ICYMI Video: Blumenthal Urges Senate Colleagues to Vote Against Hegseth for Secretary of Defense

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) spoke on the Senate floor yesterday highlighting Pete Hegseth's lack of qualifications for the role of Secretary of Defense, including his mismanagement of two veterans' organizations, views on women in the military, controversial stances regarding military policies and conduct, and accounts of his alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct. Blumenthal called on his Senate colleagues to vote against the confirmation of Hegseth, on which the Senate is scheduled to vote tonight.

"We are in the midst of considering Peter Hegseth to be the next Secretary of Defense. I don't think there's a more important office in this country-having power and responsibility for 3.4 million Americans, most of them in uniform, many of them civilians, all of them potentially putting their lives in harm's way. The President-elect's choice to lead the Department of Defense is not only one of the most significant he will make, but also probably the most unqualified nominee for this position of immense authority and responsibility in recent history," said Blumenthal while speaking on the Senate floor.

"Mr. Hegseth complained in our hearing that the military was lowering its standards for the men and women who serve in uniform. The only standards being lowered here are the standards for the Secretary of Defense if Mr. Hegseth is confirmed," Blumenthal continued. "The responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to order men and women into harm's way is a truly awesome responsibility. Mr. Hegseth is not the person to have that responsibility, and I hope my colleagues will recognize that fact and vote against his nomination."

A transcript of Blumenthal's full remarks can be found below, and a video of his remarks can be found here.

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): Madam President, we are in the midst of considering Peter Hegseth to be the next Secretary of Defense. I don't think there's a more important office in this country-having power and responsibility for 3.4 million Americans, most of them in uniform, many of them civilians, all of them potentially putting their lives in harm's way. The President-elect's choice to lead the Department of Defense is not only one of the most significant he will make, but also probably the most unqualified nominee for this position of immense authority and responsibility in recent history.

It's clear that his history of mismanagement-he drove two veterans' organizations into the ground financially-makes him patently incapable of the powerfully challenging management tasks that he will have as Secretary of Defense. This sprawling enterprise has to be directed and guided by someone who has had some significant management responsibility in the past. I hesitate to say how much because the standard and the bar have always been extremely high under both Republican and Democratic administrations, including President Trump's first term when he appointed General Mattis. I voted for General Mattis. He was obviously a Republican nominee, but he had the experience, not just in combat but also at the Pentagon. Now I know that the President wants to be a disrupter and a change agent. The Pentagon may be in need of some change and disruption, but not chaos, not financial mismanagement such as characterized Pete Hegseth's service as the head of Veterans of Freedom and then Concerned Veterans for America.

What can be said about his service in those two organization is that year after year he spent more than he raised. He had deficits year after year. Not by a little bit, by hundreds of thousands of dollars so that at the end of his service at Veterans for Freedom, the board did an intervention. They had a forensic study done which showed that there were tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid debt and they, in effect, ousted him. He then went to Concerned Veterans for America, and same pattern, roughly the same financial failings, deficits year after year, significant in their number and total amount. And there again, he left under a cloud with a nondisclosure agreement so that we don't have necessarily the full story.

So just as a management issue, this nomination is fundamentally flawed. He left those two separate organization smoldering in ruins after just a few years as their Executive Director. We have documents from whistleblowers that detail a toxic workplace environment at those organizations. It was rife with alcohol abuse and sexual harassment under his leadership. Former employees have detailed that Mr. Hegseth routinely used organization funds to pursue personal pleasures, usually involving alcohol and women-his underlings refer to them as "party girls."

