▶ 0:00:00domestically for a whole series of reasons, including again the fact that we have four members of this committee who are attempting to be prosecuted by the Justice Department for exercising their right of free speech. But it also impacts foreign policy. Um the chairman brought up Russia, Ukraine, and the somewhat inconsistent support that the administration has expressed for Ukraine.
▶ 0:00:19I'm sure there's a lot of different reasons for that, but to take the president at his word, the fact that he and Putin, as he likes to say, went through the whole Russia hoax thing together, u the fact that it wasn't actually a hoax, Russia did in fact attempt to interfere with the elections aside, it seems to influence his opinion because he and Putin were together on something, whereas Zalinsky, when the president called him up and asked him to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, didn't do it.
▶ 0:00:44And then we have this whole performance art in the White House in February of Zalinsky being dressed down in the middle of a war undermining confidence in Zalinsky and undermining our ability to put the pressure on Russia that we need to put on them to end this war and protect Ukraine. Again, all of that driven by sort of a personal amount of loyalty and a grievance that the president has and we see that play out in the tariffs.
▶ 0:01:10We have a 50% tariff on India after Modi doesn't give Trump credit for ending the war in Pakistan and India, which apparently he didn't have much to do with. We put a 50% tariff on Brazil because they weren't nice to Bolsson, who Trump likes. We also put a tariff on Switzerland, and I confess as I'm talking to you, I forget exactly why. It's hard to keep track of all of the grievances past a certain point. But but that undermines any sense that we have a set of values in terms of how we're trying to approach our foreign policy.
▶ 0:01:41The next step in all this is resources here. This is more of a a a bipartisan problem. As we've discussed, we seem to think that we have infinite resources. We can cut taxes and spend $ 1.5 trillion um on on the defense budget without ever contemplating how do we use those resources better. So, what do you seriously want to hear given the amount of money we have, how are we going to make this work?
▶ 0:02:03And and one particular example of this, which I'm going to come back to over and over again, is of course the $22 billion battleship, which seems like a horrific idea to spend that much money when we have so many other needs. And by the way, for those of you who follow the whole poly market thing, if they're giving the opportunity to bet, take the over on that. It's going to be more than $22 billion to build that battleship. And we walk down that road. So, how are we husbanding the resources that we have in order to achieve our objective?
▶ 0:02:33But the overall biggest problem is the Trump administration has decided that an excessive reliance on violence, threats, coercion, and the use of the military isn't just their go-to option. It's pretty much all they've got. If somebody in the world isn't doing exactly what we want, our approach is let's punch them in the face repeatedly until they capitulate. And then frankly, even after they capitulate, we decide to keep punching them in the face just on the off chance that they might change their mind.
▶ 0:03:03And I think, as I said, the Financial Times summed this up fairly well this morning when it said, "Let me get all of this straight in my head. They want their allies to join in an ill-thoughtout war of choice with unclear aims and an uncertain chance of success for any of the myriad aims stated so far. They want everyone else just to just absorb any of the externalities like influxes of refugees, disruptions to shipping, higher oil and commodity prices, and maybe even some incoming missiles.
▶ 0:03:31And then they also want to tariff everyone at 15%. I'm not sure they can keep pushing at everyone all at once indefinitely. There seems to be an inability here not just to anticipate second and third order effects, but even just to model a response from any other party, much less every other party. The rest of the world does matter. And I suppose maybe we can just say we're the United States. Whatever we want, you have to give it to us. And if you don't, we're going to bomb you, terror you or do something to you.
▶ 0:04:01But that type of confrontation creates more chaos and more war which is what we have seen. I know everyone likes to dump on the international rules-based order. Okay. But the alternative to that was might makes right was basically whoever's strongest go take what you want and we'll just fight it out. And after a whole series of world wars called in the war it killed 70 million people and blew the entire industrial world off world off the face of the map. We decided let's try something else. It isn't perfect. All right.
▶ 0:04:30Not everyone follows the laws all the time, but it seems like what the US has said is we're going to dump that entirely and we're going to take what we want, when we want, and how we want, and the rest of the world can go to hell. I don't think that's going to end well. So, I would like to see some kind of plan as to how other tools in our toolbox other than just the military, you know, diplomacy, aid, foreign aid, which of course we decided to cut off food and health care from hundreds of thousands of people so that they starve to death. That doesn't help either.
▶ 0:04:59Are there other tools that we think about other than just coercion, violence, force, and the use of the military? I think there should be. And I guess the the final question I want you to consider is when President Trump was running for office, he said over and over and over again, I'm not going to do wars. In fact, he very specifically said, if I'm president, we will not go to war with Iran. And here we are. So, I'm genuinely curious, what changed?
▶ 0:05:27what changed from when he was a candidate to when he was in office that has led us to the level of conflict that we are now experiencing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I thank the ranking member. I'd now like to introduce our witness, Mr. Elbridge Kobe is the under secret of defense for policy. Thank you for being here. Mr. Kobe, you are recognized.
▶ 0:05:45Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the distinguished members of this committee to testify on the Department of Wars 2026 National Defense Strategy. The animating purpose of this strategy was to put into reality the logic of President Trump's common sense America first peace through strength approach. At its heart, as detailed in the 2025 national security strategy issued by the White House, this approach is channeled through the principle of flexible realism.
▶ 0:06:14That is the effort to practically and realistically advance and protect the concrete interests of regular Americans. The core of a strategy, as the national security strategy eloquently describes, is to evaluate, sort, and prioritize. Needless to say, this is of special importance in the realm of war and peace. The heavy responsibility of effectively doing so motivated our work at the department to produce the 2026 NDS.
▶ 0:06:41And we believe under Secretary Hegs leadership that we have done so. Under President Trump's leadership and with your support in the Congress, the American military is and will be the world's finest, an unmatched fighting force that has impressively demonstrated its prowess in recent months. Operations Midnight Hammer, Absolute Resolve, and now Epic Fury. At the same time, we recognize that as Secretary Hegsth has aptly put it, we cannot do everything everywhere all the time.
▶ 0:07:11This is of course a practical reality. The American military, while without peer, is not infinite in its application and resources. Potential opponents have been building their strength and capabilities, and it is not fair, just, or sustainable to ask the American people to bear burdens that are inequitably distributed with those of our allies and partners. As a result, we must prioritize, and this strategy does so. It does not do so in a way that is pinched or hesitant.
▶ 0:07:37Instead, it does so in a way that prudently and practically navigates between two unreasonable extremes. On the one hand, an isolationism that pretends that we can retreat from the world and that favorable stability will emerge. And on the other hand, an unfettered use of military force for overly expansive ends that would drain the American people's will and resources in unnecessary and overly ambitious conflict.
▶ 0:08:01This strategy rather prudently adopts a middle course that will actually put us on a far firmer, more successful, and thus more lasting course than either of these extreme alternatives. In particular, the NDS does so, we contend, by intelligently and strategically allocating our resources and that of our incredible armed forces towards the priorities that most affect regular Americans and where our efforts are most material and necessary to achieve American interests in the world.
▶ 0:08:29This is a reflection of common sense America first thinking. As a deduction, the strategy is built on four pillars. First, it restores, after decades of neglect by some administrations, the military's role in securing our homeland and ensuring that our key interests in our native hemisphere are protected. This is critical for regular Americans because we must ensure that we are directly protected and secure in our own home area.
▶ 0:08:54While the military is only a part of this effort and often far from the leading element, it does play a critical role that we'll be enduring. Second, the strategy focuses our military effort on ensuring the preservation of a favorable balance of power in the Indoacific, the world's largest market area. America's interests there are real and significant because of the scale of that market. At the same time, our interests are not limitless. We do not need to dominate that region.
▶ 0:09:20Rather, we only need to prevent that da vast and dynamic area from being dominated itself so that we can trade and interact with it on fair and reasonable terms for regular Americans. As a result, our strategy there is to deter China through strength, not confrontation. We understand that China is a very powerful country that is undertaking an extraordinary military buildup. That is a simple fact. At the same time, we are clear that we do not seek conflict with China. To the contrary, we seek to avoid it.
▶ 0:09:50We make clear that our interests with respect to China are scoped and reasonable. We do not seek to strangle China nor compel a change in its form of government. Rather, we seek to prevent China from becoming the hegeimon of the Indo-acific. In particular, this requires, as the national security strategy clearly states, being able to deny the feasibility of successful aggression along the first island chain because of its significance and the central importance of the military role in meeting this requirement.
▶ 0:10:17Meeting this standard of an effective denial defense along the first island chain is the primary focus of the US armed forces. At the same time, ensuring our forces can pace to this challenging standard will ensure that the department can always offer the president the operational flexibility and agility required for other objectives, especially the ability to launch decisive operations against targets anywhere, including as we see today in Operation Epic Fury.
▶ 0:10:45It is critical to emphasize here that our strategy is aligned not only with the interests of our allies in the Indoacific but with many other countries as well that are not formerly our allies. These stakes states excuse me seek to their autonomy and thus their ability to chart their own national futures on their own terms. This too is our goal as Secretary Hegsth eloquently laid out last year at the Shang Law Forum and our military focus alongside the efforts of our allies and partners is designed to uphold that ability.
▶ 0:11:15Third, we recognize clearly that there are other real threats around the world that imperil our allies and indeed our own interests directly. We do not neglect that. To the contrary, we see it clearly. But we also understand that we need to allocate our own resources realistically and prudently and that we must account for our allies and partners' ability and will to meet those challenges as well. This is why the strategy so strongly emphasizes burden sharing which is its third pillar.
▶ 0:11:40The logic here is to encourage, enable, and wherever necessary to press our allies and partners in other theaters to take primary responsibility for their conventional defense. This makes sense because, as is so often pointed out, we are allies with many of the world's largest and most advanced economies. As a result, we do indeed have an alliance network that has tremendous latent military power. Unfortunately, over the last generation, partially due to our own permissiveness and perhaps even hubris on this point, many of our allies have functionally demilitarized.
▶ 0:12:11This is untenable and unreasonable. And the fact is that our allies know it and are moving rapidly and substantially to step up. They are no longer, because of President Trump's leadership, fighting the scenario. Rather, they have now accepted they must step up and are beginning rapidly to do so. As our result, our approach has adapted to one of let's get down to business. In Europe, we are urging our allies to move to a model of NATO 3.0 in which wealthy European allies take the lead for the conventional defense of European NATO.
▶ 0:12:41On the Korean Peninsula, we are urging our South Korean ally to do the same visa v North North Korea. And the good news, distinguished members, is that this is working. Our allies are indeed stepping up along these lines. Now, the issue is helping them do so and making this transition as rapidly and effectively as possible, which is indeed our focus. In other regions, we are also urging and seeing progress with our allies along the First Island chain with countries like Japan and Australia.
▶ 0:13:05We are urging these wealthy and capable allies to do their part for collective defense as the NSS urges. In the Western Hemisphere, we are working with many like-minded countries in the region to address shared threats to our prosperity and well-being as today's conference in Miami demonstrates. And in the Middle East, we are actively working with our model ally Israel and other regional partners to address the threat of Iran and terrorism. Indeed, the very purpose of Operation Epic Fury. The final pillar of the strategy, as you mentioned, Mr.
▶ 0:13:34Chairman, is to supercharge the defense industrial base. The NSS and NDS, and I stress this, both call for a national mobilization of our industrial capacity to arm both our own forces and those of our allies and partners. As you on this committee know so well, this is vital because we must be able to arm our own forces and those of our allies and partners with the best weaponry quickly, at scale, and at a reasonable price.
▶ 0:13:59We are seeing tremendous progress on this front thanks to President Trump, Secretary Hegsth, and Deputy Secretary Fineberg's efforts, as well as your support and leadership in Congress. But this will be a critical contin continuing area of focus in the coming years. In closing, the strategy promises under President Trump's leadership to put our country and our allies and partners on the path to lasting security.
▶ 0:14:21In just a few years, we can expect the war fighting ethos to have been restored in our armed forces and for them to be armed with the most modern effective weaponry at scale. We can expect our wealthy allies and partners around the world to have stepped up to do their part for collective defense and their own security.
▶ 0:14:39We can expect our potential opponents to see the peerlessly formidable armed forces of the United States and the highly capable forces of our allies and partners together and to conclude that peace and restraint is the better course for them. Thus, we can very much reasonably hope for a decent peace for Americans, for our allies, and for that matter for our potential opponents. This is a very good future to which we can reasonably aspire. At the same time, however, we at the Department of War know that we cannot take this future for granted.
▶ 0:15:08To the contrary, we will hope for the best but prepare for the worst. We will ensure that our armed forces are as ready as they can possibly be in line with the priorities outlined. Should our potential opponents spurn this reasonable offer, members of this committee, your support in ensuring that our forces are ready will be absolutely vital. Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:15:27I thank you and I'll recognize myself for questions. Uh I have uh over the last couple years spoken repeatedly with General Grink Grinkowitz, the Yukcom commander, his predecessor at Yukcom, uh General Cavolei, and US Army Europe commander Donahghue about the uh decision to withdraw the brigade from All of them made the assessment this would increase NATO's risk uh in turning post their posture against Russia.
