Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Pete Hegseth Questioned in Senate Confirmation Hearing; Hegseth Asked About His Views on Women Serving in Combat Roles. Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired January 14, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

KING: But I must say I've been reminded somewhat of Saul on his way to Damascus. You seem to have been converted over the last several weeks and several months.

You wrote in your book just last year that -- but if we're going to -- this is the book "War on Warriors." "But if we're going to send our boys to fight, and it should be boys, we need to unleash them to win. Later on, our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men."

Which is it? Is it -- is it only boys can fight? I mean, you've testified here today that you believe in women in combat, but you didn't just last year. How do you explain your conversion?

HEGSETH: Senator, my testimony is clear. Writing a book is different than being Secretary of Defense. And I look forward to leading the men and women of our military.

And my comment there, Senator, was about the burdensome rules of engagement that members of our generation, men and women, have seen on the battlefield. And one thing President Trump changed in meaningful ways that led to meaningful developments on the battlefield.

When President Trump took control in the first term, ISIS was raging across Iraq. And as someone who spent a lot of time there with other men and women who invested in that mission, it was a very difficult moment to see the black flag of ISIS fly. And what President Trump did was...

KING: I appreciated your...

HEGSETH: ... untie the hands of warfighters.

KING: I appreciate your position today.

HEGSETH: He changed the rules of engagement, untied the hands of warfighters, and allowed them to complete their mission and crush ISIS. It has not just tactical implications, operational and strategic implications, how you allow warfighters to go about winning and fighting their wars.

President Trump understands that. And within the laws of war and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we are going to unleash warfighters to win wars so that wars don't drag on forever, as our generation has seen.

KING: So, are you rejecting Title 18? And Title 42 I think, also has provisions that incorporate the Geneva Convention and the laws of armed combat? Are you saying that those laws should be repealed? That is the law of the land right now.

HEGSETH: Senator, we have laws on the books from the Geneva Conventions into the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And then underneath that, you have layers in which standard or temporary rules of engagement are put into place.

We fight enemies also, Senator, as our generation understands, that play by no rules. They use civilians as human shields.

KING: So, are you saying...

HEGSETH: They target women and children.

KING: ... that the Geneva Convention should not be observed?

HEGSETH: We don't do that. We follow rules. We follow rules. But we don't need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars. And that's what President Trump understands.

KING: You're saying we follow rules, but we don't have to follow the rules in all cases. Is that correct?

HEGSETH: Senator, I'm making...

KING: The burdensome rules?

HEGSETH: Senator, I'm making an important tactical distinction that warfighters will understand, that there are the rules we swear an oath to defend, which are incredibly important, and this committee understands, and helps set them.

And then there are those echelons above reality from, you know, corps to division to brigade, to battalion. And by the time it trickles down to a company or a platoon or a squad level, you have a rules of engagement that nobody recognizes.

And then it makes you incredibly difficult to actually do your job on the battlefield. That's the kind of assessment and look that an Army major will give to this process, if I was confirmed to be the Secretary of Defense...

KING: Your quote is...

HEGSETH: ... through understanding.

KING: Your quote in 2024, "Our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men in mahogany rooms 80 years ago." That would be the Geneva Convention. "America should fight by its own rules, and we should fight to win or not go in at all." Are you saying that the Geneva Convention provisions, which clearly outlaw torture of prisoners, do not -- should not apply in the future?

HEGSETH: Senator, how we treat our wounded, how we treat our prisoners, the applications of the Geneva Conventions are incredibly important, but we would all have to acknowledge that the way we fought our wars back when the Geneva Conventions were written are a lot different than the asymmetric, non-conventional environment of counter-insurgency that I confronted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I was the senior counter-insurgency instructor in Afghanistan. My job was to understand how the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operated so that...

(CROSSTALK)

HEGSETH: ... units coming in could be informed of what was happening. They knew our rules of engagement, and when they were more restrictive, they took advantage of them, and it put our men and women in a more dangerous and difficult place.

KING: And you believe that...

