Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 14, 2025 - The Charlie Kirk Show

01:42:37

The Pete Hegseth Confirmation Hearing Watch Party

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, it's on the Charlie Kirk Show, a monster episode where we cover the Pete Hegseth nomination.
	We cut in and out live of the nomination and tell you why Pete Hegseth is going to make an excellent Secretary of Defense.
	Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
	Become a member today, members.charliekirk.com.
	And get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com.
	That is tpusa.com.
	So check it out right now at tpusa.com.
	As always, you guys can become a member, members.charliekirk.com.
	Buckle up, everybody.
	Here we go.
	You've done is incredible here.
	Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
	I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
	Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
	I want to thank Charlie.
	He's an incredible guy.
	His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
	That's why we are here.
	Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
	Learn how you can protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
	That is noblegoldinvestments.com.
	It's where I buy all of my gold.
	Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
	All right, everybody.
	Right now, Pete Hegseth, our next Secretary of Defense, is being grilled by Angus King.
	In fact, it looks like it just got thrown over to Senator Rick Scott.
	Is that correct?
	It looks like Senator Scott.
	I just kind of see it picture in picture.
	Great job there, guys.
	Let's see what Senator Scott has to say, and then we'll throw back here, kind of give you an update of this historic hearing.
	Let's see what Senator Rick Scott has to say.
	It was instrumental in 2014 and 2017 in ensuring that veterans had health care choice.
	The second letter, submitted by Mr. Cason Sparrow, Digital Media Director of CVA, from 2015 to 2017, stated, Pete brought incredible energy, focus, and a clear vision to the organization and showed everything that the team accomplished together.
	And I similarly asked to submit to the record a letter from Paul J. Roberts, Retired Colonel, U.S. Army Special Forces, speaking to the unwavering integrity of Mr. Hegseth.
	Is there objection?
	Without objection, those three will be admitted.
	Senator Scott.
	First, congratulations on your nomination.
	Thank you, Senator.
	And thank you for being willing to serve our nation.
	I served in the Navy.
	I'm really proud of my dad.
	He was crazy.
	He did all four combat jumps with the 80-second Airborne.
	He, after that, survived all that and fought in the Battle of the Bulge.
	And what they went through, it was hell.
	So I have a lot of respect for him and for everybody that puts on the uniform and serves in battle and has to lead people in battle.
	Because being on a ship, that didn't happen to me.
	But I had a lot of friends that happened to him.
	It clearly happened to my dad.
	I've served on this committee for six years, two years under President Trump and the past four under President Joe Biden.
	I've seen how the Biden-Harris administration pushed the DOD to prioritize wokeness over being the most lethal military force in the world.
	It's our readiness, our national security, and our ability to recruit people who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country.
	Can you talk about some of the changes we can make to improve recruitment and rebuild our military into the most lethal force in the world?
	First of all, Senator, thank you for the question.
	Thank you for your time.
	I think the first and most important thing we could have done is elect Donald Trump as the new commander-in-chief.
	Because past is prologue.
	Our warfighters understand what kind of commander-in-chief they're going to get in President Donald Trump.
	Someone who stands behind them.
	Someone who gives them clear missions.
	Someone who ends wars decisively.
	And the issue of Ukraine was mentioned.
	And ensures new wars are not started.
	There was a minor incursion under Barack Obama into Crimea, followed by nothing under President Trump, followed by an all-out assault by Vladimir Putin into Ukraine under the Biden administration.
	That did not happen under Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump managed the Taliban.
	The Biden administration, Afghanistan collapsed tragically, ending the lives of 13 at Abbey Gate, who we remember every single day, and no one was held accountable for that.
	Chinese spy balloons were flying over the country.
	None of that happened under Donald Trump, and our warfighters understand that.
	So there's no better recruiter, in my mind, for our military than President Donald Trump.
	My job is to come alongside him should I be confirmed and continue to emphasize his emphasis on warfighting, on getting...
	Anything that doesn't contribute to meritocracy...
	Pete Hegseth is just crushing it right now.
	And Pete Hegseth...
	So this is the way it works, is this is the Senate Armed Services Committee chaired by Senator Roger Wicker, who's wearing a foreign flag for whatever reason.
	Someone can explain that to me, that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has a foreign flag that he's wearing, that being Ukraine.
	Then he also has a co-chair from Rhode Island.
	I don't remember this guy's name.
	It was...
	What was his name again?
	Senator...
	I don't want to misspeak.
	So basically they co-chair the committee, Senator Reid.
	And so Senator Wicker controls the gavel.
	He begins.
	So it goes back and forth with equal time for Republicans and Democrats.
	When the Republicans ask questions, it's softballs, as it should be.
	Got to give the guy some time to regather, to take a deep breath, to be able to get his footing.
	And then the Democrats come all in and forcefully.
	But let's kind of frame this up.
	One of...
	The distinctions of how our government is supposed to be constituted is a civilian-led military.
	The Joint Chiefs of Staff has its own problem.
	Whether or not the Joint Chiefs even exist or not is a separate issue.
	But having a frontline fighter to lead the Department of Defense is an extraordinary development.
	Most people that have led the Department of Defense, from Lloyd Austin to Mark Milley, they have not faced fire themselves.
	They have not lost friends.
	On the front lines of battle.
	Pete Hegseth will bring that warrior ethos back into the Department of Defense.
	Pete Hegseth understands the threat of DEI, critical race theory, and the American left.
	He understands that our threat is not just international, it is also domestic.
	Pete Hegseth will purge the United States military of DEI. Of the lowering of standards, he will put forward in equilibrium that if women want to serve in the military, they must have the same physical fitness standards as men.
	Pete Hegseth has been morally clear on who our enemies are.
	By the way, Pete Hegseth had a great answer on Hamas, on Israel.
	He said that it's time for us to get out of Ukraine, and you can see how Pete is under fire.
	He has been in combat, so this is nothing to him.
	And Pete is not connected to the military-industrial complex like Mark Milley, like Mad Dog Mattis, like all of these failures at DOD. Pete Hegseth actually fought in the front lines, and it's time that we have a warrior to lead other warriors.
	Someone that has ascended, who, with distinction and honor, Pete Hegseth served this nation.
	Mark Milley, if you get a picture of Mark Milley, he has all these medals.
	What did he ever do to get all those medals?
	All this regalia.
	What war did Mark Milley win to get all of that regalia?
	One of the greatest threats to our own country is how the cancer, the tumor of wokeism, has been enveloping the United States military.
	It makes us less ready to win wars.
	Our military preparedness has been eroded and dulled.
	The morale of our military is at all-time lows.
	We have a recruiting crisis right now.
	In the United States military.
	We were once the finest fighting force on the planet, and now that is being put in jeopardy.
	Pete Hegseth will bring it back.
	Bring back warrior culture.
	Show 54 right there.
	This is Mark Milley.
	What on earth did he ever do to get that many medals?
	What war did he win?
	What conquest did he offer?
	What battle did he participate in to get that many medals?
	No, simply by existing.
	Must take an hour to put all those on.
	Mr. White Rage.
	Now contrast that overweight, low testosterone, beta male failure of a general with, contrast that with Pete Hegseth.
	The man right now who is calm under fire.
	Oh, we gotta listen to this.
	Go right now.
	We gotta go.
	Elizabeth Warren, we gotta listen to this.
	Go to Elizabeth Warren.
	Disqualifies you from serving in this role.
	Now, I've been trying to get answers from you for quite some time on this.
	You haven't wanted to meet or to answer any of my questions.
	So we'll just have to do it here and dive in.
	I want to pick up on some of the questions asked by Senators Sheen and Gillibrand and Hirono.
	And I just want to make sure we have a list of some of the facts that I think are undisputed.
	I'm not going to talk about anonymous sources.
	I'm just going to quote you directly.
	We've got the video.
	We've got it in print.
	So going back to January 2013, you told a Fox News interviewer that women in the military simply couldn't measure up to men in the military, saying that allowing women to serve in combat roles would force the military to lower the bar.
	You picked up on that same theme in 2015, making remarks on Fox News.
	Referring to women in combat as, quote, it would erode standards.
	June 2024, you said on Ben Shapiro's podcast, quote, women shouldn't be in combat at all.
	And then, of course, we've talked about it in 2024. He published a book.
	And you say on page 26 of your book, we need moms.
	But not in the military, especially in combat units.
	Page 48 of your book, you claim that women should not be in combat roles because men are distracted by women.
	And then 10 weeks ago, you appeared on the Sean Ryan show and said, I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.
	Now, I presume you recall making all these statements?
	Senator, I'm not familiar with the article you're pointing to in 2013, but it underscores my argument completely.
	Because in that 2013 argument, I was talking about standards.
	Standards are what it's always been about, Senator.
	Please, let's not have this same fight again.
	Always been about Senate standards.
	I quoted you directly.
	We've got the video.
	We're happy to show it.
	But I want to be clear here.
	For 12 years, you were quite open about your views, and your views were consistently the same.
	Women are inferior soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and guardians.
	She is such a liar.
	Pocahontas is on one right now.
	The physical fitness standards are so much lower for women in the military.
	We're going to go through it.
	We have the receipts.
	Keep going with Pocahontas.
	Last public comment saying that women absolutely should not be in combat.
	You declared that, quote, some of our greatest warriors are women.
	And you support.
	Having them serve in combat.
	Now, that is a very, very big about-face in a very, very short period of time.
	So help me understand, Mr. Hegseth, what extraordinary event happened in that 32-day period that made you change the core values you had expressed?
	Senator, again, I very much appreciate you bringing up my comments from 2013, because for me, this issue has always been about standards.
	And unfortunately, because of some of the people that have been in political power for the last four years, priorities other than standards, lethality, and meritocracy have driven decision-making.
	I'm quoting you from the podcast.
	Women shouldn't be in combat at all.
	That they should be there if they can carry, if they can run.
	I don't see that at all, Mr. Hegseth.
	What I see is that there's a 32-day period in which you suddenly have another description about your views of women in the military.