These veteran service organization ran fiscal surpluses before Mr. Hegseth's tenure, and upon his exits, their budgets were really in flames. In one case, the organization simply ceased to exist. Veterans for Freedom was absorbed by another organization. He testified that he's proud of the work he did while he was at Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America, but he made a career of advocating for policies that would, in effect, contract and even defund the Veterans' Administration and harm servicemembers, veterans, and their families. For years he lambasted veterans who pursued disability compensation and he advocated for nonprofit-I'm sorry, for for-profit colleges that make their livings preying on servicemembers and veterans. These organizations and the policies he advocated could potentially have done grave harm to our veterans.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Hegseth also refused to answer questions regarding the use of active duty military within the borders of the United States. One of the President-Elect's own former Secretaries of Defense stated unequivocally that, "The option to use active duty forces in law enforcement roles should be only used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Yet, the President-elect is apparently laying down plans to use the active military to conduct mass deportations and to quell civil unrest. Americans don't want the military, our men and women on active duty, raiding restaurants and farms, looking for individuals that have overstayed their visas. If the President is unwilling to invest in ICE, it should not be the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, our active duty men and women, going into homes, work places, schools, churches, hospitals, and in effect performing the raids, the law enforcement duty, that really are specifically prohibited by statute.

Pete Hegseth will be behind these policies. Many of them he's already endorsed. Most of them, unfortunately, were not delved into in any depth in his hearing because so much of it was on the sexual improprieties and alcohol abuse and other personal issues that would be disqualifying. Let's make no mistake, there's a lot of focus on this latest affidavit. There is significant information-not anonymous smears-significant information in that affidavit. But there was already enough on the record, in fact, acknowledged during that hearing by Mr. Hegseth himself as to information that would be disqualifying if he, as a Major, were up for promotion, if he, as a Corporal, were up for promotion to a Sergeant. Facts about marital infidelity-open, blatant, a matter of public record-that would be disqualifying to him within the military, in fact, might even subject him to discipline within the military. Other reported instances of drunkenness, of misconduct, all of it in the public record acknowledged by him at least as to the marital infidelity.

So the focus on those personal aspects of his background took time, and by the way, we had very limited amounts of time because we were not permitted a second round of questioning. We were not given access to the FBI background report. We were not given, in fact, the benefit of a full FBI background investigation, an adequate one, because there were gaps as shown by the affidavit as to who was interviewed, and that's in part why that affidavit is important because it shows that there were, in fact, gaps in the FBI's investigation.

The American people don't want the National Guard or our military reserves or our active duty-their own neighbors on the streets-of Des Moines, Cleveland, Hartford, Montgomery, places where they call home, checking their papers, conducting surveillance operations that could sweep vast amounts of their private data. That's our military going into our work places and our homes collecting information. The founders of this nation never envisioned our military as a police force, neither did Congress, and that's why we have the Insurrection Act and other measures that forbid that kind of intrusion. In fact, it was that kind of invasion of their homes by the British military that caused them to adopt many of our constitutional guarantees against the use of the military in those kinds of purposes.

Mr. Hegseth declined to state his opposition to such deployments when asked during his hearing. What he said, and I take him at his word, is that he will heed the President's direction as Commander in Chief. The reason he was chosen for this job, obviously is not his experience as a manager, it's not his bona fides as a leader of major organizations, it's his loyalty to the President, to Donald Trump, and more than loyalty, it's fealty. It's that acquiescence, obedience, obsequiousness, blind loyalty that would lead him to take that in turn order American troops into people's homes.

There's no question that beyond what could happen in America on our soil, his confirmation would also present enormous problems for our allies and partners in the Middle East. I've been working with the senior Senator from South Carolina for some years to encourage the normalization of relations between the state of Israel and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It's an enterprise and an effort that I think has occupied many of us in this chamber. We have visited the region together, and one of our objectives, in fact, is a treaty or agreement that would bind us closer together, Israel, Saudi Arabia, America, perhaps the UAE, as part of normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and the regional nations and Israel. Suffice to say that the recent ceasefire announcement between Israel and Hamas is a historic shift in regional politics, I believe that Mr. Hegseth's personal beliefs would diminish our support of the peace process or derail it entirely because of comments he has made about Islam and Muslim nations.

