Washington, D.C. — Today U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) delivered remarks on the Senate floor warning about the severe consequences of confirming Pete Hegseth, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense.
Watch Schiff’s full remarks HERE. Download remarks HERE.
Key Excerpts:
On Mr. Hegseth’s disqualifying character:
My fellow Senators – put aside the nominee’s lack of knowledge and lack of experience to prepare him for a role of this magnitude. We must also consider this nominee’s absence of character becoming of a Secretary of Defense. You heard it in his confirmation hearings. You’ve heard it described by my colleagues today. You’ve seen it on television, and read about it in the materials that all of us have been provided that demonstrates Mr. Hegseth’s unfitness for this office.
Character matters. It does. It still does. And no amount of tough talk on TV, or bromides about a “warrior” spirit – can make up for a distinct lack of character.
General Omar Bradley – the first ever chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the longest serving active duty service member in the history of the United States Armed Forces, wrote to the Infantry School Quarterly in April of 1953. He said that “leadership in a democratic Army means fairness, not harshness. Understanding, not weakness. Justice, not license. Humaneness, not intolerance. Generosity, not selfishness. Pride, not egotism.” Think about those qualities. Think about whether the nominee we consider today resembles even just one of them. Certainly not generosity. Certainly not humanity. Certainly not understanding. Certainly not.
I understand that politics can be complicated. But there is nothing complicated about this. Our service members are watching. Their families, who fear that their loved ones may be sent to battle, are watching. Our adversaries are watching.
On Mr. Hegseth’s concerning lack of experience:
This is no minor or ceremonial position. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for a nearly trillion-dollar budget – one-eighth of all federal spending. And the three million people who serve under that charge. In my time in Congress, I worked with Secretaries of Defense from both parties, who understood their sacred responsibility and have upheld their oaths to support every one of our troops and lead our nation’s military to the best of their ability. Secretaries Gates and Panetta, Mattis and Carter, and many others come to mind.
But Mr. Hegseth lacks the experience to be the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Hegseth has not shown the judgment to be Secretary of Defense. Mr. Hegseth has not shown the character to be Secretary of Defense. For this job is a heavy responsibility. And he is not the right person for the job.
His record speaks for itself. Financial mismanagement in the organizations he led, organizations much, much smaller than the Pentagon, with budgets that were a fraction of the size and nevertheless, squandered and mismanaged. He has, at times, demonstrated a callous disregard for human rights and the laws of armed conflict. Going so far as to recommend that the president disregard the Geneva Conventions and intervene in cases of service members convicted of war crimes. He has a history of belittling our brave women in uniform. Of denigrating the service of women in uniform and their abilities. These failures are not trivial. They are real. They are significant, and they cannot be ignored. So let’s not mince words. Pete Hegseth is the wrong choice for Secretary of Defense.
On the role of the Secretary of Defense in a challenging world:
The challenges we face today are enormous. They demand real experience and leadership. The largest land war in Europe since World War II rages on. The Middle East is a tinder box, with a terrorist group still running Gaza, with hostages still in captivity, with a new Syrian regime of uncertain direction, a weakened but still dangerous Iran with all of its proxies, still threatening retaliation. China looms as a peer global competitor, with a stated object of expanding its influence and territory and outpacing the United States. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly aligned. With the shared goal of rolling back U.S. influence and have developed a robust operational partnership. Iran and North Korea provide Russia with drones and missiles to prosecute its relentless war of aggression against Ukraine, all while China provides money and dual-use technologies to underpin Russia’s resurgent wartime economy.
Trade amongst this bloc seeks to frustrate U.S.-led international sanctions. We don’t know what technology and know-how Russia has already or will provide rogue states like Iran and North Korea for their nuclear, missile, and other WMD programs. This growing alignment among authoritarians threatens our country and our allies. And yet, here we are, being asked to hand over the keys to our national defense to someone so patently unqualified. So palpably unprepared. I think it is telling that Mr. Hegseth’s opening statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee failed to even mention the war in Ukraine. Just imagine – perhaps the most important national security issue that the previous Congress debated, whether to provide aid to our partners in Ukraine to turn back the Russian attack and defend their homeland, doesn’t merit a sentence in his opening testimony.
Read the transcript of his remarks as delivered below:
Mr. President, the men and women serving at home and overseas under the flag of the United States of America are counting on us. To guide the Pentagon during times of war or peace, they need and deserve a Secretary of Defense who is a person of considerable experience and can run a mammoth agency, who has exhibited good judgment, who is a person of good character, who appreciates the role of women in the military in and out of combat, and who they can look on in confidence to guide us through some of the most difficult and complex national security threats we have ever faced. And while I greatly respect his time in the service, regrettably, that person is not Pete Hegseth.