▶ 0:15:55But it also sent a terrible signal about the United States commitment to NATO. General Cavolei in fact last year when he testified before us um in the posture hearing left absolutely no doubt during that hearing that it was his best military advice that we keep that fifth brigade in Europe. Then we had President Trump state two days before the decision was made that there would be quote no significant changes to US force posture in Europe.
▶ 0:16:26And then also uh we had Secretary Rubio told his Romanian counterpart counterpoint two weeks the very same When I was in your office, I told you there was overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress for keeping our posture in Europe at five brigades.
▶ 0:16:45It's clear to me that you decided that pushing your agenda on US force posture without inter agency coord coordination and without regard to the president's opinion or congresses was the way to go. Can you explain to me how you arrived at that position?
▶ 0:17:02Thanks for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Let me uh I I categorically assert that I was straight with you in our discussions and I commit to be. Um so that just kind of lay flat as they say in the Pentagon on that point. Let me reassure you emphatically that I'm a loyal lieutenant of the president and we don't do anything in the department of war that is not aligned with president. I am not in the chain of command sir. So when you say you I I can only infer that you are referring to President Trump's department of war.
▶ 0:17:30I stay very very closely tied in with secretary heath who is of course with the president essentially every day uh whether directly physically or otherwise. So let me just stress once again sir that these are the policies of the Trump administration. We I am a loyal attendant of the president and we follow his instructions on this this issue as others.
▶ 0:17:49On the specifics of the matter sir couple things we actually this decision was coordinated through normal channels within the department of war and did receive best military advice and in fact some of the uh I will say uh some of the reasons for doing it was the significant stress on the army forces that were deployed there. So that was actually some of the uh uh in fact I we all heard about it directly and um I without without getting into individuals because it's deliberative within the executive branch.
▶ 0:18:17I have a different understanding of the best military advice provided by some of our commanders. So happy
▶ 0:18:22we aren't competent to hear best military advice in this committee.
▶ 0:18:25I'm sorry.
▶ 0:18:26You're telling me that we aren't competent to receive best mil?
▶ 0:18:28I'm not saying at all. You're absolutely confident. It's your absolute sat in that chair and told us that it was his best military advice commander. successor told us the very same thing.
▶ 0:18:39I'm not questioning your integrity in this list, sir, but I heard something different in terms of when we made that decision. So, without getting into personalities and then actually, sir, and I can I won't quote the individual specifically, but a very relevant senior European official actually said that this was a very beneficial signal. I heard that about several weeks ago and has demonstrated to Europeans that they need to set.
▶ 0:18:59Sir, I don't I I was asked not to maybe in close session we could go into it, but I can give you chap.
▶ 0:19:04We'll have a close session right after this. I look forward to
▶ 0:19:05happy to do that, sir. Mhm.
▶ 0:19:08All right. Um, we um the decision, as I understand it, to remove that brigade was made on October 24th. Our committee was formally notified on the 27th. How can you characterize telling us 3 days later that that's consultation with Congress, which you are constitutionally required to do when it comes to force posture decisions like that?
▶ 0:19:33Sir, I'd have to get back to you on the details, but we take our our uh duty to consult with Cong Congress uh very seriously. Obviously, we're we're focused on preserving the presence. I know you share the desire to preserve the president's decision space, and we want to make sure we do that as well as Secretary Hegaths, but uh you can rest assured. In fact, my office uh just in the last four or five months, I think, has done upwards of 100 uh touches both with your committee and the armed services committee as well, Senate Armed Services Committee as well as with other parts of the Congress.
▶ 0:20:01So I I would go so far as to say our organization is one of the leaders in congressional
▶ 0:20:09We see that completely differently. It's been like pulling
▶ 0:20:12I'd be delighted sir to make sure that we rectify that. I know Miss Earl
▶ 0:20:15and the SAS has had the same public statements that it's been difficult to get information from your
▶ 0:20:19I think sir if I could maybe just say on that if you look at for instance some of the leading members of the SAS they they've actually said that we have been doing a much better job and we're not perfect. I I certainly don't say that sir. So, welcome uh feedback and uh you know it was very good to meet with uh ranking member Smith. I'd welcome meeting members from throughout. I know met with some of the members here. So, uh you know, we're we're we're
▶ 0:20:41All right. Well, um I still feel strongly that I concur with the last two Yukcom commanders and General Donahghue that we need five brigades in Yukon. Um, having said that, we're at four now, thanks to the decision that came out of your department. Now, on September 25th of 2020, um, September 3rd of 2025, President Trump welcomed the Polish president to the White House.
▶ 0:21:09During that visit, when asked by a reporter whether the United States would continue stationing troops in Poland, President Trump responded, quote, "We'll put more there if they want. We'll stay in Poland. We're very much aligned with Poland." Period. Close quote. Do you agree with the president's position that the United States will at a minimum maintain the two armored brigades that are currently in Poland?
▶ 0:21:33Uh, Mr. Chairman, you can rest assure that I will absolutely uh implement the president's guidance on that matter as on others.
▶ 0:21:40Okay. So, we will not be dropping below four brigades in Yukon in the foreseeable future. Sir, I want to be careful to preserve the president's decision space and be I'd have to go back and uh specifically look at what the president said and the instructions he's given us. But, you know, my my point is that we will absolutely make it a point of pride uh and a point of focus to ensure that we're tightly aligned. We do that through uh you know, I particularly through Secretary Hegsth who's with the president every day. So, we have a very very tight alignment with the president and this is his defense strategy.
▶ 0:22:10This is his war department obviously with the congress needless to say. But you can rest assured, sir, that we are in tight alignment with with
▶ 0:22:17I have a real concern about that when two days after the president said there'd be no significant changes in US force posture, you announced that you were taking a brigade out of there. But
▶ 0:22:27I would just stress, sir, that the Department of War and I would once again stress that I'm I'm not in the chain of command. So those decisions I I'm not even and I don't presume to a level of authority that I don't have not been given by the Congress and the president. So I just, you know, I'm here to represent the Department of War. These are decisions by the Department of War under presidential guidance.
▶ 0:22:44Well, I just want you to know going forward, uh, we feel very strongly that Congress has a say so in these matters, and we're going to help y'all understand that in the coming months and years. I recognize, ranking member.
▶ 0:22:57Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of different ways to ask this question, but the bottom line is what what does success look like in Iran? Basically, what are the objectives that we are trying to achieve? And what what does it look like when we go, okay, we've achieved our objectives, success, we're done, we're out.
▶ 0:23:15Uh thank you, uh Mr. Smith. We're thinking a lot about this. I would say I can give you the perspective from the department of war which uh represents the direction that the president has given for the military campaign which is specifically focused on degrading and destroying the power projection conventional particularly the conventional power projection capabilities uh of the Islamic Republic of Iran and thus especially missile one-way attack drones capabilities and their um production uh as well as the naval forces of the Islamic
▶ 0:23:43how destroyed does it have to
▶ 0:23:45Well, I think that's that's I mean we're going to seek to the best we can. I think we are we're on plan as Admiral Cooper has said. I think that can nest with a variety of political outcomes as the president referred to the other day.
▶ 0:23:57two parts of that I I keep hearing that we're on plan and I keep asking and this is oversimplification but I don't know they had 10,000 missiles now they have 8,000 and I keep getting told we don't really have those spec specific information yet. So how do we know that we're on plan if we can't
▶ 0:24:15you know we don't want to repeat you know the mistakes of mamera and a false kind of numerousy to it but I would say that you know we are looking at the strategic level that's we are you know uh and I know some of the um both civilian and uniform representatives will be briefing you in classified session later today. So obviously those numbers are important, but we're looking more at a strategic level at degrading the the capabilities of the Islamic Republic, not only fielded forces, but the production cap.
▶ 0:24:39The lack of specifics on that are troubling in terms of how long this is going to last. And then the second piece of it is what you alluded to, which is okay, so we've done we've done this before. I mean, we did it a year ago, Israel did it over the course of two years and significantly degraded Iran um at a much lower cost in terms of the regional war. But when that's done, if the Islamic Republic is still there, they will simply rebuild. So what is the objective to prevent that from
▶ 0:25:06I don't think that's a given at all. Uh
▶ 0:25:08well, it's not a given, but what what's the objective the Islam? I mean, as as Secretary Hegath said, you know, part of this and I think Secretary Rubio as well was, you know, the Iran was building uh conventional shield to enable a recovery of its nuclear ambitions. And so obviously as part of the you know end state uh without being too kind of uh linear about it is to prevent an outcome where they don't have the incentive and that's where the Venezuela model I think there's a realistic sense we have learned the lessons of Iraq and not being overly
▶ 0:25:36understand that Iran comparing Iran to Venezuela is like I don't know comparing Kentucky to Venezuela. It's equally valid. um arise.
▶ 0:25:46I don't think it's a perfect analogy, sir, but I think there I'm just making a point about in terms of the flexibility of the political objective. And of course, the president has said it's a histo fact historic opportunity for the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow this noxious government, right? But that's not
▶ 0:26:00there's no particular plan for that actually happening more of
▶ 0:26:03a whole the department of war has been instructed to focus on the military forces of the
▶ 0:26:08second piece of this that I want want to get into is I think what President Trump meant when he was on the campaign trail saying that we won't go to Iran go to war with Iran is the same thing he meant if I was president the Ukraine war wouldn't have happened that his his mere presence and his policies will stop that that's the America first agenda so I guess how did the America first agenda to fail in Iran because I think the president sincerely meant that.
▶ 0:26:34He sincerely meant you put me in the in office, I'm going to do things that's going to make sure that we don't go to war with Iran. He failed. We're at war with Iran and 14 other countries had been dragged into it. So the the speech that you laid out was very well said, you know, and if that is what was happening, I'd have some quibbles, but at least we could live with it. But very clearly that agenda failed in Iran. Why?
▶ 0:26:56I I don't think, sir, it failed. Well, I mean, the president has been consistent for many years that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and it's a serious
▶ 0:27:01He's also been consistent that he would not that that war would look anyone can come in and blow stuff up. I mean, that option's been on the table and that's the option we've been taking a long time. And that was sort of the president's argument was I'm different. I'm so strong that this isn't going to happen on my watch. And he was wrong. It did. I
▶ 0:27:19I don't think that's I don't think the president's wrong. I think the president's demonstrated I mean in his first term as well, but certainly in his second term that he is prepared to use the military instrument. That's why he keeps referring to peace through strength, of course, right? There's the strength element and it has to be credible. He has I I have different assessments. I do think he's he's he's used the peace and the diplomacy abundantly over the over the last year and a half, right? I mean, all the peace deals, etc. Spent a lot of time Gaza for instance, uh you know, uh and and many of these other conflicts.
▶ 0:27:46So, I think he very much is prepared and he he was willing to talk to the Islamic Republic. But I think that his determination and others, Mr. Kushner, Mr. Whit Rubio was that the
▶ 0:27:55I want to let some others get in here that that's solid enough answer but again there's no question that that that he failed in the sense that you know he said there was going to be no war if he was president here we are. I mean that those those are just facts. So we need to figure out how we got there. I I yield back. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:28:10Thank the gentleman chair and I recognize a gentleman from South Carolina Mr. Wilson.
▶ 0:28:14Thank you Chairman Rogers for this timely hearing. America I believe is in a conflict we didn't choose. dictators with rule of gun who are invading democracies with rule of law. It began of course in February 24, 2022 when war criminal Putin invaded Ukraine and then it was followed up by the puppets of Iran invading Israel on October 7, 2023. With that in mind, uh I am grateful in your opening statement that you have cited the threat of the Chinese Communist Party in Iran.
▶ 0:28:45But the axis of evil includes war criminal Putin resurrecting the failed Soviet Union with mass murder in Ukraine since 2014 as Putin has rigged elections in Bellarus and Georgia with Russian occupation of South Oessia and Obcasia of Georgia while occupying Transnistria of Muldova. Incredibly, President Trump has achieved the 5% GDP by NATO allies, but peace needs more secondary sanctions on war criminal Putin.
▶ 0:29:14Additionally, war criminal Putin, I believe, is insulting you. Uh he is mocking you personally. Uh as President Trump has indicated, uh he's Putin speaks lovely in the morning and conducts mass murder in the afternoon. With that in mind, Secretary Kby, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, we're preventing endless wars, prioritizing American security and peace through strength.
▶ 0:29:39The national defense strategy seeks to shift responsibility for security in the Middle East to Israel and our Arab partners and prioritize other threats, and you've indicated the other threats uh should be focused on on the Indo-Pacific. Do you believe that Operation Epic Fury risked wasting the department's limited resources needed to deter war with China?
▶ 0:30:02Uh I Mr. uh Wilson I think that the operation Epic Fury is actually an example of exactly what what was talked about in the strategy. Uh the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran is is explicitly detailed. Uh and also the ability for the president to be able to take uh you know effective action against those threats. It's actually a validation of the approach towards allies and partners because we see right now obviously Israel a model ally really taking the meime but also if I could conclude also
▶ 0:30:29we're going to maintain we're going to maintain every effort uh in uh success for operation uh epic fury
▶ 0:30:37absolutely we're we're committed to making sure that operation epic fury is a success
▶ 0:30:41and indeed an extraordinary development today to me Iran has attacked Bashan and attacked Syria I am confident President Ilham Allayaf and Ahmad the president of Azan and Ahmad Alshara, president of Syria that Azan and Syria now will take action against Iran which again adds to our capabilities of uh reducing the threat by Iran.