Those comments were explored in some detail in his testimony. My concern is there have been numerous reports in addition to his own words that appear to convey a hostility on his part, if not outright antagonism, toward Islams and Muslims. A former employee of Concerned Veterans for America alleged that he shouted racist and Islamophobic chants during an official tour in Ohio, well-publicized and well-known in the region where Muslim nation and Islam are predominant. In his book, American Crusade, he expressed concern about Muslim birth rates and said the present moment for Christians is like the time of the Crusades and that Christians must arm themselves, "metaphorically, intellectually, physically. Our fight is not with guns yet." Not with guns yet.

Well, we are not in a time where we need a crusader in the old fashion sense of that word and who says that Christians must arm themselves metaphorically, intellectually, physically-physically-for a fight that may be coming. We are trying to engage those nations in a common purpose toward normalization, peace and stability, an expansion of the Abraham Accords. People in Israel are hoping that that progress can be made, there can be a successful effort to build on the Abraham Accords. And the current ceasefire agreement is the result of both the Trump administration and the Biden administration coming together, the two teams, Brett McGurk and Envoy Whitaker, making sure that peace was the objective, not antagonism or hostility. Ambassador Whitaker, I don't think, would want a Secretary of Defense talking about a crusade against Muslim nations.

I don't think that a more problematic and concerning nominee has been put before this body. And I urge my Republican colleagues to review what Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins said when they announced that they were going to oppose this nomination as they did earlier today. Senator Murkowski said, and I'm quoting, "I have met with him and carefully reviewed his writings, various reports, and other pertinent materials. I closely followed his hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee and gathered substantial feedback from organizations, veterans, and Alaskans. After a thorough evaluation, I must conclude I cannot in good conscience support his nomination for Secretary of Defense." And she went on to talk about some of the allegations that have been made against Mr. Hegseth. "Although he has recently revised his comments" -- again, I'm quoting - "recently revised his statements on women in combat since being nominated, I remain concerned about the message that confirming Mr. Hegseth sends to women currently serving and those aspiring to join. Women have served our nation with distinction overcoming immense obstacles to excel in combat and leadership roles, and they deserve to know that their leader honors and values their commitment to our nation."

Now, the reason for that comment by Senator Murkowski was statements made by Mr. Hegseth. 30 days before his hearing about the lack of value in women serving in the military and the inability, lack of capacity, of women to serve in combat. He reversed himself, what would one of my colleagues called, "nomination conversion," and modified his previous remarks. But he couldn't tell you what caused him to have a different opinion, and in the course of that hearing, truly revealed that he continues to have that view of women, which is a problem for recruiting women-they are now 18% of our military force-and more than just recruiting women, retaining women, especially when the scourge of sexual assault continues to be so problematic in the military. We've fought it for years, a number of us on the Armed Services Committee have supported measures that would provide for more effective prosecution through a system of investigation outside the chain of command. We've adopted those reforms. And military leaders have joined us in seeking to combat sexual assault and harassment. And here we have someone who has been accused very credibly and plausibly, not just in this affidavit but by others, and the record is replete with them. They're accusations. There are no convictions here. Mr. Hegseth denies them. But again, simply what he acknowledges having done would disqualify him from a role of command in the military.

And that background and record can't help but discourage women from joining and staying in the military. Senator Murkowski goes on to say, "While the allegations of sexual assault and excessive drinking do nothing to quiet my concerns, the past behaviors Mr. Hegseth has admitted to, including infidelity on multiple occasions, demonstrate a lack of judgment that is unbecoming of someone who would lead our Armed Forces. These behaviors starkly contrast the values and discipline expected of servicemembers. Men and women in uniform are held accountable for such action, and they deserve leaders who uphold these same standards."

Mr. Hegseth complained in our hearing that the military was lowering its standards for the men and women who serve in uniform. The only standards being lowered here are the standards for the Secretary of Defense if Mr. Hegseth is confirmed. Mr. Trump, President Trump, is in effect dumbing down the Department of Defense, and it threatens to do grave damage to that powerfully important institution.