HEGSETH: For future wars we fight, we need to have someone atop the Pentagon, sir, who understands how those ripple effects...

KING: Well, I just want to -- I just want to understand your position. You -- your position is torture is OK. Is that correct? Waterboarding torture is -- is -- is no longer prohibited, given the circumstances of whatever war we're in, is that correct?

[12:05:00]

HEGSETH: Senator, that is not what I said. I've never been party to torture. We are a -- a -- a country that fights by the rule of law, and our men and women always do, and yet we have too many people here in air-conditioned offices that like to point fingers at the guys in dark and dangerous places, the gals in helicopters in enemy territory who are doing things that people in Washington, D.C. would never dare to do or send, in -- in many cases...

KING: In -- in one of your interviews, you said, "They're willing to do this" -- you're talking about Donald Trunk (sic) and -- Trump and Senator Cruz -- "They're willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe." Are you OK with waterboarding?

HEGSETH: Senator, the law of the land is that waterboarding is not legal.

KING: So the statement that you made, you -- you now recant, is that correct? "They are willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe," you -- you expressed that with approval.

HEGSETH: Senator, I'm very familiar with that as a concept, having spent a year at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, guarding 700 of those that attacked us on 9/11... KING: Well, I just want to be clear -- it -- are we -- are we going to abide by the -- by the Geneva Convention and the prohibitions on torture or are we not? Is it going to...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: ... circumstances?

HEGSETH: As I've stated multiple times, the Geneva Conventions are what we base our -- what we're -- what -- what an America First national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that's -- make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. America First understands we send Americans for a clear mission and a clear objective. We have -- equip them properly for that objective.

KING: All right. I -- I -- I...

(CROSSTALK)

HEGSETH: ... and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively...

KING: I -- I understand...

(CROSSTALK)

HEGSETH: ... America's enemies, which is why we...

KING: I just have a few seconds left, Mr. Hegseth, if you could -- I was very disturbed in your opening statement, where you -- you talked about the priorities that you have. "We will work with our partners and allies to deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific from the Communist Chinese." There's not a single mention in this statement about Ukraine or Russia. Is this code for we're going to abandon Ukraine?

HEGSETH: Senator, the President -- this is -- that's a presidential- level policy decision, and he's made it very clear that he would like to see a end to that conflict. We know who the aggressor is, we know who the good guy is. We'd like to see it as advantageous for the Ukrainians as possible, but that war needs to come to an end.

KING: Well, you talk a lot about deterrence of China. I would submit that Xi Jinping is watching what we do very carefully. If we abandon Ukraine, that would be the strongest signal possible to Xi Jinping that he can take Taiwan without significant resistance from this country.

WICKER: Thank you, Senator King. Senator Scott of Florida?

SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record two letters which testify to Mr. Hegseth's leadership record at Concerned Veterans for America.

The first letter submitted by Mr. Darin Selnick, a senior advisor at CVA, stated that, "There has been no better leader, policy champion, or fighter for the military and veterans than Pete. He was instrumental in 2014 and 2017 in ensuring that veterans had healthcare choice."

The second letter submitted by Mr. Kasen Sparun (ph), Digital Media Director of CVA from 2015 to 2017, stated, "Pete brought incredible energy, focus, and a clear vision to the organization and showed in everything that the team accomplished together."

WICKER: And I similarly ask to submit to the record a -- a letter from Paul J. Roberts, retired Colonel, U.S. Army Special Forces, speaking to the unwavering integrity of Mr. Hegseth. Is there -- is there objection? Without objection, those three will be admitted.

Senator Scott?

SCOTT: All right. First, congratulations on your nomination.

HEGSETH: Thank you, Senator.

SCOTT: And thank you for being willing to serve our nation. I -- I served in the Navy. I'm really proud of my dad. He was crazy. He did all four combat jumps with the 82nd Airborne. He, after that, survived all of that and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. And what they went through, it was hell. So I have a lot of respect for him and for everybody that puts on the uniform and serves in battle and has to lead people in battle, because it -- I've been on a ship, that didn't happen to me, but I had a lot of friends that it happened to, and my -- it clearly happened to my dad.