▶ 0:31:09Additionally, uh war crime with Putin continues and our allies in the NATO flank face sustained pressure. Congress is aligned with the clear objectives. Uh Congress appropriated $400 million for the European capacity fund to strengthen regional deterrence in partner capability. What is the policy's recommendation for using the $400 million appropriated in the European capacity fund?
▶ 0:31:35Sir, I'd have to take that back. I'll get I'm not familiar with the specific issue, but I'll I'll commit to promptly getting back to you on that. Sir,
▶ 0:31:41indeed. uh you set the policy guidance for the security cooperation and uh I would urge you that indeed these funds should be used uh to support the brave and courageous people of Ukraine. Hey, for four years uh they've stood up to a murderous dictator. I was in Kev in December uh before the invasion and the entire planning was resistance and guerrilla warfare.
▶ 0:32:04The people of Ukraine have stood up uh for four years uh and criminal Putin has actually lost nearly a million troops killed and wounded. Uh and uh every effort should be made to back up our Europe uh our Ukrainian allies and the intent of the $400 million Ukraine security assistance initiative which was authorized in the NDAA. Additionally, President Trump has made it clear that the Baltics and Poland are model NATO allies.
▶ 0:32:33The current force posture must be maintained for the benefit of American deterrence and commitment to the eastern flank from our allies of Bulgaria and Romania to Estonia, Lapia and Lithuania. And so I'm just uh again so hopeful that uh indeed policies will reflect uh the axis of evil needs to be defeated. Uh and it's war criminal Putin. Uh it's the soontobe uh totally removed regime uh in Thran and the Chinese Communist Party.
▶ 0:33:03With that, I yield back.
▶ 0:33:05Thank you, gentlemen. Chair and I recognize a gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
▶ 0:33:09Thank Thank you uh Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Colby um in the unclassified NDS that u again was just uh issued about a month ago. On page 11, it states, quote, "The Iran's regime is weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades, and that their axis of resistance is similarly devastated." For anyone who understands the English language, your department uh clearly explicitly downgraded the threat that Iran poses to our nation.
▶ 0:33:35Yet, suddenly on February 28th, just a few weeks later, uh that all changed. Epic Fury was launched. Six service members have lost their lives because of in my opinion a gross failure of force protection and there still is no coherent explanation of what caused the change and what is the endgame. And that's why if you look at public opinion polls over the last week uh across the board there's been no rally around the flag uh reaction by the American public.
▶ 0:34:02Uh first of all they kind of took you at your word and president at his word when he said that the nuclear threat was obliterated just a few months ago. Uh and now suddenly we're engaged in a war which uh again for a lot of people um you know feels very much like past experiences which didn't end uh very well. Um I want to also for a moment just focus on the NDS's um uh sort of almost insulting comments about burden sharing by our European allies uh in NATO.
▶ 0:34:32Uh again when you laid out in the in the NDS what are the homeland security threats? what's the threats in the Western Hemisphere? There is not a word uh in there about the fact that Putin even in the middle of the Ukraine war has still been increasing his investment in its nuclear forces. Uh General Guillot from the uh Northern Command when he testified uh this past year in 2025 when he was asked the question again in a public setting, what are the threats to the homeland?
▶ 0:35:01uh made it very clear that the bomber fleet uh sorties that the Russians uh have been um uh conducting over the North Atlantic uh coastline uh that uh submarine patrols uh there was a port visit in Cuba uh and again um you know there's no question that uh for some of us who uh have had the briefings um this is something that actually has been accelerating over the last few years or so not a mention not a syllable uh in the NDS in terms of the Western Hemisphere threats uh that
▶ 0:35:31again you you posted there in terms of burden sharing as the Norwegian prime minister pointed out to President Trump not too long ago. Um he stated the uh the Russians uh nuclear arsenal is 100 kilometers from its border and the Cola Peninsula. They are the eyes and ears for the United States of America in terms of patrols that go in and out uh from that region.
▶ 0:35:58They invested uh some serious money before President Trump was president uh in purchasing P8s to conduct those ASW patrols. Denmark, UK, France, Greenland, Iceland, Canada, uh all of them are part of the effort to protect the US homeland. And again, the the premier made it very clear that arsenal is not aimed at Norway. It's aimed at us.
▶ 0:36:24So when when is there going to be a recognition by you know your NDS about the fact that really I think probably the most existential threat to the homeland has over the years decades really u been a team effort with our European allies which they have gladly contributed to even though for them it's not their number one uh closest uh security threat.
▶ 0:36:50Well thanks sir. Uh maybe I could refer to you page 12 of the document. Uh it says Iran's leaders uh uh although it s suffered severe setbacks, it appears intent on reconstituting its conventional military and Iran's leaders have also left open the possibility they will try again to obtain a nuclear weapon. I won't go uh much further but obviously the the threat of Iran is countenanced in here and we talked about the burden sharing piece but also the ability of the president to use force.
▶ 0:37:13And then sir I on page 10 about about Russia the document says um Russia also possessed the world's largest nuclear arsenal which it continues to modernize and diversify as well as undersea space and cyber capabilities that it can employ against the US homeland. So, so obviously this is also the unclassified version, so I don't need to
▶ 0:37:29Well, I've read the class I've actually read the classifiably here.
▶ 0:37:32I I've read the classified version. It is radically different from the briefings that we've gotten from Northcom and Yukon over the years.
▶ 0:37:39I can't possibly agree with that. It's fully incorporated. We take those threats very seriously.
▶ 0:37:44Yeah. And and unfortunately, you don't give credit where credit is due in terms of our allies that again
▶ 0:37:49our allies are making tons of progress. I saw it in Europe. We're we're moving out. Again, this had preceded Trump really. Again, I have the the submarine base in Grten where those patrols are happening. Again, that collaboration has been going on for many, many years.
▶ 0:38:03We think alliances are actually important and not just symbols, sir. That's the big the the hack for what we're doing.
▶ 0:38:09Well, they do. They do too. That's what's missing in your NDS.
▶ 0:38:13It's working, sir.
▶ 0:38:14Gentlemen, time's expired. Chair, I recognize gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
▶ 0:38:18Mr. Kobe, this is going to be a nice transition uh from your conversation you just had turning YouTube page 10 where you were just referencing on Russia. You agree that Russia is an adversary and a and a direct threat to the United
▶ 0:38:30Russian Russian military forces clearly pose a direct threat to the United States. Of course. Yes.
▶ 0:38:34Excellent. Uh you were just being interviewed in a publication foreign policy that was published February 2026 concerning um our commitment to NATO. You acknowledged um the United States is committed to NATO. It is committed to article 5. The administration from the president on down has made that clear. You you made that statement un
▶ 0:39:00Um however, you were then asked further questions about that statement after having made the unequivocal blank statement. And quite frankly, you waffled. Um, and I'm going to give you a chance to unwaffle.
▶ 0:39:16And the unwaffling is, um, in that blanket statement, um, I think you made it clear that within NATO, there are no territories within NATO that are secondass citizens. There are no territories within NATO that are not uh, within our article 5 commitment. Correct. the Baltics, the Balkans, there are no areas in which we have a lesser
▶ 0:39:44Sir, I bet I respect that you're you're making those statements. What I said is we are committed to article 5 which is enshrined in the Washington treaty. That's what I said. So to make it clear so that your waffling which goes on page after page since you are capable of making the blanket statement you are capable of saying that within the blanket statement of the United States is committed to NATO NATO the aggregate of NATO and is committed to article 5.
▶ 0:40:13you are capable with in front of this committee that is committed to NATO and committed to article 5 to acknowledge that there is no territory within NATO that there's a secondass citizen and there's no area within which that in within our national defense strategy is a lesser territory
▶ 0:40:32sir what I said and what I continue to say is that article 5
▶ 0:40:35that's a yes or no question Mr. Kobe and a member of Congress. You have ability to say
▶ 0:40:39tremendous respect. What I said, sir.
▶ 0:40:41is the is article five of the Washington treaty applies to all of NATO. Of course. Absolutely.
▶ 0:40:46Great. Thank you. Thank you for that because you didn't have to go on and on and to continue which is what everybody's struggling with here. And I and I want to just say I want to agree with the chairman. What's been so difficult and which is really kind of gross sitting here listening to you is the chairman has said he feels like you're dishonest. Right. And you have been so disingenuous.
▶ 0:41:07Every time you answer a question, you feel this need to just just continue on in this in in these these clarifications that are are really very unnecessary and that this this clarifications that you give make us all concerned about your commitment to the truth. And I want to give you some of those clarifications that make me uncertain and really very concerned about the policymaking within the department.
▶ 0:41:36You talk about the Trump administration. When people ask you questions about the president's decision-making when we're asking about President Trump, you redefine it as the Trump administration. You say our decisions are aligned with the president as if you're reinterpreting the president's decision-making. I want to know about the president's decision-making, not you being your interpretation about being aligned.
▶ 0:42:01So tell me you're not trying to make decisions where you're just divining an alignment with the president and interpretation that President Trump is the one making decisions because up here we're losing confidence as to whether or not Mr. K's going into a room and trying to decide whether or not he's aligned with the president or whether or not President Trump's making decisions because we're all comfortable with Mr. Trump's and President Trump's decision were not comfortable with Mr. K's.
▶ 0:42:27Well, sir, a couple things. Uh, first of all, I make a point of being truthful, so I categorically reject your characterization, but I'm happy to answer your question,
▶ 0:42:34Mr. Chairman. And you didn't reject it when he was telling you that he had had conversations with you and was very concerned about what you'd said to him and then what had happened.
▶ 0:42:43I I believe I'm just making the point in in general. Um, we make it very much our business. Part of being truthful is I give you a sense of what I know and what I don't know. I can't speak. I'm not I'm often the secretary is the one who's primarily over in the White House, but we make sure that we are very lined up. Uh he's secretary is with the president.
▶ 0:43:01Again, lined up that we
▶ 0:43:03I want you to make certain that the and I am a loyal lieutenant of the president. Uh Mr. Turner, I can assert that. Absolutely. Well, we are very very concerned in this committee that that is not necessarily happening at times and that's what we try to assert and what we try to make certain happens. I yield back.
▶ 0:43:25Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from California, Mr.
▶ 0:43:30Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:43:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um thank you, Mike, for bringing very serious clarity to this issue. So I think where we're going here is instead of saying the administration, we're going to start saying the president.
▶ 0:43:46Uh so the very first pre uh page of the president's national defense strategy states that the department will no longer quote be distracted by this wars, regime change and nation In the last three months, however, this the president I would add the word administration here, but I'm going to follow on you.
▶ 0:44:12The president has started wars of choice in South America, the Middle East, and he's failed to lay out any strategic plan for an endgame or a consistent justification for these By the president's own account, uh he has decided to use missile strikes to murder people in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific, raid and seize
▶ 0:44:43the dictator of a foreign country. And he the president has started a war with Iran and placed our troops in harm's way in the Middle East. He's al the president has also refused to directly supply necessary weapons to Ukraine and the president has said he wants All of this raises the question of what in the hell is going on?
▶ 0:45:13What is what is the strategy? What is the purpose of all of this? Uh the president also said that on day one he would be a dictator. He didn't say when he would end his but for those of us that have observed the president and his policies and his rather wild strategies, we're going, it appears as though this dictatorship's not going to end.
▶ 0:45:43And you're here basically carrying the president's water and trying to answer the questions that this committee has If it hasn't been clear to you yet, we're concerned that the president and his staff and minions are disrespecting the Congress of the United States, this committee, and simply going to do whatever a dictator wants
▶ 0:46:13to do. Now, am I correct that the president is going to do whatever he wants to do? Wakes up in the morning, he said, "Well, we obliterated the nuclear program in Iran." Couple of months go by, he wakes up in the morning and said, "We're going to go to war with Iran because of their nuclear capability." I don't get it.
▶ 0:46:42And if you not yet figured out from the comments of my colleagues up here, we don't get it. But indeed, we seem to have a president that every morning wakes up with a different strategy. So where are we going here? Can you explain what the president wants to in the Caribbean? Will he remove the dictator?
▶ 0:47:12But the same regime's in place and by current reports the military is now engaged in a some effort maybe not a war but some effort in Ecuador that was not explained to this committee So what's going on here? Do you a representative of the president understand the constitution?
▶ 0:47:41The Constitution gives the Congress of the United States the sole power to wage war. We can debate what the uh authorization to use force is all about. So, please explain to me in the next 30 seconds what in the hell is this president doing? Uh I'm honored to be here as a representative of the president and to explain that I do think he's advancing American interests in putting them first.
▶ 0:48:07In the case of the Caribbean, he's going after narcot terrors that have been directly contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of of Americans and the Middle East. He's taking action against the noxious Islamic Republic of the of Iran, which I know on both sides of the aisle there shared sense of the threat
▶ 0:48:22in the president's national defense strategy. He said he would not be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nation building. But that's precisely that is precisely what's going on. Gentleman times expired chair and I recognize gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Whitman.
▶ 0:48:39Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Kobe, for joining us. I I want to pick up where Sen Senator Wicker left off. Um, Taiwan is not mentioned in the National Defense Strategy and what we say publicly and what's in a document really matter. You know that the Congress has provided $850 million in the presidential draw down authority for Taiwan. You know that we provided $1 billion in the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative.
