Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), a senior member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), took to the Senate floor to outline her concerns for our national security ahead of the possible confirmation of Pete Hegseth as the next U.S. Secretary of Defense. Specifically, Shaheen addressed Hegseth’s inconsistencies on various foreign policy issues, including respect for the norms of armed conflict, support for our alliances like NATO and Putin’s war on Ukraine. At the conclusion of her remarks, Senator Shaheen announced she will vote against the Secretary of Defense nominee—the first time she’s done so since joining the U.S. Senate. You can watch the Senator’s full remarks here.
Key quotes from Senator Shaheen:
- “The almost three million men and women who serve our nation in uniform deserve a Secretary of Defense who will not needlessly throw them in harm’s way or seek to divide them with partisan politics.”
- “Just as America’s national security interests are not to be trifled with, neither is our commitment to defending democracy and the international world order. And any inconsistency in our commitment to support our allies and partners, to support democracy around the world, to support the international world order is going to be seen and exploited by our adversaries.”
- “And again, I think it’s very important that we stand by our ally Ukraine, because of the message it sends not just to the Russians and Vladimir Putin, but because of the message it sends to Xi in China, to the Iranians, to the North Koreans, to anyone who is an adversary of the United States. If they think we’re going to walk away from our allies, they’re going to do everything they can to divide us.”
- “He [Mr. Hegseth] has a documented history of supporting individuals who have violated military and international law by committing war crimes […] I don’t think we can afford to entrust the safety and success of our men and women in uniform to a man who would himself disregard the laws of armed conflict and leave American credibility and moral authority in tatters on the world stage.”
- “I am very concerned that Mr. Hegseth lacks the consistency and the moral clarity to lead the most combat-credible military in the world […] Our men and women in uniform deserve better. And therefore, the first time since I was elected to represent the people of New Hampshire in the United States Senate, I plan to vote against this nominee for Secretary of Defense.”
Remarks as delivered can be found below:
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address some of my concerns about the qualifications of the President’s nominee to lead the Department of Defense, Mr. Pete Hegseth.
Like many of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, I left Mr. Hegseth’s hearing last week with a number of unanswered questions and some real concerns about his qualifications and abilities to serve in the role of Secretary of Defense.
Now, every single nominee for Secretary of Defense—from both Democrat and Republican administrations—have met with me and other members from both sides of the aisle on the committee before their confirmation hearings.
And I voted for every one of those nominees from both Democrat and Republican administrations: Secretaries Panetta, Hagel, Carter, Mattis, Esper and Austin.
I didn’t always agree with their views or their policies, but I felt that they had the qualifications and the temperament to be Secretary of Defense, so I supported their confirmations.
But Mr. Hegseth chose not to meet with me or any other Senate Democrats, except the Ranking Member, Jack Reed. And he broke with strong, longstanding tradition to ensure that our work on national security remains free from partisanship.
And I think that’s the important point: we are stronger as Senators, as Congress, as a nation if we are acting together.
The Committee unfortunately was not afforded the opportunity to ask a number of rounds of questions, and so there were a number of questions about his views, particularly regarding foreign policy and military policy that we did not get an answer to.
I’ve become the Ranking Member on the Foreign Relations Committee, and so I’m very concerned about the role of the United States in the world.
I think the American people expect transparency regarding Mr. Hegseth’s ability to stand by our allies and partners, to uphold international agreements, to abide by rules of engagement and the bottom line—support the men and women in the military in a way that not only keeps us safe, but protects them as well.
The almost three million men and women who serve our nation in uniform deserve a Secretary of Defense who will not needlessly throw them in harm’s way or seek to divide them with partisan politics.
So, I’d like to address a few issues now that we were not able to get to at the hearing, because we were not able to ask more than one round of questions. And I want to start with the role alliances and that our allies and partners play in our own national security.
I believe – and we’ve seen it many times since the start of this nation – that we are stronger and safer when we lead together with our allies.
And we’re fortunate, because we have strong allies and partners. We don’t see that coming from Vladimir Putin, from Xi in China, we don’t see it from the North Koreans or the Iranians, but the United States has strong allies who can stand with us.
The most important security agreement we’ve had, I think any time in our nation’s history, is NATO.