I've served on this committee for six years, two years under President Trump and the past four under President Joe Biden. I've seen how the Biden-Harris administration pushed the DOD to prioritize wokeness over being the most lethal military force in the world. It's our readiness, our national security, and our ability to recruit people who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country.

Can you talk about some of the changes we could make to improve recruitment and rebuild our military into the most lethal force in the world?

HEGSETH: First of all, Senator, thank you for the question and thank you for your time. I think the first and most important thing we could have done is elect Donald Trump as the new Commander-in-Chief, because past is prologue.

Our warfighters understand what kind of Commander-in-Chief they are going to get in President Donald Trump, someone who stands behind them, someone who gives them clear missions, someone who ends wars decisively -- and the issue of Ukraine was mentioned -- and ensures new wars are not started.

[12:10:00]

There was a minor incursion under Barack Obama into Crimea, followed by nothing under President Trump, followed by an all-out assault by Vladimir Putin into Ukraine under the Biden administration. That did not happen under Donald Trump.

Donald Trump managed the Taliban. Under the Biden administration, Afghanistan collapsed tragically, ending the lives of 13 at Abbey Gate who we remember every single day, and no one was held accountable for that.

Chinese spy balloons were flying over the country. None of that happened under Donald Trump, and our warfighters understand that.

So there's no better recruiter, in my mind, for our military than President Donald Trump. My job is to come alongside him, should I be confirmed, and continue to emphasize his emphasis on warfighting, on getting anything that doesn't contribute to meritocracy out of how decisions are made inside the Pentagon.

What gender you are, what race you are, your views on climate change, or whether you are a people -- person of conscience and your faith should have no bearing on whether you get promoted or whether you're selected to go to West Point or whether you graduate from Ranger School. The only thing that should matter is how capable are you at your job, how excellent are you at your job.

I served in multi-ethnic units in every place that I worked -- every -- every place that I served. None of that mattered. But suddenly, we re-inject DEI and critical race theory, dividing troops into different categories, oppressed or in-oppressed (ph), in ways that they otherwise just want to work together.

That's why I've pointed out before and I'll say it again -- and cause I'm sure it'll be quoted to me at some point -- the dumbest phrase in military history is "Our unity is our strength. " No, our shared purpose is our strength. Our shared mission is our strength. We are one DOD community of all committed to the same mission. Has nothing to do with your background; has to do with what you -- what your commitment is to the country. And that is my solemn pledge to every single person that would put the uniform on and -- and -- and reflects President Trump's priorities, as well, Senator.

SCOTT: Thank you. You know, we talked a little bit about the -- the fact that the Pentagon can't -- can't do an audit, all right? Can you talk about -- and I mean, to me, that's -- I've run big businesses. It's all about accountability. If you want to get an audit done, you can get an audit done. You might get a letter saying you -- there's things you have to fix, but it all goes to accountability, and we haven't had it. So can you talk about what -- how -- what you bring -- how -- what you -- how you bring accountability to the table, what you've done in the past and what you're going to do with regard to bringing accountability to the Pentagon?

HEGSETH: I meant it when I said it in the opening statement, Senator. I know what I don't know. I know I've never run an organization of three million people with a budget of $850 billion.

But what I do know is that I've led -- led men and women. I've led people, and it's leadership of people and motivation of people, and a clear vision of people where you build a team, cast that vision, empower people properly. I want smarter and more capable people around me than me, and you will get that at the department. I cast the clear vision, build the plan, work it. We set the metrics and everyone is held accountable.

I know our business -- incoming businessman president believes in accountability and holding people accountable. That will happen at the Pentagon.

I mean, this has been a problem for a long time. Secretary Rumsfeld gave a speech on September 10, 2001 that's mostly forgotten, but it was about the need for acquisition reform, cutting -- cutting tail to give to teeth, to warfighters, and then 9/11 happened and -- and...