	And I just want to know, what changed in the 32 days that the song you sang is not the song you come in here today to sing?
	Senator, the concerns I have and the concerns that many have had, especially in ground combat units, is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed.
	And that makes the combat more difficult for everybody involved.
	Let me make a suggestion about what happened in that 32 days.
	You got a nomination from President Trump.
	Now, I've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the first time I've heard of a nomination conversion.
	And I hope you understand.
	That many women serving in the military right now might think that if you can convert so rapidly your long-held and aggressively pursued views in just 32 days, that 32 days after you get confirmed, maybe you'll just reverse those views and go back to the old guy who said, straight up, women do not belong in combat.
	Now, Mr. Hagstaff, you have written that after they retire, generals should be banned from working for the defense industry for 10 years.
	You and I agree on the corrosive effects of the revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors.
	It's something I would have liked to talk to you about if you'd come and been willing to visit with me.
	But the question I have for you on this is, will you put your money where your mouth is?
	And agree that when you leave this job, you will not work for the defense industry for 10 years?
	Senator, it's not even a question I've thought about.
	You can think about it right now.
	It's not one.
	My motivation for this job has never been about what could conceivably come next.
	Time is short.
	I just need a yes or no.
	I would consult with the president about what the policy should be in the defense department.
	In other words, you're quite sure.
	That every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for 10 years?
	You're not willing to make that same pledge?
	I'm not a general, Senator.
	You'll be the one, let us just be clear, in charge of the generals?
	So you're saying, sauce for the goose, but certainly not sauce for the gander?
	I would want to see what the policy of the president is.
	Oh, I'll bet you would.
	Thank you, Senator Warren.
	Senator Tuberville.
	Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
	As we gear up for another important election year, remember that we vote every day with our dollar.
	One of the best ways to support America is by buying from local farms and ranches.
	Good Ranchers makes this easy by delivering 100% American meat to your door.
	When you shop with Good Ranchers, you're not just getting the best meat for your family, but also supporting American farmers and ranchers.
	This year, instead of buying imported meat, cast your vote for American agriculture and local economy.
	I've used Good Ranchers meat for quite some time, and they never disappoint.
	Whatever your choice of protein, you'll be pleased if you cast a vote for Good Ranchers.
	Use code Kirk for $25 off your order and your choice of free chicken breasts, ground beef, bacon, or wild-caught salmon for a year.
	It's time to make a stand.
	Vote for American meat with Good Ranchers.
	Your purchase helps keep American farms thriving and ensures you get the highest quality meat for your family.
	I love Good Ranchers.
	You should check it out right now at GoodRanchers.com.
	Use promo code Kirk.
	That is GoodRanchers.com.
	Check it out right now.
	Promo code Kirk.
	Coach Tommy Tuberville, senator from Alabama, is asking questions right now, so we can kind of take a step back and frame what's happening right here.
	You have a frontline fighter that is being grilled by people that have never served before.
	And I have nothing against people not serving before.
	I mean, obviously, I have not served, so everyone is allowed to have opinions about these things.
	But at some point, we must realize the military is slipping at such a dramatic pace that we have lost our fighting edge.
	And the fighters themselves coming back into the military is what's missing.
	Not more academics.
	We need less academics in the military and more fighters in the military that know what it's like to send their best friends home in body bags.
	We need less people that spent their lives in air conditioning and attend rubber chicken dinners for a living.
	By the way, I'm one of those people.
	I get it.
	I'm not here trying to run the DOD. I'm not here trying to run the Pentagon.
	Pete Heggseth.
	Has done the tough work.
	Served the country with courage and distinction and valor.
	Now, a big debate around Pete Hegseth's nomination is women in combat.
	Now, we've been very clear on this program that we don't believe that women should be in frontline combat roles.
	It's not to say that women can't serve in other roles and other capacities and it doesn't diminish the courage or the valor that many women have showed.
	But this is why.
	It's because of standards.
	And Pete Hegseth was saying this in his confirmation, but Pocahontas, who needed a peace pipe or something, by the way, she had to calm down, out of control, was interrupting him too much.
	Let's put this up on screen.
	This is the ACFT grading scales.
	Now, when we are trying to go up against the Chinese Communist Party, when we are trying to go up potentially against Iran, God forbid, or some other enemy, wouldn't it be necessary?
	That every single person that we are sending in the front lines has the same capacity.
	Women have different thresholds.
	And that's not okay.
	Women are, if they're going to be in front line combat roles, should have the same thresholds as men.
	You should not accommodate whether or not you can carry a fellow service member after they get shot or whether they pass out or they are wounded.
	The enemy doesn't care if you are a male or female.
	Mortar shells?
	Bullets and the enemy come at you just the same.
	Here is the ACFT grading scales.
	A female has to run a 1529 mile.
	That's what it looks like.
	I think I'm reading that correctly.
	At the lowest threshold.
	At the highest threshold.
	A male has to run a 1322. Just two miles.
	And 13 minutes and 22 seconds.
	For push-ups.
	A male has to do 57 push-ups.
	A female at the highest has to do 53 push-ups.
	But here's what's amazing.
	At the lowest rank, I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly.
	It's like high points.
	I guess you want the lowest points possible.
	The deadlift is one of the most amazing ones.
	Okay, you want 100 points, but then why are the points correlated?
	It's a very confusing graph.
	It doesn't make a lot of sense.
	So the lower, the less push-ups you do, the more points you get.
	Okay.
	I don't think you guys are right.
	It says right here, 56 push-ups.
	Gets you 44 points.
	But 57 push-ups gets you 17 points.
	So explain that one to me.
	Okay.
	Oh, it's by age at the top.
	That's nice.
	But it says points, not age.
	Oh, I see.
	The older people have lower standards.
	But it's labeled as points.
	Whoever designed this should be fired.
	Pete Hegg says should fire this person.
	It's very confusing.
	Because it says points, and then it goes...
	Okay, anyway.
	It doesn't even label age.
	So I see how it is.
	Okay, so it's based on age.
	So, for example, a 20-year-old woman...
	has to only be able to deadlift 210 pounds.
	But a 20-year-old man has to be able to deadlift 340 pounds.
	Said differently, a woman does not even need to be able to pick up or carry a fellow man with gear on at the very base minimum standard.
	So they should have to be as strong in order for a woman to serve in the military.
	If a woman can deadlift 340 pounds, welcome in.
	If a woman can do the push-up standards and can do the plank standards, which actually the plank standards are equal, or the mile standards, so why are we lowering the standards of the finest fighting force ever in the pursuit of diversity?
	And diversity is not our strength.
	Equity is not our strength.
	Inclusion is not our strength.
	Unity to kill the enemy is...
	Our strength.
	There should be one standard, full stop.
	This is not controversial.
	99% of the country agrees.
	And for this, by the way, women in frontline combat roles, has that made our military better or not as good?
	What war have we won since we've allowed women in frontline military roles?
	No, seriously, what war have we won?
	We got embarrassed in Iraq.
	We got embarrassed in Afghanistan.
	We have lost our edge.
	And Pete Hegseth embodies the type of masculinity that we need back into the United States military.
	Employees in the office of the Secretary of Defense has nearly doubled from 1,500 to 3,000.
	Civilians on Joint Chiefs has increased from 191 to almost 1,000.
	Our military end strength goes down.
	Our staff numbers are exploding.
	What are you going to do about that?
	Senator, we're going to address that.
	We won World War II with seven four-star generals.
	Today we have 44 four-star generals.
	There's an inverse relationship between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield.
	We don't need more bureaucracy at the top.
	We need more warfighters empowered at the bottom.
	So it's going to be my job working with those that we hire and those inside the administration to identify those places where fat can be cut so it can go toward lethality.
	Thank you, Senator Tuberville.
	Senator Peters.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman Stregshoff.
	Welcome to this committee.
	Thank you.
	We have far too much partisanship in our country right now.
	I think it's eating away at the fabric of what has always made this country great, about bringing people together from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of experiences.
	We know that in our motto, together as one, we are strong.
	And so we and this committee, and certainly I speak for myself, but I think I speak for many of my colleagues, want to take partisanship out of this proceeding as much as we can.
	I'm not naive.
	It's out there.
	I get it.
	But we've got to try to take that out.
	And I want you to know that as a member of this committee, I have voted in a bipartisan way for secretaries of defense.
	I voted for two secretaries of defense when Donald Trump was previously president.
	We had those two.
	We had, I think, five total secretaries of defense during that four-year period.
	So we want to keep that in mind as to what we might see in this coming administration.
	But I voted...
	And we voted by a big margin for those folks as well.
	But part of that was the process and having an opportunity to get to know the person and understand their qualifications and understand the standards.
	I made repeated requests to meet with you prior to this meeting.
	I know many of my other colleagues also wanted to meet with you.
	I did that with the other nominees that I was happy to vote for.
	I thought they were highly qualified individuals and true professionals.
	And yet, I could never get a meeting with you.
	Was there a reason you were afraid to have one-on-one meetings with some of my colleagues before the hearing?
	Senator, I know there was a great deal of outreach to multiple offices.
	Schedules get full.
	There's a lot going on.
	I was ready.
	And I welcome the opportunity, pending my schedule, to have an opportunity to sit down.
	I was ready.
	It would have been so much better to have that opportunity to talk.
	I think that's a big mistake, and it doesn't set us on a good course when you refuse to meet with people and have a professional conversation about the huge challenges that we face at the Department of Defense.
	My colleagues, the folks who introduced you, and others, the chairman has mentioned about the management of the DOD as a concern, cost overruns, delays on weapons systems.
	We need strong management at the Department of Defense, first and foremost.
	We've got to have someone who's going to grab the reins and give the taxpayers value for having the most lethal fighting force in the world that defends freedoms, but we've got to do it in an efficient way.
	I've heard about the jobs you've had in the past.
	Let's just talk about qualifications.
	I know you had two previous positions.
	How many people reported to you in those positions?
	Senator, at Vets for Freedom, we were a small upstart.
