Pentagon Budget Hearing Day One

Chairman Rogers (01:00):

All right. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair reserves the right to declare the committee in recess at any point. Before we begin, I want to remind those in the audience that this hearing is open to the public, but actions that disrupt or distract the proceedings will not be tolerated. The chair reserves the right to remove disruptive persons from the hearing. The US Capitol Police are on hand to assist with that task, and I thank them for their service.

(01:29)
One housekeeping note before we get started, we are expecting to be called to the House floor for votes around 10:30. We'll go as long as we can up until those votes, and then I ask members to come back as soon as they can after voting. Well, I also want to ask members, when you're entering and leaving the chamber, 'cause there's hearings going on all across the Capitol because this time of day, please go in and out through the side door. Those doors make a lot of racket when you come in and out, so ingress and egress through the anteroom.

(02:03)
All right, with that, I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their service to our nation. We are meeting today to review the Pentagon's FY27 budget request. Each year, the budget presentation gives us the opportunity to take a hard look at the threats we face and our ability to deter and defeat them. It helps us decide on a level of investment that will actually secure our homeland and protect our interests across the globe.

(02:33)
Here are the facts that underlie this year's budget request. We are confronting an unprecedented global threat environment, with multiple adversaries working together to undermine our security and that of our allies. They are building alliances and supporting each other with drones, munitions, missile technology, and energy supplies. And China is leading the charge against us.

(02:58)
As you can see from this graphic, 25 years ago, the PLA was just a defensive force with little ability to project power beyond their borders. Today, the PLA is a modernized military force capable of projecting power well into the Pacific. Their rapid military buildup has delivered thousands of new ships, subs, missiles, and space assets that severely challenge our ability to safeguard our national security interest in the Indo-Pacific. China continues to invest heavily in the PLA's military modernization, announcing another 7% increase in defense spending this year. As a result, they are spending more of their GDP on defense than we are. In fact, as you can see from this graphic, all of our adversaries are spending more of their GAP on defense than we are. Meanwhile, our defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been steadily falling since World War II. That yellow line that you see on the graph cutting across, that bar represents 4 to 5% of GDP spending. History has shown that meeting or exceeding that level of investment ensures we can truly deter our adversaries. That's also the level of investment we're asking our allies to make, but for years, we've chosen not to make that same level of investment ourselves.

(04:26)
Since World War II, defense spending has shrunk significantly as a percentage of federal outlays, as you can see from the red line on that chart. Nonetheless, non-defense spending, on the other hand, accounts for over 85%, and it's been increasing for that same period of time. This underinvestment in our defense has had very real consequences.

(04:47)
Our defense industrial base, long the envy of the world, has atrophied significantly. We're no longer capable of manufacturing for our war fighters at scale or speed. Just look at shipbuilding. China builds 47% of the world's ships. The US builds one tenth of 1%. We build fewer ships than Croatia or the Netherlands.

(05:16)
Our global munition stockpiles are low and we lack the capacity to rapidly restock magazine depth. We have very little industrial capacity to mine, refine, or process critical minerals. As a result, many of our defense supply chains are reliant on the very adversaries we seek to deter.

(05:36)
Beyond the impact to our industrial base, the inadequate investment in our defense has resulted in a vicious cycle that has pitted sustainment against modernization. For years, administration after administration comes to this committee with budgets asking us to decommission weapons systems that they admit we still need. Or to cut funding for training, parts and supplies, or to put off needed maintenance to the facilities where our service members live and work, or to reduce the number of military personnel. These budgets have asked us to make these sacrifices and accept the near-term risk so we could afford to reinvest in military modernization, which is something we desperately need to do.

(06:25)
But we in Congress consistently rejected this mutually exclusive choice. Instead, we divided up the limited budget we were given and made a worse choice. We underfunded both sustainment and modernization. The result is we don't have enough munitions, ships, aircraft, or autonomous systems to ensure dominance against every adversary.

(06:48)
And the ships and aircraft we do have suffer from unacceptably low mission capable rates. Fortunately, that's about to change. This President has requested a historic $1. 5 trillion budget for our national defense. For the first time in over 40 years, we've been presented a budget that accounts for the true cost of American deterrence.

(07:11)
This budget fully funds both sustainment and modernization. It provides a 24% increase in operation and maintenance, including a 20% increase in core readiness programs like flight hours and combat exercises. It includes 115% increase in funding to repair and improve facilities for our service members and their families.

(07:35)
It increases military in strength by 44,000, and provides for a historic pay raise for our service members. It calls for an unprecedented 76% increase in procurement and 64% increase in research and development. This will enable us to truly catch up in our modernization efforts by quickly fielding new munitions, aircraft, ships, land, space, and autonomous systems to replenish and expand our arsenal.

(08:05)
It directly confronts the challenges in our defense industrial base, with over $100 billion in investments to revitalize manufacturing, expand domestic and allied critical minerals projects, and secure our supply chains. Finally, this level of investment gets defense back to 4.5%. That's where we need to be if we want to truly deter conflict.

(08:31)
It also ensures that America leads by example, as our allies heed the president's call to increase their defense spending and improve their military readiness. I would also note that it's critical that we do not reduce deterrence while we're asking our allies to ramp up their own capacity. And that's something we're going to be paying a lot of attention to in this committee.

(08:55)
Before I close my remarks, I want to highlight the bravery, dedication, and professionalism of our war fighters throughout this conflict with Iran. Their tremendous work to achieve the very clear military objectives of this operation has given the president the opening he needs to negotiate a true and lasting peace that will ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon.

(09:18)
Mr. Secretary, General Caine, thank you for being here. I look forward to hearing how this budget request will ensure our military can preserve American deterrence for generations to come. And with that, I yield to my friend, the ranking member for his opening statement. Well,

Adam Smith (09:33):

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate those opening marks. I want to start by agreeing with you on the last point. Our troops have performed incredibly well in the last 15 months. They have been asked to do more than anyone expected, and they have demonstrated the incredible capability of the United States military. I think we should all recognize that. Even if we question the strategy, some of the decisions behind it, our troops deserve nothing but our praise for the incredible job that they have done. It has not been perfect. Certainly, mistakes have been made, but we have demonstrated to the world that we have a highly capable military.

(10:04)
And I hear the chairman on the need for an increased budget. I think there's a whole lot of needs across the United States of America that would have the same attitude about healthcare, about education, about infrastructure. But the problem is we have a $40 trillion debt, and we insist on cutting taxes for absolutely everybody so we reduce the amount of revenue that is available to that. We also have to have a national security strategy that lives within a sound fiscal picture. Most experts would say that the most profound threat to our national security right now is exactly that, is our fiscal picture. How are we going to continue to be able to afford to fund the things we need to fund as we run the debt ever higher?

(10:45)
The other thing worth worrying about is the Pentagon has not yet passed an audit. If we give them what is roughly a 50 to 60% increase, is that money going to be well spent? We have every reason to doubt that. Now, I will say, and I praise the chairman, this committee, and in a bipartisan bicameral way, we have tackled the problem of acquisition reform. I think last year's bill put us on a good trajectory to get to the point where we can, in fact, innovate faster at scale.

(11:14)
I also believe the Pentagon has been working on that. We've had many meetings with Deputy Secretary Feinberg who has focused on that, but we got a long way to go. Can the Pentagon really absorb another 5, $600 billion, depending on what the supplemental and the reconciliation package are? I don't think so. We need to pay as much attention to how we're spending the money, as to how much we're spending, and we never seem to do that. But the larger problem is the strategy that has been put before us. I looked through the secretary's remarks, and I've heard you give speeches before about this, about how realism is our strategy. And I find that absurd.

(11:53)
And given what we are doing, you can say a lot of things about the strategy, but calling it realistic. We started a full scale war in the Middle East against Iran to try to reshape the Middle East. Now, we can talk about that in a bunch of different ways, but it is the exact opposite of realism. And in fact, starting wars in the Middle East that get out of control and lead us to have far greater costs for the benefits is one of the cornerstones of the unrealistic strategy that this administration has criticized over and over and over again.

(12:25)
And yet, here we are in a full-scale Mid-East war, and we've seen the costs of that. Certainly, at the top of that list is 13 service members killed and hundreds wounded, but it goes way beyond that. That thousands of civilians have been killed. Over a dozen countries now have been dragged into this war in one way or another. The Israel-Lebanon War has exploded since this war started. We now have a conflict between the Shia militias in Iraq and Kurdistan that is straining, to put it mildly, our relationship with Iraq, and also causing greater chaos throughout the Middle East.

(12:59)
We've seen the impact on the economy. Certainly here at home, gas price is up by over a dollar. The impact of the fertilizer increase is going to come later as food prices skyrocket, but what it's happening to us is a small part of what's happening to the rest of the world. Certainly the Middle East's economy has been tossed up in the air, but dozens of countries are rationing gasoline as we speak and experiencing extreme economic pain because of this war.

(13:26)
So there's nothing realistic about that. And one of the big questions that we need to get answered today is where is this going? What is the plan to achieve our objectives? We've seen the cost, and the cost is very, very high. All we keep hearing on the objectives is we keep seeing all of the targets that we have struck. And again, that is an incredible accomplishment from a tactical standpoint. I think the proficiency of our military has been on display, but we're not in this for a tactical advantage.