These are problems that have been persisting for a long time. But now, we have new threats and we need the urgency of this moment, as you said, Mr. Chairman, the most dangerous moment we've been since the end of the Cold War, and possibly since World War II. The urgency to do everything possible to get the capabilities into the hands of warfighters: emergency powers, Defense Production Act -- whatever it takes, and an audit is certainly part of it.

SCOTT: Why do you want to do this? Why do you want to do this job? What's your -- what drives you?

WICKER: You have 30 seconds.

(LAUGHTER)

HEGSETH: Because I love my country, Senator, and I've dedicated my life to the warfighters. People see me as someone who hosted a morning show on television. But people that really know me know where my heart's at; It's with the guys in this audience who've had my back and I've had theirs. We've been in some of the darkest and most difficult places you can ever be in. You come back a different person, and only by the grace of God am I here before you today.

I'm doing this job for them...

WICKER: Thank...

HEGSETH: ... for all of them.

[12:15:00]

WICKER: Thank you, Mr. Hegseth.

Senator Warren?

WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Hegseth, thank you. Thank you for your service.

So if you're confirmed as secretary of defense, you will oversee our military, including about a quarter of a million women who currently serve on active duty in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Space Forces and the Marines, and I have serious concerns that your behavior toward women disqualifies you from serving in this role. Now, I've been trying to get answers from you for quite some time on this. You haven't wanted to meet or to answer any of my questions, so we'll just have to do it here and dive in.

I want to pick up on some of the questions asked by Senators Shaheen and Gillibrand and Hirono, and I just want to make sure we have a list of some of the facts that I think are undisputed. I'm not going to talk about anonymous sources; I'm just going to quote you directly. We've got the video. We've got it in print.

So going back to January, 2013, you told a Fox News interviewer that women in the military simply couldn't measure up to men in the military, saying that allowing women to serve in combat roles would force the military to lower the bar. You picked up on that same theme in 2015, making remarks on Fox News referring to women in combat as, quote, "erode -- it would erode standards." June 2024, you said on Ben Shapiro's podcast, quote, "Women shouldn't be in combat at all." And then, of course, we've talked about it in 2024. You published a book, and you say on page 26 of your book, "We need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units." Page 48 of your book, you claim that women should not be in combat roles men -- because men are distracted by women. And then 10 weeks ago, you appeared on the "Shawn Ryan Show" and said, "I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles."

Now, I presume you recall making all these statements?

HEGSETH: Senator, I'm not familiar with the article you're pointing to in 2013, but it underscores my argument completely...

WARREN: I've got the video.

HEGSETH: ... because in that 2013 argument, I was talking about standards.

WARREN: So I've -- I've got...

HEGSETH: Standards are what it's always been about, Senator.

WARREN: Let's -- let's not have this same fight again.

HEGSETH: It's always been about, (inaudible).

WARREN: I've quoted you directly. We've got the video. We're happy to show it.

But I want to be clear here. For 12 years, you were quite open about your views, and your views were consistently the same. Women are inferior soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and Guardians. And in case anyone missed the point -- and these are your words from 10 weeks ago -- women absolutely straight up should not be permitted to serve in combat. And I notice on each of these quotes, those are said without qualification. It's not by how much you can lift or how fast you can run. They don't belong in combat, period, or your words, straight up.

And then on November 9th, 2024, just 32 days after your last public comment saying that women absolutely should not be in combat, you declared that, quote, "Some of our greatest warriors are women," and you support having them serve in combat. Now, that is a very, very big about-face in a very, very short period of time. So help me understand, Mr. Hegseth, what extraordinary event happened in that 32- day period that made you change the core values you had expressed for the preceding 12 years?

HEGSETH: Senator, again, I -- I very much appreciate you bringing up my comments from 2013 because for me, this issue has always been about standards. And unfortunately, because of some of the people that have been in political power for the last four years...

WARREN: Excuse me, Mr. Hegseth, let's just stop. Let's just stop. Let's just stop right there.