	Our focus was...
	Just the number, please.
	Working on Capitol Hill, going back to the battlefield, just the number, just the number, please.
	We probably had eight to ten full-time staff and lots of volunteers.
	So you had eight.
	Has there been any other?
	We've heard about the two, and certainly there's been a lot of talk about the mismanagement, et cetera, et cetera.
	I'm just curious.
	I won't go into that.
	Just curious.
	So you had eight there.
	What's the largest number of people you've ever supervised or had in an organization in your career?
	Not three million.
	No, I don't expect that.
	Very few people have ever had that experience, but how many?
	It's a straight-up question.
	I think we had over 100 full-time staff at Concern Vets for America, roughly, with thousands of volunteers.
	I was also a headquarters company commander, which would have been a couple of hundred.
	Nothing remotely near the size of the Defense Department, I would acknowledge that.
	Actually, not remotely near even a medium-sized company in America, let alone a big company in America, especially a major corporation.
	We're hiring you to be the CEO of one of the most complex, largest organizations in the world.
	We're the board of directors here.
	I don't know of any corporate board of directors that would hire a CEO for a major company if they came and said, you know, I supervised 100 people before.
	They'd ask you, well, what kind of experiences you had?
	We need innovation.
	Can you give me an experience or your actual experience of driving innovation in an organization?
	Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
	This is a very important reminder about your year-end giving.
	If you're looking to do something that makes the greatest impact, join me in providing ultrasounds with pre-born and saving babies.
	And remember that 100% of your gift goes directly to providing ultrasounds.
	Preborn separately fundraisers for overhead and administrative so you can now know that every penny you give right now will go directly to the cause.
	I am a donor, so listen carefully.
	When we do this with Preborn, providing free ultrasounds to girls and women, it doubles the chance those moms will choose life.
	$140 gives five free ultrasounds and saves babies.
	Just $28 a month can save a baby a month for less than a dollar a day.
	And speaking of year-end giving, I can't think of a better one than a $15,000 gift providing an ultrasound, saving thousands of lives for years to come.
	I'm a donor.
	Join me in donating at 833-850-2229 or click on the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com.
	That is 833-850-2229, pre-born banner at charliekirk.com.
	Let's resume a Pete Hegsess hearing in front of the Senate.
	...organization in the world.
	I don't think there's a...
	We have a problem of standards in the DOD, and we have to raise standards for the men and women who serve.
	Do you think that the way to raise the minimum standards of the people who serve us is to lower the standards for the Secretary of Defense, that we have someone who has never managed an organization, more than 100 people, is going to come in and manage this incredibly important organization and do it with a professionalism and has no experience that they can tell us that they have actually done that?
	I have real problems with that.
	This is not about...
	Other issues that are brought up, they're all very important.
	I'm just about trying to get things done, managing efficiently, and having the best people who have demonstrated that in a large organization.
	And I'm sorry, but I don't see that in your background.
	There are a lot of other things you can do very well.
	You're a capable person, but you have not convinced me.
	That you're able to take on this tremendous responsibility with a complex organization and having little or no significant management experience.
	Senator, I'm grateful to be hired by one of the most successful CEOs in American history, should I be confirmed.
	Mr. Hegg said that it seems to me that you've supervised far more people than the average United States senator supervises to.
	Except for former governors, Mr. Chairman.
	Senator Mullen, I understand you are yielding back your time and do not wish to ask questions.
	I was misinformed.
	Senator Mullen.
	Caught me totally off guard there.
	I'd like to submit for the record signatures by 32 members of the House of Representatives who are veterans.
	The signatures call on the Senate to honor the constitutional duty of advice and consent by conducting a fair, thorough confirmation process that evaluates his nomination solely on substance and merits.
	His distinguished military service, academic credentials, and a bold vision for revitalizing the national offense.
	I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record.
	Without objection.
	You know, there's a lot of talk going about, talking about qualifications and then about us hiring him if we are the board.
	But there's a lot of senators here I wouldn't have on my board because there is no qualifications except your age and you got to be living in the state and you're a citizen of the United States to be a senator.
	Other than the fact that we've got to convince a lot of people to vote for us.
	And then when we start talking about qualifications for if you're qualified for it, could the chairman tell me what the qualifications are for the Secretary of Defense?
	Mr. Chairman, could you tell me what the qualifications are for the Secretary of Defense?
	I'd be happy for you to do that.
	Let me read it for you.
	I was getting some advice from my second-in-command.
	I'm just making a point because there's a lot about qualifications.
	I think it's so hypocritical of senators, especially on the other side of the aisle, be talking about his qualifications, not going to be the Secretary of Defense, and yet your qualifications aren't any better.
	You guys aren't any more qualified to be the senator than I'm qualified to be the senator, except we're lucky enough to be here.
	But let me read you what the qualifications of the Secretary of Defense is, because I googled it, and I googled it and went through a lot of different sites, and really it's hard to see, but in general, the U.S. Secretary of Defense position is filled by a civilian.
	That's it.
	If you have served in the U.S. Army forces, And I've been in the service for, you have to be retired for at least seven years, and Congress can weigh that.
	And then there's questions that the senator from Massachusetts brought up about serving on a board inside the military industry, and yet your own secretary that you all voted for, Secretary Austin, we had to vote on a waiver because he stepped out the board of Raytheon.
	But I guess that's okay because that's a Democrat Secretary of Defense.
	But we so quickly forget about that.
	And then Senator Kaine, or I guess I better use the senator from Virginia, starts bringing up the fact that what if you showed up drunk to your job?
	How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night?
	Have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign from their job?
	And don't tell me you haven't seen it because I know you have.
	And then how many senators do you know have got a divorce before cheating on their wives?
	Did you ask them to step down?
	No.
	But it's for show.
	You guys, make sure you make a big show and point out the hypocrisy because the man's made a mistake.
	And you want to sit there and say that he's not qualified?
	Give me a joke.
	It is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself at this higher standard and you forget you've got a big plank in your eye.
	We've all made mistakes.
	I've made mistakes.
	And Jennifer, thank you for loving him through that mistake.
	Because the only reason why I'm here and not in prison is because my wife loved me too.
	I have changed, but I'm not perfect.
	But I found somebody that thought I was perfect.
	And for whatever reason, you love Pete, and I don't know why.
	But just like our Lord and Savior forgave me, my wife's had to forgive me more than once too, and I'm sure you've had to forgive him too.
	And so thank you.
	So before I go down this rabbit hole again, tell me something about your wife that you love.
	She's the smartest, most capable, loving, humble.
	Honest person I've ever met.
	In addition to being incredibly beautiful.
	Don't forget about your kids.
	I'm supposed to talk about my kids?
	No, no, well, she's also the mother.
	Oh, an amazing mother.
	Yes.
	Of our blended family of seven kids.
	Brother, I'm pulling you along.
	I'm trying to help you here.
	You know...
	Do you believe that you're going to be running the Department of Defense by yourself?
	Senator, absolutely not.
	Just as President Trump is assembling his cabinet, I look forward and already am in the process of building one of the best possible teams you can imagine with decades and decades of experience outside of the Pentagon, driving innovation and excellence, and also inside the building, knowing how to make it happen.
	Yes, sir.
	So, in your organizations that you did have the privilege of running, did you have a board?
	In both organizations, we had a board, yes.
	Okay, and what did you do with that board?
	What kind of decisions did you make with him?
	Those boards provided oversight and insight into decision-making.
	They all have special, unique sets that maybe filled gaps that you're not the expertise in?
	Yes, sir.
	So do you believe you're capable of surrounding yourself with capable individuals that you're going to be able to run those same ideas by and surround yourself with people that are smarter and better equipped and maybe areas that you don't necessarily carry its expertise with?
	Senator, the only reason I've had success in life to include my wonderful wife is because of people more capable around me and having the self-confidence to empower them and say, hey, run with the ball.
	Run with the football.
	Take it down the field.
	We'll do this together.
	I don't care who gets the credit.
	And in this case, that's how the Pentagon will be run.
	Let me end with this, Mr. Chairman, about the qualifications.
	You got a man who has literally put his butt on the line.
	He served 20 years in service, multiple deployments.
	Has heard the bullets crack over the top of his head.
	Has been willing to go into combat.
	Been willing to see friends die for this country.
	And he's willing to still put himself through this.
	His wife is willing to still stand beside him, knowing he wasn't perfect, knowing that all this was going to be brought up.
	And he's still willing to serve the country.
	What other qualifications does he need?
	That I yield back.
	Thank you, Senator Mullen.
	Senator Duckworth.
	And again, we really are going to strictly enforce the rule about no demonstrations or noise.
	Distinguished ranking member.
	Just a point of personal privilege to make a correction.
	The reason that General Austin required a waiver was not because of his participation in a corporate enterprise.
	It was because he did not have seven years.
	of interruption between his service and his appointment.
	Second point is that if any of us were appointed as Secretary of Defense we would be subject to the same types of questions and the case in point is Senator John Tau was nominated for Secretary of Defense.
	It was discovered by his colleagues that his behavior was not commensurate with the responsibilities despite his service and he was voted down.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Senator Duckworth, you are recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Secretary Mattis had to have this waiver as well.
	Mr. Hexner, this hearing is about whether you qualify to be Secretary of Defense, and one of the qualifications to answer my colleague's question is to actually...
	Win the votes of every member of this committee and to be confirmed by the United States Senate.
	And you need to convince us that you're worthy of that vote because the people of the state of Illinois voted for me to be their senator so that I could cast that vote when it comes to picking who is going to be the next Secretary of Defense.
	This hearing now seems to be a hearing about whether or not women are qualified to serve in combat and not about whether or not you are qualified to be Secretary of Defense.
	And let me just say that the American people need a sec def who's ready to lead on day one.
	You are not that person.
	Our adversaries watch closely during times of transition.
	And any sense that the Department of Defense that keeps us safe is being steered by someone who's wholly unprepared for the job puts America at risk.
