[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. As we continue with a special coverage edition today, we're following the confirmation hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee for defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. We're a few minutes behind real time, but we're just tape-delaying some of these sections so you can hear certain senators who are key as they come up questioning Pete Hegseth.

What we're going to air now, again, just a few minutes behind real time, is Senator Tom Cotton, who is we could, I think, honestly call him one of the most right wing and very pro-Trump hardline Republicans in the Senate, certainly on these issues. If you remember 2020, he publicly wanted the military to be called out in response to any violence during the George Floyd protests in Washington in that year, 2020. That was when Trump was in office and they ultimately did not do that.

That would certainly be a breaking of precedent and by many people's lights, a breaking of the US Constitution but Tom Cotton took that position at the time. Obviously, we can expect him to be very supportive of Pete Hegseth. After Tom Cotton, will be Senator Gillibrand from New York, who is also on the Armed Services Committee. We're going to hear those two stretches of seven minutes each. Here's Senator Cotton.

Mr. Chairman: Recognize Senator Cotton for seven minutes.

Senator Tom 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 to 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?

Pete Hegseth: Yes, sir.

Senator Tom Cotton: Were those women anything other than skilled, brave, and honorable in their service?

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

Senator Tom Cotton: Women have been serving in combat for a long time. Women have even been serving in combat units like infantry battalions for a long time in roles like medics or mechanics or what have you. 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?

Pete 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 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.

Whether it's a man or a woman, they have to meet the same high standards. 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. That's the kind of review I'm talking about, not whether women have access to ground combat.

Senator Tom Cotton: Thank you. You expect no change to that guidance but as you point out, in these specific jobs, there 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.

Pete Hegseth: Go ahead. Yes, Senator. 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. It's not that it has to be the same standard throughout, it's standards to maximize efficacy of that particular position.

Senator Tom 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.

Pete 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 Co-comms 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.

Senator Tom Cotton: Thank you. For the record, that army officer was Captain Kristen Griest, 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 2 mile run of 22 miles, "Run". I want the reporter to note that I'm putting run in air quotes because 22 miles at 2 miles is not running. It may be jogging. It's probably walking fast. Let's move on.

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?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I'm a Christian and I robustly support the State of Israel and its existential defense and the way America comes alongside them as a great ally.

Senator Tom Cotton: Thank you. Another protester, and I think this one was a member of Codeping, 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?

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

Senator Tom Cotton: 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?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I do not. I think our troops, as you know, as so many in this committee know, did the best they could with what they have. 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.

Senator Tom Cotton: Thank you, Mr. Hegseth.

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

Senator 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.

Pete Hegseth: Thank you, Senator.

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 US 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.

I want to press on these issues that my colleague Jeanne Shaheen brought up because she said it so well. First of all, you answered your questionnaire. Do you believe that any American who wants to serve 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 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. Specific to Senator Cotton's question because Senator Cotton was giving you layups to differentiate between different types of combat. 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?

The standards, your 2-mile run, Tom, is about the Army Combat Fitness Test. It is not the requirements to have an MOS 11 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. Our combat units, our infantry, is lethal. Please explain specifically because you will be in charge of three million personnel.

It is a big job. 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 have been named as Secretary of Defense. 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.

Pete Hegseth: Well, Senator, I appreciate your comments. I would point out I have never disparaged women serving in the military. I respect every single female service member that has put on the uniform past and present. My critiques, Senator, recently and in the past and from personal experience, have been instances where I've seen standards lowered. You mentioned 11 Alpha, 11 Bravo, MOS places in units. The book that has been referenced multiple times here, The War on Warriors, I spent months talking to active duty service members, men and women, low ranks, high ranks, combat arms and not combat arms.

What each and every one of them told me and which personal instances have shown me, is that in ways direct, indirect, overt, and subtle, standards have been changed inside infantry training units, Ranger school, infantry battalions to ensure that commanders meet-

Senator Gillibrand: Give me one example. Please give me an example. I get you're making these generalized statements.