(13:56)
We're in this to fundamentally change Iran. And as we sit here today, Iran's nuclear program is exactly what it was before this war started. They have not lost their capacity to inflict pain. They still have a ballistic missile program. They're still able to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and have the ships that are capable of doing that. What is the plan to get that to change? And most disturbingly, the president keeps telling us that it's over. What was it? A week ago, Friday, the president announced that Iran had agreed to give up their nuclear program, to give up their ballistic missile program, to stop support for terrorist groups, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

(14:33)
The only problem with that is literally none of that was true. He was completely making it up. Iran hadn't even agreed to meet with us, as became embarrassingly clear as the day spun out and poor J.D. Vance had to keep going back and forth to the airport. We never even had a meeting. So wish fulfillment is not really a strategy. Maybe the president thinks he's doing some sort of Jedi mind trick and he can tell Iran, "You will give up your nuclear weapons and they automatically will," but that's not working. So what we need to hear today is what is going to work?

(15:07)
We have 50,000 troops in the region who are still at risk. How are those tactical victories going to translate into some sort of strategic success? And by the way, this is one of the things that realism recognizes. You can win a whole lot of little small battles and lose the war, which is why you don't stumble into the war in the first place.

(15:28)
But at the same time, we're doing all of this on our own, as we increasingly push away all of our allies. Sometimes just because we want to do what we want to do, but we don't want to have to consult them, sometimes just gratuitously insulting them. In the middle of this war where we were asking NATO to come join us, the president took time out to insult President Macron and his wife.

(15:51)
Okay. How is that helping us, to try and belittle everybody in the world? And I also, for the people who are criticizing NATO over this war, I will remind people that NATO is a defensive alliance. What that means is every country in it pledges to defend a country if attacked. And when we were attacked on 9/11, that's what NATO did. They put in Article 5, and for 20 years, they fought beside us.

(16:15)
NATO is not, if any one of the countries decides to unilaterally and unwisely start a war precipitously, that everyone else is supposed to join. That's not the way it works. So, berating and belittling our allies after we did that and driving them ever further away from us, how is that realistic? Not only are we going to try to reshape the Middle East, but we're going to do it alone while we're pushing everybody away from us.

(16:43)
And then we have other tools in our arsenal. You see that there's numbers on the budget, but the State Department's really important. Development is really important. These are ways to achieve our ends, and we have moved away from that. We got rid of the entire USAID, literally causing the starvation of children in countries where we had pledged to provide food, causing massive healthcare disruptions. People literally dying 'cause we cut that off.

(17:08)
And diplomacy, we have sidelined, again, the entire world. France and the UK have brought together 44 different countries that have an interest in trying to open up the Strait of Hormuz. We've pushed them all aside. And then, we've even pushed aside our own diplomatic core. We have a very, very talented State Department. I praised today the talent of our military, and I will stand by that. They deserve that praise. Our diplomatic corps deserves that praise too, but we've shoved them all to the side in favor of two real estate guys who are going to go negotiate all the deals in the world, which to date, by the way, has yielded exactly nothing. So there's nothing realistic about starting a war in the Middle East, going it alone, and pushing aside all diplomacy and all development, and all other tools in our arsenal.

(17:54)
And on top of that, of course, we also want to dominate the entire Western hemisphere, including apparently annexing Canada and invading Greenland. How is any of that realistic? And then the administration comes before us and asks for what is a hopelessly unrealistic budget in this environment. Back on that chart there, when we were showing how much money we were spending on defense, we had a balanced budget. We had a surplus for many years. We don't have that anymore.

(18:23)
So call this strategy whatever you want to call it, but please don't call it realism. It's not. Forgive me, it reminds me of one of my favorite lines from A Princess Bride, it's a tense warning. I want to lighten it up a little bit. And the guy keeps saying "inconceivable" when things happen. And finally, the guy says to him, "You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means." I don't think we know what the word realism means. So please, can we not have the realism conversation?

(18:53)
Let's have the conversation about what the strategy actually is. And I'm sure you have a different definition of it than I do, but as I look at it, the strategy seems to be to use as much violence, as much threats, as much coercion as possible to bend the world to our will. I think that is a very dangerous strategy, because one of the oldest cliches in the military is the enemy gets a vote.

(19:18)
And we may think that we can stand up and talk tough and talk about how strong we are, and how we're burying our enemies and they're begging for a deal. We can do that all day long, all right? But the enemy gets a vote. They don't have to do what we tell them to do. And meanwhile, that coercive violent strategy undermines our credibility in the world, 'cause the chairman is absolutely right.

(19:39)
And this is one area where I strongly disagree with the folks on the far left who say that, "We don't really face any threats, that the US is a malign influence in the world and always has been." I don't agree with that. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, a variety of other transnational terrorist groups, including yes, narco terrorists and human traffickers over here. They all are trying to weaken us. All right?

(20:03)
They don't want a rules-based order. They want to play by their own rules. They want to push us aside. We want to be the side that stands up for the rules, but if what we're saying to the rest of the world is, "Stick with us because we're a better bully than China, we coerce countries more effectively," that undercuts the very message we're trying to spread to build the coalition we need to be successful.

(20:26)
I also worry about the values that we're showing the world. When the president threatens to kill off an entire civilization, that is the message coming out of the United States of America. If we are going to be this big, powerful force that throws our weight around the world, the world wants to know at a minimum that we're doing it for the right reasons and with a sense of values to protect people, not to destroy entire civilizations.

(20:55)
And we all hear that and we all go, "Well, gosh, he probably doesn't mean it." Well, that is so reassuring that he's just making it up. We're supposed to be the United States of America. I grew up on stories of the US at the end of World War II being the country that the Germans wanted to surrender to, not the Russians, 'cause they knew they could trust our values. We don't seem to care about those values. No rules of engagement. Give them no quarter. All right? That is not who we are supposed to be.

(21:26)
And just one final point on that, the girl's school that got hit in the first days of this war, there is absolutely no question at this point what happened. We made a mistake, and that happens in war. We identified this target based on earlier charts. And yet, two months after it happened, we refused to say anything about it, giving the world the impression that we just don't care. We do not care about the casualties and the chaos that is caused by our war, and we should care, even if we want to prosecute that war.

(22:01)
Now, I agree with the chairman. We need a strategy. We face the most complex threat environment that we face in a very, very long time. So we really want to hear from the administration. Don't give us this realism, chess thumping stuff. What are we really going to do to meet those threats, to deal with the challenges we face?

(22:19)
And I'll close just by saying, one of the other ironies of this, of course, is we have a great example in the world right now of what our strategy should be and where our values should be, and that's Ukraine. And I'm really curious, here we are. We roll out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin. We belittle and insult President Zelensky in the White House. "He has no cards," right? Well, here we are a year after that.

(22:44)
Looks like he had a couple cards to play, 'cause Ukraine is actually winning against Russia. Ukraine, a sovereign democracy standing up against a brutal, oppressive, coercive dictatorship, and we can't even bring ourselves on a consistent basis to say, "We are with Ukraine and we are against what Putin is doing," and stand up and support them.

(23:08)
So I want to see that strategy, to meet the complex threat environment that we have, but simply saying we've already won and boasting and bragging and trying to belittle and insult the entire world, that's not going to get us to the posture that we need. So I hope we have a conversation about how we can build a strategy that makes sense and is actually realistic. And with that, I yield back.

Chairman Rogers (23:33):

I thank the ranking member for opening statement. Now, I'd like to introduce our witnesses, and we have the honorable Pete Hegseth, Secretary of War, General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they are being accompanied by Mr. J. Hurst, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller for the department. I also want to welcome the secretary's wife, Jennifer. Welcome to our hearing. Glad to have you here with us today. And with that, Mr. Secretary, we'll start with you. You're recognized.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (24:00):

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to testify in full support of President Trump's historic $1.5 trillion fiscal year 2027 budget request for the Department of War. The President's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing both the deferment of longstanding problems, as well as positioning our forces for both the current and the future fight. We think divesting to invest is a strategy of austerity.

(24:37)
I'm honored to appear alongside General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as J. Hurst, our comptroller, our chief financial officer. I'd like to start by thanking this committee and Congress for your partnership in securing the investments needed for a stronger, prouder, and more secure America. I think what our troops have demonstrated to the world over the last 15 months are a reflection of that.

(25:03)
A nation's ability to build, innovate, and support the critical needs of its war fighters at speed and at scale is the foundation upon which its survival rests. However, upon taking office on January 20th, 2025, President Trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America last policies, resulting in a diminished ability to project strength.

(25:32)
Under the previous administration, we were focused on offshoring and outsourcing, riddled with cost overruns and degraded capabilities. Under the leadership of President Trump, our builder in chief, we are reversing this systemic decay and putting our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. If you ask anyone at our Pentagon, urgency informs everything we do.