	And I am not willing to do that.
	With that in mind, Ms. Hexeth, I want you to try to explain to the American people this committee who have to vote for you And to our troops who are deployed around the world, why you are qualified to lead the Department of Defense.
	We already know that you've only led the largest 200-person organization.
	We already know that you so badly mangled a budget that after you left, they had to bring in a forensic accountant to figure out what went wrong.
	And the largest budget you ever had...
	Hey, Senator Duckworth, a lot of people bring in forensic accountants, okay?
	It's actually called an audit.
	you do one every year.
	There were no findings because you've never led an audit.
	What guidance did you give the auditors?
	None, because you've never led an audit.
	Nobody expects you to be an accountant, Mr. Hexth.
	What we expect is for you to understand the complexity of this Pentagon budget process that is absolutely necessary to outfit our warfighters.
	Look, the Secretary of Defense is required to make quick decisions every single day.
	That, well, with high-level information that's being provided for them, a Secretary of Defense has to have breadth and depth of knowledge.
	Right now, I am concerned that you have neither.
	What is the highest level of international negotiations that you have engaged in, that you've led in?
	Because the Secretary of Defense does lead international security negotiations.
	There are three main ones that the Secretary of Defense leads and signs.
	Can you name at least one of them?
	Could you repeat the question, Senator?
	Sure.
	What is the highest level of international security agreement that you have led, and can you name some that the Secretary of Defense would lead?
	There are three main ones.
	Do you know?
	I have not been involved in international security arrangements because I have not been in government other than serving in the military.
	So my job has been to lead men and women in combat.
	Can you name one of the three main ones that the Secretary of Defense signs?
	You're talking about defense arrangements.
	I mean, NATO might be one that you're referring to.
	Status of forces agreement would be one of them.
	Status of forces agreement.
	I've been a part of teaching about status of forces agreements.
	But you don't remember to mention it?
	You're not qualified, Mr. Hexeth.
	You're not qualified.
	You talk about repairing our defense industrial complex.
	You're not qualified to that.
	You could do the acquisition and cross-servicing agreements, which essentially are security agreements.
	You can't even mention that.
	You've done none of those.
	You talked about the Indo-Pacific a little bit, and I'm glad that you mentioned it.
	Can you name?
	The importance of at least one of the nations in ASEAN and what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations.
	And how many nations are in ASEAN, by the way?
	I couldn't tell you the exact amount of nations in that.
	But I know we have allies in South Korea and Japan and in Australia and trying to work on submarines with them.
	None of those countries are in ASEAN. None of those three countries that you've mentioned are in ASEAN. I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations.
	Listen, Mr. Hexel, we ask our troops to go into harm's way all the time.
	We ask them to go into harm's way.
	And this behind me is a copy of the Soldier's Creed, a copy that usually hangs over my desk here in the Senate.
	And you should be familiar with it.
	It's the same copy that hung over my desk at Walter Reed every single day that I woke up and fought my way back because I wanted to go back and serve next to my buddies who'd saved my life.
	This same copy, these words are repeated over and over and over again.
	And let me read out two things to you, two sentences.
	I will always place the mission first, and I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior task.
	Mr. Hexeth, our troops follow these words every single day, and they man up, and they pack their rucksacks, and they go to war, and they deserve a leader who can lead them, not a leader who...
	More with the hearing here.
	I have so many thoughts here, but this is just too good to miss.
	Senator Duckworth is one of the dumbest U.S. Senators.
	I've known her for quite a while.
	Let's resume.
	He has filed for bankruptcy six times.
	I'm not quite sure he's the kind of CEO you want to refer to as a successful businessman.
	Let me make it clear.
	You can't seem to grasp that there is no U.S. military as we know it without the incredible women that we serve.
	Women who've earned their place in their units.
	You have not earned your place as Secretary of Defense.
	You say you care about keeping our armed forces strong and that you like that our armed forces is a meritocracy.
	Then let's not lower the standards for you.
	You, sir, are a no-go at this station.
	Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
	I would like to submit for the record a letter submitted by Mr. Brian Marriott that says anyone who would claim that Pete mismanaged funds at Vets of Freedom is ignorant of the facts.
	Without objection, it will be admitted to the record.
	Senator Budd.
	Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and congrats on your chairmanship of this committee.
	I want to thank you for your leadership and your handling of this today.
	I think you're doing a great job.
	So, I want to also submit for the record a letter submitted by Mr. Daniel Catlin, the former operations manager at Vets for Freedom.
	Mr. Catlin's letter states that Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Catlin conducted weekly meetings to meticulously review every dollar that the organization spent.
	Pete's hands-on approach and dedication to financial responsibility ensured that Vets for Freedom operated within its budget.
	Mr. Catlin's letters also states that Pete treated his staff with the utmost respect, regardless of race or gender.
	So I ask unanimous consent to clear this into the record, Mr. Chairman.
	Without objection, so ordered.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Hexeth, congratulations on your nomination.
	Thanks for appearing before the committee today.
	I enjoy meeting you in my office before Christmas, and I've enjoyed our friendship before that.
	You stated in your advanced policy questions that the American people need to be informed, engaged, and inspired to join our military.
	I wholeheartedly agree with that.
	We also have a problem.
	Though with obesity and falling academic standards, it's very concerning.
	We've talked about that before.
	So if confirmed, how would you approach increasing the number of Americans eligible to serve in the military, but without lowering standards?
	Well, Senator, I think there are already, to the credit of, I believe the Army and other services have now caught up to that, which have piloted programs that have had some success, that have allowed...
	Young Americans who want to serve in the military but can't necessarily pass the ASFAB or pass the APFT to get into basic training, an opportunity to get caught up, a preparatory class.
	Unfortunately, yes, we do have a problem of obesity in our country, not necessarily something that the, if I'm confirmed, Secretary of Defense is able to address.
	But I do think leading from the front matters.
	I do think having a Secretary of Defense that will go out and do PT with the troops matters.
	That has been out there and done that before.
	And hopefully that's a motivating factor for young people.
	But the reality of obesity and criminal backgrounds and medical problems have long been an issue of recruitment in America, unfortunately.
	What changed is the perception of military service.
	Because of the condition of the services.
	And frankly, because of, in some ways, the way our schools don't teach young people to love the country anymore.
	And if you don't love the country, why do you want to serve that country?
	That's a deeper problem.
	But all of those things need to be addressed to revive recruiting.
	And obesity is certainly a part of it.
	Thank you for that.
	So I've had multiple conversations, young folks back in North Carolina, young men, young women.
	And we get to meet a lot of them.
	But, you know, I hear from some of these folks.
	Senator, absolutely.
	A number one from day one with a mandate from the commander-in-chief.
	Received that mandate when Americans spoke out loudly and said, we want peace through strength.
	We want America first foreign policy.
	And we don't want political ideology driving decisions inside our Defense Department.
	That was clear.
	It's an infection that the American people are acutely aware of, which the men and women in this room have lived firsthand.
	I've lived it firsthand.
	And that's why it will be a priority.
	And I truly believe, and I'm humbled by this.
	The response we've already seen from young men and women who've decided to join the military when they had said, I wasn't going to.
	But seeing a commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, reassured them.
	Seeing the possibility, if confirmed, of a secretary of defense that would have their back reassured them.
	And so in the first couple of months after President Trump...
	With the stock market at record highs, are you confident your portfolio can weather the next big downturn?
	Market corrections are quick and unforgiving, wiping out hard-earned gains in an instant.
	Smart investors know the key to financial security is diversification.
	That's why Noble Gold Investments makes it easy for Americans to help hedge market volatility and diversify their investments with gold.
	Since 2010, central banks have steadily increased their gold reserves, and in 2024, gold prices soared over 25%.
	You buy it, you own it, you control it.
	Over $2 billion in precious metal sales, Noble Gold Investments has helped thousands of investors diversify their portfolios with gold IRAs and physical gold.
	And now, when you open a qualified account, Noble Gold will gift you 5-ounce silver America the Beautiful coins as a thank you.
	Don't wait for the next downturn to catch you off guard.
	Visit noblegoldinvestments.com today and see how easy it is to incorporate gold into your investment strategy.
	That is noblegoldinvestments.com, noblegoldinvestments.com.
	While we continue to research and develop six-generation and collaborative combat aircraft.
	Senator, that's a very important conversation, one that I've been looking at a great deal.
	A lot of it, just to be clear, involves classifications and understanding precisely cost and capabilities, including capabilities of enemy systems.
	Both not just fourth and fifth, but potential sixth generation, which we've already seen a prototype released from the Chinese.
	That's a dangerous development considering at least the publicly understood condition of NGAD, which I look forward to the opportunity to looking underneath the hood on that.
	But ensuring fourth and fifth are capable and upgraded as necessary will be a part of our contingency.
	But when you look at what's happening in the Indo-Pacific, say, operability, range, Is it going to matter because it's such a large battle space?
	That will all factor in decisions that are made.
	And that's where I feel, frankly, a little bit liberated.
	That I didn't work at Lockheed or any number of...
	Pick a defense contractor.
	I didn't mean to point one out in particular.
	Pick any.
	I haven't.
	I don't have a special interest in any particular system or any particular company or any particular narrative.
	I want to know what works.
	I want to know what defeats our enemies, what keeps us safe, what deters them, what keeps our enemies up at night.
	Whatever that is, I want more of it.
	And I want to invest in it.
	And I know that's the view that President Trump has as well.
	Thank you.
	Some have commented recently about the need to eliminate immediately a manned aircraft.
	So I'd say maybe one day, but that day's not now, and certainly not before 2027, especially in the Indo-Pacific.
	So if confirmed, will you commit to work with my office in this committee to ensure the proper mix of fighters, manned and unmanned?
	I look forward to working with you on that, Senator, because unmanned will be a very important part of the way future wars are fought.
	Just the idea of survivability for a human being drives cost and time in ways that unmanned systems do not.
	But I look forward to that conversation.
	Thank you, Senator Budd.