Pete Hegseth: -commanders meet quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers or infantry enlisted, and that disparages those women who are incredibly capable of meeting that standard.

Senator Gillibrand: Commanders do not have to meet quotas for the infantry. Commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry. That does not exist. It does not exist. Your statements are creating the impression that these exist because they do not. They are not quotas. We want the most lethal force. I'm telling you, having been here for 15 years listening to testimony about men and women in combat and the type of operations that were successful in Afghanistan, in Iraq, women were essential for many of those units.

When Ranger units went in to find where are the terrorists hiding in Afghanistan or in Iraq, if they had a woman in the unit, they could go in, talk to the women in a village, say, "Where are the terrorists hiding? Where are the weapons hiding?" and get crucial information to make sure that we can win that battle. You cannot denigrate women in general and your statements do that. We don't want women in the military, especially in combat. What a terrible statement.

Please do not deny that you've made those statements. You have. We take the responsibility of standards very seriously, and we will work with you. I'm equally distressed you would not meet with me before this hearing. We could have covered all of this before you came here so I could get to the 15 other questions that I want to get to. Women you have denigrated, you have also denigrated members of the LGBTQ community. Did you know that when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was in place, we lost so many crucial personnel, over 1,000 in mission critical areas.

We lost 10% of all our foreign language speakers because of a political policy. You said in your statement you don't want politics in the DoD. Everything you've said in these public statements is politics. I don't want women. I don't want moms. What's wrong with a mom, by the way? Once you have babies, you therefore are no longer able to be lethal? You're basically saying women, after they have children, can't ever serve in the military in a combat role. It's a silly thing to say. Beneath the position that you are aspiring to.

To denigrate LGBTQ service members is a mistake. If you are a sharpshooter, you're as lethal, regardless of what your gender identity is, regardless of who you love. Please know this to be a true statement. You say it was a political thing. You say it undermined social engineering. I don't know why someone having to publicly say or not publicly say who they love is social engineering. I think having that policy in the first place was highly problematic. As you said in your statement, do you agree anybody should be able to serve in the military if they meet the standards?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, as the President has stated, I don't disagree with the overturn of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Senator Gillibrand: Great. Because I don't want you thinking, can't serve if you're a mom, can't serve if you're LGBTQ, and then last, can't serve if you're a leftist. The statements you said about people who have views differently than you, that we're the enemy. Are you saying that 50% of the DoD, if they hold liberal views or leftist views or our Democrats are not welcome in the military? Are you saying that?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan under Democrat President Barack Obama. I also volunteered to guard the inauguration of Joe Biden, but was denied the opportunity to serve because I was identified as an extremist by my own unit for a Christian Tattoo.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much. Senator Gillibrand, you held up a document and referred to it during your questioning. Would you like that entered into the record?

Senator Gillibrand: Maybe one without my marks.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, we'll clean it up.

Senator Gillibrand: We'll submit a clean copy.

Mr. Chairman: Without objection, that will be admitted at the point of your question. I would like to enter into the record at this point a letter of support from retired Air Force Colonel Melissa Cunningham. Colonel Cunningham supports Mr. Hegseth and mentions his warrior ethos, combat effectiveness and maintaining military training standards. Without objection, both of those will be admitted. I now recognize Senator Rounds.

Brian Lehrer: All right, we're going to jump out for some analysis now. This is special coverage on The Brian Lehrer Show of the confirmation hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee for Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. We heard Senator Tom Cotton, Republican from Arkansas with his seven minute block, followed by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York with her seven minute block. A Democrat, obviously, Senator Gillibrand.

Senator Cotton tried to allow Hegseth to get very specific about a difference between opposing women in the military and women in ground combat. Senator Cotton brought up the specific weight of certain equipment and the standard that ability to serve in roles that involve that weight would require. We're going to get some analysis now from Karen Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at the Fordham University Law School.