(25:58)
We're rebuilding a military that the American people can be proud of, one that instills nothing less than unrelenting fear in our adversaries and the utmost confidence in our allies. We fight to win in every scenario. The $1.5 trillion FY27 budget put forward by the president will build upon the historic $1 trillion FY26 top line, and continue to reverse the four years of underinvestment and mismanagement of the Biden administration. The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure the United States continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with a complex threat environment across multiple theaters. Not to mention, this budget also includes a historic troop pay increase, 7% for lower enlisted, and the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget as well.

(27:02)
By supercharging our industrial capability and transforming how the department does business, we're restoring American commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations, transforming the defense industrial base from a broken, slow moving system of the past. We have flipped the Pentagon acquisition process from a bureaucratic model to a business model, 180. Decisively moving from an acquisition environment paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape into an outcomes-driven organization focused on delivering the most at cost, at scale for taxpayer dollars.

(27:44)
Over the past year, through historic multi-year procurement agreements, smart business deals for things like critical munitions and capabilities, we've sent an unambiguous demand signal to industry partners to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great American factories, and a massive reinvestment in the skilled American workers who serve as the industrial muscle behind our warriors.

(28:16)
Let me briefly provide you with some concrete high-level metrics of what's been accomplished over just the past few months. These are announced new facilities and investments to support American war fighters, and I would refer you to the screen. The department has helped stimulate more than 250 private investment deals in 39 states, in 180 cities, and 150 companies worth more than $50 billion. It's resulted in 280 new or expanded facilities, more than 18 million new square feet of American manufacturing, and more than 70,000 new jobs in defense.

(28:58)
This is the key part of this. These $50 billion of investment in new plants, new assembly lines, and new factories, these are private investments, not taxpayer dollars. By transforming our department's business model, American companies are investing in America with their own money, their own capital, a historic demonstration of American manufacturing and defense revitalization, all again with their capital, not Uncle Sam's.

(29:34)
This has never been done before and is long overdue from a bureaucratic model to a business model. Anyone on the outside looking in at what's been done inside this Pentagon in the last 12 months cannot deny the fundamental transformation at speed, at scale to innovate and meet the threats of today and tomorrow. These investments equal great things for America, American families, and American workers. And help to ensure that our war fighters are able to defend the American dream and all American made.

(30:06)
Together with the help of the policies, updates and appropriations passed by Congress, President Trump's War Department has begun to turn the lights back on in manufacturing towns across this country, and once again, forging a lethal arsenal of freedom. Where critical supply chains are threatened, the War Department has acted decisively to inject capital, stimulate production, and prevent adversarial exploitation.

(30:31)
We are firing up the American economic engine, and at every level of our defense industrial base. Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request serves to ensure that the department remains laser focused on increasing lethality and survivability of our forces from the front lines to the factory floors. This is a historic budget, as you said, Mr. Chairman. This is a fiscally responsible budget. This is a war fighting budget.

(31:02)
And speaking of war fighting, the topic of Iran I'm sure will come up today, which I very much welcome discussing. I look forward to sharing the incredible successes of our military, achieved in a matter of weeks. President Trump, unlike other presidents, has had the courage to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, and he's ironclad in that. We have the best negotiator in the world driving that deal. The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans two months in, I remind you, two months in to a conflict. Lest I remind you, and my generation understands how long we were in Iraq, how long we were in Afghanistan, how long we were in Vietnam. Two months in on an existential fight for the safety of the American people, Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb. We are proud of this undertaking.

(32:05)
I am proud that President Trump had the courage to do it, and I look forward to sharing more about what our troops have accomplished. So I thank you again for the opportunity to address this committee. I ask that God would continue to watch over our troops in harm's way, and those that have fallen are always in our memory, and we fight to ensure their legacy. Look forward to answering the questions of this committee.

Chairman Rogers (32:28):

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Caine, you're recognized.

General Dan Caine (32:31):

Thank you, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, and members of this committee, thanks for having me today. I'm honored to be here today alongside the Honorable Pete Hegseth and Honorable J. Hurst to testify in the President's fiscal year 2027 budget.

(32:45)
I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm thankful for your continued partnership in support of our war fighters defending the homeland and our interests around the world. It's a privilege to speak with you today about the foundation

General Dan Caine (33:00):

... of America's strength are 2.8 million members of our joint force. And I'm continually inspired by our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, guardians, and coast guardsmen and our civilians standing the watch for our nation, supported always by their families. Each and every one of them could have chosen another path, but they don't. They choose to serve and to do something more important than themselves. And every day they meet the nation's challenges from combat operations to critical support roles with the courage, tenacity, and grit that keeps our nation strong and secure. I would also like to express my deep gratitude for the 39 members of our joint force who've passed away during my time as the chairman, including 14 who've passed during Operation Epic Fury. As the secretary said, we are deeply grateful for each of them and their families and their names will never be forgotten. As the chairman, my duty is to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military options and the associated risks to those leaders who make the nation's hardest decisions and offer my military advice privately. I owe the President, the Secretary, and the Congress the truth at every term. My blueprint for this role is General George C. Marshall. His commitment to civilian control of the military and nonpartisan military remains a constant standard and something I borrow from often. I strive daily to emulate his candor, delivering the facts to our leaders and telling them always what they need to hear, not always what they want to hear. And once a decision is made, executing it with absolute dedication, and that is the demand of our profession.

(34:52)
I sit here today before you representing our incredible joint force, and I want to emphasize my commitment to this committee and the Congress that I will always follow General Marshall's steadfast example by providing clear and candid nonpartisan military advice and working together with our civilian leaders to ensure that our military does the things that we must do, being prepared to deter and defend our nation and if called upon, win our wars around the world.

(35:24)
America's joint force is operational at its core, purpose built for the realities of a complex and ever-changing world. We are organized, trained, and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision. Over the past year, our war fighters have consistently demonstrated exactly what it means to be the most capable, adaptable, and most professional military force in the world. Our shared goals are to ensure the joint force maintains the strategic initiative and advantage, projecting American power and responding to global challenges on our nation's terms. During Operations Rough Rider, Midnight Hammer, Southern Spear, Absolute Resolve, and Epic Fury, the joint force executed globally integrated operations and missions alongside our interagency and international partners. And once our civilian leaders made a decision, we make those missions our own, demonstrating the unmatched capability to seamlessly synchronize our capabilities across all domains from the seabed to cislunar space and higher.

(36:41)
We're able to accomplish these complicated missions and work because we draw from a deep enduring reservoir of training, professionalism, and commitment. Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain and rebuild our strength continuously. We build readiness every day. We train professionals every day. We learn and sharpen our edges every day by being learning leaders. And I am incredibly proud to be a member of this joint force team, proud of the team and proud of the commanders.

(37:17)
As the chairman and the ranking member both said, we live in complex and dynamic times where global risk is scaling. The complexity of today's modern battlefields demands our constant adaptation, innovation, and partnership with this Congress. As a joint force, we're up to the challenge. We're built for this environment. However, continued success is not guaranteed by past achievements. It must be secured through forward-looking partnerships with Congress. And to drive this pace and change and maintain our superiority, we need timely, predictable, and sustained investment. The resources we discuss today are critical to modernizing our force and ensuring that whatever threats emerge in the future, that your joint force is ready to meet those challenges to protect our interests and defend our nation.

(38:15)
As the secretary... The president's fiscal year 2027 budget supports the department's goals of recharging the defense industrial base and the national industrial base, ensuring our military is ready, securing our military advantage. Within the joint force, the uniform side, our priorities remain the same, ensuring our war fighters are properly armed, globally integrated, and ready while always taking care of our people. And what truly sets our people apart from other militaries around the world is the 1.8 million members enlisted members of our force who maintain readiness beyond reproach and are the envy of every other nation. I'm joined today by the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, Dave Isom, who's here with me today representing the 1.8 million members of the enlisted force.

(39:09)
He is a great American, not an American't. And while we face dynamic and a dangerous world, I have the absolute trust in the extraordinary men and women who come and volunteer to serve our nation within our joint force. They execute the missions quietly every day and coupled with the American spirit, out think, out compete, and relentlessly innovate. We will maintain our decisive edge, but doing so requires your partnership. We stand ready today to answer our nation's call. It remains the honor of a lifetime for me to serve alongside the members of this joint force. And as we sit here today in this important hearing, I ask us all to remember our deployed teammates who are out there right now doing our nation's business and may we again always remember our fallen who've given us the gift of an incredible example and their family members who continue to show us what courage and grit look like. Thank you again for your enduring support and I look forward to your questions.

Chairman Rogers (40:16):

Thank you, General. I recognize myself now for questions. Secretary Hegseth, thank you for undertaking the Arsenal of Freedom Tour and the great work the department's doing to help enhance our capacity and our defense industrial base. Could you tell us how last year's reconciliation bill helped enable what you have been able to do and what you think this year's FY27 budget request will do on that front?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (40:43):

Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership and your support on that topic. I mean, coming into this position, we fell in on a lot of the reforms you and this committee have been advocating for for a long time, looking for somebody that was willing to run with them and our department have run with those. And that reconciliation bill last year was kind of the rocket fuel to initiate President Trump's priorities in this department. So we fell in on a department that was focused on a lot of the wrong things, going in the wrong direction. And with reconciliation, we're able to put 22 billion in ship building, 22 billion into Golden Dome, 25 billion into munitions, established drone dominance, which we're continuing to do this day in this next budget funds. So getting in front of that budget cycle, which had been notoriously unpredictable out of coming out of the continuing resolution of FY25 to fund this and then a bill, a historic bill in FY26, laid the groundwork for this historic budget to ensure that we're not coming at a cold start here.