▶ 0:49:04Uh, and despite clear congressional intent and even the direction in your strategy, it doesn't appear as though any of those dollars have been executed by the department. Uh, what's the status of that funding? And has any of it been spent on defense material, training, or equipment upgrades for Taiwan?
▶ 0:49:22Uh, Congressman, I I I'm not exactly sure about exactly the status, so let me commit to get back to you with uh with detailed information.
▶ 0:49:28Well, you told Senator Wicker 48 hours ago that you would do the same, that you would get back to him. You're telling us that in 48 hours you still got a 48 hour window, sir. So, we'll we'll make sure we're uh within that window or or barely over it and I'll ask your forgiveness if that's the case.
▶ 0:49:42It's it's concerning to me that within 48 hours when you promise Senator Wicker that you'd get that information that it's not forthcoming.
▶ 0:49:49Take take that responsibility to engage with you seriously, sir.
▶ 0:49:54I want to get your perspective too on our efforts to work with partners and and how we enable our partners. Uh the president's asked our allies to do more to their credit to NATO. They've all annied up and said that they're going to do their 5%, some of them at different paces, but by 2035, it's like everybody's going to be in line with that. Uh we ask Europe to take the lead in what we're doing to counter Russia. Uh and our message should, I think, be crystal clear.
▶ 0:50:24uh if we step up and make investments in the defense in cooperation with our NATO allies uh and we need to be selling Europe our best weapons to make sure that they're in line with what the threat is on the Russian side and I believe the president's America first arms transfer executive order sends that clear signal but if our American allies can't buy US weapons I worry they're going to be in a really really bad spot because there's there's no other place
▶ 0:50:54to go and we certainly don't want them uh going to other folks out there. Uh tell me this, what's what's the message to our allies like the Baltic States or Poland uh that are meeting or exceeding the 5% target? They're all in uh but are being told US weapons that they purchased are being delayed or not prioritized. So, they're all in. They have the money. They've paid for it and now they're being told, "By the way, you're not going to get the weapons." Somehow the priority list has been changed and somebody else is higher on the priority list.
▶ 0:51:22And yet we see an even greater threat by Russia and what they're doing to build their defense industrial base, which creates an even greater threat. And yet we're not doing the things that we're lecturing the Europeans about doing and not providing them weapons. Give us a perspective on how we're going to close.
▶ 0:51:38Sure. Well, actually, Congressman, the way you laid it out, I think, is pretty similar to to how we see it. I mean, I think we're in excellent We've 2025 was about reframing. 2026, we're getting down to business. The Europeans are moving. I can say that from personal experience, not least in in Brussels and Munich as well as uh Asia and allies like South Korea and I think we're optimistic about Japan and Australia and New Zealand as well. Um we are we are ahead of this problem. We we share your sense of urgency uh coming down from the president. I think we've got three main things we're focusing on.
▶ 0:52:05One is the president's historic proposal for a $ 1.5 trillion defense budget. That is a massive signal of the seriousness with which you know he he and we all take the situation conscious of the of the you know resource issues that Mr. Smith mentioned but that that's a signal of how serious it is. Second money is a critical predicate but it's insufficient. We need to have better performance from defense industry and that's why you know the president is convening defense industry leaders uh tomorrow. you have from the president, the secretary, the deputy secretary, under secretary Duffy was here yesterday.
▶ 0:52:33Absolute commitment to getting better performance and I think you're seeing a lot of progress because we all need to know, you know, we want to be able to get our services where there are unacceptable time uh timeline delays, but also green our allies and this is not a situation where there's picking and choosing and try to poke at people. We need everybody to be able to get what they need faster. And this, sir, is where I would turn it around to you and to the Congress is where we all need to lean in together also with our allies. This is where the conversation is.
▶ 0:52:57If I may say, some of the conversation in the last few minutes has been a little bit backward-looking where we are and where our allies conversation is NATO 3.0. Let's get down to business. For instance, we're talking very closely with the Germans about they're about to make a very significant investments in defense. How do we scale that together to get the best outcome for both of us? Also recognizing that while we need American industry to be eligible in European other markets, there's also going to be growth in the European and allied defense space. And that's actually to all of our benefit. That's where we're heading.
▶ 0:53:24I'm confident that under President Trump's leadership, we will be able to get through this transition, but we did need to have the clarity and continue to need to have that clarity. But if you look at Secretary General Ruta, he's singing from the same sheet as music as we all
▶ 0:53:36Very good. Thank you. I'll reiterate to that the chairman's focus on this year's NDA is growing the industrial base to make sure we can do those things. We have to do that at the speed of
▶ 0:53:44support that as well, sir.
▶ 0:53:45Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
▶ 0:53:47Gentleman yields back. Chairman, I recognize a gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Molton.
▶ 0:53:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Colobby, thank you very much for visiting my office for a long discussion last year. I appreciated that engagement. My my reading of the NDS is that it clearly ranks threats around the world, putting the homeland first, deterring China second, and everything else a distant third. Is that accurate?
▶ 0:54:05Um I think the the homeland is obviously put first in the same way as it was in 2018. I think uh the first island chain is kind of the significant milit weight of effort the military focus as I said in my opening statement. So the strategy also focuses quite carefully on the risk of simultaneity. Yes. Meaning two simultaneous conflicts either pre-coordinated or because an adversary takes advantage of us being tied down somewhere else.
▶ 0:54:27If that is a significant concern and China is the greatest threat, doesn't war in Iran not really help with deterring China.
▶ 0:54:36I think that the strategy is not saying that we're not going to do operations and this happened under administrations of both parties. It's it actually specifically goes into that. saying we need to be prepared for this. Obviously the the things I mentioned but also the allies and partners stepping up and we do see that actually in the Middle East right now. We see Israel, the Gulf we discussed in my office was concerns about magazine depth which you know you've heard both from this committee and the China committee. Are you concerned about that today in the
▶ 0:55:02I think what we're look I think we have anticipated this uh reality. We feel good about where we are
▶ 0:55:08anticipated just to be clear you anticipated a war with Iran. No, no. We anticipated the need for dramatic action on that's exactly what the strategy says under the president's leadership is we know we need we have very significant magazine depths across the depth across the force that is also going to be able to support presidents of either party etc in the future being able to use the military but we need to get better performance and that's why we're all
▶ 0:55:29you're not concerned about the number of missiles that we are using in Iran
▶ 0:55:32I'm confident in the situation.
▶ 0:55:35Okay. That is not a a view shared by many of the officers who work in the Pentagon. So to confirm, just to be clear, you're arguing that fighting a war with Iran helps to deter China. Is that accurate?
▶ 0:55:48Well, I think there's different debates about this. This is about the threat the Islamic Republic poses directly. That's sufficient for the justifying the action. And we have a scoped objective and right now, sir, and you know this from your distinguished military background, we have gotten through a lot of the preliminary campaign of bringing down the air defense. And now we're getting topic and we're using as the president indicated a lot more of the munitions which we have very in very plentiful supply. So I think we're going to be in good shape and this just sir I
▶ 0:56:12so just to be clear you think we're going to be in good shape for deterring China because we're bogged down in the Middle East with a war against Iran and we're not using
▶ 0:56:20I think if we activate what the president and we are calling for and with support from the Congress and better performance to the defense industry and better uh uh behavior and sort of contributions by allies we're going to be in great shape. Let me just ask does the war does EP operation epic fury deter China? I
▶ 0:56:36I think there's an argument that it can have some deterrent effect. What I do see is that
▶ 0:56:40well I know we want to know you do do you view
▶ 0:56:42I can give you more specificity. We do see that that others around the world and conscious that we're in an open hearing are very impressed by the prowess of the joint force and are
▶ 0:56:50but do you think as someone who's worked on China for a long time you think it
▶ 0:56:55It contributes to deterrence. Yeah, I think that's fair.
▶ 0:56:57Okay. And yet for for years you have argued that supporting Ukraine does not help deter China. So can you square that circle for us? I
▶ 0:57:04I can because I mean first of all I'm a public government official at this point. This is this document and this this efforts by our administration are precisely to get ahead of a problem. That's what strategy is about. This administration is getting after the munitions problem under the president's leadership and the secretary's leadership. And we need help from Congress, Republicans and Democrats to say not only the money but but a better just better efforts fired. Miss Jacobs and I were talking about this the other day. We need better performance by our defense industry. I think that's something that's shared across
▶ 0:57:30Mr. Colby getting after our magazine depth problem is not shooting them all off in the Middle East. All right. I don't think that really helps. Now look, you talk about a lot about burden sharing and I think there's bipartisan agreement on the value of burden sharing. We might disagree on how we treat our allies, but we all want them to do our part. The NDS states, "The Department of War will empower regional allies and partners to take primary responsibility for deterring and defending against Iran and its proxies." Those are the words you wrote in the National Defense Strategy.
▶ 0:58:00How does the US going to war with Iran represent our allies taking primary responsibility for the Iran threat?
▶ 0:58:06Well, I think Israel is a pretty excellent example of the kind of ally we want that is take I mean they're they're taking responsibility. Secretary Rubio said that we are burden sharing for Israel because we started the war on their timeline. So I'm asking how our allies are burden sharing for us.
▶ 0:58:20I'm sorry. Can you say that again?
▶ 0:58:21I'm asking how our allies are burden sharing for us.
▶ 0:58:24Well, I mean, Israel is obviously doing it. We see it from the Gulf Partners where there's a lot of munitions depth, etc. So, and actually some of the European Canadian prime minister, we're we're coming to the end. How many pages was your opening statement?
▶ 0:58:38I'll tell you, 1700 words, 177 sentences. You devoted one sentence to the war in Iran and not one word to the six soldiers who have been killed in action. Do you think that's appropriate
▶ 0:58:50I have only the deepest respect for those soldiers and their families. Sir Jim's time's expired chair and I recognize gentle lady from New York, Miss Stevonic.
▶ 0:58:57Thank you, Chairman Rogers. Mr. Colby, uh, this is somewhat following up on previous questions. There's been public reporting as well as President Trump's statements on munition stockpiles and my colleague, Mr. Molton touched upon this. Can you please give the department's assessment on munition stockpiles, what we can anticipate over the next year? I understand we're in an open setting, but the reason I'm asking the question is it will be Congress that appropriates and authorizes uh through a supplemental. So, if you could lay out what you're able to in this open setting.
▶ 0:59:26Uh, sure, ma'am. And obviously, we're in an open setting, but I think this obviously has our top priority attention. the $ 1.5 trillion figure. I'm not exactly sure how that might be broken up in terms of congressional engagement, but I know there's significant engagement from the secretary, deputy secretary, under secretary Duffy, etc. So, I I'm not sure I can get into more specificity here, but uh you know, that's obviously, as the president indicated in his truth social the other evening, that's going to be a top priority for us.
▶ 0:59:49Um in the national defense strategy, the prioritization on homeland defense is um incredibly important. It's important not only to the entire country but specifically to a district like mine given the importance of missile defense. Can you tell me a little bit about the administration's focus on East Coast Missile Defense Site? In the first Trump administration, you will recall that the president designated Fort Drum as the chosen location for East Coast Missile Defense Site. This committee has passed that language.
▶ 1:00:19What is the status of that and what is the plan for that moving forward?
▶ 1:00:23Ma'am, I'll have to get back to you as quickly as possible with an answer on that. just on the precise status, but obviously the administration's committed to implementing the president's Golden Dome uh approach. So, I think, you know, we see a strong future for missile defense, but I'll get back
▶ 1:00:34and implementing the NDAA and the language in the NDAA with the selection of Fort Drum as the missile East Coast missile defense site.
▶ 1:00:43I'm sorry. Can is
▶ 1:00:44and the intention is to implement the language in the NDAA.
▶ 1:00:47I have no reason to think otherwise, but I'll I'll get back to you, ma'am.
▶ 1:00:50Okay. Um I guess just broadly, as you know, Mr. Colby, I represent the 10th Mountain Division, which I've just referenced. It's the most deployed division in the US Army since 9/11. Uh, currently, uh, a brigade is deployed to the Middle East. Can you share, um, a message to those soldiers and their families, uh, whom I represent in my district? These are families I speak with every single day as their member of Congress, and they'd appreciate to hear from you.
▶ 1:01:17Well, I think I can say on behalf of the leadership of the department that they have uh you know, our our deepest respects and a sense of uh their honorable duty in a in a a cause that is uh you know very much in the American people's interest and that we are thinking very carefully and soberly about you know how we consider putting them into harm's way.
▶ 1:01:34uh so they can be confident I can say you know secretary heth is personally leading day by day hour by hour uh really focused attention obviously with the uniform you know seniors the chairman of the joint chiefs Admiral Cooper etc so I think they can feel they've got fantastic leadership uh under President Trump
▶ 1:01:52well we are grateful for their service and our hearts and prayers go out to the six service members um in the US military and their families um for the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country. My final question, Mr. Kby, is as as we know, the CCP and the Iranian terrorist regime have long been close allies and partners exchanging oil, munitions, and technology to repress their people. What is your assessment of the CCP posture uh today?