She's a future security fellow at the think tank New America and author of several books, including Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy from the War on Terror to Donald Trump. Professor Greenberg, thanks for making some time for us today. Welcome back to WNYC.

Karen Greenberg: Thanks so much. It's very nice to be here.

Brian Lehrer: We'll get to Senator Gillibrand's scathing rebuttal to Senator Cotton even more than to or at least equal to Mr. Hegseth. Did you understand what Senator Cotton was trying to get out there? I'm not sure he ever explicitly said that individual women couldn't meet that standard of carrying certain amounts of weight. Did you understand what he did there?

Karen Greenberg: Yes, I think what he was trying to do-- Look, they're trying to have it both ways. They're trying to say, and by them, I mean the Republican senators and Hegseth, what they're really trying to do is be able to say, "Well, we're not anti-women in the military," Even though Hegseth had said that many times, including in his book, "But we think there could be a role for women, but we haven't exactly said what that is." They're trying to have it both ways.

I think what Cotton was trying to do was to say, "Well, we can have it both ways," but the fact is, and again, without making the introductory sentence or the concluding sentence that he was trying to point out is that, really, do you really think women can carry 100 pounds, which is what they said. It's 100 pounds total of those packs, munitions. Do you really think that's possible? He didn't say that sentence or asked it but just by talking about the amount of weight that would have to be carried around, that would be one thing.

The larger problem is the Democrats focusing on this issue of women in particular here are trying to get at this larger issue, which is how regressive is the Pentagon under the nominee, Pete Hegseth going to be? That's why they're coming at it that way. Is there a justification for what we think is your regressive policy here about DEI writ large?

Brian Lehrer: Senator Cotton brought up a standard for showing that people could run well enough to serve in combat, suggesting that that standard was too low but then Senator Gillibrand said Cotton got that wrong. Did you understand that exchange?

Karen Greenberg: That was hard to understand. First of all, I didn't understand-- When he was really demeaning the run, the way he talked it, that was really a jog, maybe that was like walking. Isn't that what he said? I think they missed each other on that point. I think it was very confusing and I think if it was confusing for you and me, it might have been confusing for others listening.

Brian Lehrer: Gillibrand accused Hegseth of denigrating women currently serving. If Cotton was trying to get at a distinction between respect for women serving in the military at all and a judgment that women couldn't serve effectively in combat without hurting the effectiveness of the force, Gillibrand brought up that Hegseth had written that we need moms, but not in the military, which is quite specific and quite broad. Right?

Karen Greenberg: That was an amazing statement and that kept coming back. It was mentioned, I think, three times over the course of these exchanges. We need moms, but not doing these kinds of jobs. Look, I think they're trying to figure out who their audience is and who can they get at. Can they get to women? Can they get to the military writ large that knows that it depends on women and that women have been effective in a whole bunch of positions within the military, or can they step outside of the military and get to the larger category of moms who either have been in the military, who see themselves as being in the military, or who are thinking about their daughters?

I thought it was actually not the best tactic to take on the point of Cotton to view it that way, or Hegseth. I think Gillibrand, you were describing her fiery wave. She was really intensely disturbed by what she's hearing and by the attacks on women. I think she conveyed that in a very good way and that gets at the issue of to what extent is what's going on right now rational and fact-based and evidence-based, and to what extent can they address the emotional issues going on here that are dividing people over this nomination and this administration?

Brian Lehrer: Gillibrand comes on this show once a month as a senator from New York to talk to her local constituents and take calls from people in New York and sometimes elsewhere so I knew, because we've talked about this issue, how specific she could get on advantages of having women in frontlines combat. She went there in what you call her fiery remarks, specifically, that often women can connect with some community members who men cannot in war zone communities where they are fighting.

We have to remember that wars don't just take place on battlefields like some isolated football field somewhere. They take place in communities when we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. There's a specific advantage that women can confer by being present in those combat units to help build relationships that will help save US Military members' lives eventually or help them win the war or particular battles. She got very specific about that.