(41:42)
We came into this administration. Reconciliation was a beautiful tool. We were able to use that through that One Big Beautiful Bill to fund the priorities of this department. We spent on four billion on barracks, started immediately getting after the quality of life of barracks. Because of the austerity of the Biden Administration, we traded off of maintenance, traded off of quality of life to try to fund other things operationally. This budget stops that cycle and both invests in sustainment and modernization, which is something that's critically important. So without that reconciliation bill, I think Mr. Chairman, we'd be in a very different place. So thank you for that.

Chairman Rogers (42:17):

Great. Well, as you are aware, expansion of the defense industrial base is the principal focus of this year's NDAA. So in addition to enacting this budget request that's been submitted, we want to work with you to enhance the department's statutory authorities to improve the capacity of our DIB. What additional changes in law, such as the additional multi-year block by authority, would you recommend that we pursue in this year's NDAA?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (42:46):

A few aspects of the acquisition transformation that's been undertaken by under Secretary Duffy in acquisitions and sustainment. So there's some aspects of that we'd like to codify even more, but you mentioned it. Multi-year procurement is incredibly important and one of the most important parts of this bill. When this committee and this Congress funds those things, companies are already breaking ground on tens of billions of dollars of new plants. You name the... We've got 14 in our ammunition council that we're focusing on certain ammunitions, there are 14 that are critical. PAC-3s, SM-3s, SM-6s, THAADS, Patriots, Tomahawks, AMRAAMs, JASSMs, PrSMs, you name them. We were building them at too slow and too low a level. Now the companies are going to pay for those factories and those production lines. And when Congress gives those five to seven-year demand signals, they'll then fund not just, "Hey, can we get 10 more per month, but can we 2X, 3X, 4X production?" Pay for it now and the companies invest accordingly. So it's been a critical aspect of some of what we've done so far, but we need more of those five to seven-year investments.

Chairman Rogers (43:59):

Great. General Caine, what does the $1.5 trillion budget mean for the war fighter and our ability to project forces and secure our interest around the globe?

General Dan Caine (44:10):

Chairman, in my view, this represents a historic down payment on future security. If the budget is approved and ultimately deployed, as we look at the character of warfare changing very, very fast, what's layered in to this budget by our civilian leaders will allow us to start getting ahead of where technology is evolving. And as I mentioned, the character of war fighting is changing pretty quickly. Mass, simultaneity, autonomy, undersea, space, cyber information, all of those ways that are now manifesting themselves on the battlefields around the world require a higher end of capital investment. And that's why we're grateful for the opportunity to have this budget make its way to the joint force. So it's an important down payment on the future here, sir.

Chairman Rogers (45:08):

Great. Thank you.

General Dan Caine (45:09):

Thank you, sir.

Chairman Rogers (45:10):

With that, I yield to the ranking member for any questions he may have.

Adam Smith (45:13):

Thank you. Mr. Hurst, drag you into the conversation here. We have not yet received from the Pentagon the costs of the war. So just for the record, we'd like to get that as soon as possible. Certainly the munitions expended, but also under reported is we've had a fair amount of equipment destroyed, including two C-130s with the rescue of our downed airmen. So do you have either A, cost estimate coming to us anytime soon, or B, a specific supplemental request?

Jules Hurst (45:44):

Thank you for that question. So approximately at this day, we're spending about $25 billion on Operation Epic Fury. Most of that is ammunitions. There's part of that it's obviously O&M and equipment replacement. We will formulate a supplemental through the White House that will come to Congress once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict.

Adam Smith (46:02):

[inaudible 00:46:02] So you're saying the full cost at this point is 25 billion?

Jules Hurst (46:05):

Yeah, that's our estimate for the cost.

Adam Smith (46:07):

Okay. Interesting. I'm glad you answered that question because we've been asking for a hell of a long time and no one's given us the number. So if you could get those details over to us, that would be great.

(46:17)
Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the nuclear aspect of Iran and the war. And it is worth noting that every president prior to this one, including President Trump in his first term, also prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without actually having to go to war in Iran. So we need to keep that in mind. But also since the war started, Iran's nuclear arsenal has not been weakened in any way. And at the moment in negotiations, what Iran is saying basically, "Pay us to open up the strait." That's their position, which is completely untenable, I agree. It's worth noting, of course, that the strait was open before the war started and now we're negotiating to get back to status quo.

(46:55)
And Iran's most recent offer is to say, "We'll talk about nukes later." So what is the plan to actually turn all of this lethal kinetic action into an improvement in the nuclear situation? Because we haven't gotten there yet. Play it out for us. How does that happen? How does it actually lead to that result?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (47:15):

Well, I would take issue with the premise of the question that nothing was done. Operation Midnight Hammer was a very effective-

Adam Smith (47:21):

Well, I didn't say nothing was done. I said in this war, since this war started.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (47:23):

Ultimately, well, under this administration, unlike other administrations, which cut bad deals and pallets of cash with no ability to oversee whether Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear program.

Adam Smith (47:33):

Which is where we're at.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (47:34):

So if you want to litigate JCPOA or the Iran deal, our view, the president's view is that was a very bad deal that gave them a bunch money upfront to fund-

Adam Smith (47:42):

Okay. That's the past. What's the future?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (47:42):

You talked about negotiated deals, allowed them to fund their proxies and spread Hamas and Hezbollah all around the region, build up nuclear capabilities.

Adam Smith (47:51):

[inaudible 00:47:51] What are we going to do now?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (47:51):

President Trump has been clear eyed from the killing of Qasem Soleimani to the pulling out of the Iran deal to Midnight Hammer and now to this effort to recognize that you have to stare down this kind of enemy who's hellbent on getting a nuclear weapon and get them to a point where they're at the table giving it up in a way that they never have it.

Adam Smith (48:10):

So they haven't broken yet. Okay. We haven't gotten there yet for all of the lead-

Secretary Pete Hegseth (48:15):

Well, their nuclear facilities have been obliterated. Underground, they're buried and we're watching them 24/7.

Adam Smith (48:20):

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (48:21):

So we know where any nuclear material might be [inaudible 00:48:23]

Adam Smith (48:23):

Reclaiming my time for a quick second here. We had to start this war, you just said, 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now you're saying that it was completely obliterated?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (48:37):

They had not given up their nuclear ambitions and they had a conventional shield of thousands of these... the weakest-

Adam Smith (48:42):

So operation Midnight Hammer accomplished nothing of substance.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (48:46):

You're missing the point.

Adam Smith (48:47):

It left us at exactly the same place we were before. So much so that that we had to start a war.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (48:51):

Their facilities were bombed and obliterated. Their ambitions continued and they're building a conventional shield-

Adam Smith (48:57):

Let me try again.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (48:58):

It's the North Korea strategy. You know this very well.

Adam Smith (49:00):

I know.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (49:00):

The North Korea strategy was use conventional missiles to prevent anybody from challenging them so they could slow walk their way to a weapon. President Trump saw Iran at its weakest moment, took an action to ensure in a way that only the United States of America could do with our Israeli partnership to ensure that the conventional shield was brought to yield what we've done.

Adam Smith (49:20):

And yet they still haven't given up the nuclear. All right, one other question, if I could get to it. So on Ukraine, a year plus ago, your advice, the president's advice was Ukraine had no cards to play. They should go cut the best possible deal they could. Clearly that was wrong. What did you miss? What did you miss about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine that you didn't see that Ukraine was going to be capable of doing what they've done in the last 14 months?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (49:43):

What we didn't miss, and we're here in this committee is that Joe Biden, with no accountability, gave hundreds of billions of dollars of our weapons to Ukraine, to an outcome that never would have happened if President Trump was present.

Adam Smith (49:53):

So you're not going to answer the question.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (49:54):

So he pulled out our... You guys don't talk about that. Ultimately, President Trump believes there should be a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine that serves the best interests of both parties.

Adam Smith (50:01):

But you didn't expect Ukraine to be where they're at right now. I'm asking you, just from a strategic standpoint, what did you-

Secretary Pete Hegseth (50:06):

Listen, I think the Ukrainians have shown great courage, and I appreciate that Europe is now paying for any weapons that we provide.

Adam Smith (50:15):

All right. I yield back. Thank you.

Chairman Rogers (50:16):

All right. Now I want to remind everybody, everybody wants to get their questions, so we are going to be sticking strictly to the five-minute rule today. So with that, I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.

Joe Wilson (50:27):

Thank you, Chairman Mike Rogers, for your leadership working with President Donald Trump. As the grateful father of four sons who've served overseas in Iraq, Egypt, and Afghanistan, I especially appreciate War Secretary Hegseth and Chief of Staff Caine for your competence, service, and success. Military families have never been more appreciated than today, and our enemies of dictators now understand peace through strength. Dictators historically are on the run. With your leadership, President Trump has given Syria a chance with President Al-Sharaa replacing Dictator Assad from Damascus who now lives in Moscow. Dictator Maduro is correctly in a Manhattan jail as you successfully revealed in Caracas that the war criminal Putin air defenses do not work, the Chinese Communist Party radar failed and Cuban mercenaries were expendable. The Cuban dictatorship is failing, and the ultimate mass murderer, dictator Khamenei is dead in Iran, joining the 35,000 people he murdered this year.