Senator Murkowski goes on to say, "Above all I believe that character is the defining trait required of the Secretary of Defense and must be prioritized without compromise. The leader of the Department of Defense must demonstrate and model the standards of behavior and character we expect of all servicemembers. And Mr. Hegseth's nomination to the role poses significant concerns that I cannot overlook. Given the global security environment we're operating in, it is critical that we confirm a Secretary of Defense, however, I regret that I am unable to support Mr. Hegseth." What a powerfully damning statement. Not damning necessarily Mr. Hegseth as a human being. I respect his service. I said at the hearing that I was grateful and respectful of his service to our nation, including leading troops in combat and advocating for veterans. But these concerns about his personal background and about his lack of experience negate that respect for his service as a Secretary of Defense. As a Secretary of Defense. We are not choosing him to be a Colonel, to be promoted. We're choosing him to lead the entire United States Military and to make decisions that will be a matter of life-or-death.

I was moved as well by the statements made by our colleague, Senator Collins, very much along the same lines. And I want to repeat some of what she said, again in the hope that our colleagues will listen to both of them. And she said as an expert, if I may say, on the global challenges that this country faces now, "The Secretary is going to be facing a number of incredibly complex problems that are going to require highly skilled management ability. I am concerned Mr. Hegseth does not have the management experience and background that he will need in order to tackle these difficulties. I am also concerned about multiple statements, including some in the months just before he was nominated, that Mr. Hegseth made about women serving in the military. He and I had a candid conversation in December about his past statements, and apparently evolving views. I am not convinced that his position on women serving in combat roles has changed." That is, in some ways, the nub of the problem. What he has said, how he has failed in past management positions, how he lacks that credibility as a managerial leader.

Senator Collins continues, "Women comprise merely 18% of our active duty military. They continue to make critical and valuable contributions to our national defense. I have long advocated that women who wish to serve in and can meet the rigorous standards of combat roles should be able to do so, and numerous women have proved they can accomplish this difficult feat. Currently thousands of women are serving in combat roles and many others serve in noncombat function. Their service is essential to the success of our military. Mr. Hegseth also appears to lack a sufficient appreciation for some of the policies that the military is required to follow because they are codified in the laws of the United States of America. While I understand his points on the importance of up-to-date and workable rules of engagement, our prohibition against torture come from American laws and treaties, ratified by the United States, including the Geneva Convention. Therefore, I will vote against the nomination."

Mr. Hegseth has demeaned and dismissed the importance of the Geneva Convention. In fact, he's berated the lawyers in the Department of Defense who set standards and guidelines for what can be done. I will never forget talking to our former colleague, our great colleague, a friend and mentor to me, John McCain, about why he opposes torture, waterboarding, that kind of physical abuse, why he believed that these laws have to be followed by our military, not just as a matter of humanity, but effective military strategy. Torturing to gain information often produces false information, but it also reduces the quality of our military performance. And yet, Mr. Hegseth seems to dismiss those ideas about the Geneva Convention, about standards for military conduct as categorically, as he does many other of the standards that should apply.

I hope my colleagues will listen to Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins, because in their statement they say more effectively than I am in this lengthier talk on the Floor how important a vote against Mr. Hegseth is to the future of our national defense. Much has been written about him. I urge my colleagues to review an article that appeared in The New Yorker, "Pete Hegseth's Secret History" by Jane Mayer, who talks about some of these instances, not anonymous smears he said so many of them were, but in sourced and substantiated account of the kinds of misconduct that were detailed in a whistleblower report and other documents. Again, not an anonymous smear. Specific and explicit facts that were claimed. We don't have eye witness proof in sworn testimony before the Armed Services Committee, but this report is powerful in what it shows.

I hope that my colleagues, in the hours that we have left before we will vote again on Mr. Hegseth's nomination, will reconsider perhaps their vote earlier today, that they will recognize they will be responsible if things go wrong, and we hope to God always that nothing goes wrong, especially all of us who have family members who have served, mine in the United States Marine Corps, my oldest son is a combat veteran, and my second son, Michael, is a Navy SEAL.

The responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to order men and women into harm's way is a truly awesome responsibility. Mr. Hegseth is not the person to have that responsibility, and I hope my colleagues will recognize that fact and vote against his nomination.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

-30-

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Tweet