She also challenged Cotton. Well, by extension Cotton, but certainly Hegseth to name instances in which he has seen standards lowered in infantry training units and other contexts. Gillibrand asked him for a specific example, which he did not give any of, of commanders being required to have quotas for women in their units. I actually wish that the senator, besides being as eloquent as she was, had pressed him for an answer on if he could provide an actual specific example where a woman did hurt the effectiveness of a unit on the front lines.

Similarly, she asked him point blank, would you take steps to rescind the admission of women to combat roles but she didn't press him to actually say yes or no. Did she, to your ear?

Karen Greenberg: No. She tried, though. Will you revive it, she asked him, are you going to revive this? He backed away from it. I want to just underscore something you said because there are two important things of what she did. One was that example she gave was not general. It was there was an incident where women could go in to talk to other women about how to find the enemy, how to find those the army was looking for.

It wasn't just some boilerplate thing. She was referring to something very specific. Since the beginning of this hearing, although it hasn't been that long, there has been this evasion of specifics. Then when she gave her example that was very specific but it also pointed to the fact that throughout, maybe there can be more calls for don't throw out these generalizations, be specific, give of evidence, tell us numbers, tell us stories. I think that's one of the battles going on here, maybe, a more subtle battle that's going on here in this conversation is how much of this is just pontificating and how much of this is actual fact.

Again, of course, this is what's going on in American culture at large. I think it's really interesting that the hearings started with this attack on the liberal media and the way in which the media has been complicit in making this ideological divide. I found her comments extremely interesting, both on the overt and the subtle level.

Brian Lehrer: Karen Greenberg from Fordham Law. We'll hear from you one more time before the end of the hour. We'll take a break and then the next two senators we'll hear from are another from our local area, Senator Blumenthal, Democrat from Connecticut, and then should be very interesting to hear Republican Senator Joni Ernst, who has served-- Senator Ernst from Iowa. Blumenthal, then Ernst questioning Pete Hegseth when we continue our special coverage right after this.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now, back to the questioning by members of the Senate Armed Services Committee of Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. We're again, a few minutes behind real time so that we can bring you these sets of questions by Democratic and Republican senators who matter. We're going to go to Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut now and his seven minute question set. That'll be followed as it was in real time by Senator Joni Ernst. Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. Chairman: Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Blumenthal: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this hearing. Thank you for being here, Mr. Hegseth. I want to join in expressing appreciation and respect for your service to our country. Thanks to all the veterans who are here today, and thank you for your service. As the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I hope we can focus on doing better for our veterans and doing better in management of the Department of Defense. There's always room for improvement.

I think what we need in that position is not just better, but the best in financial management because those decisions are life and death decisions affecting the 3.4 million Americans who serve our national security and our national defense and put their lives on the line. I want to talk about financial mismanagement at the two organizations that you headed, which are the only test of your financial management that we have before this committee, the Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America.

You took over the Veterans for Freedom in 2007. In 2008, you raised $8.7 million but spent more than 9 million, creating a deficit. By January 2009, you told donors that the organization had less than $1,000 in the bank and debts of $434,000. By 2010, revenue at the Veterans for Freedom had dropped to about $265,000. In the next year, it had dropped further to $22,000. You don't dispute these numbers, do you?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I'm extremely proud of the work me and my fellow vets did at Vets for Freedom. A bunch of young vets with no political experience, a small group working hard every single day, we raised donor funds, and we have letters submitted for the record from almost everyone that worked with me every single day, including our chief operating officer, who will attest that every dollar we raised was used intentionally toward the execution of our mission, which is supporting the war fighters. Exactly why we're here today. The war fighters in the Iraq surge. There was a campaign in 2008, Senator. Barack Obama versus John McCain. We believed John McCain would be the right person to win and so we spent more.

Senator Blumenthal: I have tax returns from that organization.

Pete Hegseth: I'm glad they're in for the record.