	I now recognize Senator Reid for a unanimous consent request.
	Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that two letters be submitted for the record.
	One letter is signed by numerous organizations, including the Government Accountability Project.
	The other is signed by several organizations, including the Truman National Security Project.
	Without objection, so ordered.
	Now, Senator Kelly, Senator Rosen got here after the gavel went down.
	Do you really want to go ahead of her?
	I am going to defer to my good friend and colleague, Senator Rosen, from the great state of Nevada.
	That is a really good decision.
	Senator Rosen, you are recognized.
	And thank you, Senator Kelly.
	I owe you one.
	Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, for holding this hearing.
	And Mr. Hegseth, I appreciate your service and your willingness to serve again.
	However, I am deeply disappointed that you would not agree to meet with me, as other members have said on this committee prior to this hearing, as is the precedent for this committee and others.
	So let me tell you a little bit about what I would have talked about had you made yourself available prior to the hearing.
	Nevada is home to the premier aviation training ranges for both the Air Force and the Navy, the largest ammunition depot in the world and the only place in the country where we are able to verify the reliability of our nuclear stockpile without the need for explosive testing.
	The Nevada National Guard is one of the only few units across the country with the mission of fighting wildfires, that's for another hearing, and currently activated to fight the devastating fires around Los Angeles in support of our neighbors.
	We therefore play a critical role in our national security, and the person who holds the position of Secretary of Defense matters greatly to Nevada service members and our military equities.
	But every single...
	Person who serves in the military.
	We've talked about, my colleagues, esteemed colleagues, have talked about recruitment and retention.
	One day, they will become a veteran.
	So my veterans and the folks who are serving active duty now are concerned about what you think.
	DOD does not have jurisdiction over Nevada's 200,000 plus veterans, but I am interested in your views about...
	The service members, once they've transitioned out of the military, given the influence you would have while they're in service, have confirmed.
	In 2019, on a segment of Fox& Friends, you said that veteran service organizations, VSOs, I'm going to quote, encourage veterans to apply for every government benefit they can ever get after they leave the service.
	You stated you don't want to, quote, be dependent on government assistance from the VA based on injuries or illnesses that might have arisen from your military service.
	So I'm just going to ask you a few yes or no questions about veterans.
	Understanding you don't have jurisdiction, this is important to our morale, it's important to our recruitment, and it's important to our retention, and it's important to how we respect others in this country.
	Yes or no, please.
	Do you believe that VSOs are wrong to support veterans in obtaining the benefits that they have rightfully earned and deserved when they signed that line like you did for your service?
	Senator, veterans deserve the benefits they've earned.
	I have been in many battles with traditional veteran service organizations over differences of opinion about how to deliver those services, including veterans' choice.
	Do you believe VSOs are wrong?
	VSOs is a very broad term.
	We were a VSO also, ma'am.
	But some of those services took a traditionally bureaucratic approach.
	Should they be able to help the veterans obtain the benefits that they have earned, yes or no?
	Should anyone be able to help?
	Every veteran should have rapid access to all the benefits that they've earned.
	Do you believe that veterans should be ashamed for having sought and obtained the benefits that they have earned?
	Do you think veterans should be ashamed?
	Senator, I think we should be ashamed as a nation of the amount of veterans that commit suicide because they hit a brick wall.
	They commit suicide because they hit a brick wall of the bureaucracy of the VA. And the reformers are not courage enough.
	How about veterans who suffer lasting injuries or illnesses due to their military service?
	Do you think they deserve our support and assistance?
	I mean, your answers to these, they're too broad.
	People want to know.
	Are you willing to support our veterans' organizations that will help our veterans get every damn thing that they deserve because they signed on the dotted line to keep us safe, just like you did?
	I respect that.
	Will you?
	Senator, with all due humility, I don't know that there's anyone in this room over the last 20 years that have worked harder to ensure.
	That our veterans are taken care of.
	It has been a passion of my life, alongside with so many on this dais, to make sure that veterans receive...
	And it is a recruiting crisis.
	When veterans are not treated well, they don't want their sons and daughters to join.
	Do you believe that veterans getting these benefits are dependent on the government?
	Or do you believe it's a benefit they've earned and deserved through their service?
	It's a benefit they've earned and a hand up to the next chapter of their life.
	So you have again changed your position.
	Where you believe the veterans are dependent...
	Now you believe they've earned and deserved it.
	I just think it's disrespectful to change that position.
	These are benefits that people may need throughout their life and may not know when they need them or how they're going to need them.
	And they need to be there when they do.
	Thank you.
	I'm going to move on to my next question.
	America's role in the world.
	Our alliance is the threats America is facing.
	They're serious.
	They're wide-ranging from China to Russia to Iranian-backed terrorism.
	So do you agree with the National Defense Strategy that the U.S. cannot compete with China, Russia, and their partners alone and certainly cannot win a war that way?
	And this is a quote from the National Defense Strategy.
	Is your interpretation that American first foreign policy is America alone?
	Does that include abandoning our allies and partners such as NATO, Taiwan, Israel, and others?
	And if we can't win alone and we don't strengthen our strategic partnerships, I would say that position, your position, places on a strategic path to lose to our adversaries.
	So maybe you're okay with choosing that path for America.
	I want to know how you square that position with the positions you articulated in your book where you wrote that NATO is at relic, at best a distraction, and should be scrapped and remade.
	Are you okay with sending us down a path where we can't win?
	Senator, the world has had, our friends in the world have had no better ally.
	Our allies have had no better friend than President Donald Trump, who's reinvigorated a NATO alliance, who's stood behind Israel in every way, in ways this administration has not.
	He has ensured that the NATO alliance has become far more robust.
	He worked with allies in the Pacific as well.
	All right.
	Jackie Rosen is making a fool of herself here.
	A senator from Nevada who should not be a U.S. senator as she exchanges some spicy words with Pete Hegseth, our next Secretary of Defense.
	Let's listen in.
	...best guidance to the President of the United States on matters like that.
	Do you think that if we concede to Vladimir Putin that that will hurt our credibility with our allies and partners?
	And do you not believe that our adversaries are watching?
	Perhaps some.
	You can take that for the record, Mr. Hegseth.
	Senator Schmidt.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I'd like to submit for the record a letter submitted by Mr. Christopher Ahn, the former Director of Operations for Vets for Freedom.
	Mr. Ahn, his letter states that the suggestion, quote, the suggestion that funds were misused for personal gain, lavish parties, or other improper purposes is categorically false.
	Throughout my time working with Pete Hexep, He consistently demonstrated exceptional integrity in leadership.
	I asked unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record.
	Without objection, so ordered.
	Senator Schmidt.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Hexth, good to see you here today.
	Thank you for your service.
	Thank you, Senator.
	And your willingness to serve.
	I also want to thank you for your clarity in articulating the vision you have for the Department of Defense in restoring an ethos, a warrior ethos.
	Which is in stark contrast to the ethos we've seen the last four years, which is of weakness and wokeness.
	And I want to drill down on a few things specifically and exactly how we've gotten to where we've gotten with recruiting and morale.
	DEI. There's been a little bit of discussion about this, but for those watching at home, DEI is not about giving everybody opportunity.
	It is rooted in cultural Marxism.
	The idea that you pit the room, any room, With oppressor versus oppressed.
	It's race essentialism, and it is poison.
	It has no business whatsoever in our military.
	I think the American people have spoken loudly and clearly about this.
	They're tired of this.
	They're tired of woke ideology.
	And to my Democrat colleagues on the other side, if you haven't picked up on that, you missed the plot.
	Because that's what November 5th partially was about.
	And so let's talk specifically about some of these DEI programs that have been funded.
	In our academy, specifically the Air Force Academy, it was advised as disfavored language to refer to your mom and dad as mom and dad.
	Okay?
	Dear mom and dad, I'm writing home.
	Don't say that.
	That's insane.
	We're all just people.
	You can't say that either.
	And in an effort to police this, in a 1984 Orwellian novel, there was actually an eyes and ears program to rat on your fellow students who might say mom and dad.
	Or just say, in a tough situation, you know what?
	We're all just people.
	Can't say that.
	This wasn't limited, by the way, to our academies.
	The Secretary of the Air Force, our current Secretary of the Air Force, in a memo from August of 2022, thought we had too many white officers advocated for quotas.
	And if you crunch the numbers, that meant that 5,800 white officers who've worked really hard should be fired.
	In the United States of America, I don't know how we got here.
	And by the way, the Air Force isn't alone here.
	The Navy sort of touted a drag queen influencer.
	This stuff is insane.
	And people wonder why recruiting has dropped off.
	And let me just go through a few numbers, and I want to get your comments on how we fix this, because it's gone completely off the rails.
	In 2022, the Army missed their recruiting goal of 60,000 soldiers by over 15,000.
	In 2023, the Navy missed their recruiting goals by over 7,000.
	In 2022, the Air Force couldn't meet their standards, their numbers, even though they lowered their standards.
	They've lowered their standards to meet numbers they still can't get to.
	Mr. Hexeth, we've got to fix this.
	I think what you've demonstrated today is that you have the talent and the ability and the desire to fix it.
	How are you going to fix it?
	Well, Senator, thank you for the question.
	First and foremost, up front, you have to tear out DEI and CRT initiatives, root and branch, out of institutions.
	100%.
	And then you have to put in Army, Navy, and Air Force secretaries and others, civilian positions at the helm, who are committed to the same priorities that the President of the United States is, and if confirmed, the Secretary of Defense will be.
	Send a clear message that this is not a time for equity.
	Equity is a very different word than equality.
	Equality is the bedrock of our military.
	Men and women, duty positions in uniform, black, white, doesn't matter.
	We treat you equally based on who you are in the image of God as an individual.
	And we all get the same bad haircuts.
	You're not an individual.
	You're part of a group.
	Equity prescribes some sort of an outcome based on differing attributes that we have that divide us.
	What skin color are you?
	What gender are you?
	And then infuse that into institutions which manifest in things like quotas, formal or informal, which does what to morale?