▶ 1:02:20And also, what are your biggest concerns over the next 6 months to a year uh now that there has been the start of Operation Epic Fury?
▶ 1:02:30Uh well, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. I think we're watching this very closely. I'd have to be a little elliptical and open hearing, but I think as I mentioned to Mr. Molton, I mean they they certainly have been impressed by the prowess of the joint force, the ability to operate so effectively together. So I think that's been a salutary message for for you know kind of stability. Um my understanding is the Chinese obviously they're very dependent on energy resources coming out of the uh out of the Middle East. So that's something they're watching very closely.
▶ 1:02:54One thing I think in the administration from the president on down you know we don't the president doesn't use terms like axis of evil and these kinds of things. I think obviously we are as Mr. Molton put it concerned about the potential for simultaneity but we want to avoid it. So part of that is the military part but obviously the president's diplomacy is designed to uh engage with our potential opponents obviously from a very cleareyed point of view from peace through strength point of view but that's designed to avoid that very outcome. And I would distinguish that from from the last administration where Mr.
▶ 1:03:23Sullivan I think spoke at the at the end of the last administration about how our adversaries quote unquote were aligned to an unprecedented degree. And if you go back and you look at Henry Kissinger or something, the standard for successful American foreign policy, you don't want everybody ganging up against you. And I think the president is very cleareyed. Obviously, he's very realistic, but he's willing to engage in diplomacy uh from a from a realistic frame. And then our job is to provide that peace through strength uh approach uh for instance in the context of China.
▶ 1:03:48Thank you. Yield back.
▶ 1:03:50Gentle ladies, time is expired. Gentleman from California, Mr. Carvajal is recognized.
▶ 1:03:55Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kobe, thank you for being here today. Um, and finally, finally coming to this committee. I think many of my colleagues in this room from both sides of the aisle agree that communication coming from the department to Congress has been lacking. Trump has consistently said his administration is the most transparent in history. And I assume that that is something you take to heart.
▶ 1:04:26I'm going to ask you a few questions and if you could not fill a buster and answer the questions as simple and straightforward as possible, I would appreciate it. How much does the department spend per boat strike in the Pacific and the Caribbean?
▶ 1:04:41Uh, sir, I don't have that information, so I'll get back to you on it.
▶ 1:04:44How many pounds of fentanyl have been destroyed in these strikes?
▶ 1:04:50Uh, my understanding is quite a bit, but I'll have to get back to you with a specific answer. In total, how much has been spent to date on boat strike operations?
▶ 1:05:00Sir, I'll have to get back to you with a specific answer. Southcom and SOCOM did not have funding appropriated for these appropriations. What accounts were used for these appropriation for these operations?
▶ 1:05:15Sir, I'll have to get back to you with an answer. Obviously, I'm not responsible for the primarily for the
▶ 1:05:21Mr. Kobe, is it safe to assume you were involved in decisions and discussions leading to Operation Epic Fury?
▶ 1:05:32Uh, sir, I've been involved in Yeah. most of these kind of policy and strategy related decisions.
▶ 1:05:38The president recently said he has a very beautiful plan for what comes next in Iran. for the sake of transparency and for us on this committee and the American people, could you please share what Trump's so-called beautiful plan Well, sir, as I said earlier, my focus mostly, my work is mostly in the Pentagon. So, I, you know, rely on um, you know, our secretary and the chairman who are over in the White House.
▶ 1:06:07I I I wouldn't add or say anything to presume to interpret the president's words, but we're paying a lot of attention to making sure as is as he has instructed uh that we have a good outcome and a a sustainable intelligent one that serves Americans interests in a lasting way.
▶ 1:06:22Mr. Kobe, we're not getting some answers from you. We're getting a lot of rhetoric and oftentimes no answers to our questions, no information. In the national defense strategy, our allies are criticized for and I quote, "Investing in domestic programs." To majority of the world, investing in domestic programs is also known as governing and taking care of your citizens.
▶ 1:06:48And I get this criticism was made in the context of allies not investing enough in defense. But even when a country is doing everything right, they seem to be punished by this Take the Baltic nations. NATO's eastern flank, for example, they have consistently led defense spending by GDP in Europe, each topping 3%.
▶ 1:07:13And despite this, the administration attempted to zero out programs like the Baltic Security Initiative. What else should a NATO ally be doing in your opinion if their commitment to defense spending isn't enough to have this administration support? Then what is? Sir, I I find it a little paradoxical that, you know, it sounds like you advocate for more domestic programs. It's the American people who have been paying to indirectly subsidize and don't take it from me, sir.
▶ 1:07:42Minister of Defense Collins from New Zealand has made this exact point. Secretary pointed out that if you could just answer my question, I would appreciate it.
▶ 1:07:49So, our our allies have invested in their domestic societies. That's not fair. I mean, it seems kind of common sense to me, but it's also not sustainable. And the Europeans and the others, they're not contesting it. What do they have to do
▶ 1:08:02sir? They just let them do their heavily in defense.
▶ 1:08:05And sir, let me be very clear. We are we are actually adapting. So I mean if you look at my my travels last month to Brussels and to Munich, that was the message and that was the message the Europeans are perceived. And I would say a lot of this is a little bit we're missing we're behind the the the target because we are actually working with our allies. They're not fighting the scenario. Everybody knows what
▶ 1:08:24I I reclaim my time.
▶ 1:08:27Let me ask a few basic questions. Is Russia's illegal war in Ukraine a threat to the United States?
▶ 1:08:32Sir, we're all supporting the war in Ukraine, Mr. We take the Russian
▶ 1:08:38Mr. Kobe, how simple is it to answer yes or no?
▶ 1:08:41We're taking the Russian military threat seriously, sir. Yeah.
▶ 1:08:45Is Ukraine a friendly country?
▶ 1:08:47Is it a friendly country? Yes, I think
▶ 1:08:50Thank you. I would encourage you to answer our questions and not filibuster with a bunch of BS. Thank you. Gentleman's yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Dejar Lee.
▶ 1:09:03Thank you, Chairman. Secretary Kobe. Um I'm probably gonna take a little different approach than and and than some of my colleagues have here, but uh as the subcommittee chair on strategic forces, I have a lot under my umbrella that as the president's priorities, including Golden Dome, advancement in space, nuclear modernization, uh missile defense, and so you know, pretty much all the things we're talking about here. So, you know, what concerns me the most looking forward is a conflict with China.
▶ 1:09:31Um, I would say, you know, people are questioning daily, why now? Why did we go after Iran? And I would say, why not anytime in the last 47 years? Because we could have spent the next hour talking about all the death and destruction that they've caused directly uh as a regime and what they've done through their proxies with the Houthies and Hezbollah and Hamas.
▶ 1:09:52And so when we talk about cutting the head off the snake, if that's what we're doing right now, how long would you anticipate uh uh the the proxies to dry up because we know all their weapons, money, and training comes from Iran?
▶ 1:10:05Well, sir, we're not going to uh close the president's decision space, but obviously I think you've heard the president uh talk about four weeks roughly for the military campaign. And I think the chairman has talked about 3 to 5 weeks in terms of the the designated objectives. Hopefully getting into a good place. But obviously that's uh that's going to be as long as the president dictates or as short that's going to be up to him.
▶ 1:10:23And I would rank China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as our four biggest adver adversaries in that order. Uh what we're doing right now in Iran, if we were in a conflict with China, would we have the capacity to do both? Sir, I think we're in we're in very good shape in large part because of the president's leadership because this strategy is designed to get after uh the the defense industrial capacity and the readiness and the restoration of the war fighting ethos that will allow us and the stepping up by our allies and partners rapidly that will allow us to deal with the the full range of potential jobs.
▶ 1:10:52And none of us have a crystal ball. We don't know how this is going to turn out, but I think it's looking pretty good. I think that there's a real opportunity for the Iranian people to take their government back. Over 80% want that. And uh and you know I I am optimistic that we are doing significant damage to the regime that we would not be able to do if we were in a conflict with China. And I think China does take notice and deterring China. Let me put it this way. The best way to win a conflict with China and Taiwan is to not let it start.
▶ 1:11:21And I think this is a good way to do it. Uh let me ask this and I don't know if you can say open setting. It doesn't seem like Iran has many friends. and the friends that or were at least neutral to them they're attacking. Do you see any sign that anybody's running to Iran's rescue?
▶ 1:11:37Sir, if I could just briefly address I think the way you put it, the best way to deal with the the the challenge of China is is not to fight it from a position of strength where interests are respected and that's exactly the President Trump and Secretary Hegsth have given us. Uh, I've actually been quite struck by how little support there is for Iran. And of course, they've made that situation worse by taking shots at people, countries throughout the Gulf, Turkey, etc.
▶ 1:11:59Yeah. And I And I think Trump is We were not happy with what he did in Romania by pulling troops without telling us about it. We're we're on team America. This committee is is probably the one of the last bipartisan committees in Congress that I can see.
▶ 1:12:14and and we're on your side and and we I do ask that we get better communication because we want to help you and we want to help America and we want to do this right and we can't do that without you know better direction, better clarification and the fact that we feel like you trust us because we do have to speak to our allies and their ambassadors and all that and if if what we're telling them is not consistent with what the president's doing, it makes our job much more difficult.
▶ 1:12:41uh you know, China is projected to have uh over a thousand nuclear warheads by 2030, vastly surpassing uh our capacity. They're also heavily investing in uh uh area denial systems and massively in ground test infrastructure compared to what we have in the United States advancing in hypersonics and uh you know their ship building capacity is probably 230 times what the US is.
▶ 1:13:09So how does a national defense strategy hold China at risk um and pace in fight with all these advance advancements?
▶ 1:13:18Well, thank you sir and maybe I'll answer those questions together and I appreciate uh your trust sir and I I appreciate also uh your points about communication. I think as I said earlier we've been uh leaning forward on on the policy side over the last four or five months.
▶ 1:13:31Uh so I think we've got a good track record but we can always do better and I'd welcome uh myself or my team both sitting down with you and your staff others who are interested uh we're an open door and would welcome the communication obviously we now have a settled framework obviously from reflects the secretary but with you know uh on down from the president alignment there um but I would say on that issue we're actually thinking about a nuclear strategy we're not going to do a formal nuclear posture review of the whole you know uh bells and whistles uh because I think the first term President Trump's uh NPR a lot of the things set out
▶ 1:14:01publicly were were were superb. So, but we are going to focus in on a few problems that I can't get into an open setting, but welcome talking to you and your team about that if that's of
▶ 1:14:09Gentleman's time's expired. Chair not recognized gentle from California, Mr.
▶ 1:14:12Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary Colby, good to see you. As you know, I've read your book, Strategy of Denal, and I've appreciated your council in the past. How many major wars has China been in since 1979?
▶ 1:14:28Um, I think zero.
▶ 1:14:29Zero. I mean, the Vietnam Chinese war in 79 was their last major war. How how many major wars uh has the United States been in since 1979?
▶ 1:14:40I'd hesitate to give you a figure, sir, but you know, three, four or five, I
▶ 1:14:44four or five major ones and probably do dozens of uh interventions. And in the past, you've written eloquently, and I know you say it's your personal opinion, but you've written eloquently about how draining resources into the Middle East, which has very little percent of the GDP, uh, is actually a strategic disadvantage versus China. That basically China is free writing. They don't fight the wars. We've been spending all this money on these wars uh, in the Middle East.
▶ 1:15:15I understand you work for the president, but how do you reconcile this view? Because one of the reasons I respected you is you said, "Look, we're we're getting in all these wars in the Middle East. Iran's like44% of the GDP. Uh, and we've got to be focused on China."
▶ 1:15:33Well, thanks, Congressman. I'd turn it back to some of our conversations if I may, if I may say. I think um I've always said that that Iran is a threat and we're going after it with scoped military objectives and that's what I committed to in my confirmation hearing almost exactly a year ago. So I think this is I you know I've I'm I'm very supportive of of this of this effort of Operation Epic Fury and I know and I personally am involved. I wouldn't overstate my involvement or or influence certainly but and I know from the top top down we are thinking about how to make sure this is net beneficial for the American people.
▶ 1:16:02But the real answer, sir, is in is in the industrial policy kind of discussions that you've been leading on on your side of the aisle. But there's, I think, consensus on, which is we've got to be able to produce at a higher level, more quickly, the best stuff, but also lower cost stuff. And that's why, you know, the real message of the strategy, and the strategy is more of a heristic or a framework than a particular, you know, settled point in time, uh, is rather to say we need a national mobilization of our defense industrial base. And sir, I think that's what you've been saying.
▶ 1:16:29I appreciate that. Let me ask it this way because I don't want I get you can't contradict the president. What are the biggest risks of the operation continuing in Iran? Is it sort of the munitions drain? Uh is it the the the treasury drain? What what would you say you my hope is you'll be one of the voices in the administration uh saying let's end this quickly. What what do you see are the biggest risks?
▶ 1:16:53Well, I think there are a range of risks and they have to be weighed against the significant benefit of of obviously kind of at minimum the significant degradation or destruction of Iranian conventional military power and the possibility of a dramatic change to a much friendlier Iranian government. We're not the military campaign is not riding on that as a designated outcome, but we're hoping for it and that's a lot of that's in the in the hands of the of the Iranian people. Um, I think that uh a lot of it would be, you know, and something to say on the munitions piece, sir, is that we've gotten over top now or we're getting over top.