This is no minor or ceremonial position. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for a nearly trillion-dollar budget – one-eighth of all federal spending. And the three million people who serve under that charge. In my time in Congress, I worked with Secretaries of Defense from both parties, who understood their sacred responsibility and have upheld their oaths to support every one of our troops and lead our nation’s military to the best of their ability. Secretaries Gates and Panetta, Mattis and Carter, and many others come to mind.
But Mr. Hegseth lacks the experience to be the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Hegseth has not shown the judgment to be Secretary of Defense. Mr. Hegseth has not shown the character to be Secretary of Defense. For this job is a heavy responsibility. And he is not the right person for the job.
His record speaks for itself. Financial mismanagement in the organizations he led, organizations much, much smaller than the Pentagon, with budgets that were a fraction of the size and nevertheless, squandered and mismanaged. He has, at times, demonstrated a callous disregard for human rights and the laws of armed conflict. Going so far as to recommend that the president disregard the Geneva Conventions and intervene in cases of service members convicted of war crimes. He has a history of belittling our brave women in uniform. Of denigrating the service of women in uniform and their abilities. These failures are not trivial. They are real. They are significant, and they cannot be ignored. So let’s not mince words. Pete Hegseth is the wrong choice for Secretary of Defense.
Mr. President, many of my colleagues have spoken on the Floor about Mr. Hegseth’s personal shortcomings and lack of experience to carry out the job to which he has been nominated. I would like to speak also about what we need from a Secretary of Defense, and what a more appropriate nominee should bring to this position of such immense responsibility.
The challenges we face today are enormous. They demand real experience and leadership. The largest land war in Europe since World War II rages on. The Middle East is a tinder box, with a terrorist group still running Gaza, with hostages still in captivity, with a new Syrian regime of uncertain direction, a weakened but still dangerous Iran with all of its proxies, still threatening retaliation. China looms as a peer global competitor, with a stated object of expanding its influence and territory and outpacing the United States. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly aligned. With the shared goal of rolling back U.S. influence and have developed a robust operational partnership. Iran and North Korea provide Russia with drones and missiles to prosecute its relentless war of aggression against Ukraine, all while China provides money and dual-use technologies to underpin Russia’s resurgent wartime economy.
Trade amongst this bloc seeks to frustrate U.S.-led international sanctions. We don’t know what technology and know-how Russia has already or will provide rogue states like Iran and North Korea for their nuclear, missile, and other WMD programs. This growing alignment among authoritarians threatens our country and our allies. And yet, here we are, being asked to hand over the keys to our national defense to someone so patently unqualified. So palpably unprepared. I think it is telling that Mr. Hegseth’s opening statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee failed to even mention the war in Ukraine. Just imagine – perhaps the most important national security issue that the previous Congress debated, whether to provide aid to our partners in Ukraine to turn back the Russian attack and defend their homeland, doesn’t merit a sentence in his opening testimony.
This is a conflict that President Trump now owns, and we must rely on him and his Administration – including, if he were confirmed, Mr. Hegseth – to support our democratic partner. When the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) asked Mr. Hegseth about the omission of the war in Ukraine from his prepared remarks, here was his response: “Senator, that is a presidential-level policy decision.” This from the person who is supposed to be the President’s senior advisor on defense matters and a key official needed to rally NATO and other nations to Ukraine’s defense. We have a moral and legal obligation and imperative to aid Ukraine in its existential fight against Russia, and to protect our NATO allies should Russia’s ambitions be left unconstrained.
The last Congress made clear its support with bipartisan overwhelming votes to reaffirm our support for Ukraine in this fight. And we will do so again, as necessary. It is not just a matter of Ukrainian security. If Russia is allowed to succeed in its objectives in Ukraine, whether on the battlefield or through a forced, but favorable negotiated settlement, it will not stop there.
Russia is already engaged in influence operations, cyber operations, and attacks against critical infrastructure up and down its border with NATO. Allowing Russia to tear off parts of Ukraine will embolden Putin, allow him to better arm his war machine, and will send a message that NATO is fragmented and weak. And it will not be just Russia that receives this message.
Xi Jinping is watching intently what is happening with Ukraine and whether America will continue to defend its allies and its values. This is why Taiwan supports U.S. aid to Ukraine, even if it means sending weapons there that might otherwise be shipped to Asia. Because Taiwan wants to know that if and when they face their own day of reckoning that the United States will honor its commitments to come to its defense.