(51:29)
With your leadership, American morale has never been higher in hopes for freedom of the oppressed people of Iran, Cuba, Russia, and China have never been higher. And it's just an exciting time to be here with you. And Mr. Secretary, we continue to see the growing nuclear threat of our adversaries as they expand their capabilities with the largest military buildup in peacetime and world history by the Chinese Communist Party. How critical is it that we continue as at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to develop the Plutonian pit processing so that we have modernization?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (52:09):

Well, Congressman, I appreciate that question. On nuclear modernization, this budget funds $71 billion to modernize the triad in ways that we had neglected to do, and our nuclear triad underwrites everything. But I really appreciate your opening statement. I think something that obviously the media doesn't want to cover and doesn't want to talk about is the historic record-breaking surge in recruiting in our ranks. 30-year record in recruiting of Americans wanting to join our joint force, wanting to put the uniform on. We're meeting recruiting goals halfway through the year. We couldn't meet our recruiting goals under the previous administration. Under Joe Biden, Americans didn't want to join the military. We couldn't get it. Now we have to turn people away and push them to the next fiscal year. That's why this budget grows our force by almost 50,000, ultimately, additional troops into the force that we believe we can recruit. That's the best vote of confidence I can imagine, when not recruiting, it's also retention.

Joe Wilson (53:09):

Well, hey even better, hey, Mr. Secretary, you're really understating.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (53:13):

Oh, sorry.

Joe Wilson (53:14):

Leaving no airmen behind. What an inspiration on Easter Day. God bless y'all in what you've achieved. With that in mind too, General Caine with your VMI military perspective, war criminal Putin is losing in Ukraine as his 30-day special mission is now four years of, as the secretaries identified courageous Ukrainian success led by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. I appreciate that NATO and the EU have unified for Ukraine as the US ranked 17th per GDP in assistance for Ukraine. Ukraine is frontline stopping war criminal Putin from resurrecting the failed Soviet Union, rigging elections in Belarus, invading Ukraine, keeping troops in Moldova, and with the [inaudible 00:54:00] invading and rigging elections in the Republic of Georgia. As we're transitioning greater responsibility to our NATO allies, how do we ensure seamless integration to deterrence during this shift?

General Dan Caine (54:12):

Congressman, we're very fortunate to have great leaders out in the European theater right now. General Grynkewich and his leadership team are committed to ensuring that that integration and transition takes place in a most combat capable and effective way. Very entrepreneurial leaders out there across the components and with General Grynkewich, and he's doing a great job out there as the committee knows.

Joe Wilson (54:41):

And indeed, as we conclude, historically, President Trump, Mr. Secretary General, you have united the Middle East nation's unprecedented to ally with the United States. You have united Latin America unprecedented to ally with the United States. You've united the Indo-Pacific unprecedented to ally with the United States, and united NATO and EU unprecedented to ally with the United States. You're achieving peace and deterrence through strength. I yield back.

Chairman Rogers (55:11):

Gentlemen, yields back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. Courtney.

Joe Courtney (55:15):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and General Caine, this morning's Wall Street Journal's lead headline reads, "Trump tells aides to prepare for an extended blockade of Iran." It goes on to describe, again, the thinking behind the strategy, but also talks about how prolonging the blockade is going to continue to drive up energy costs all over the world. Given the ever-changing messages from this administration on the war strategy and timeline, I really honestly don't expect you to confirm or deny the Journal's story, but one thing is clear. The number of transits across the Strait of Hormuz has dropped to the lowest level since the war began and commodity markets have stopped listening to the Happy Talk and crude oil prices this morning have risen to the highest level since the war in Ukraine started in 2022. AAA reported this morning that the average price of gas is $4.30 a gallon, up 30 cents in one week. Diesel's average is 5,45. My friend Mr. Garamendi says in California it's closer to $8 a gallon and fertilizer prices have also hammered farmers at exactly the same time they're beginning planting all across the country. Aside from the damage this war has done to American consumers, farmers, and small businesses, I want to focus for a minute on the cost of the war and our military readiness, particularly to other combatant commands.

(56:33)
Mr. Secretary, you put out a National Defense Strategy in January which listed the threat assessment facing our country. China was number one with the second largest, most powerful military in the world, of course. Russia's nuclear force, clearly it was number two in terms of the threat they posed to the homeland. North Korea, which has missiles that actually can reach US territory was ranked number three, and Iran was described as quote, and accurately, after Midnight Hammer, that, "Iran's regime is weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades."

(57:08)
Again, this was before February 28th when the decision was made to go into the military strikes on Iran. So today we have three carrier strike forces in central command. The INDOPACOM, which is where Russia and China are operating their navies 52% of the globe. We have one carrier strike group in Japan, George Washington. And the imbalance in terms of just what our commitments and frankly what our National Defense Strategy is just blindingly obvious in terms of what this war is doing.

(57:47)
The Gerald Ford is on day 312 of its deployment. They've gone through fires, plumbing problems, and, again, an extended deployment, which in my opinion, is hitting readiness as hard as anything I've seen in the time that I've been on this committee. So General Caine, I mean, in terms of, again, the carrier strike groups that are over there, I mean, assuming that we get to some end game here, Ford is not going over to the Indo-Pacific to buttress the gap that exists there today.

(58:22)
They've got to go back into pretty heavy repair and availability in terms of trying to recover from their deployment. So again, in terms of just the decisions about where we're putting people and putting really the most powerful part of our navy, can you explain again what that means in terms of the situation in INDOPACOM where China is watching... We saw Mr. Rogers pretty powerful presentation in terms of the buildup that's happening in that part of the world. How does that align with the National Defense Strategy which was just put out by this administration in January?

General Dan Caine (59:02):

Well, sir, first I want to echo your comments on the Ford Strike Group, fantastic work by incredible sailors, not just the Ford herself, but the other ships as well on a historic cruise doing incredible work for the nation.

Joe Courtney (59:23):

But excuse me. How does that balance that balance with the National Defense Strategy?

General Dan Caine (59:24):

Yes, sir. Happy to answer the way I think about this. The National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy are frameworks, but a president will employ national force and power based on the political and security situations that a president deems appropriate to use that military force. There's always trade-offs in all of these things. I'm confident that the president always carefully considers these readiness trade-offs, and I'm sure he has done so in this case based on the military options that we've presented with the associated risks and advice.

Joe Courtney (01:00:08):

Well, to make a trade going after a regime that's weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades, which is quote unquote from the defense strategies report, does not, in my opinion, in common sense at all.

Chairman Rogers (01:00:18):

Gentleman's time's expired. As you can tell from looking at the dais, votes have been called, so we are now going to stand in recess to the end of this vote. I expect it to take 20 to 25 minutes, but we are now in recess.

Mr Rogers (01:26:54):

Here, we'll come back to order. Secretary, can you hear my voice clearly? General, can you hear my microphone now? Okay.

Gen Caine (01:27:02):

Yes, sir.

Mr Rogers (01:27:03):

Gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. Turner is recognized.

Mr Turner (01:27:07):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hegseth, your written testimony on page 20 includes a statement concerning the importance of FISA and Section 702, which is incredibly timely because this body [inaudible 01:27:25] going to be voting today on 702, which could be expiring this week. You state this vital tool keeps Americans safe, provides critical intelligence to our war fighters and is subject to a rigorous system of oversight by all three branches of government to guarantee the protection of the constitutional rights of the American people. Thought I'd give you a moment to expound on that because this is going to be very important because there's several people who right now in this body are going to be considering their support for 702's reauthorization.

Hon. Hegseth (01:27:57):

Well, thank you for that opportunity, Congressman. Yes, this department strongly supports the reauthorization of FISA 702. And it is not hyperbole to say many of the most important missions we have executed could not have happened without the intelligence gathered through FISA 702. So we would urge members to support that so we can continue doing the good work of the American people.

Mr Turner (01:28:21):

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your comments that Iran must never be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon. There has been many comments that have been made concerning allies who have not assisted or supported the effort. General Caine, there have been many allies who have been essential for us to be able to execute the functions necessary both for Midnight Hammer and for the current ongoing operation. I'd like to ask you to speak for a moment about the essential aspect of the allies that are supporting the effort. There are bases that are necessary. Our forward operating facilities, both our allies in the Middle East, both our NATO allies, those in Europe throughout. We would not be able to undertake this current operation without the use and support of facilities that we have in our bases throughout NATO, Europe, and the Middle East. If you could for a moment, expound on the integral nature of our facilities that include those bases that are located within our allies.

Gen Caine (01:29:38):

Well, Congressman, from a purely military standpoint, allies and alliances are important. They allow us... You did a better job than I could on articulating the importance of access basing and overflight considerations. Who those allies are and the quality of those alliances left our civilian leaders, but certainly we appreciate those allies who've helped us and assisted us along the way.