	Sends it in the tubes.
	And it makes people feel like they're being judged by something other than how good they are at their job, which is poisonous inside institutions.
	So on top of this recruiting crisis, that wasn't enough for this administration.
	during the COVID hysteria and in their attempt to fire 100,000 people who work for bigger companies because they didn't get the COVID shot or to mask five-year-olds, they decided also to make this a central plank in their policy at the Pentagon.
	8,000 well-trained, so we got a recruiting crisis, 8,000 well-trained men and women were fired.
	Were fired.
	Will you commit today, Mr. Hexeth, to recruit these folks back?
	To give them back pay and give them an apology from the United States government for how they were disrespected.
	Senator, I will commit to this because the Commander-in-Chief has committed to this.
	That not only will they be reinstated, they will receive an apology, back pay, and rank that they lost because they were forced out due to an experimental vaccine.
	Thank you.
	And I'm a limited time, but I just want to say, for all the talk...
	of experience and not coming from the same cocktail parties that permanent Washington is used to.
	You are a breath of fresh air.
	And again, if you weren't paying attention to what this election was all about, it was about the disruptors versus the establishment.
	And the American people have had enough of business as usual for the same people that we line up for these same jobs who give us the same results.
	We need somebody who's going to go in there and fight for innovation, fight for change.
	I think you're that person, and I appreciate your willingness to sit here and listen to some of these undignified attacks.
	It's ridiculous.
	Thank you.
	Captain Mark Kelly.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Congratulations on your chairmanship.
	I want to make a request to the committee that we have a second round of questions.
	Pursuant to the bipartisan staff agreement that we reached late last year, this will be one round of seven-minute questions.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I'll be happy to recognize my colleague, Mr. Reid.
	I think it's important to note, for the record, that when Secretary Hagel was here, we had three rounds of questioning.
	When Secretary Carter was here, we had two rounds of questioning.
	And I cannot recall any time where I have denied, as a chairman, a member to ask for a second round and receive the second round.
	So we are, I think, violating the principles of the committee.
	And I just want to go on the record.
	And your comment is noted.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Hexeth, thank you for being here today.
	Thank you for your service to this country.
	Thank you, Senator.
	A few nominees come into this room with all the necessary experience to do this job, to be Secretary of Defense.
	We get that.
	It's a reflection on just how big of a job this is.
	What I want to understand is whether or not you bring any of the necessary experience that this job requires.
	And here's where I'm concerned.
	Senator Coleman introducing you.
	And this is a quote.
	He said he has struggled and overcome great personal challenges.
	It doesn't just mask pain temporarily, it helps reduce or eliminate pain.
	Over a million people have turned to Relief Factor and feel the difference it can make in your life.
	Give their three-week quick start a try.
	It's only $19.95, less than a dollar a day, and it just takes a phone call.
	1-800-4-RELIEF, that is the number 1-800-4-RELIEF, and you could start feeling better in three weeks or less.
	And every day you feel better is a day you live better.
	Whether you're hurting back, neck, joints, or muscles, make 2025 the year of feeling good again.
	Try Relief Factor's three-week quick start today.
	Visit relieffactor.com or call 1-800-4-RELIEF.
	That is 1-800-4-RELIEF.
	So check it out right now, relieffactor.com.
	Let's go back to Senator Mark Kelly, who is asking our next Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth questions.
	...at the CBA Christmas Party at the Grand High at Washington, D.C.
	You were noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to your room.
	Is that true or false?
	Anonymous smears.
	Another time, a CBA staffer stated that you passed out in the back of a party bus.
	Is that true or false?
	Anonymous smears.
	In 2014, while in Louisiana on official business for CBA, did you take your staff, including young female staff members, to a strip club?
	Absolutely not.
	Anonymous smears.
	So, is it accurate that the organization reached a financial settlement with a female staffer who claimed to be at a strip club with you, and there was a colleague who attempted to sexually assault her?
	Was there a financial settlement?
	Senator, I was not involved in that.
	I don't know the nature of how that played out.
	But you understand there was a financial settlement for a young female staffer who accused another member of the organization, not you, of sexual assault in a strip club?
	We have multiple statements on the record referring to that.
	But you claim you were not there when that occurred?
	Absolutely not.
	Now, the behavior I cited, if true, do you think that this behavior of intoxication, going into these type of establishments, women on your staff being so uncomfortable that they have to file these sort of harassment claims, do you think this is appropriate behavior for a leader?
	Senator, the overwhelming majority of anyone who's worked for me, including the on-the-record statements that have been submitted to this, with their name on it, on the record, men and women who worked with me every day, are the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that testify to my leadership and professionalism in leading Vets are the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that testify to my leadership and professionalism in leading Vets for
	My leadership has been completely impugned on these veterans organizations that did fantastic work on behalf of the men and women fighting overseas and advocating, and we manage our financial books with integrity across the board.
	How many people, everybody who runs the campaign- I have limited time.
	I'm not going to get into the...
	Accusations that come from Fox News.
	Now you have some of your Fox News colleagues here.
	There are multiple instances of accusations against you about drinking on the job.
	All anonymous, all false, all refuted by my colleagues, who I worked with for 10 years at 6 a.m.
	to 9 p.m.
	and everything in between.
	The challenge here for me, Mr. Hexap, is when there is discussion about personal challenges and you, admittedly, I have about 90 seconds left here.
	If you had to answer these questions about sexual assault against you and your drinking and your personal conduct, would it have been different if you were under oath?
	Senator, all I'm pointing out is the false claims against me.
	Okay, I take it you do not want to answer that question.
	I walked into this hearing this morning concerned that you haven't demonstrated adequate leadership in your civilian roles.
	And this is a dangerous world we're living in here.
	And America cannot afford a Secretary of Defense who is unprepared for that mission.
	I'm going to leave with concerns about your transparency.
	You say you've had personal issues in your past, yet when asked about those very issues, you blame an anonymous smear campaign, even when many of these claims are not anonymous.
	Which is it?
	Have you overcome personal issues?
	Okay, everybody.
	Senator Mark Kelly is wrapping up with Pete Hegseth.
	I want to actually hear from someone who's been in the room to fight for Pete Hegseth.
	It is Kaj Larson, who is running SEALs for Pete Hegseth.
	Kaj, welcome to the program.
	Kaj, tell us what you are seeing up close and personal in the room here and how your friend Pete Hegseth is doing.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And Charlie, it's an honor to be on.
	I actually just stepped out of the hearing room to speak with you and your audience right now.
	As you've seen, it's followed back and forth between being cantankerous with some of the senators and other senators appreciating the support for Pete's nomination.
	I think the most important thing to take away from actually inside the hearing room is that there are about 50 Special Operations veterans inside the room there to support Pete.
	Special MMA fighters.
	That's probably the most lethal room in America right now.
	And what that means, beyond being a badass room, is that in the special operations community, when we go through selection process, we use peer review as a really critical, essential tool to select the best of the best.
	Essentially, you see Pete Hegseth being peer reviewed by the actual war fighters in the room right now.
	And people who have served with Pete, people who have gone through arduous experiences with Pete are there to support him.
	And I think that's being reflected in the testimony.
	So let's talk about the military standards and how they have been relaxed and how they're different for males and females.
	And this has been a big issue made in this committee hearing.
	What is the truth regarding this?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I think that it's been a sticking point in several of the Q&As back and forth with the different senators.
	I think the important thing to emphasize is that Pete wants to return military culture to a culture that's front-site focused on warfighting.
	And in order to do that, he believes that we have to maintain extraordinarily high standards.
	There's been a lot of discussion about this, but sitting in the back of the room, my opinion is actually not that much white space.
	There's unanimous consent agreement that there should be really high standards for our warfighters, and they should be vigorously enforced.
	And both centers on both sides of the aisle and the prospective nominee, Pete Hegseth, seem to be incongruent about that, where it seems to be breaking down.
	There's a sort of series of kind of like ad hominem or sort of personal attacks, but that neglects the bigger issues that everybody...
	Both on the dais up there and then Pete sitting in the hot seat, everybody there actually cares about national security really deeply.
	From the back of the room, I wish they'd spend a lot more time focusing on the big stuff that everybody's concerned about rather than the small stuff.
	In closing here, Kaj, because I know we've got to get back in, what do you think Pete Hegseth will do for military recruitment and morale?
	Yeah, I think the truth is Pete's already done it.
	Look, we're...
	As the hearing started off, you saw the Senate committee chair say that we're living in a moment of consequence.
	We're at one of the most volatile periods in global history.
	Africa, Special Operations Command, Africa specifically, is at the most volatile time on the continent in the last many decades.
	So these are dangerous times, requires transformational leadership, and it's going to require a new generation of warfighters.
	There's no better testament to the ability to inspire and move people towards a mission than all of these former warfighters who spent the last 20 years fighting the global war on terror, mobilized to be motivated for PEAT, come out and support PEAT. So I think that bodes pretty well for recruitment.
	And the next generation of warfighters.
	I think, empirically, there's already been a spike in recruitment.
	And I think that's because a lot of the American public is aligned with the values that Pete espouses.
	Taj, thank you so much for your time.
	Get back in the room and keep on supporting Pete.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you, Charles.
	Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast.
	Open up your podcast application and type in Charlie Kirk Show.
	We are going to continue with the...
	I really do think it comes back to strong, clear leadership.
	Patriotic, pro-American leadership.
	That says we're not going to focus on all the other political prerogatives.
	That's why we all have political perspectives.
	I said this before and I'll say it again.
	In uniform, none of that matters.
	You wear green, you wear blue, you bleed red.
	That's it.
	Who you vote for doesn't matter.
	But when the perception of that changes, then you don't want people deciding whether to serve based on a political party in power.
	That's a dangerous thing for continuity inside your military.
	And it's fragile right now.
	President Trump.
	And if I'm confirmed with my leadership, we're going to restore the continuity of an apolitical military that acts decisively and only based on merit.
	They sound basic, but they're fundamental.
	You and I agree that wokeness is weakness.