It is a critical, indispensable part of our national security, and yet, the President’s nominee for Secretary of Defense wrote in his book, American Crusade, that NATO is quote “a relic” and quote that it “should be scrapped.”
Now since his nomination, Mr. Hegseth has tried to walk back his opposition to one of our key international alliances, to NATO.
In advance policy questions for the Committee, he calls NATO a quote, “vital U.S. interest” in defending Europe and American interests from Russia and Vladimir Putin.
This sudden reversal is welcome, because I think it’s very important that our Secretary of Defense understand how critical NATO is, and that it’s stronger now than it was any time since it was formed, probably. We now have 32 members of NATO.
But Mr. Hegseth’s 11th hour conversion to understanding the importance of our allies and partners raises questions about what he really believes.
We asked on our questions for the record about NATO, and we didn’t get much of a response.
Now, if I had had the opportunity, I would have brought up Ukraine and Mr. Hegseth’s head-spinning contradictions on this matter.
Just as America’s national security interests are not to be trifled with, neither is our commitment to defending democracy and the international world order.
And any inconsistency in our commitment to support our allies and partners, to support democracy around the world, to support the international world order, that is going to be seen and exploited by our adversaries.
So again, I’m puzzled about how we should think about Mr. Hegseth’s contradictory positions on a variety of national security and foreign policy issues.
For example, he was critical of the Biden administration—as have many of us on both sides of the aisle been in this chamber—for not moving fast enough to aid Ukraine. But then question the wisdom of sending any U.S. assistance to Ukraine at all.
In 2022, Mr. Hegseth called Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” and called for faster U.S. aid to Ukraine. Now, he says the idea of Russia launching a nuclear war is “over-inflated” and plays down the severity of the conflict as merely Putin’s “give-me-my-shit-back war.”
Well, I don’t think that our NATO allies, those in the Baltics and Poland and Eastern Europe, think Vladmir Putin’s nuclear ambitions are “over inflated.”
They know the threat he poses to their countries and the world.
And to be flippant about the threat of nuclear war, I think is beneath the office of the Secretary of Defense, who will have to engage with those partners on a regular basis.
Now, I agree with President Trump that the American people want to see a resolution to this years-long war. I’m sure that’s true of the Ukrainians as well.
But Mr. Hegseth has not, either in his hearing nor in response to the questions that we submitted to him for the record, expanded on what the Department of Defense’s role should be with respect to Ukraine, even though we have already invested $66 billion in military assistance.
And again, I think it’s very important that we stand by our ally Ukraine, because of the message it sends not just to the Russians and Vladimir Putin, but because of the message it sends to Xi in China, to the Iranians, to the North Koreans, to anyone who is an adversary of the United States.
If they think we’re going to walk away from our allies, they’re going to do everything they can to divide us.
Now, on Afghanistan, Mr. Hegseth has also been inconsistent on his views of the President’s foreign policy.
Actually, he’s been inconsistent in general on the President’s foreign policies.
In the lead up to the 2016 election, Mr. Hegseth was highly critical of then-candidate Trump’s foreign policy stances, particularly on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Hegseth called Mr. Trump, who was a candidate at the time, and I quote “all bluster, very little substance” and again quoting, “an armchair tough guy.”
He criticized then-candidate Trump in 2015 for advocating for the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, but then he took the criticism back.
He sharply criticized the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, as did I, but he’s failed to publicly comment on President Trump’s 2020 deal with the Taliban, which is what set the date certain for withdrawal in 2021 that then the Biden administration was actually tied to.
Now, I agree. I agree that that withdrawal was not what I wanted to see. I didn’t support it.
But they were terms that President Trump, in his first term, set with the Taliban.
Terms that I thought gave away the store to the Taliban. Because there were no concessions from them, on what we were to get from the United States. The Government of Afghanistan was not at the table and now we’re seeing the fallout from that.
And I know that no one is watching for gaps in U.S. national security policy more closely than President Xi and the People’s Republic of China.
Now Mr. Hegseth identifies China as our peer competitor, something that I think all of us on the Armed Services Committee and probably everyone this chamber agree with.
But if Mr. Hegseth is so concerned about China, then he should realize that nothing will encourage President Xi’s aggression more than seeing America abandon our allies and partners.