Mr Turner (01:30:06):

General, you would describe them as having been essential?

Gen Caine (01:30:11):

Yes, sir.

Mr Turner (01:30:12):

Because it's very important. I mean, we want to make certain that we treat adversaries as adversaries and allies like allies, especially those that are essential. The king was here yesterday, and as he was speaking, he received a standing ovation when he implored this body to continue our support for Ukraine. In the 2026 national defense strategy, it assesses Russia will remain a persistent, manageable threat. It specifically identifies Russia's continued threat to Ukraine. And we have, of course... Currently, the presidential continued drawdown authority that can support Ukraine and also the President Trump announced Pearl the prioritized Ukraine requirements list. And in the FY 2026 [inaudible 01:31:16], there is the 400 million that is included in the European capacity building within the defense security cooperation. General, the last time it went on the House floor with respect to funding for Ukraine, there was a vote in the House of over 300 members of the House that supported Ukraine.

(01:31:38)
Could you please give us a description of some of the things currently that we're doing operationally support Ukraine?

Gen Caine (01:31:46):

Congressman, a few of those are probably left for classified session. We continue through our security assistance group Ukraine to assist with some information sharing matters. UCOME continues to happen.

Mr Turner (01:32:00):

But you would describe it as continuous and ongoing and essential for Ukraine with US support?

Gen Caine (01:32:05):

Sir, much of the relationship...

Mr Rogers (01:32:07):

Gentlemen's times expired. Chair and I recognize gentlemen from California, Mr. Garamendi.

Mr Garamendi (01:32:13):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and General King, let me begin by thanking the men and women of the United States military for their service and their bravery. I recognize that our service members have performed with extraordinary courage and tactical skill, and they've done incredible things that our country has asked them to. Their professionalism and selfless service are not in question and never have been. What is in question is the purposes and the strategic direction of this war. Mr. Hegseth, as secretary of the Department of Defense, you are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the Iran war. Any unvarnished review of what is happening right now in the Middle East would reveal a geopolitical calamity, a strategic blunder resulting in worldwide economic crisis. The result of Trump's war of choice is a serious self-inflicted ruin to America. It will take years and a new administration to recover from the grave damage to our standing in the world, as well as our economy and our military.

(01:33:22)
We must remember that 13 Americans have been killed in action, hundreds wounded, and thousands of civilians killed, including more than a hundred school children. The risk of this conflict was foreseeable. I'm certain that the Department of Defense knew that it was likely that in a war with Iran, Iran would create an international economic crisis by blocking the state of Hormuz and thus stopping 20% of the world's oil. Was this existential threat considered? Apparently not. During the 60 days of Trump's Iran war, critical munitions have been expended at an alarming rate. Depleting magazine levels below what is thought necessary to hold China at bay. It will take years and tens of billions of dollars to restock. A significant part of the necessary Navy and Marine force in the Pacific has been removed and sent to support the Iran war. Our support of Ukraine has suffered as supplies and defense systems are diverted to the Iran war.

(01:34:33)
America has lost irreplaceable aircraft, radar systems, and strategic bases have been shown to be vulnerable. The continued lengthy deployment of ships, equipment, and personnel has sacrificed readiness. We know what we have lost, but what have we gained? Let's consider that the regime in Tehran is still intact with new and more radical leadership, as are Iran's ballistic missile and drone forces. As is Iran's ability to rebuild their military industries. Also, as is Iran's coordination with China, Russia, and North Korea, and Iran's ability to choke off global energy supplies, and their stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which they only built after President Trump shredded President Obama's Iran deal in 2017.

(01:35:38)
Secretary Hegseth, you have been lying to the American public about this war from day one, and so has the president. You have misled the public about why we are at war. You and the president have offered ever-changing reasons for this war. You've misled the public about the progress of the war. While the military has executed this war with tactical success, the strategy has been an astounding incompetence. Doing immense economic damage to America and the world.

Speaker 1 (01:36:12):

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, with the personal attack on the secretary, he should have an opportunity to respond.

Speaker 2 (01:36:19):

He certainly will [inaudible 01:36:21].

Speaker 1 (01:36:21):

[inaudible 01:36:22] the time you're doing it.

Mr Rogers (01:36:22):

It's the gentleman's time. He can use it as he sees fit and add an extra five seconds to Mr. Garamendi's time.

Mr Garamendi (01:36:27):

Thank you. You and the president have ever changing reasons for the war. You have misled the public about the progress of the war. While the military has executed this war with tactical success, the strategy has been an outstanding example of incompetence. This war of choice is a political and economic disaster at every level. Despite the president's promise to lower the cost of a living, gas prices are up 40% and inflation is soaring so much for lowering the cost of living. The president has got himself and America stuck in a quagmire of another war in the Middle East. He's desperately trying to extricate himself from his own mistakes. It is in America's and indeed the world's interest that he succeed in that. I yield back.

Mr Rogers (01:37:16):

Gentlemen yields back here and I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.

Mr Wittman (01:37:21):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us today, General Caine, Secretary Hegseth, Mr. [inaudible 01:37:26], thank you so much. I want to go to a statement I've been making here for the last several years, and that is we are in the most dangerous national security position that this world has been in since 1939. And we know that it's a critical effort that we undertake to make sure we can deter through the concept of peace through strength. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to start with you. We know that Peace Through [inaudible 01:37:52] has a number of tenants. I think the most important of those is presence. And we know that the United States has the Marine Corps Amphibious Ready Group Marine Corps Expeditionary Unit that provides us that presence. We know there are over 2,000 Marines and an aircraft combat unit that are on board those vessels, and they let us do a number of different things.

(01:38:12)
That's the crisis response team that gets to go around the world. Today, as we speak, we have three arguments that are deployed around the world. Unfortunately, that's an anomaly. It should be standard. Secretary Hegseth, the president and the combatant commanders need maximum flexibility to respond in multiple places at multiple times to combat and deter these threats. I just want to get your perspective on your goal to make sure we have a persistent 3.0 ARG MEU presence and to look at how are we going to make sure through our shipbuilding plans that we assure that we have the adequate number of amphibs that are being built. I think that number's probably right around 40. And then what are we going to do to make sure two that the [inaudible 01:38:55], the operational availability, is going to be at the level where we can maintain

Mr. Wittman (01:39:00):

Maintain an ARG/MEU 3.0 with the effort we have to put in to maintain these ships.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:39:05):

So thank you for the question, the substantive question. Ultimately, we support 3.0 ARG/MEU. That presence right now gives us a lot of flexibility. And this budget supports moving in that direction to ensure that this administration and future administrations have that kind of strategic flexibility with the incredible capabilities the ARG/MEU provides. We saw it in Southern Spear. We saw it on the Maduro raid. We see it right now. It's a persistent capability. So I think you'll find our ship building investments to meet that as well. But if I may.

Dr. DesJarlais (01:39:39):

Sure. Yeah.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:39:40):

I didn't get a chance. I didn't see a question in the statement from the Congressman. I hope you appreciate how reckless it is. When I said reckless, feckless, and defeatist of congressional Democrats at the beginning, that came after watching you say the same thing on CNN this morning, a quagmire. My generation served in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, years and years of nebulous missions and utopian nation building that led us to nothing. What we have right now, the way you stain the troops, when you tell them two months in, two months in, Congressman, you should know better. Shame on you. Calling this a quagmire two months in. The effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the battlefield that could create strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran, and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies, shame on you for that statement.

(01:40:34)
And statements like that are reckless to our troops. Don't say, "I support the troops on one hand," and then a two-month mission is a quagmire. That's a false equivalent. Who are you cheering for here? Who are you pulling for? Our troops are doing incredible work. They've done incredible things for the entirety of this mission and achieved incredible battlefield successes. And you sit there and go on TV for your clickbait about quagmires. It undermines the mission. Your hatred for President Trump blinds you to the truth of the success of this mission and the historic stakes that the president is addressing, which the American people support. Iran's been at war with us for 47 years. You want to talk about a forever war? For two months, this president has stared them down. He's going to get a better deal than anyone ever has and ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon. I know the American people support that mission despite your loose talk and words like quagmire. Thank you.

Mr. Wittman (01:41:31):

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Caine, I want to quickly go to you. We know all about the need for exquisite platforms, but we know if we're going to close the gap with our pacing threats, we have to make sure we have those expendable and attributable platforms. And we know those nation capabilities are key and we have to be able to spin them up quickly because that's the fastest way for us to, again, deter by peace through strength. Give us your perspective on how you see the urgency of getting that capacity, not only in place, but getting that ability to go to scale and get those capabilities in the hands of our war fighters.

Gen Caine (01:42:02):

Sir, I think it's critical. And when I look at what OSW above us is doing and the deputy secretary as well as Secretary Duffy, and frankly, the national and defense industrial base is all rallying around the need to scale. Along with the new entrants that are out there who are coming and bringing products to the joint force. A key is capacity process-

Mike Rogers (01:42:26):

Gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross.