	Mr. Hexet, do you support racial quotas in recruitment or promotions in the United States military?
	Senator, I do not support any form of racial quota.
	Do you support affirmative action in our nation's military academies?
	Senator, I only support hiring and promoting and admitting the best and brightest, whatever their background is.
	I think that's very important.
	Mr. Hex said Lloyd Austin, the secretary, later went AWOL. He disappeared for days and never told the president, didn't even inform the president's chief of staff that he was going into the hospital.
	Would that ever occur on your watch?
	No, Senator.
	I know in any one of my jobs, if I had decided to go AWOL for even a day or two, in uniform or around that, that would have been a concern.
	I believe accountability matters.
	No one to this day has ever, as you've said, been held accountable for what happened in Afghanistan.
	It was embarrassing to this country.
	It's impacted this country greatly.
	And I applaud you and President Trump for bringing accountability back to our Pentagon.
	With that, I yield back.
	Chair recognizes the distinguished ranking member for a unanimous consent request.
	Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit an article discussing some of the issues of readiness and DEI. There has been a comment that 5.9 million man-hours have been used for DEI. General Maia clarified that that is an estimate out of more than two.
	Million man-hours that the Department of Defense invested during the time period.
	Where is this published, sir?
	This is published by Megan Myers, and I will get the...
	Okay.
	Military.com, I'm sorry.
	Without objection, it will be admitted to the record.
	And Senator Slotkin, welcome to the committee and your record.
	Thank you, Senator, and thank you for referencing the great Carl Levin as you introduced me.
	We miss him in Michigan.
	For those who I haven't met in my one week that I've been sworn into the Senate, I'm a CIA officer recruited after 9-11.
	I did three tours armed in Iraq alongside the military.
	And have worked for four different secretaries of defense, both Democrat and Republican, proudly, and watched them make decisions that literally determine the life and death of Americans in the dark of night.
	I'm also a Democrat representing a state that Trump won, right?
	We both won on the same ballot.
	So I understand that President Trump has the right to nominate his people.
	We are going to have policies that we disagree with.
	All of that, to me, comes very standard.
	What I think I'm most concerned with is that no president has the right to use the uniformed military in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution and further taints the military as that apolitical institution that we all want.
	And our founders designed the system so that...
	You know, we had posse comitatus, that we weren't going to use active duty military inside the United States and make American citizens potentially scared of their own military.
	We went through our own experience with that with the British.
	As the Secretary of Defense, you will be the one man standing in the breach should President Trump give an illegal order.
	I'm not saying he will, but if he does, you are going to be the guy that he calls to implement this order.
	Do you agree that there are some orders that can be given by the Commander-in-Chief that would violate the U.S. Constitution?
	Senator, thank you for your service.
	But I reject the premise that President Trump is going to be giving illegal orders.
	No, I'm not saying he will.
	But do you believe there is such a thing as an illegal order that Joe Biden or any other president Donald Trump could give?
	Is there anything that a commander-in-chief could ask you to do with the uniformed military that would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution?
	Anybody of any party could give an order that is against the Constitution or against the law.
	Right.
	Okay, so are you saying that you would stand in the breach and push back if you were given an illegal order?
	I start by saying I reject the premise that President Trump...
	Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here with New Year's Resolutions.
	Many of us will vow to eat healthier, and that's a good thing.
	But what about your beloved pets and their nutrition?
	Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is on a mission to provide better nutrition for cats and dogs because truthfully, it's not what you are feeding your pet, it's what you are not.
	Which is why he created Rough Greens and Meow Greens in the first place.
	Bring their dead food back to life with live vitamins, minerals, probiotics, enzymes, omega oils, antioxidants, and so much more.
	All in their tasty formula your dog or cat will love.
	Improve your pet's coat digestion and energy and have less vet bills.
	Let 2025 bring a new year and a new pet.
	Try it.
	Get a Jumpstart trial bag, normally $20, free with promo code CHARLIE. Just cover shipping.
	Resolve to provide what your pet's food has been missing with RUFFGreens.
	To get your free Jumpstart trial bag, go to roughgreens.com.
	Use promo code CHARLIE. Your pet will ask for it by name, roughgreens.com.
	The dialogue between Ms. Slotkin, Senator Slotkin, very tight Senate race there in Michigan, and Pete Hegseth is continuing.
	But now I want to invite a fan favorite of the program, Mark Halperin, political reporter.
	Mark Halperin's Wide World of News, but also two-way TV, which I am going to join at some point.
	Mark, welcome back to the program.
	Thanks for having me back, but I need to say I'm a bit angry.
	Tell me why.
	Read to you from my wristband.
	My video podcast host went to Greenland and all I got was this lousy wristband.
	Dude, you brought me nothing.
	You brought me literally nothing.
	That is so funny.
	How do you explain that?
	Not even a moose burger.
	No, it's very interesting.
	You might be in the running, Mark.
	I bought a bunch of tourist trap stuff, including seal fur.
	And, you know, local delicacies.
	So you might be in the running for some reindeer sausage.
	Okay, that'd be better than this crummy wristband.
	At the inauguration, if we run into each other, I'll give you some reindeer sausage.
	Not a joke, by the way.
	I'll see you there.
	I'll be at the VIP lounge with you.
	That's right.
	No, that's a separate topic for another time, one of the most fun I've ever had.
	Mark, I see that you may or may not be in an airport, which I've actually done many hits from an airport.
	Either that or it's a very convincing green screen.
	I've done many hits from airports, so I totally get it.
	I won't tell you which one, but it's named after a very prominent conservative Republican president.
	I think you're at Reagan.
	I was going to say, well, I thought it was, if I'm not wrong, just based on the background and the aesthetic, I've spent many a time in Reagan.
	So, Mark, I know you've been catching some of the hearing here.
	What is your analysis, and do you think Pete Hegseth is likely to become the Secretary of Defense?
	I think he will unless there's a bunch of Republicans who secretly have said they're going to vote no and they're just being encouraging at the hearings to avoid conflict with MAGA.
	Democrats, I think, have done a pretty good job better than the opposition party typically does of having their topics organized and focusing pretty well on the things they wanted to bring out.
	But there's no bombshell.
	As far as we know, there's no star witness.
	The chairman's holding firm, as he just reported.
	No additional rounds of questioning and nothing the Democrats did because the witness was very well prepared.
	He didn't lose his temper.
	He didn't say things he shouldn't have said.
	He didn't create damaging soundbites.
	He was a case study, just as his team was a case study in November and December to get him to this point.
	He was a case study in how to handle tough questioning, and none of the Republicans seemed the least bit concerned on the committee.
	Now, Senator Cox from Utah said this morning that he's undecided, and if people suspicion that Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins might vote a no, means the committee may be misleading.
	The committee is pretty supportive in the main, and the candidates to vote no are largely not on the committee.
	So I don't think he's out of the woods yet, but I do think it appears he'll get a favorable vote in the committee.
	And then once he's on the floor, I think President Trump can put down a fair amount of pressure if there is.
	So let me ask you, Mark, the whole slate, it seemed as if things were not going great for Pete, but then, of course, there was this threat of primary challenging that we may or may not have been involved in.
	Do you think that changed the direction of the future of the whole slate being confirmed?
	I think three things happened that changed the direction of the slate.
	First of all, you and your colleagues made it clear.
	And people try to cast this as something evil and dark.
	It just made it clear that there'd be accountability for those who didn't support the president's nominees.
	And I think some of the senators got that message.
	They're not interested in going against the energy of the party.
	Number two, I think the team's geared up, right?
	When you're nominated for something, you get a Sherpa, you get a press aide, you get a small team of folks, usually a former senator.
	To help guide you through the process and interact with the Senate offices.
	And I think those teams weren't necessarily up and running in every case.
	And now they are.
	And I think they've hired really good people for that.
	Finally, you know, if you look at the sum total besides Pete Hegson, there haven't been big revelations about Tulsi Gabbard, about Bobby Kennedy, about, I'm blanking on his name, the FBI nominee, Kash Patel.
	There just haven't been revelations.
	And so it's easy for the senators and for folks like you to say, these are old stories.
	You know, we're moving on.
	We're focused on the positive.
	So I think those three things have combined to create a very positive situation.
	And last, I'll just say, and I've reported this before, and I know you know it, the level of communication between Mar-a-Lago, folks like you, the senators who are most supportive, Senator Thune.
	It's remarkable.
	The text change and the constant communication to be right on top of any weak points is just a model for how this stuff works.
	And the Democrats really are not in a position to match that now.
	So, yeah, this is really kind of the first online administration when you think about it.
	And it's real time and it's interactive.
	Can you comment on that, Mark?
	It's a little bit of kind of next-gen political warfare.
	Yeah, I mean...
	You know, in the olden days, when I was your age, we had war rooms, right?
	And people sat in there with analog telephones and no email.
	And, you know, you were rapid responsive.
	You wrote and sent out a blast fax within half an hour.
	You all are 24-7 online, on phones primarily, able to, and consuming a lot of incoming.
	So if, you know, Elizabeth Warren writes an 80-page letter saying, here are all my questions.
	It's not like the next afternoon you all are up and running and figuring out what, if anything, do we need to do about this?
	It's instantaneous analysis, communications, decision-making, execution.
	And it's with a group of people who are all very, very online and who have a metabolism.
	Not everybody's metabolism is quite as great as yours for this stuff, but most everybody is.
	And I think people like you and Elon Musk and Steve Bannon kind of set the pace.
	For others and cause others who might have more children or need more sleep or interested in spending three hours with a football game to say, hey, you know, I can't do that right now.
	That's a critical period for the revolution.
	So we need to be up and running and keeping pace with the guys and gals who set the pace, which is, again, very online, very 24-7.
	I'm pretty online.
	I'm pretty 24-7.
	But you all are doing it in a very tribal, coordinated way that is...
	That is, you know, again, the Democrats just aren't matching that right now.
	And that's an advantage because these things move quickly.
	And I take that as a great compliment.
