. We have women in our ranks as well.

SHAHEEN: Well, I appreciate your 11th-hour conversion. But, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to submit Chapter 5, The Deadly Obsession With Women Warriors, for the record.

Mr. Hegseth? WICKER: Without objection, it will be submitted.

SHAHEEN: Are you familiar with the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda at the Department of Defense?

HEGSETH: Yes, ma'am, I am.

SHAHEEN: This is a law that was signed during President-elect Trump's first term. It was legislation that I sponsored with Republican Senator Capito of West Virginia. It was co-sponsored by Marco Rubio, the nominee to be the President-elect's Secretary of State. It was led in the House of Representatives by Kristi Noem, the President-elect's nominee to be the Secretary of Homeland Security.

It mandates that women be included in all aspects of our national security, including conflict resolution and peace negotiations. And at the Department of Defense, it has been the law for eight years under both the Trump and Biden administrations. The DOD has incorporated women throughout its decision making as a result.

Every single combatant commander across two administrations has told this Committee that this law and its implementation at the Department of Defense provides them a strategic advantage operationally. Based on your comments, it appears that the example that you would like to set not only for women in this country, but for women across the globe, 50% of the world's population, as the prospective nominee to lead the most combat credible military in the entire world, is that women should not have an equal opportunity in our military.

So will you commit to preserving the women peace and security law at DOD and including in your budget the requisite funding to continue to restore and resource these programs throughout the DOD?

HEGSETH: Senator, I will commit to reviewing that program and ensuring it aligns with America first national security priorities, meritocracy, lethality and readiness. And if it advances American interests, it's something we would advance. If it doesn't, it's something we would look at.

SHAHEEN: Well, since former President Trump signed the law, I hope that he agrees with you.

WICKER: Thank you, Senator Shaheen. At this point, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record five letters of support from female service members in combat, veterans who support Mr. Hegseth's nomination. These women represent diverse viewpoints, from a retired colonel with over 25 years of service to an active duty Navy surface warfare commander to a senior airman.

They support Mr. Hegseth and comment on his focus on merit, war, fighting readiness, military training status, and the warrior ethos. So without objection, it will be entered into the record. And now I'm honored to recognize Senator Cotton for seven minutes.

[10:50:00] COTTON: Mr. Hegseth, let's continue on this line of questioning about what's sometimes referred to as women in combat. I think that phrase is something of a misnomer. Many members of this Committee have served in combat in the last 25 years, include women and men. I'm sure all those men served with women, whether they were military police officers or they were pilots, or whether they were intelligence analysts or medics or what have you.

You served, I assume you served with women who were on the front lines as well, is that correct?

HEGSETH: Yes, sir.

COTTON: And where those women anything other than skilled, brave and honorable in their service?

HEGSETH: They were some of the best soldiers I worked with...

COTTON: So women have been serving in combat for a long time. Women, they've even been serving in combat units like infantry battalions for a long time and roles like medics or mechanics or what have you. So what we're talking about here specifically is women in ground combat roles in jobs like infantrymen or artillerymen or Special Forces.

Until about 10 years ago, that wasn't the case. Under Secretary Panetta, those roles were opened up to women to serve in. Has President Trump indicated at all that he plans to rescind or alter that guidance?

HEGSETH: You're correct to point out, Senator, that these are the decisions that the commander in chief will have the prerogative to make. He has not indicated me -- to me that he has plans to change whether or not women would have access to these roles.

However, I would point out ensuring that standards are equal and high is of importance to him and great importance to me. Because in those ground combat roles, what is true is that the weight of the ruck on your back doesn't change, the weight of the 155 round that you have to carry doesn't change, the weight of the 240 Bravo machine gun you might have to carry doesn't change. And so whether it's a man or a woman, they have to meet the same high standards.

And Senator, in any place where those things have been eroded or in courses, criteria have been changed in order to meet quotas, racial quotas or gender quotas, that is putting a focus on something other than readiness standards, meritocracy and lethality. So that's the kind of review I'm talking about, not whether women have access to ground combat.

COTTON: OK, so thank you -- so you expect no change that guidance. But as you point out, in these specific jobs, they are irreducible physical demands. We expect our intelligence analysts and our mechanics to be physically fit in the military. But it's different when you're in the infantry or the artillery. You just mentioned a few things. Let me point it out. An artillery shell weighs almost 100 pounds. An Abrams tank round weighs around 50 pounds. The M240 Bravo machine gun with its tripod weighs almost 50 pounds. The average weight of a full kit, ammo, water, combo, body armor for a soldier is over 100 pounds. Nothing you can do can change any of those things, right? That is physical reality.

HEGSETH: Go ahead. Yes, Senator. And I would say the requirements to handle those things in a ground combat unit, as far as standards, can look different than those of a medic or a drone pilot. And so it's not that it has to be the same standard throughout its standards to maximize efficacy of that particular position.