Senator Blumenthal: I'm going to ask to be entered into the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Without objection.

Senator Blumenthal: These tax returns are yours. They have your signature. I'm going to ask that members of the committee review them because they're the only documents. I've asked for others, I've asked for the FBI report that would presumably document-- It should have documented this kind of financial mismanagement. These are the 990s from that organization. By the year of 2011, donors had become so dissatisfied with that mismanagement they in effect ousted you. They merged that organization with Military Families United, and thereafter, you joined a second organization as executive director.

Pete Hegseth: In between, Senator, I went to Harvard University for two years and Afghanistan.

Senator Blumenthal: I want to ask you questions about Concerned Veterans for America. Again, another set of tax returns, the 990s from that organization. I ask they be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Without objection. Both of those returns are now part of the record.

Senator Blumenthal: 2011 to 2016. At the end of 2013, shortfall of $130,000. At the end of 2014, shortfall of $428,000. You had a surplus the following year, but then another deficit of $437,000. By the time you left, that organization had deep debts, including credit card transaction debts of about $75,000. That isn't the kind of fiscal management we want at the Department of Defense. We can't tolerate it at the Department of Defense.

That's an organization with a budget of $850 billion, not 10 or 15 million, which was the case at those two organizations. It has command responsibility for 3.4 million Americans. The highest number that you managed in those two organizations was maybe 50 people. Let me ask you, how many men and women now serve in the United States Army? What is [unintelligible 00:33:40] strength?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I would like an opportunity to respond to impuning of my leadership of the Concerned Veterans for America. You're on the VA Committee, sir, and I appreciate your service there. The VA Accountability act and the Mission act were all brainchilds of Concerned Veterans for America. We used our donor money very intentionally and focused to create policy that bettered the lives of veterans.

Senator Blumenthal: Mr. Hegseth, I'm asking you a very simple question. How many men and women currently serve in the United States Army?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, the United States Army? 450,000 on active duty, sir.

Senator Blumenthal: How many in the Navy?

Pete Hegseth: In The Navy is 425,000, sir?

Senator Blumenthal: Well, it's 337,000 this year. How many in the Marine Corps?

Pete Hegseth: 175,000, sir.

Senator Blumenthal: 172,300. Those numbers dwarf any experience you had by many multiples. I don't believe that you can tell this committee or the people of America that you are qualified to lead them. I would support you as the spokesperson for the Pentagon. I don't dispute your communication skills but I believe that we are entitled to the facts here. I've asked for more documents. I assume you'd be willing to submit to an expanded FBI background check that interviews your colleagues, accountants, ex wives, former spouses, sexual assault survivors and others, and enable them to come forward.

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I'm not in charge of FEI and background checks.

Senator Blumenthal: But you would submit to it and support it.

Pete Hegseth: I'm not in charge of FBI background checks.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I, at this point, want to submit a letter from Captain Wade Zirkle, the founder of Vets for Freedom and the person--

Brian Lehrer: All right, so there's the questioning by Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut. In about three minutes, we'll hear the questioning, which is very much anticipated by Republican senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, who has served in the military and is known to have been a victim of sexual assault in the military. First, we'll get a few last thoughts from Karen Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at the Fordham University Law School.

Karen, the questioning by Senator Blumenthal recalled something that we heard at the beginning of the hearing, which is now about two hours ago, where Senator Jack Reed of Rhode island, the top ranking Democrat on the committee, raised an issue of the FBI background checks of Hegseth being insufficient. Looking at a report in the news organization The Hill, it says the FBI background checks of Hegseth did not include material from a woman who accused the nominee of sexual misconduct in 2017. That's the one he settled with a cash non-disclosure agreement to.

Do you understand this issue of an incomplete FBI background check? Hegseth at the end there would not say whether or not he would submit to a more complete background check.