HEGSETH: ... priorities other than standards of lethality and meritocracy have driven (inaudible).

WARREN: Mr. Hegseth, I'm quoting you -- I'm quoting you from the podcast. "Women shouldn't be in combat at all." Where is the reference to standards, that they should be there if they can carry, if they can run? I don't see that at all, Mr. Hegseth. What I see is that there's a 32-day period in which you suddenly have another description about your views of women in the military, and I just want to know what changed in the 32 days, that the song you sang is not the song you come in here today to sing?

HEGSETH: Senator, the concerns I have and the concerns of many have had, especially in ground combat units, is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed and that makes the combat more difficult for everybody involved...

[12:20:00]

WARREN: ... Let me make a suggestion about what happened in that 32 days. You got a nomination from President Trump. Now, I've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the first time I've heard of a nomination conversion. And I hope you understand that many women serving in the military right now might think that if you can convert so rapidly your long held and aggressively pursued views in just 32 days, that 32 days after you get confirmed, maybe you'll just reverse those views and go back to the old guy who said straight up, women do not belong in combat.

Now, Mr. Hegseth, you have written that after they retire, generals should be banned from working for the defense industry for 10 years. You and I agree on the corrosive effects of the revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors is something I would have liked to talk with you about if you'd come and been willing to visit with me. But the question I have for you on this is will you put your money where your mouth is and agree that when you leave this job you will not work for the defense industry for 10 years?

HEGSETH: Senator, it's not even a question I've thought about because it's not...

WARREN: You can think about it right now.

HEGSETH: ... it's not one -- my motivation for this job...

WARREN: I understand that. I just need a yes or no...

HEGSETH: ... what could conceivably come next

WARREN: Time is short. I just need a yes or no.

HEGSETH: I would consult with the President about what the policy should be...

WARREN: In other words, you're quite sure that every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for 10 years. You're not willing to make that same pledge?

HEGSETH: I'm not a general, Senator.

WARREN: You'll be the one, let us just be clear, in charge of the generals. So you're saying sauce for the goose, but certainly not sauce for the gander.

HEGSETH: I would want to see what the policy of the President is...

WARREN: Oh, I'll bet you...

WICKER: Thank you, Senator Warren. Senator Tuberville.

TUBERVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your hard work and your committee's hard work. Mr. Chairman, this has gone well. I'd like to submit this letter topic conduct at Vets for Freedom for Hegseth. I'd like to submit that for the record, please.

WICKER: Without objection.

TUBERVILLE: General Hegseth. I mean, Mr. Hegseth. Thanks for being here today and with your family. I know this is tough. That's what it's all about though. You're a tough guy. Been here for a while. Never seen this many people that here for a support of a nominee. That's impressive. I met with a lot of them yesterday and they are very passionate. So thank you for willing to take this on and congratulations on your nomination.

I'm worried about recruiting. I mean, we can look at everything out there and talk about all these things, these narratives. But at the end of the day, I came from a team sport where the people, the players actually won the games and that's what's going to happen here. You're not going to win the game. Now, you're going to set the precedent. You're going to get the blame or the credit.

But there's going to people that's going to be under you that's going to set the precedent for the future of our country. Now, the war games that we play on our computers with our adversaries right now, for us, it don't look good because our military, we're in trouble. Our whole country's in trouble. Thank God President Trump got elected November 5th. We couldn't kept down the same path. We could not -- that could not happen.

I met with a general, couple of generals this summer. Coach, we're spending more money on transgender restrooms than we are coverings for $100 million airplanes. That's not acceptable. We can't do that. That's not what this is about.

Met with a couple of Navy SEALs not too long ago. They just got back from crawling around in the mud and the muck overseas, unknown places, couldn't tell you where they'd been carrying a weapon, obviously protecting us and our allies. And the first week they're back, what'd they do? They had to go through a week of DEI training. Both are now out. They give it up. It was embarrassing to them of what they had to do.