Mr. Norcross. (01:42:30):

Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to thank witnesses for being here today. Mr. Secretary, it's well known that our defense industrial base and maritime industrial base has declined greatly over time. It's the shipyards. It's many of the things that you already spoke about. In my community, we used to have three shipyards, 40,000 workers. We've lost that critical job skillset and 40,000 people who know how to do it. And quite frankly, most of it went overseas because it was cheaper. Well, cheaper doesn't buy the security we need for our industrial base. I championed a provision in the '24 NDAA entitled Enhanced Domestic Content Requirement for Major Acquisition Programs. Had to do with our industrial base making things here in America long before this administration came in. The goal was to strengthen our supply chains and have that critical oversight, push for greater investments, much of what you're doing now on these major defense acquisition programs.

(01:43:39)
So we passed that in a bipartisan manner because we knew that this was critical and things can happen. Lo and behold, here we are. There was a reporting requirement in that that's calls on you, the Secretary of Defense to establish an information repository, issue rules, create a fallback process to govern the Department of Defense. We wanted to better understand much of what is being done here, but it's not being reported back to us. I sent to your office on January 8th, followed up on February 4th we're years overdue on this report. That will give us insight onto how we're addressing it. We hear what you're saying, but can you commit that we will get that report to us in the next 30 days?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:44:32):

Unless Jay has additional details, I'll make sure we look into it. Whatever we can get to you as rapidly as possibly we will. We'll also check with the new Navy leadership and make sure they're complying as rapidly as possible with every aspect that could apply to ship building. That's been our focus on the Navy side.

Mr. Norcross. (01:44:49):

It's not just ship building, major acquisition programs across the board. This is incredibly important and they are ignoring this and 30 days is being generous, certainly. Second issue is you talk about championing the American worker and how important this is. Yet in a memo on April 9th, you terminate all the collective bargaining agreements across the DoD, taking away from hundreds of thousands of workers at DoD, their collective bargaining rights that they voted for. There was nothing to indicate there were any issues with any of the bargaining agreements, yet you decided to take away from them. Over the last few years, we have increased the wages for those war fighters. Incredibly important this year, up to 7%. Yet on the other side of this, you talk about supercharging the defense industrial base. We are in this.

(01:45:42)
How do you go and say, "Yes, we support the war fighters. They can't do their job unless we are building things that they can use," yet no evidence to prove that these collective bargaining agreements were a problem anywhere across the Department of Defense under Democrat and Republican administrations. How do you kind of square that circle that you care about this, yet you take away their voice on the job?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:46:10):

Well, certainly, sir, the great workers that, whether they're contractors or DoD civilians that do the important work for us, the great ones are going to stay and we've invested in more in merit bonuses for civilians than any administration previous. So if you're doing great work, you're going to stay and you're going to have even more opportunities. But with our ear to the ground in those shipyards and other factory floors, there were issues with collective bargaining which led to restrictions to the workforce and our ability to move faster.

Mr. Norcross. (01:46:34):

If I may just point out-

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:46:36):

And in that case, you made the decision to provide additional flexibility that we can move faster.

Mr. Norcross. (01:46:40):

Even taking it away from the shipyard workers, you took away from Department of Defense employers where there hasn't been any issues. Let's be clear, those are independent contractors and they have their collective bargaining agreements, the ones that work for you.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:46:54):

The ones that work for us should be at will like anybody else based on their performance. And if they're performing well, which I'm sure they are, as you've represented, they will have a job at the department.

Mr. Norcross. (01:47:03):

So where is the issue that you took away their collective bargaining rights? Why did you do it if it wasn't a problem?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:47:09):

Well, I stated upfront, it has been a problem. There are plenty of cases, whether it's contract or inside our own department where collective bargaining had led to arrangements and agreements that minimize the efficiency and effectiveness of employees at the point of their impact. That's what we were focusing on and that's why we made the change, which we very much stand behind.

Mr. Norcross. (01:47:27):

Well, I yield back.

Mike Rogers (01:47:29):

Gentleman yields back. Chair now I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik.

Ms. Stefanik (01:47:33):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hegseth, I appreciate the department and the administration's focus on expansion and innovation in the defense industrial base that's particularly important for emerging technologies. For years on this committee, my office has led the effort to ban the procurement of Chinese communist drones, which pose a significant national security threat. And last year after years of work, this committee finally passed my countering CCP Drones Act or section 1709 of the NDAA, which was fully implemented in December. How does the FY27 budget scale domestic production and deployment of drone systems to ensure the U.S. has the decisive advantage against our U.S. enemies?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:48:17):

Well, thank you for the question. First of all, thank you for your work on that. And critically important, when you look under the hood of the ways in which China is trying to use critical elements of our defense industrial base and supply chain against us or capabilities in the future that could hamstring us with options for a future president, it's staggering. So drones is one that not only have we recognized, but thanks to your leadership and the leadership of others, we are supercharging in this budget. Conservatively, $54 billion in drone and drone dominance and counter-UAS. Jay just slid me a piece of paper. If you add it all up, it could be closer to 74 billion. We started a defense autonomous working group, autonomous warfare group, excuse me, to focus on this, but we're going to do even more. We will shortly announce a sub-unified command, autonomous warfare.

(01:49:02)
Drones are so central to the future of warfare and where we get them from, that we have to be able to both make the exquisite ones better than anybody else, and also the attributable swarm, and then the ability to defeat them ahead of our adversary, learning from battlefields like Ukraine and Epic Fury. So thank you for your leadership. It is front and center in this budget.

Ms. Stefanik (01:49:21):

I very much appreciate all that the department is doing under your leadership. One of the concerns I have is recent reporting indicates that while DJI, which is a communist Chinese drone company, is prohibited from receiving new FCC authorizations, there are still DJI products such as the DJI Avata 360 widely available in the U.S. through major retailers. These received FCC authorizations before my provision in the NDAA was fully implemented. So my question to you is, we need to close this loophole to protect our national security. Will you commit to working with this committee and my office to ensure that these products that pose a significant risk to our national security are no longer permitted given the evident threat CCP drones pose to U.S. national security?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:50:09):

Congressman, yes, the department will commit to working with your staff and looking at that loophole, which we are aware of. And I missed in my first response, of course, that 54 billion is American made drone dominance.

Ms. Stefanik (01:50:20):

Absolutely. Yes.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:50:21):

That is exactly where they need to be and that's where our focus is.

Ms. Stefanik (01:50:24):

Great. Another emerging technology that's very important and has a strong tie to my district is quantum computing. China continues to invest heavily in quantum, computing, sensing, and secure communications for military advantage. I represent Rome Air Force Research Lab, which is a hub of research when it comes to quantum. Secretary Hegseth, how does the budget proposal position the U.S. to maintain leadership in operationally relevant quantum technologies?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:50:52):

The country that dominates in quantum will dominate the future in C2, in comms, in every way that we fight. And so this makes the maximal investment possible here at home to ensure that quantum compute and working across the inner agency, by the way, this is not just a DOW issue, this is an interagency issue, to ensure that we've got the ability to scale and compute, out compute adversaries who are racing for the same code.

Ms. Stefanik (01:51:19):

General Caine, throughout my time in Congress, I've pushed for the department to optimize its approach to quantum and develop a strategic roadmap. In your opinion, which quantum capability areas offer the most immediate benefit to the joint force and should be priority investments moving forward?

Gen Caine (01:51:36):

Probably some of the work in crypto and quantum to make sure we can see, sense, understand, defeat, and protect our own stuff. So that's where I'm most interested in it right now, ma'am.

Ms. Stefanik (01:51:46):

Great. And I also want to use my remaining time. I just want to invite both of you to visit Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division, most deployed division in the U.S. Army since 9/11. In the first Trump administration, I had the honor of hosting President Trump where he signed the NDAA in my district, and it's been a privilege to represent them. So encourage you to visit that installation before the end of this year. Thank you very much, and I yield back.

Mike Rogers (01:52:09):

Gentlelady, yields back. Chair now recognizes a gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton.

Mr. Moulton (01:52:13):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you and I agree that Iran is a national security threat to us and our allies. Now, earlier you called us feckless for questioning your war. Do you think Congress was smart or feckless when it failed to ask tough questions of the Bush administration and gave them a blank check for Iraq?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:52:32):

Well, if you're trying to compare this war to the Iraq War-

Mr. Moulton (01:52:35):

I'm just asking you, do you think it was hard or feckless?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:52:37):

The first one to call a stupid war, then it's a false comparison.

Mr. Moulton (01:52:39):

Okay. Well, probably a good idea to ask tough questions. So let me just ask you a few questions. Did you advise the president that we should attack Iran?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:52:48):

We were, first of all, in this position, in the cabinet, we never talk about what we would advise the president to do or not.

Mr. Moulton (01:52:54):

Do you think the president or you deserve more-

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:52:56):

I've been in every meeting.

Mr. Moulton (01:52:57):

I understand that Mr-

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:52:58):

The chairman and everybody else says those decisions were made-

Mr. Moulton (01:52:59):

Mr. Secretary, I'm asking the questions.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:53:01):

And he got every perspective possible when it came-

Mr. Moulton (01:53:04):

I'm just asking what your perspective is. Are you afraid to take ownership of this? Do you think it was a good idea or not?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:53:10):

As I've consulted the president, do I think it's a good idea to confront a nuclear bomb-

Mr. Moulton (01:53:14):

To start this war?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:53:16):

Imagine what the world would look like right now if Iran had a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Moulton (01:53:18):

Okay.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:53:19):

Just imagine.