Karen Greenberg: Senator Blumenthal asked him directly, "Would you submit to an expanded FBI background check?" He didn't say he would. I think this is actually a very important issue for the committee as a whole. Two things going on here. They've been deprived of information from the FBI background check. Only the ranking member and chair have had that. Then because Hegseth refused to meet with them ahead of time, they also have that so there's an issue that they're going forward without the information they'd like to know, some of which is alluded to, some of which is rumored.

It's extremely disappointing, of course, for him not to say, "I would submit to a fulsome FBI background check," which is what is being alleged here about what FBI did, which was just that it was cursory, it was lit, it was last minute and it wasn't done well. That's been the takeaway line on the FBI background check, although we haven't seen it and most of the committee hasn't seen it.

Brian Lehrer: Let me get a comment from you on one other topic in our two minutes remaining before we go to Senator Ernst. This occurred earlier, before you joined us for this eleven o'clock hour, but it's an area that I know is of interest to you. Hegseth has questioned in one of his books whether the US should hear to the laws of war as set forth in the Geneva Conventions.

He wrote something to the effect of we should just fight and win wars the United States' own way. He seemed to back off that near the beginning of his testimony today and said he would adhere to the rules of the Geneva Conventions. You've reported and studied and published a lot on adhering to the rules of war by the US Military or cases in which they did not. What did you think of his testimony today and did that reassure you?

Karen Greenberg: No, it did not reassure me because, look, I've been studying this for so long and paying attention for so long that out of one side of one's mouth it's we're going to honor the rule of law and then the other side of the mouth is only when it's necessary. When you have somebody in the chair, as you do here, who's talking about readiness, use of force, focusing on fighting and who can fight and who can't, i.e. women, you get into this sense that what are going to be the rules and regulations and who's going to decide what they are.

He was very clear in another context saying commanders have to be making these decisions and they have to do them in the context that happens. I think that, again, it's very hard once you've put it in print in a book and once you've seen how the military has behaved despite the rule of law so it did not comfort me, if you're asking.

Brian Lehrer: I was asking and now you've answered. That was Karen Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at the Fordham University Law School, a future security fellow at the think tank New America, and the author of several books, including Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy from the War on Terror to Donald Trump. Professor Greenberg, thanks a lot for some time today.

Karen Greenberg: Thank you so much.

Brian Lehrer: Now we'll go to the questioning by Senator Joni Ernst, which took place a few minutes ago or a few minutes behind real time. Here we go.

Mr. Chairman: Senator Ernst, you are recognized for seven minutes.

Senator Joni Ernst: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter submitted by Mr. Mark Lucas, who is a fellow Iowan and Iowa Army National Guard member. Mr. Lucas and I served together in the Iowa Army National Guard. He succeeded Pete Hegseth as executive director of Concerned Veterans for America. In his letter, Mr. Lucas says that Mr. Hegseth, "Laid a strong foundation that postured CVA for long term success," and that, Mr. Hegseth, "Continued to be an invaluable asset to both me as a leader and the organization." I would ask for unanimous consent to enter this Washington Times article and the letter from Mr. Mark Lucas into the record.

Mr. Chairman: Without objection.

Senator Joni Ernst: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Hegseth, and-

Pete Hegseth: Good morning, Senator.

Senator Joni Ernst: -thank you very much. I appreciate your service to our nation. It's something that I know you are very proud of, and it is something that we have in common and that we share. You and I have had many productive conversations, and just for our audience, we have had very frank conversations. Is that correct, Mr. Hegseth?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, that is a correct characterization.

Senator Joni Ernst: You know that I don't keep anything hidden, pull no punches. My colleagues know that as well. I do appreciate you sitting down and allowing me the opportunity to question you thoroughly on those issues that are of great importance to me. Just to recap those issues, three that are very important. One is the DoD and making sure that we have a clean audit. The second is women in combat, and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. The third was maintaining high standards and making sure that we are combating sexual assault in the military.