COTTON: Let me read a quote here from one army officer. While it may be difficult for a 120 pound woman to lift or drag 250 pounds, the army cannot artificially absolve women of that responsibility. It may still exist on the battlefield. The entire purpose of creating a gender neutral test was to acknowledge the reality that each job has objective physical standards to which all soldiers should be held regardless of gender. The intent was not to ensure that women and men will have an equal likelihood of meeting those standards.

I assume, based on your testimony, you agree with that army officer.

HEGSETH: Absolutely. The standards need to be the same and they need to be high. And they need to be set by the people closest to the problem set, closest to the understanding of what is required by that job. Commanders, commanding officers and COCOMs and elsewhere who understand the reality of what they face, that's the feedback we should get. That's what should be enshrined and enforced.

And no other set of political prerogatives, when I talk about removing politics, ideological or political prerogatives should contribute to those determinations. Nothing other than the execution of the mission.

COTTON: Thank you. For the record, that army officer was Captain Kristen Greist, the Army's first female infantry officer and one of its first female Ranger School graduates. One final point. You said they need to be objective, gender neutral and high. That's because the demands are in fact, very high.

The current physical fitness test for the army has a minimum two mile run of 22 miles run. And I want the reporter to note that I'm putting run in air quotes because 22 miles at two miles is not running. It may be jogging. It's probably walking fast.

[10:55:00]

Let's move on. Got a big 22 minutes. We've got a big audience here. Many of them seem to be patriotic supporters of you, Mr. Hegseth. Some of them seem to be liberal critics of you. I would note that it's only the liberal critics that have disrupted this hearing.

As was my custom during the Biden administration. I want to give you a chance to respond to what they said about you. I think the first one accused you of being a Christian Zionist. I'm not really sure why that is a bad thing. I'm a Christian. I'm a Zionist. Zionism is that the Jewish people deserve a homeland in the ancient Holy Land where they've lived since the dawn of history. Do you consider yourself a Christian Zionist?

HEGSETH: Senator, I support -- I'm a Christian and I robustly support the state of Israel and its existential defense and the way America comes alongside them is a great...

COTTON: Thank you. Because another one, another protester, and I think this one was a member of Code Pink, which by the way, is a Chinese communist front group these days, said that you support Israel's war in Gaza. I support Israel's existential war in Gaza. I assume, like me and President Trump, you support that war as well, don't you?

HEGSETH: Senator, I do. I support Israel destroying and killing every last member of Hamas.

COTTON: And the third protester said something about 20 years of genocide. I assume that's our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think our troops are committing genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan?

HEGSETH: Senator, I do not -- I think our, Senator, our troops, as you know, as so many in this Committee know, did the best they could with what they had. We're not -- the outcomes -- and tragically, the outcome we saw in Afghanistan under the Biden administration put a stain on that, but it doesn't put a stain on what those men and women did in uniform, as you know full well, Senator.

COTTON: Thank you, Mr. Hegseth.

WICKER: Thank you, Senator Cotton. At this point, I offer -- I ask unanimous consent to offer to the record a letter submitted by Omar Abbasi (ph), son of former city council president of Samara, Iraq, who worked with Mr. Hegseth in Iraq. Without objection, that will be entered. Senator Gillibrand.

GILLIBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hegseth. I do want to thank you for your service. And I want to thank you for your willingness to serve in this capacity.

HEGSETH: Thank you, Senator.

GILLIBRAND: I have many concerns about your record and particularly your public statements because they are so hurtful to the men and women who are currently serving in the U.S. Military. Harmful to morale, harmful to good order and discipline. If you are saying that women shouldn't be serving in the military -- now, I'm going to read you your quotes because the quotes themselves are terrible.

You will have to change how you see women to do this job well, and I don't know if you are capable of that. So I want to press on these issues that my colleague Jeanne Shaheen brought up because she said it so well.

So first of all, you answered your questionnaire. Do you believe that any American who wants to serve in their country, in the military, and can meet objective standards set by the military should be allowed to serve without limitation? You've said yes to that question. But then in all of these other circumstances, you've denigrated active duty service members.

We have hundreds, hundreds of women who are currently in the infantry, lethal members of our military serving in the infantry, but you degrade them. You say we need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units. So specific to Senator Cotton's question, because Senator Cotton was giving you layups to differentiate between different types of combat.

And specifically, as secretary, would you take any action to reinstitute the combat arms exclusion for female service members, knowing full well you have hundreds of women doing that job right now?

And the standards, your two mile run, Tom (ph), is about the Army Combat Fitness Test. It is not the requirements to have an MOS11 Bravo, which is the infantry. These are the requirements today for people serving in industry, men and women. They are gender neutral and they are very difficult to meet. They have not been reduced in any way. And our combat units, our infantry, is lethal.

So please explain specifically, because you will be in charge of three million personnel. It is a big job. And when you make these public statements and I get you were not secretary of defense. Then I get you were on TV. I get you were helping veterans. I get it was a different job, but most recently you said this in November of 2024, knowing full well, you might've been named as secretary of defense -- defense.

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

[11:00:00]