▶ 1:17:24Our forces are getting over top, so they can use a lot of these munitions that we do have, as the president said, in much more plentiful supply. I think we're conscious of the risks. I mean, we know what the this is part of the reason for it. The Islamic Republic has conducted terrorism in the past. We're very acutely conscious of that. But I think a goal this is what you know, we don't this is not Iraq, I guess, 3.0, right? This is we are not doing nation building. We are not flowing. Obviously, the president has the option to use a variety of capabilities, but this is not, you know, Jerry Bremer, CPA, etc.
▶ 1:17:51Let me ask one more question about time. And I my my goal is to have your voice uplifted. So, I I don't want to ask you hard questions because maybe they'll discount your voice. I I I like the fact that you're in the administration compared to some of the other folks who are in the administration. By the way, Vance, Vice President Vance used to be uh where you were in terms of not getting into these wars until he's gone in the kind of Lindsey Graham direction. I actually don't understand it. Donald Trump beat Lindsey Graham in 2016 and now Lindsey Graham has become the face of Donald Trump's foreign policy.
▶ 1:18:20It's like what happened? But let me ask you this last question. The the what about the view that Iran is just going to rebuild these things in 6 months in one year that what what is the plan? You know, General Petraeus said what is the plan after Iraq? What is the plan? Are we going to go bomb him again?
▶ 1:18:39Well, I think that's a that's a great question, sir. And that's the one that we're we're wanting to make sure and part of the reason why the industrial capacity is such a part of it. And I certainly am thinking about General Petraeus's famous admonition because that's a critical part and this is still obviously the the conflict has just begun but we need to day by day in a dynamic situation uh make sure that we end up and we don't and the president has said that you're a serious person.
▶ 1:19:02I hope this doesn't hurt you more than uh help you, but I've always found you to be engaged with with intellectual honesty and I appreciate some of your
▶ 1:19:12Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognizes uh the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon.
▶ 1:19:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Secretary Kov you being here today. Uh my feedback, I got some good, maybe some bad, some ugly. On the good side, I appreciate the actions taken against Iran. I served 30 years in the Air Force. I've lost friends to the Iranian proxy groups. A good friend of mine at Kobar Towers, for example, when I was in Iraq, we were targeted every single day by proxy groups from the IRGC. This action should be should have been done a long time ago to restore deterrence.
▶ 1:19:43And I can't think of a better group of folks to target than the Ayatollah and his henchmen because they have over a thousand Americans blood on their hands. I appreciate the action taken against Maduro uh who took the most wealthy nation to the poorest nation in in South America. For the life of me though, I can't figure out why we're propping up as vice president as a dictator followon. Here's the ugly. First of all, maybe less ugly, China.
▶ 1:20:11Some of the statements and I read in the NDS, it communicates weakness to them that China could just do an invasion of Taiwan as a fat comply. And it sort of communicates we don't have the ability maybe to deter that. We'll come back to that. But this is what really esteems me.
▶ 1:20:24The the administration at large, starting with the president on down, communicates weakness when it comes to Why does this administration, and this is rhetorical, I'll get to my first question, but I can't figure out why the president treats Zalinsky and Ukraine more harsh than he does Putin, who's the invader, who's bombing cities every night. He treats Putin with velvet gloves, but he gives Zilinsky the old boxing glove treatment. And I don't get it.
▶ 1:20:52There's like a moral blindness in this administration when it comes to Russia. And you see it in the NDS with one line on Russia. One line. A whole page is on Europe and and attacking Europe or criticizing Europe and one sentence on Russia. It just bothers me when I read the NDS and I'm a history guy and I've read the previous NDS's here and I as a general and colonel I read the ones going farther back. This reads a lot like 1890s national security strategy.
▶ 1:21:22Western Hemisphere, spheres of influence, homeland security as if we never fought a world war. It's as if we never had the Cold War. It's as if we never had the war on terror where we had allies fighting with us in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, I'll get to my first question. In the NDS, it does say there has to be clear accountability. Incentives working will be critical part of our alliance. We will prioritize cooperation with model allies, those spending what they need to do and and doing more against regional threats with with critical but limited US support.
▶ 1:21:51I can't figure out why the Pentagon said they didn't want us do the Baltic security initiative and also talk about withdrawing forces out of the Baltics. When they lead the way, they have the highest level of defense spending. So why not be stronger for our Baltic friends? Well, sir, I I've seen your your commentary and one thing I must say I appreciate today is I I think you rightly recognize this as part of uh the from the president and the secretary on down.
▶ 1:22:18We all are thinking the same way and so it's a total myth that we're not aligned with the president. I appreciate that your your point and your and your questions like Congressman Con is they're straightforward. So I I'll grapple with them in the same spirit you offered and I'm happy to come talk. I know we have different views and different views with many in the administration. But I appreciate your your the way you framed it, sir. uh don't take it for granted. I I would say sir from what it sounds like I mean this document and the national security strategy describing the president's approach and I'll get to your question sir is is flexible realism is a practical approach.
▶ 1:22:48It sounds I think it's a bit different than yours in some ways maybe yours has been in the descendency in the past and we're trying to make a break but we're not trying to con you about it. It's pretty straightforward. I I recognize obviously your distinguished military service. This is more kind of grounded in military reality almost like a more empirical kind of dispassionate way and less in the rhetorical style.
▶ 1:23:06Sir, one thing I would really stress on is we see ourselves as in line with the cold war legacy and more of a break from the post 1989 when I think we got a bit hubristic as the document uh says I don't we don't talk about spheres of influence that's something that's put on us and I I we can get into a discussion about the 1890s. I don't it's interesting on Baltic security initiative. Let me get back to you on the on the on the we are not trying to punish the Baltic states. The president has been clear that our wealthy allies should be prepared to step up.
▶ 1:23:33We're looking at this in all in a pragmatic way with generally trying to get uh Europe moving the same direction just as as predecessor sir said about China. The goal with Russia is to avoid a war while you know and to Mr. Turner's point about protecting NATO but we got to do it in a militarily realistic way and you know this very well sir. So my opinion is if Ukraine prevails, our world is a much darker, worse place. We're going to be spending a lot more money.
▶ 1:23:57We should be doing more in Eastern Europe, particularly helping out Ukraine right now with weapons, sanctions, but the president does not communicate that. And it's really I think it's his biggest failure right now because you look at every poll, you look at 30 different issues, Ukraine polls second worst or the worst in every poll. And it's because he communicates weakness. So I hope you take that back uh to the president in the white house. Thank you.
▶ 1:24:20Jim's time's expired. Chair and I recognize gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keing.
▶ 1:24:23Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Colby, you you said throughout this hearing that uh you're consulting with the president, the vice president uh regularly great conversation. In fact, you said that you don't do this is I think your earlier testimony today. You do not do anything not aligned with the president. So I have a question for you.
▶ 1:24:44In July, uh, in last July, it was reported that your office suspended US weapons shipments to Ukraine, including but but not limited to precisiong guided rockets, 155 munitions, and Patriot missiles. And this risk Ukraine lives. It undermined our credibility, not just with Ukraine, but with our allies, uh, the 50 countries that are part of this alliance.
▶ 1:25:12and it made it harder to get to an end to this war. And this decision seemingly took place out of nowhere. Now, this took place at your office. Yet, the president was asked about this a few days later in the Oval Office, and he denied making any order to suspend this. He said, "I'll be the first to know.
▶ 1:25:36In fact, most likely I'll give the order, but I haven't done that yet." So, the president who you're in consultation with all the time and you're always aligned with, well, he he disagreed with this. He said he didn't do anything. He said it didn't happen even though it did and it's your office. So, tell us who made that decision. Did the president make the decision the way he alluded to or did you make that decision?
▶ 1:26:04And now the president said in from the Oval Office that he didn't make that decision. So who did who made that decision that caused such great risk that I just outlined to you? Was it you, sir?
▶ 1:26:18Would you like your office?
▶ 1:26:20Yeah. Would you like to answer or no,
▶ 1:26:22You're ready.
▶ 1:26:23Okay. Uh, well, let me just clarify something, sir. I I don't uh I I'm particularly focused on my interactions with the secretary who interacts with the president. So just to be just to be clear not to overstate my access to the president. I wouldn't presume to do so but obviously we we make a point of staying you don't appear in concert with the president on this.
▶ 1:26:39I am I'm aligned totally aligned with
▶ 1:26:42Well then explain I can answer your
▶ 1:26:44Explain how you weren't aligned in this
▶ 1:26:46Well sir I think we are aligned and I'll get to that in a second. First of all I'm not in the chain of command so I can't order something and I wouldn't
▶ 1:26:51it was your office. So tell me who there is made that suspicion. There is sir there is a memorandum as has been described uh before that lays out a framework for making intelligent
▶ 1:27:02No I don't want this listen
▶ 1:27:03that that the secretary can recommend to the president and then sir what we've done and
▶ 1:27:07please I'm reclaiming my time Mr.
▶ 1:27:11listen you're getting a chance maybe that you're not getting all morning to deal with a specific instance a specific time that requires a a clear-cut answer. So don't give me policy or framework. I'm asking you who the hell made that decision that endangered so many people's lives.
▶ 1:27:29So there's a memory you're like the you know the three months no evil no evil the alleged pause we did not I'm not in a position to order a pause. I didn't order presume to order a pause. I don't actually know the president. I'm not sure we can get back to you with how can you be in your position in your office sir.
▶ 1:27:47This is your office. This is your responsibility. I'm a policy who made a decision like that that that jeopardized the lives of so many people.
▶ 1:27:55The the the framework in the memorandum not designed to
▶ 1:27:59I want the I don't want the framework. I for a second and sir I asked you
▶ 1:28:04what I've
▶ 1:28:05I didn't ask you about the framework you're trying to talk over initiative which is provided Ukraine in an ongoing way with weapons in fact uh sold by the United States in line with presidential intent which I let me move on here and I had the privilege you about the movement of troops just days before uh we were going to have something in the national and the NDAA uh requiring consultation with But you moved 700 to a,000 troops out of Romania. Why Romania?
▶ 1:28:35Uh sir, we made a uh the secretary ordered a decision obviously in line with presidential uh intent uh to uh re repurpose our forces based on
▶ 1:28:43Well, let me ask you a question because I'm running out of time. Let me ask you a question. So
▶ 1:28:48are you you're you know you know you have good conversations with the vice president. Were you aware that the vice president gave scathing uh attack on Romania about their elections in Munich? Uh did that have anything to do why you singled out why Romania was singled out for these troops to be moved?
▶ 1:29:06Sir, I'm not going to go into particular deliberations. Uh but we we make secretary and ultimately in front of the military logic in line with the national defense information about deliberations. Then what are you doing here in front of
▶ 1:29:21I'm trying to communicate with you, sir.
▶ 1:29:23Well, you're not doing a good job. I yield back.
▶ 1:29:27Thank you. I recognize myself for 5 minutes now. I uh under Secretary Kobe, I want to thank you for your leadership in delivering the national defense strategy uh that puts the interest of the American people and the security of American war fighters first. Under President Trump, we have already witnessed this strategy's peace through strength goals and actions with decisive victories and operations midnight hammer, absolute resolve, and epic fury. Uh these are simply unprecedented victories for our country.
▶ 1:29:52Under this national defense strategy, there remains no doubt that the critical interest of America and its allies will be defended and our military will be prepared to fight and win if necessary. Uh I want to ask you a real quick question. You and I have talked about this a little bit before. It's a kind of a little different pathway here, but uh the NDS identifies the department's priorities in Africa as preventing Islamic terrorists from using regional safe havens to strike the US homeland while empowering allies and partners to lead efforts against other terrorist groups.
▶ 1:30:19Secretary Kobe, I appreciated this recent opportunity that you and I had uh with your team to visit and talk about the department's counterterrorism efforts in Africa, particularly given the worsening environment due to violent extremist organizations such as JNMI, ISIS affiliates, and Boo Haram. Uh I remain concerned about the persistent intelligence and operational coverage challenges in key regions such as the Shahel and the Lake Chad area.
▶ 1:30:43Effective operations like the December strikes against ISIS militants in Nigeria depend on reliable intelligence, sufficient force posture, and critical operational enablers. Uh, Secretary Kobe, what is the department doing to ensure intelligence, force posture, and partner support in Africa are sufficient to keep pace with the growing terrorist threat uh and execute these NDS objectives?
▶ 1:31:05Well, thank you uh Congressman and thanks to to you and uh to Congressman Moore and others for your leadership on this important issue and obviously we've been active uh the department has been active over the last couple months on on this uh important issue in line with uh the president's authorities. I think we've got a great combatant commander, General Anderson, out there and great team in in OSW. I'll have to get back to you on the specifics.
▶ 1:31:25It may need to be in a classified format in terms of intelligence coverage, but it is something we talk about a lot to make sure that we've got the global requirements obviously for the priority kind of high-end challenges uh but also to be able to use uh in in consistent with the the discussion of the defense strategy to support presidential objectives and otherwise uh in theaters like Africa.
▶ 1:31:44That's great. And I will get back to you on that because I do not want to take our eye off the ball there. And in that same vein and you kind of alluded to it here but the strategic competition with China is often discussed in Indoacific but Africa is also become an increasingly important area of influence.