Mr. Hegseth, I'm going to address the issue because this will tie into some of the financial concerns that have been raised here as well and it's why trusting my fellow Iowan asked for unanimous consent of his letter to go into the record. Like me, a lot of Iowans are really, really concerned and upset about the wasteful Washington spending and, of course, in our Pentagon. It's an issue that I have been combating for years.

There's significant room for greater efficiency and cost cutting within the department. The DoD is the only federal agency that has never passed an audit. As the Senate DOGE Caucus chair and founder, that's unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to you as well. I appreciate that you mentioned that in your opening statement. What are those steps that you will take to ensuring the Pentagon has a clean audit by the year 2028?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I appreciate your work on this topic, which you've been involved in for a long time. You mentioned Concerned Veterans for America. I just want to clarify. We have very generous donors who set a very clear budget that we stuck to every single year. The latitude there was restricted and we worked very hard and diligently inside it. You've also been a leader on the Pentagon audit for a very long time. I think when we met, Senator, I said 2014 was the first year we discovered a 2013 op-ed I wrote about the need for a Pentagon audit because an audit is an issue of national security and frankly, respect to American taxpayers who give $850 billion over to the Defense Department and expect that we know where that money goes.

If that money is going somewhere that doesn't add to tooth and instead goes to fat or tail, we need to know that. Or if it's wasted, we need to know that. I think previous Secretaries of Defense, with all due respect, haven't necessarily emphasized the strategic prerogative of an audit. Myself, my deputy SecDef and others already know that a Pentagon audit will be the comptroller, others central to ensuring we find those dollars that can be used elsewhere legally under the law inside the Pentagon. You have my word it will be a priority.

Senator Joni Ernst: Thank you. Moving on to women in combat. I had the privilege of serving in uniform for over 23 years. Between our Army Reserves and our Iowa Army National Guard, did serve in Kuwait and missions in Iraq. It is incredibly important that I stress, and I hope that if confirmed, you continue to stress that every man and woman has opportunity to serve their country in uniform and do so at any level as long as they are meeting the standards that are set forward.

We talked about that in my office. I do believe in high standards. Now, I was denied the opportunity to serve in any combat role because I have a lot of gray hair. The policy has changed since then. I've been around for quite a while, but for the young women that are out there now and can meet those standards, and again, I'll emphasize they should be very, very high standards, they must physically be able to achieve those standards so that they can complete their mission. I want to know, again, let's make it very clear for everyone here today, as Secretary of Defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, first of all, thank you for your service. As we discussed extensively as well-

Senator Joni Ernst: It's my privilege.

Pete Hegseth: -my answer is yes, exactly the way that you caveated it. Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles given the standards remain high. We'll have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded in any one of these cases. That'll be part of one of the first things we do at the Pentagon is reviewing that in a gender-neutral way, the standards, ensuring readiness and meritocracy is front and center. Absolutely, it would be the privilege of a lifetime if confirmed to be the secretary of defense for all men and women in uniform who fight so heroic. They have so many other options. They decide to put their right hand up for our country and it would be an honor to have a chance to lead them.

Senator Joni Ernst: Thank you. Just very briefly, we only have less than a minute left, but we have also discussed this in my office. A priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members are treated with dignity and respect. This has been so important. Senator Gillibrand and I have worked on this and we were able to get changes made to the Uniform Code of Military justice to make sure that we have improved improvements on how we address the tragic and life altering issues of rape, sexual assault. It will demand time and attention from the Pentagon under your watch if you are confirmed. As secretary of Defense, will you appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, as we have discussed, yes, I will.

Senator Joni Ernst: My time has expired. Thank you for your answers.

Brian Lehrer: With that set of questions from Republican Senator Joni Ernst, we conclude our special coverage edition of The Brian Lehrer Show today, coverage of the confirmation hearing taking place this morning for President Elect Trump's controversial nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. We hope this was an informative service for you to hear some of the Democratic and Republican senators questioning Mr. Hegseth. We'll be back to our regular format show tomorrow. Meanwhile, stay tuned for All Of It with Alison Stewart coming up next here on WNYC.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.