	Thank you.
	And you're right.
	The sleep is not always abundant.
	Sometimes, you know, you're up at 1 or 2 a.m.
	because you just have all this incoming.
	And I do have to say that is one of the great superpowers of being on the West Coast.
	Right now I'm in Palm Beach.
	But being on the West Coast, you can kind of stay up very late and you can kind of set the news cycle for the next day while everyone else is asleep.
	So, Mark, I want to shift gears.
	It's almost like I'm on those text chains with you, isn't it?
	Almost like, exactly.
	I want to shift gears slightly.
	On this program, we've said that if 2017 was marked by the resistance, it seems as if that 2024 and 2025 is marked by the acquiescence.
	Breaking news here while we were on air.
	To be on the dais, which is where President Trump is getting sworn in, is a big deal.
	It's cabinet officials, it's family, it's people that are very close and organizers that have been around.
	The dais will now include Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk.
	Elon's not a surprise, but Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg will be on the dais.
	What is your reaction going from 2017 full-out resistance, we're almost to the day, four years from the day of January 6th, you have Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk bending the knee?
	Help me understand this.
	I'm working on an article now, hopefully I can finish it soon, about Donald Trump's second term as the greatest mulligan of all time.
	The conditions under which he will enter office is so different than eight years ago.
	And you're citing one example that's so fascinating because it involves human beings.
	Donald Trump loves wealth.
	He loves success.
	He loves trophies, human trophies.
	And he loves having relationships with powerful people.
	And you're right.
	Elon's not a surprise at this point, but Elon hasn't always been supportive of Donald Trump.
	A year ago, it would have been shocking.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so we've eased into that one, right?
	The other two, we've eased into as well, right?
	Zuckerberg has been to Mar-a-Lago at least twice that we know of.
	He brought gifts.
	It was reported today he's trying to settle for cash, potentially, the suit Donald Trump has against Facebook.
	And Bezos, a few months ago, maybe a few weeks ago, I guess months ago now, made some at a New York Times event, made some publicly.
	Supportive comments.
	Look, part of it is purely cynical.
	They don't want the federal government to come after them, and being close to Donald Trump is the best way to protect their interests.
	But part of it is patriotism.
	Part of it is respect for what he's accomplished, not just surviving being shot, but the greatest comeback in modern American political history.
	And part of it is Trump's...
	Desire to really rely on a private sector for a lot of the successes that he wants to have.
	And he's welcomed these folks to Mar-a-Lago.
	He's met with them.
	And they're not the only ones.
	They're obviously prominent.
	They're amongst the richest people in the world and run businesses that are unparalleled in human history.
	But there are lots of CEOs who've been to Mar-a-Lago and who welcome the opportunity to be at the table.
	And as you know well...
	Donald Trump is not a big texter and a big emailer.
	You want to be in his presence.
	The more you're in his presence, the more influence you have, the more you're involved in decisions and consultations and conversations.
	And these guys get the jump.
	They want to be near him.
	To quote the great political philosophers, the Carpenters, just like me, they long to be close to him.
	Mark, we have to dash, but I just, I think it's just going to be incredibly delicious.
	To watch the picture of, you know, the typical people, Jared, Ivanka, Don, Eric, Zuckerberg, Bezos.
	It's not like they're just donating the token $1 million.
	They want to be on the dais.
	That's a big, big, big deal.
	It's like dogs playing poker.
	It's like a collage you can't believe actually exists.
	And I will expect you to drag me everywhere Saturday through Monday night.
	I want to be wherever you are.
	We will cut a deal.
	You're welcome at the Turning Point Ball.
	I'll give you one of the exclusive insights into the village people.
	Okay.
	I'll be a full reporter, whatever I need to be.
	I want to experience those 72 hours exactly as you do.
	Mark, you're the best.
	Come back anytime.
	Thanks so much.
	Thank you so much.
	Good to see you.
	Welcome home to America.
	Thank you.
	Well, maybe Nuke will be part of America soon.
	Charlie Kirk here.
	For many of us, the new year brings new joys and new financial challenges.
	My friends Andrew and Todd from Sierra Pacific Mortgage are going to help you get organized for the new year with a free financial checkup.
	I think the world of these guys, they helped me with a very complex loan recently.
	So listen carefully.
	Find out exactly where you stand with your real estate finance college debt, yearly property taxes, and all those expenses you racked up over the holidays.
	Andrew and Todd, who are amazing people, are your friends in the mortgage business, the experts you can trust.
	And when you get your free financial checkup, you'll be working with Andrew and Todd and their team directly because they handle everything themselves.
	They can help you reduce your mortgage payments, pay off those high-interest credit cards, and have money to fund that big project or be positioned to take advantage of unexpected dips in the market.
	Start the new year with financial stability.
	Get your free financial checkup today.
	Just go to andrewandtodd.com and fill out their quick form or call 888-888-1172.
	That is 888-888-1172.
	Check out my friends at andrewandtodd.com.
	andrewandtodd.com.
	Music So from what I understand, according to my sources, which I think my sources are pretty good, this is it.
	There is no other hearings besides this.
	That's it.
	From what I can understand and from all the research that has been gathered and all the sourcing, I do not believe that there is going to be a round, too.
	There will be a committee vote and then a floor vote, and that's it.
	I believe this is the end of questioning.
	And so Pete Hegseth did wonderful.
	Yeah, let's go full screen on that if we can.
	I'd like to narrate along as Pete Hegseth.
	He's been through hell and back these last couple of months.
	Lied about, slandered, criticized.
	So that is Pete around friends and family.
	I know there's Arthur Schwartz.
	I know him.
	There is Mike Walls there.
	Pete taking pictures.
	Kind of like a celebrity, if you will.
	And Pete just got done with one of the hardest things that you can do.
	So this is what Pete is doing right now.
	Pete is saying hello and thanking all the veterans that were there in support of him today.
	By the way, what a sigh of relief Pete can have right now.
	It is very difficult because the Democrats on that committee were intentionally provoking him.
	It was an intentional provocation campaign.
	Intentional.
	And Pete handled it beautifully.
	It was a master class by Pete Hegseth.
	Attacking his marital life, his personal decisions, whether or not he has a drinking problem.
	And like, hold on a second.
	First of all, the military is not exactly the place of sobriety.
	I don't drink.
	Not a fan of it.
	But it's not a moral issue.
	However, it's all in the past.
	Nobody is, no person is ever above, rising above what the demons of their past are.
	That is completely and totally unfair.
	He was measured.
	He didn't take the bait.
	He's a true patriot.
	And there is the Senate hearing room where this all took place.
	And from according to all sources that I have, it's now going to go to a committee vote, which will probably pass on pure partisan lines.
	We're watching you, Joni Ernst.
	By the way, did you notice how boring Joni Ernst's questions were?
	Do you notice how?
	How non-dramatic, how tempered Joni Ernst's questions were.
	She flew a little bit too close to the sun.
	She didn't want to get ronned.
	And now Joni Ernst is Pete Hegseth's biggest fan.
	And honestly, I've got to give credit for the foreign flag wearer, Roger Wicker.
	I mean, he was just ridiculous wearing the Ukrainian flag.
	He handled the committee really well.
	I've got to give him credit for that.
	The whole Ukrainian flag thing is just ridiculous.
	But I gotta give him credit.
	He handled it like a gentleman.
	He stood up against the left.
	That ridiculous co-chair that he has in the Democrats.
	The Cooper or whatever his name is.
	You can never remember that guy's name.
	It's so forgettable.
	Jack Reed.
	Jack Reed.
	It sounds like he's like a federal agent.
	Jack Reed.
	Just feels made up.
	Senator Reed.
	He just says, yeah, yeah, thanks so much.
	Thanks for coming.
	He didn't want to turn this into a long-standing melodrama.
	Long-standing.
	So he just said, okay, thanks so much, and that's it.
	Pete Hegseth's hearing is over.
	It's going to now go to a committee vote and then a floor vote, which means Pete Hegseth can assume the duties as the Secretary of Defense likely as soon as Monday or Tuesday.
	Let me repeat that.
	Pete Hegseth can assume the duties of becoming the Secretary of Defense on Monday afternoon or Tuesday afternoon.
	So here's what happens.
	They did their advice and consent.
	They're going to do a committee vote.
	And then they have to hold, I think, the floor vote.
	So President Trump gets sworn in.
	He says, so help me God, in five hours, five days and 22 hours and five minutes, five days, 22 hours, President Donald Trump goes to the outer room of the Capitol.
	It's called the signing room.
	And he signs the nominations.
	Pete Hegseth, Scott Bessent, Doug Burnham, Kash Patel.
	He signs all these nominations.
	And then the Senate will pick it up that afternoon.
	And that afternoon, Pete Hegseth can then get in a motorcade and ride right into the Pentagon.
	And Pete Hegseth can then that evening, around 7 or 8 at night, get to his desk as the head of the Secretary of Defense and start signing executive orders.
	Not executive orders, but memorandums.
	Only the president can sign executive orders.
	No more woke-ism.
	None of this nonsense.
	CRT. So by 8.30 or 9 p.m.
	On this coming Monday evening, wokeism will be on its way out of the military.
	Of course there's going to be a lot of excommunication of these demons that have to happen.
	But the military should not be a sociological experiment.
	The focus should be on lethality and meritocracy.
	Pete Hegseth understands the mission statement of the military should be to protect our national interests and kill the enemy without apology.
	Do so quickly.
	We are not a nation building.
	We are not an infrastructure organization.
	We are not a sociological experiment operation.
	It is about protecting the homeland and killing the enemies, lethality, meritocracy, integrity, and fidelity to the nation.
	Well done, Pete Hegseth.
	We're behind you 100%.
	We have been in the trenches fighting for you.
	It looks as if, according to all reporting, you are now on a glide path.
	To become the Secretary of Defense.
	And if anybody votes against you, there will be a primary challenge visiting your state soon.
	Mark that down and take it to the bank.
	So vote accordingly.
	Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
	Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.

▲