Mr. Moulton (01:53:20):

Which by the way, every previous administration [inaudible 01:53:23] including the first Trump administration.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:53:24):

They had one.

Mr. Moulton (01:53:25):

Prevented them from having a nuclear weapon. So listen, how is this war going? Do you think we're winning?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:53:31):

Militarily on the battlefield, it's been an astounding military success.

Mr. Moulton (01:53:34):

But are we winning the war?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:53:36):

Absolutely.

Mr. Moulton (01:53:36):

Okay. So do you call Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz winning?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:53:40):

Well, I would say the blockade that we hold that doesn't allow anything to come in or out of Iranian ports, will always-

Mr. Moulton (01:53:47):

So we blockaded their blockade. So they blockaded us and then we blockaded their blockade. That's like saying "Tag, you're it." Or if President Madison had said, "Well, the British just burned down Washington, but don't worry, we're going to burn it down as well." Chairman Caine, did the military have plans for the idea that Iran might blockade the Strait?

Gen Caine (01:54:08):

Sir, thanks for the question. I'll answer it this way. In this job, I have to maintain trust with a variety of constituents.

Mr. Moulton (01:54:21):

I'm just asking if the military had a plan.

Gen Caine (01:54:23):

As always, my point in this is, as I explained the role, my point in this is we always offer a full range of military options that are carefully considered with the associated risks with those options and the considerations therein.

Mr. Moulton (01:54:38):

So Mr. Secretary, did you consider this risk?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:54:42):

Of course, this department has looked at all aspects of this risk and because this department-

Mr. Moulton (01:54:47):

So why did we send sweepers, the only mine sweepers we had in the Gulf to Singapore weeks before the war started?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:54:52):

We have lots of capabilities that you may or may not be aware of at the classified level to deal with-

Mr. Moulton (01:54:58):

By the way, would the Trump class battleships have helped with this?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:55:01):

You're talking about a prospective future battleship, which we welcome in the fleet.

Mr. Moulton (01:55:06):

Okay. So you're supportive of the battleships?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:55:09):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Moulton (01:55:10):

Okay. How much has Iran profited from your administration lifting the sanctions on Iran when you started this war?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:55:19):

I can tell you Iran is financially devastated right now. The injunction with the treasury-

Mr. Moulton (01:55:23):

They've earned about $14 billion.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:55:24):

Operation Economic Fury. They're at a point where, between the blockade and what we've done to them militarily, remember they don't have a navy, they can't contest the blockade. Between what we've done to the militarily and financially-

Mr. Moulton (01:55:36):

What kind of navy can they buy with $14 billion?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:55:36):

They have very few options.

Mr. Moulton (01:55:37):

How many Chinese missiles can they buy for $14 billion? Does that sound like winning?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:55:45):

We're insuring and they're not buying Chinese missiles.

Mr. Moulton (01:55:47):

Okay. At the end of the day, this also has a cost to us. If let's say this war costs $100 billion, I mean, you've already said, "Give us more time. It's only been two months. It could go on for 20 years like Iraq and Afghanistan." Let's just say it costs $100 billion. What is that to the average American taxpayer? Do you have any idea?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:56:04):

Well, unlike foolish previous administrations, it won't go on-

Mr. Moulton (01:56:08):

I'm just asking.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:56:09):

For years and decades.

Mr. Moulton (01:56:10):

But let's just say it's $100 billion.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:56:12):

It's hard to imagine how it's allow those things to happen. You were part of that war-

Mr. Moulton (01:56:15):

Do you know the answer to that?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:56:15):

So was I, and I never-

Mr. Moulton (01:56:17):

I'm just asking if you know what your war costs the average American taxpayer?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:56:21):

What is the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon that they wield over?

Mr. Moulton (01:56:24):

I'm just asking if you know the cost of the average American company.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:56:26):

I'm asking you what the cost is-

Mr. Moulton (01:56:28):

It's about $600. So for the American taxpayers out there, my constituents, some of the constituents you wanted to represent in Minnesota, I'm just wondering if they have an extra 600 bucks lying around to pay for your war. I think that's just a question that we ought to ask. Now, quickly, on March 13th in a press conference, you said, "We will give them no quarter, no mercy." In order for no quarter or no survivors is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. You understand that's murder. Do you stand by that statement?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:56:56):

The Department of War fights to win, and we ensure that our war fighters have the rules of engagement necessary to be as effective as humanly possible to go.

Mr. Moulton (01:57:03):

Okay, just to be clear, you called Democratic members of Congress to be tried for sedition for reminding our troops to follow law. But when you tell them to commit a war crime, you stand by yourself.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:57:11):

For insinuating that the laws that we're giving them are unlawful.

Mr. Moulton (01:57:14):

Congratulations, Mr. Secretary.

Mike Rogers (01:57:15):

Gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognizes gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.

Dr. DesJarlais (01:57:18):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our witnesses for being here today. And I'd like to thank you for your commitment to our advancement in space, Golden Dome and nuclear modernization, all which are critical. And also, I understand we're going to start some reproduction of the MQ-9 Reaper Drones, which you Mr. Secretary and Ms. Secretary share my great state of Tennessee. And we know the 118th Air Wing of the National Guard operates Berry Field, and conduct many of these missions and they do so with great precision. So thank you for that. Secretary Hegseth, you commissioned as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army National Guard in 2003. You've been deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay. You have been awarded two Bronze Stars, the Combat Infantry Badge, Joint Commendation Medals, two Army Commendation Medals, among other recognitions. You have seen military actions from both an operational and service member perspective. Have you ever seen operations with the scope and scale and complexity of Midnight Hammer, Operation Absolute Resolve and Operation Epic Fury?

Secretary Pete Hegseth (01:58:28):

Thank you for the question, Mr. Congressman. Not only have I not seen missions like that, but if you ask? If you earnestly go into our formations right now, and you talk to colonels and majors and staff sergeants and two star generals, and you ask them about the environment of our military right now and its capabilities right now, compared to under the Biden administration under Obama, they will tell you it is night and day. Even the ranking member acknowledged that the troops performed incredibly well over the past 15 months and have demonstrated to the world. These are not new troops in a lot of cases. These are the same troops with new leadership. Under President Trump, who gives them every authority, under a department that ensures they have what they need, I have operators looking at me saying, "For the first time ever, we have everything we need to accomplish the mission, both in equipment and in authorities." That matters when you go 37 hours around the world for Midnight Hammers.

(01:59:21)
That matters when you go downtown in Venezuela and grab the indicted dictator of a country in the middle of the night in the most fortified location. That matters at the outset of the Iran conflict. It matters during Operation Rough Rider, which there's a reason why the Houthis aren't in this fight right now because they experienced 50 days of the American military under President Trump. That matters in the Caribbean, and our fight against designated terror organizations. This military is unleashed and morale is at a level that this country has not seen for decades and decades because of the leadership of President Trump and because this war department allows them to get back to basics. No more distractions, no more debris. It's simple accountability, training, standards, lethality, and they respond to it. And it's that response that's manifest in highly and historic successful military operations led by our incredible joint force who are grateful to have a commander-chief that has their back.

Dr. DesJarlais (02:00:18):

Well, I can tell you for that, our nation, myself and all officer, incredibly grateful. Secretary Hegseth, and General Caine, with your vision and steadfast commitment to our nation service members, you have both overseen the beginning of a generational transformation of our armed services. This budget request reflects that commitment by building and sustaining our defense industrial base, increasing service member pay, housing and benefits, robust funding for Golden Dome missile defense and space capabilities and the emphasis on the peace through strength doctrine outlined in the national defense strategy. Based on the defense department's recent track record of successful missions, can you share some examples of military action that illustrate exactly how your leadership and vision for the Department of War is translating the peace through strength doctrine into an operational reality and what psychological impact that may have on our near peer adversaries such as China and Russia. And I'd like to get both yours and General Caine's perspective if you can take 30 seconds each.

Secretary Pete Hegseth (02:01:16):

I'll keep it brief. Reestablishing deterrence was one of the core pillars of what we set out to do after Afghanistan, after October 7th, after the war in Ukraine, after Lloyd Austin went AWOL for a week and no one seemed to care. The world took notice of that and through the actions we've taken swiftly that I just laid out, the world is recognized that American power is back and the willingness to utilize it shows that we can achieve peace through strength.

Dr. DesJarlais (02:01:40):

General Caine, in terms of our adversaries?

Gen Caine (02:01:43):

Yes, sir. When we look at the totality of actions that we've done over the last year, one thing leaps out at me that I think is clearly and unambiguously seen by our adversaries or those that may consider it. And that's our ability to integrate and synchronize a whole range of capabilities that we have in the joint force, information, cyber, deception, jamming, air power, sea power, land power, et cetera. And I think that ability, and I'm so proud of our joint force, those young and-

Mike Rogers (02:02:19):

Gentleman's times expired. Chair now recognizes a gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal.

Mr. Carbajal (02:02:24):