▶ 1:31:57Uh China and Russia of course have been increasingly militarizing the continent expanding its economic expanding their economic diplomatic and security footprint and seeking basing for strategic assets that could threaten our homeland at some point in the context of nearpeer conflict with China in particular. How does the NDS approach Africa as a vital supporting theater and are we aggressively doing everything we can to undermine the efforts of our great power competitors to prepare for war with the US executed from the continent of Africa?
▶ 1:32:28Well, thank you sir and uh you know obviously we are using the military operations especially against some of these uh terrorist threats. In fact there you know rising concern uh that that Africa may be a base for that. So we we're keeping our eye on the ball. Obviously we got to always keep our eye on the on the CT ball. But and this relates to some of the conversation I had with Mr.
▶ 1:32:44Smith yesterday and some of the discussion also in the western hemisphere where non-military parts of uh our national power are going to be extremely important and we're looking at burden sharing not only with European part allies and partners that have traditionally played a role had a conversation with the European minister of defense in Munich about this but also in the Middle East and in Africa itself I think there's a lot to do uh where we can kind of build up we don't have to be the dominant figure in every uh every initiative we want people to take the initiative uh and address not only security threats but obviously to things that
▶ 1:33:14matter often uh very much to Africans and others to development and so forth.
▶ 1:33:18Thank you. Under President Trump's leadership, the Department of War has returned its focus to putting America first, ensuring our war fighters have the capabilities necessary to fight and win, and advancing peace through strength. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the brave men and women of our joint force who without their leadership execution of the strategies discussed today would not be possible. And I thank you for your time. And with that, uh Mr. Crow, you're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:33:42Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Colby. I'll start with some very simple ones. You're the senior policy official within the Pentagon, correct?
▶ 1:33:51Yeah, I think that's fair to say.
▶ 1:33:52So, you're familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
▶ 1:33:56I would say I'm obviously familiar with it in generic terms, but
▶ 1:34:00and you're not a lawyer, but you're familiar with
▶ 1:34:02I went to law school, but I'm not a
▶ 1:34:03Okay. So, you know how the law works. Uh you you uh you are familiar with the law of armed conflict.
▶ 1:34:10Again, I'm not I'm not an expert. I'm not I'm not you know in an official capacity I'd want to be careful.
▶ 1:34:14But you're familiar with the law of armed conflict.
▶ 1:34:16Yeah. Sure.
▶ 1:34:16Okay. And and so you know that Congress's job is to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Correct.
▶ 1:34:23And that includes a responsibility to make sure that laws are being followed. Is that right?
▶ 1:34:29Yes, I think so.
▶ 1:34:30Okay. Um do our soldiers get trained on the law of war?
▶ 1:34:35My understanding is that they do.
▶ 1:34:36Our service members get trained on the law of war.
▶ 1:34:38I'm not an expert on that. That's my understanding. Um, do you believe uh that that it's possible for an order to be unlawful, illegal?
▶ 1:34:47Uh, I mean, yes, of course. Yeah.
▶ 1:34:50So, there is a difference between lawful orders and unlawful orders.
▶ 1:34:55Uh, yes.
▶ 1:34:56And you're a very bright person. You've studied history. You know history well. I've read a lot of your stuff.
▶ 1:35:02Um, you're familiar that there there has been in American military history instances of unlawful orders being given. Correct.
▶ 1:35:09Absolutely. and service members refusing to abide by those lawful orders. Is that
▶ 1:35:14Uh I Yes. I'm not familiar with specific incidents when you're getting that level of specificity, but
▶ 1:35:20but there have been.
▶ 1:35:20Yeah, imagine.
▶ 1:35:22So, is it a problem for somebody to say that a service member shouldn't follow an unlawful order?
▶ 1:35:28Sir, this is not a matter I've been involved in, but I think there's a difference between recognizing uh those circumstances and taking action designed
▶ 1:35:36It's a pretty simple It's a pretty simple question. You said that there's a difference between lawful and unlawful orders. Uh you said that you're familiar with the law of armed conflict. You you admitted that it's the the duty of this body to conduct oversight and to make sure that laws are being followed. You said that you're familiar with US military history and that there have been unlawful orders given uh in our history. And then you're also familiar that service members have also refused to abide by those unlawful orders.
▶ 1:36:02So why can't you just say that service members shouldn't follow unlawful orders? Sir, I think that's a different step to to talk about or invalouragement and that's not I mean we can refer to the office of the general counsel if you'd want to get into a legal matter that that's starting to
▶ 1:36:18it's not a it's not a legal matter. It seems like a pretty as the senior official at the Pentagon responsible for establishing policy for our department of defense. It seems like a pretty basic thing to say given what you just acknowledged and what we just walked through that service members shouldn't follow illegal orders. Well, I take the law of armed conflict and ensuring that we're being lawful and moral in our in our conduct very seriously. Um, but I'm also one thing that is not always reported in the public.
▶ 1:36:47I'm very conscious of what my responsibilities are and what they're not. And so if if you like, I can get you uh an answer on that point. Happy to do so. Um, I think it's a problem that you can't state the obvious here. And I think moral clarity is important as a leader. And I think your lack of willingness to be morally clear and what is a pretty basic question uh given what I asked you is a real problem. Let me just pivot for a minute uh to operation epic fury.
▶ 1:37:16You you were involved in briefings in advance of the commencement of that operation. Correct.
▶ 1:37:21Um what can you be specific? You were aware of the operation before it started, correct?
▶ 1:37:28Um, did the administration brief private sector officials, oil and gas executives, companies, businesses with interest in the Middle East before that operation commenced on Friday?
▶ 1:37:40I I'm not sure. Uh, Congressman, I'll can get an answer back to you then.
▶ 1:37:44I I will follow through. I want a commitment because it came to light after Venezuela that the administration actually briefed private sector companies, energy companies before that operation, before briefing Congress. Right now, there are thousands of Americans stranded because there's no evacuation plan.
▶ 1:38:04I would like to know whether the administration took the time to brief private companies and executives but didn't take the time to brief this oversight body and also make plans to evacuate civilians and our constituents before setting off a regional war.
▶ 1:38:22Well, sir, I'll get an answer for you.
▶ 1:38:24Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 1:38:28Mr. Yumz, you're recognized for five
▶ 1:38:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, in the national defense strategy, is anywhere it says that um that the United States can't use force against narot terrorists that have been killing hundreds of thousands of people?
▶ 1:38:41Uh, congressman, I think to the contrary, it it says that specifically.
▶ 1:38:45Just want to make sure. Okay. And in the national defense strategist is also say that United States cannot use force against the leading state u uh leader state sponsor of terrorism before they they get a nuclear weapon. Does it say anywhere that we can't we can't
▶ 1:39:02again sir to the to the contrary?
▶ 1:39:04Okay. Um also you know my my my colleagues on the other side are really concerned about cost. So let let's get down to cost. Uh what's the value of an American life?
▶ 1:39:16I would say
▶ 1:39:17well how much money should we spend to save an American life?
▶ 1:39:20I think um
▶ 1:39:22how much money should we spend to save let's say 10,000 lives, 100,000 lives, a million lives? How many how much how much money? I mean is there do you guys have that that
▶ 1:39:31uh I don't know if we have that kind of actuarial I suppose the insurers do but I I I don't have think of an answer but I think uh obviously everything has has a price.
▶ 1:39:38Yeah because they're very concerned about the cost of certain strikes on narot terrorists that were were transporting poison into the United States and killing lives. I guess there must to them there must be some kind of metric here that you know how much is that worth? Okay. So do you have that at all? I mean, I think we can get get a sense of the cost. One thing that's important to bear in mind on the on the question of cost is uh as the president has pointed out are those forces are going to be active somewhere.
▶ 1:40:06And I think what we're saying is we're not going to solve every problem with a you know the to hammer everything as a nail. That's not the issue here. Um we are prepared to use all elements of American national power to address the threat of you know that's killing hundreds of thousands of American
▶ 1:40:20but every once in a while you do have to use that hammer.
▶ 1:40:22Exactly. You try not to use the hammer, but every once in a while,
▶ 1:40:24but you're prepared to and that's part of the peace through strength mantra of the president
▶ 1:40:27and and the the cost of such a thing in order to save American lives. I don't think that's part of the equation because the number one job of this government, the number one job of this government and any government actually is to protect its citizens.
▶ 1:40:42Yeah, I agree. Absolutely. We got to be and that's putting in regular Americans interest first and their protection, their security is uh is what this strategy is all about and what the president's agenda is all about. You know, that being said, I want to move on to something else. By the way, I agree with with a lot of my colleagues that uh we don't that we are not strong enough with Russia against Ukraine. I'm a big supporter of Ukraine and in order to stop our adversary, especially our number two adversary in his tracks.
▶ 1:41:09I think we need to help Ukraine more uh and deny Russia what it want to do because you want to deny aggression and if they somehow gain by this act of aggression then you're just incentivizing further aggression and so by helping Ukraine you're actually showing peace through strength.
▶ 1:41:30Well sir if I if I could address that I mean the under the president's leadership we are helping Ukraine. I was trying to lay it out a little bit. We've set up this pearl initiative and the Europeans are stepping up and we're seeing that when I was in the UDCG uh last month, we saw very vividly European leadership on providing air defense capabilities and that's so in a sense the model is actually working and that will contribute not only towards peace but to a lasting
▶ 1:41:50but we should be unambiguous in who we and who the bad guy is. We should be unambiguous in that because I know who the bad guy is. All right. And we should we should say that very clearly.
▶ 1:42:04Um shifting over the national defense strategy places renewed emphasis on defending the homeland and strengthening security with within the western hemisphere which I fully support because for far too long we have been our our focus has been elsewhere and this is this is our backyard you know this is our home okay the western hemisphere given the growing military and intelligence presence of China and Russia in the region what steps is the department taking to counter the malign influence and security
▶ 1:42:35threats emanating from authoritarian regimes such as the regime in Cuba and frankly the regime that's still in Venezuela.
▶ 1:42:49Some of it I can't get into sorry sir in in this setting but I think we are taking proactive action using all elements of national power to diminish uh adversary uh influence and involvement in the hemisphere. Um, on the issue of of Cuba, I'll obviously defer to the State Department or the White House, but I think we recognize clearly uh the danger uh and the menace posed by the government in Havana.
▶ 1:43:10Well, I also think that we the government that's still in Venezuela, it's the interim dictator, not the interim president, is also posed continues to pose a threat to the United States, no matter how how they they are cooperating with us now. They're just waiting us out. Thank you, and I yield
▶ 1:43:25Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. You're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:43:28Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Colby, good to see you again. Um, to date, the department has failed to comply with section 1067 of the FY25 NDAA, which requires the department to provide us with copies of each extant execute order issued at the direction of the president and the secretary. Uh, when can we expect the department to comply with this law?
▶ 1:43:48I'll have to get back to you, ma'am.
▶ 1:43:49Okay. Thank you. Um, are we at war with
▶ 1:43:53Uh, I think we're in a military action at this point. I'll leave it to Congress and lawyers, etc. from the administration to determine the exact uh
▶ 1:44:00Okay, so um yesterday um the president said we're doing very well on the war front and previously he said we should expect American casualties because quote that often happens in war. So is the president wrong when he says we are at
▶ 1:44:15Well, I won't add or subtract anything to the president. I wouldn't presume to do so, but I know this is a a material matter in front of the Congress and between the administration, I'm I'm not the right person to to weigh in on uh exactly the criteria.
▶ 1:44:25Okay. Um you said that regime change is not one of the objectives of this military operation. Is that correct?
▶ 1:44:31Of the US military campaign at this time as directed by the president.
▶ 1:44:34Okay. If that's the case, can you explain why the first military target of the joint USIsraeli operation was Iran Supreme Leader Kame?
▶ 1:44:42Uh my understanding is that's an Israeli strike and get you more detail including this afternoon in the classified
▶ 1:44:47Okay. Well, President Trump clearly disagrees because he immediately took credit for this saying I got him before he got me. And shortly after the strikes on Saturday, Trump told the Iranian people, "Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we're finished, take over your government. It will be yours. This is probably your only chance for generations." And your boss, Secretary Heath, literally said he made sure that the people responsible in the Iranian regime to try and take out President Trump were on the target list.
▶ 1:45:13Um, how does arming the Kurds and encouraging a civil war advance our military objectives of degrading Iran's power projection capabilities?
▶ 1:45:22Uh, ma'am, I'm not sure I can comment on that. I'm just not not tracking it specifically, but I can get into it, get back to you or into class.
▶ 1:45:27Okay, great. I'd like to uh enter into the record three articles about how we are arming the Kurds.
▶ 1:45:34Thank you. Um okay. Uh so you won't say if we're at war. You won't say if regime change is actually part of our thing. Um do you agree that uh there is a risk of Iran becoming a failed state? I think there are wide range of risks, but I think those are the kinds of things that we are uh precisely uh seeking to avoid and capitalize on to make sure it's net beneficial for the American people.
▶ 1:45:57Okay. And does the department actually have a plan to avoid that and prevent a failed state in this very strategic part of the world?