Mr. Hegseth sees China’s ambitions as, quote, “a fait accompli,” and yet, he does not seem to recognize that his own inconsistencies on all these foreign policy positions could contribute to this.
A question I would like Mr. Hegseth to attempt to answer is: What message would it send to our adversaries if the U.S. ceases its support not just for Ukraine, but for the international rules and norms that underpin the global order?
Now, I’m also concerned about that with respect to the conduct of conflict. In his book “The War on Warriors,” Mr. Hegseth argued, and again I’m quoting, “our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men in mahogany rooms eighty years ago. America should fight by its own rules.”
Well, the rules that he’s talking about are the Geneva Conventions—which established bare minimum protections against violence, torture and inhumane treatments.
And they don’t just protect those people we’re fighting on the battlefield, they protect American soldiers.
During his hearing, he even doubled down to say, quote, “restrictive rules of engagement” have “made it more difficult to defeat our enemies,” and that it would be his priority, quote, “that lawyers aren’t getting in the way.”
Unfortunately—and dangerously—this appears to be the few issues that Mr. Hegseth is consistent on.
He has a documented history of supporting individuals who have violated military and international law by committing war crimes.
These are individuals who were turned in not by our enemies, but by members of their own units who were convicted of crimes by military juries. Individuals for whom Mr. Hegseth lobbied to get pardons.
I don’t think we can afford to entrust the safety and success of our men and women in uniform to a man who would himself disregard the laws of armed conflict and leave American credibility and moral authority in tatters on the world stage.
Now, while embracing officers convicted of war crimes, Mr. Hegseth has stated it is his intent to review all general officers currently serving in the Department of Defense.
And when asked if he would remove the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Hegseth responded, on the record, that, quote, “all senior officers will be reviewed.”
So, let’s just think about what that means – subjecting our general officers, in our military that is not politicized, to a political litmus test is not only unprecedented, it is dangerous.
It will convey to the American public that their leadership is political.
One of the most important roles of the Secretary of Defense is to seek out and consider open, honest and direct military advice from the senior officers in charge of our forces.
I don’t know how Mr. Hegseth expects to receive open and honest advice from his commanders when he is advocating for a purge of anyone who disagrees with him.
And I am also deeply troubled by the idea that Mr. Hegseth would act as a “yes man” himself, putting his own personal political interests above the wellbeing of our military men and women.
At Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, when asked what he would do if he received orders from President Trump that he knew to be illegal or unconstitutional, Mr. Hegseth wouldn’t give a straight answer. All he could do was deny that President Trump was capable of giving an illegal order.
And just for the record, to be clear: in his first term, President Trump did give an illegal order that then-Secretary Esper refused to follow.
And for that, Secretary Esper was fired by the President.
So, Mr. President, I am very concerned that Mr. Hegseth lacks the consistency and the moral clarity to lead the most combat-credible military in the world.
And I’m very disappointed that this body would put a nominee on the floor without the due process of advise-and-consent that the position of the Secretary of Defense deserves.
Our men and women in uniform deserve better.
And therefore, the first time since I was elected to represent the people of New Hampshire in the United States Senate, I plan to vote against this nominee for Secretary of Defense.
Thank you, I yield the floor.
As the second-ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Shaheen is instrumental in helping to accomplish top national security objectives and enhancing New Hampshire’s role in support of America’s national defense. A member of the Committee since 2011, Shaheen has voted to confirm multiple nominees from both parties under multiple administrations. During his confirmation hearing, Shaheen questioned Hegseth about his support for women service members and the Shaheen-led Women, Peace and Security law. The bipartisan Women, Peace and Security Act, was signed into law by President Donald Trump, which Shaheen leads with Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), was signed into law in 2017 and requires the U.S. Government to strengthen the meaningful participation of women in conflict prevention and peace negotiations.
Senator Shaheen is the top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also serves on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs and Defense. In 2018, Shaheen re-established the bipartisan U.S. Senate NATO Observer Group with U.S. Senator Tillis (R-NC). Senator Shaheen believes that a strong and active United States is fundamental to securing our national interests at home and abroad. She also believes that U.S. global leadership is directly tied to the strength of our ideals, our alliances and our diplomacy, and she is constantly working to ensure our national security policies reflect our broader democratic values.