Our allies must be able to count on us. On the president. On the secretary of defense. They must. A nominee who ignores our obligations and our national interests in helping Ukraine roll back Russia’s war machine is not a person capable of defending our interests across the globe. They just aren’t.
The responsibilities go well beyond our foreign commitments. The Secretary of Defense has an enormous task to continue to rebuild the strength and readiness of our forces. For nearly two decades, wars in the Middle East and a long list of contingencies have pushed military readiness to the breaking point. The Army, Air Force, and Navy continue to face major recruitment challenges just to maintain their current size, let alone what may be necessary to – god forbid – fight a major war in the coming years. Against technologies we can only imagine now.
We need a Secretary of Defense that can lead and inspire our troops – from the most senior officers to the youngest enlisted men and women. Mr. Hegseth has belittled women in the military. He has attacked people who live their lives differently than how he would prefer. He has stood with those who violate the law rather than those who keep the peace. And he has no experience running a large enterprise. His experience running small enterprises was a terrible failure. We need a Secretary of Defense with the management experience to rebuild and reshape our national security for the challenges of the present and future.
As our assistance to partners in the wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East have shown, we need to bring about urgent reforms if we are to produce the platforms, weapons, and ammunition necessary to supply our partners with the tools they need to fight and win. So long as our enemies test the dearness of our beliefs with fire and steel – we must ensure that our military remains the best equipped, best-prepared fighting force in the world.
This requires investment in our manufacturing sector and the defense acquisition process.
Anything less is not an “arsenal of democracy” or “Freedom’s Forge.” It is a failure of our duty to defend ourselves and our allies. Which is to say nothing of the need to develop new technologies and new operational concepts, tapping into the best innovative minds across the country. Let’s face it. The United States is on the brink of losing its overwhelming technological edge. Bringing it back will require re-shaping the Pentagon to include new participants, ready to disrupt some of our hidebound, bureaucratic and expensive processes – new innovators and technologies, including many from my state of California. Partners that embrace new technology and are more nimble to meet today’s challenges. There is simply nothing in Mr. Hegseth’s background or his performance to demonstrate that he has the necessary understanding or ability to make these necessary changes.
General Matthew Ridgway was one of the great military minds of the 20th century. His service spanned decades and continents – and after the end of his service as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, he was recruited to join the “Wise Men”, a group of retired diplomats, politicians and generals who assembled time to time to give their advice to President Lyndon Johnson. He knew then — as we know today – what makes effective leadership in both war and peace. On the front lines and on the home front. He said that “there is far more to professional fitness than knowledge and skill in the technology and tools of war. These the officer must have, but the final test of his ability is not in what he knows but in what he is. “There is no substitute, he said, for those innate qualities which we generally refer to as character.”
My fellow Senators – put aside the nominee’s lack of knowledge and lack of experience to prepare him for a role of this magnitude. We must also consider this nominee’s absence of character becoming of a Secretary of Defense. You heard it in his confirmation hearings. You’ve heard it described by my colleagues today. You’ve seen it on television, and read about it in the materials that all of us have been provided that demonstrates Mr. Hegseth’s unfitness for this office.
Character matters. It does. It still does. And no amount of tough talk on TV, or bromides about a “warrior” spirit – can make up for a distinct lack of character. General Omar Bradley – the first ever chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the longest serving active duty service member in the history of the United States Armed Forces, wrote to the Infantry School Quarterly in April of 1953. He said that “leadership in a democratic Army means fairness, not harshness. Understanding, not weakness. Justice, not license. Humaneness, not intolerance. Generosity, not selfishness. Pride, not egotism.” Think about those qualities. Think about whether the nominee we consider today resembles even just one of them. Certainly not generosity. Certainly not humanity. Certainly not understanding. Certainly not.
I understand that politics can be complicated. But there is nothing complicated about this. Our service members are watching. Their families, who fear that their loved ones may be sent to battle, are watching. Our adversaries are watching.
There’s an inscription just down the hall that says it plainly, what we should consider in this moment: “Our government, conceived in freedom and purchased with blood, can be preserved only by constant vigilance.” Constant vigilance.
The vote before us today is about Mr. Hegseth. But it is also about all of us. What do we stand for? Are we being vigilant in the defense of our country? This candidate is not qualified. This candidate is not experienced. This candidate lacks judgement. This candidate lacks the character we need to lead this department at a time of great national peril. He is simply the wrong one for the job. I urge a no vote – and I yield back.
###