We've lost all sight of what we're doing in our military. Lost all sight. It starts with leadership and it starts with recruiting. Why would a young man used to, when I was growing up, if you couldn't afford to go to college, you had the opportunity to go to the military where you could learn to trade, you could learn, you could make a living for your family and eventually possibly get an education. That was a good alternative.

[12:25:00]

We've forgotten that. We've forgotten it. We can't give up on our young people. Young people are our number one commodity in this country and they're the ones that's going to live and die for the freedom of this country in the future. So again, thank you for taking this on.

Recruiting. Our service academies are meant to serve as our primary commissioning source of officers. It now appears that they are a breeding ground for leftist activists and champions of DEI and critical theory. Now, not all, but some, and some is way too much. How are we going to eliminate this, Mr. Hegseth? How are we going to get this back on track to where we grow our leaders?

I had a young man that forever, he wanted to go to West Point. I got him a nomination, I got him accepted and he turned it down. He says, coach, I'm not getting involved with that mess. How are we going to overcome this?

HEGSETH: Senator, thank you for the question. And I think it comes down to leadership, clear leadership from President Trump through me should I be -- should I be nominated? And that's what soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardians see is clear leadership.

It says, this is what we believe. This is the mission we're going to give you. Here's the equipment we're going to give you, and here's how we're going to support you. Because the military at a lot of levels, Senator, has been for generations a family business.

You know, my grandfather served, my father served, I served, my daughter served. The chain is -- that chain has started to break with generations of people my age and older talking to their kids and grandkids, wondering, pondering, do I want them to serve? Will my country use them responsibly? When that kind of doubt is cast, you get serious recruiting problems like we do right now.

You get questions about whether I want my son or daughter to follow my path in West Point, which I've heard multiple time. Would I want my -- and so you have to rip root and branch the politics and divisive policies out of these institutions and then focus them on creating and preparing actual future military leadership.

West Point traditionally is focused on engineering, and rightfully so, because in our fighting forces across all services, we need the best and brightest minds in engineering in addition to military studies. That's what I did at ROTC at Princeton, military science.

That and we need more uniformed members going back into West Point, the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy as a tour to teach with their wisdom of what they've learned in uniform instead of just more civilian professors that came from the same left wing woke universities that they left and then try to push that into service academies.

When that changes, Senator, I truly believe under Donald Trump we will have a recruiting renaissance that sends signals to the world, to our enemies and our allies alike, that as America's back and thankfully then we have the men and women of our country, willing to want to serve.

TUBERVILLE: Thank you. And it's about attitude, too. And I love your attitude. You've got to be motivated. You've got to understand that people, they will -- they will hook up with you. They will understand and learn under their leaders.

Why would you fight for a country that you don't love? That's what I keep hearing from a lot of our college kids that they getting from -- they're getting from these woke universities that they go to now. And I worked at a lot of them. That is one of the excuses I get from our kids. We've got to break that.

Another one. According to the Pentagon, between 2001 and 2024, the number of civilian employees in the office of the Secretary of Defense has nearly doubled from 1,500 to 3,000. Civilians on Joint Chiefs has increased from 191 to almost 1,000. Our military instinct goes down. Our staff numbers are exploding. What are you going to do about that?

HEGSETH: Senator, we're going to address that. We won World War II with seven four star generals. Today we have 44 four star generals. There's an inverse relationship between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield. We don't need more bureaucracy at the top. We need more war fighters empowered at the bottom. So it's going to be my job working with those that we hire and those inside the administration to identify those places where fat can be cut so it can go toward lethality.

WICKER: Thank you, Senator Tuberville. Senator Peters.

PETERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hegseth, welcome to this Committee.

HEGSETH: Thank you.

PETERS: You know, we have far too much partisanship in our country right now. I think it's eating away at the fabric of what has always made this country great, about bringing people together from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of experiences. And we know that in our motto, together as one we are strong.

And so we in this Committee, and certainly I speak for myself, but I think I speak for many of my colleagues, want to take partisanship out of this proceeding as much as we can. I'm not naive. It's out there, I get it. But we've got to try to take that out.

[12:30:00]