▶ 1:46:04Well, without fixating on on the specific eventuality, ma'am, I would say the department is actively planning to ensure that we are uh you know deliver on the president's objective of a net beneficial result for this military
▶ 1:46:14Okay. You keep saying that it's important that we have a plan and that you are working on the plan. What is the
▶ 1:46:20Ma'am, I can uh it may be worth uh when my colleagues uh or we can go in, but particularly when my colleagues come over and brief this afternoon, you may ask them. Obviously, we're not going to talk about that in open session.
▶ 1:46:29Okay. How long will this war last? How much longer will our service members have to sacrifice their lives?
▶ 1:46:35Uh so, I'm not going to take away the president's decision space. He's got the wide range. He's the master of that. um as he has indicated and chairman Kaine as well, you know, the military campaign at least at this point has been scoped out or I would say people have discussed it as roughly 3, four, five weeks, but that of course does not constrain the president's decision space, but again goes back to the um the kind of phasing of of the military campaign that's given that's been given specifically to the US armed forces.
▶ 1:46:59Okay. And and what about cost? Can you say how much this will cost the American
▶ 1:47:03I'll get back to you, ma'am. I can't give you an answer at this point.
▶ 1:47:05Okay. Um Mr. Mr. Colby, at his first press conference, your boss, Secretary Hex, said, "This mission is laser focused. Destroy offensive missiles, destroy missile production, destroy their navy, and they will never have nuclear weapons." In 2003, just as Operation Iraqi Freedom was getting underway, President Bush said, "Our mission is clear to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end the regime's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Remind me, Under Secretary Kobe, how long did Operation Iraqi Freedom last?
▶ 1:47:34I'm actually not sure. Technically, a decade or something. It took eight years before Iraq became even remotely stable at a cost of thousands of American lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars. Um, Secretary Hexath said this week that we're not doing nation building. We don't do quagmireers. No democracy building exercise. In fact, his predecessor as Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld said, and I quote, "I don't do quagmireers." You just said that this isn't going to be another Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld himself said, "Of course it won't be Vietnam.
▶ 1:48:03We're going to go in, overthrow Saddam, and get out. That's it. The American people are not stupid. Under Secretary Kby, this administration keeps telling us this is not Iraq while using the exact same arguments that were used to justify the war in Iraq. We have already had six service members die in this war and dozens more injured. And you can't even give me an answer on what the plan is or what the objectives really are. Our embassies have been attacked. At least $90 million worth of fighter jets were shot down by our allies.
▶ 1:48:31And you literally can't even tell me whether this is a war, what we're trying to achieve, or how much it's going to cost the American people. My generation has been paying our entire lives for forever wars that your president promised to end, and yet you sit here today unable to provide us with any clarity. Our service members and the American people deserve better. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:48:49Thank you, Mr. Latrell. You're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:48:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would first like to say my thoughts and prayers are with the family hopefully are with are with the families of service members that we lost. Um may the good Lord put peace in everyone's heart. Uh Mr. Kobe, thank you for being here today. Um in the NDS it emphasizes our central responsibility at the Department of War is to ensure that we um always are able to negotiate from a position of strength in order to sustain peace in the Indoacific.
▶ 1:49:26What is your perspective on ensuring we have self- sustaining energy capabilities to operate in a contested space? Uh, in particular, as we move forward in technology, the de the development of mobile tactical micro grid power systems, if you're familiar with that and um I'd like to get your perspective on how that will help enable and as I think it will our war fighters and those
▶ 1:49:49Well, thank you, Congressman. And um I'm not an expert on that specific issue, but I do think the ability to have logistics that are adapted to the scale of the Indopacific area and also uh the ability to be resilient even in the face of uh significant precision attack at scale is very important. And so self-sustaining kind of energy models are are I think
▶ 1:50:07as the as this I'm going to call it conflict war, however you want to define it as we're moving in into this once again. And I'm for sure and I may be totally wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure we're pretty positive we fought in Iraq for about 20 years. I may be wrong on that. Um it may be a lot shorter than that. Maybe losing my mind.
▶ 1:50:28But I would recommend if we're not doing that that the Department of War takes a hard look on long-term sustainability if we have to send boots on the ground like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. The um the United States lacks a sufficient domestic production for for high purity iron. Uh higher purity iron serves as a foundation input for rare magnets, permanent magnets, naval ship building alloys, electrical systems, hypersonic systems, and other advanced defense applications.
▶ 1:50:57Um, where do we stand on that currently if we're trying to pull everything back into the United States?
▶ 1:51:02Sir, I'm sorry. I'll have to get back to you. I don't I don't have an update.
▶ 1:51:05I'm gonna get something to you here in a second. I promise. Um, what's your familiarity on subc cabling as far as the department?
▶ 1:51:12Somewhat obviously limited in what I can say in this setting.
▶ 1:51:16Give me Are you familiar with department? I mean, the department's stance on in any way, shape, or form subc cabling.
▶ 1:51:22Yes, I'm familiar in general in general terms. Not trying to be evasive. Just obviously a lot of that's behind the
▶ 1:51:27Yeah. How much information travels underneath the subsc cabling systems from the United States everywhere?
▶ 1:51:31Uh I don't have a precise figure but I think it's a lot.
▶ 1:51:3495 to 99% of all communications including department of wars information travels under the water not over top of our head. I'm curious to what the offensive defensive capabilities or protection of these subse cabling systems is and what the strategy will be moving forward. And my and my concern is because we talk about the department of war. I've been asking every secretary, deputy and all their buddies who's responsible for the subsidy cable protection for the United States.
▶ 1:52:03And I've got Department of War, Homeland Security, Commerce, DOJ, FCC, the dude walking down the street, and probably the guy that flew the plane here to get me back to DC touches this in some way. My question is if we have a catastrophic hit on those cabling systems because 10 trillion travels underneath that system daily.
▶ 1:52:32I can't get a straight answer on who's responsible if they are hit, which we get hit twice a week. Nefarious actors, fishermanmen, doesn't matter. But I need someone to tell me because this isn't where we where we're looking. And that's guerilla warfare. And the way that I see it, if you our ability to communicate, whether that's data, banking, department of war, there's a lot worse things in life than dying. And if you take our economy down to a knee, we're in bad shape.
▶ 1:53:02So I'm I'm assuming you can't speak to me in detail in this setting, but what I would like to have is either come see you, you come see me, or in this classified setting that we're gonna have after the fact. I need some answers for the Department of War because if I'll always say I'll say not if but when something happens somebody's going to have to speak to us and tell us why because what I don't is to say that we weren't looking.
▶ 1:53:31Fair enough.
▶ 1:53:32More than fair, sir. I share your concern about it. Uh it's not I'm the policy guy, but I commit to give you get you a good answer and would be delighted to talk to you further about that and other topics.
▶ 1:53:42All right, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
▶ 1:53:44Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentle lady from Washington, Mr. Strickland.
▶ 1:53:48Thank you, Chairman Rogers. Under Secretary Kby, you were one of the principal architects of the 2026 National Defense Strategy. And that document makes it very clear that the PRC is the pacing threat and that deterring the PRC in the Indoacific is the central organizing principle of this administration's defense policy. I've got six questions. The first three are yes and no and then we can go some other detail.
▶ 1:54:15So I want to examine whether current force allocations actually reflect that strategy or if they contradict it. So for clarity, the 2026 NDS identifies the PRC as the pacing challenge. Correct. That's correct.
▶ 1:54:30The Indopacific remains the primary theater shaping force planning and
▶ 1:54:36Yes, ma'am.
▶ 1:54:37Okay. Second question. Credible deterrence in the Indoacific requires forward deployed naval presence, long range straight straight strike capabilities and sufficient precisiong guided munitions inventories. Would you
▶ 1:54:51Yes, ma'am. And the national defense strategy emphasizes prioritization and disciplined allocation of limited high-end capabilities. Correct.
▶ 1:55:01All right. So now let's turn to current operations. Over the past week, the department has executed significant naval and air combat operations against Iran. And I want to be clear, no one is saying that the Islamic Republic Guard of Iran is a good actor. We know that they are the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
▶ 1:55:19But your own strategy said, and I quote, "No longer will the department be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nation building." And nothing says distracted like killing the leader of a foreign nation without even a hint of strategy or planning. This operation against Iran involves large numbers of US aircraft, ships, and precision weapons.
▶ 1:55:43So, Secretary Colby, are high-end capabilities like long range strike aircraft and cruise missiles being used now in these And those same capabilities, long range strike weapons and precision munitions are also central to US planning for potential conflict in the Indoacific.
▶ 1:56:06Ma'am, we'd have to go into it more in a classified setting. I I think we'd have to get to more differentiated in the way that we're managing I think this very
▶ 1:56:12Okay, I look forward to that conversation. Now, I want to talk about munitions inventories. Last year, during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, US forces fired more than 150 FAD interceptors defending against Iranian missile strikes, up to a quarter of the entire stockpile. Even if every interceptor we buy this year goes toward rebuilding our inventory, it's only going to replace a third of what was used. We already expend a large share of our missile defense inventory during last year's conflict with Iran.
▶ 1:56:42Now again, we are using high-end weapons while the Pentagon is warning about munition shortages. These interceptors, as you know, are not easy to replace. The US buys only dozens per year, and some missile defense systems take years to replenish. And again, how does using these limited weapons against Iran align with your strategies requirement to prioritize the pacing challenge in the Indoacific? Well, thank you, ma'am. I think the way the military campaign is being constructed is conscious of that. But more I would say a couple of things.
▶ 1:57:11One, I'd reiterate that this strategy and the administration's efforts already anticipate I think the points you're making, ma'am. One, with the $ 1.5 trillion uh budget request. Two, with the extraordinary unprecedented agree from the president on down of overhauling something I think we all agree with is talking to Congressman Khana about as well about getting defense industry to produce at a much higher scale. I mean, 1.51 trillion dollar is a lot of money for the American people. spend 1.5 trillion is a lot of we should be getting better results and our allies and partners stepping up and then in the classified session maybe a bit more.
▶ 1:57:40We're also thinking about how do we really think about novel ways to for for the force to be prepared to fight in a way that uh uh ensures effective defense and I think we've got a very good plan and I'm confident and also I think our uh both our friends and potential foes are seeing the prowess of the joint force and that also contributes to deterrence.
▶ 1:57:58Yeah. And you know, as far as requesting more funding, we dramatically increased the budget for ICE. So there's money that exists if we want to use it properly to actually defend ourselves and plus up our munitions. And so closing, I'll just say this, Secretary Colby, the 2026 National Defense Strategy says the PRC is the pacing challenge and that our most advanced capabilities must be prioritized for that competition.
▶ 1:58:23Yet again, we are using many of those same scarce weapons against Iran, a regional adversary that cannot strike the US homeland and is going to result in the deaths of the young men and women who proudly wear the uniform. And we are hoping and praying for their safe return and our sympathy goes out to those who we lost. So I think a question for this committee is quite simple. Are our current actions following strategy or forcing to put our service members and our partners and allies in the Pacific at risk? The American people want transparency.
▶ 1:58:51Congress has the authority to a authorize war and the word war has been used by the president.
▶ 1:58:55Gentle time gentle from Virginia, Miss Kiggins.
▶ 1:59:00Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the privilege of representing Virginia's second congressional district. So, home to the East Coast Navy Fleet. As a Navy veteran, Navy spouse, and now proud Navy mom, I certainly want to first of all shout out to the men and women from my district who are for deployed in the Middle East right now, uh, doing the tip of the spear work for the country. Uh, but every time I turn on the news and I see uh, you know, when they talk about the Iran conflict, it always comes up first these days.
▶ 1:59:25One of the first pictures they show are usually of F-18s taking off aircraft carriers, most likely from from my district again from the East Coast. And, uh, and every once in a while they'll show an F-35. I've known that they've integrated that a little bit more. So, uh, so I want to start off just, you are the self-proclaimed policy guy. Uh, so something that's very important to me. I'm starting to sound like a broken record up here, but I think there's there's no question about the importance of the East Coast Navy and especially the East Coast carrier air wings that we have stationed at our East Coast master jet base. We only have two.
▶ 1:59:54We have one in the West Coast, Naval Air Station LO and then Naval Air Station Oceanana. So, I want to know from the Department of Wars perspective, what is the holdup? What is the delay? because I've queried the Navy and all Navy leadership every time I can get get a hold of them about what the delay is about making that policy choice decision to prioritize getting what we have in front of us which next generation strike fighter we'd love to talk about FAXX is always on the table but we have F-35s the Marines have them on the east coast at at Cherry Point we've got them on the west coast but I think no one will
▶ 2:00:24argue about the importance of what the east coast Navy is doing our east coast aircraft carriers and our east coast carrier air wings so what is the plan to integrate that that latest and greatest F-35 into the East Coast.
▶ 2:00:35Ma'am, I regret that I'll have to defer the Navy on that, but I'll commit to get you an answer as soon as possible.
▶ 2:00:40Okay. Please make that a priority because it's it's frustrating for us. We have 30year-old plus F-18s that are aging. We ask these guys to be tip of the spear. In that same line, we spend millions of dollars training our pilots and uh and a significant amount of time, four to five years to wing those guys. We need to make sure we're taking care of those people as well. Uh so we could we tal spent a lot of time last time on quality of life issues but but let's not forget them. They're an elite fighting force. Let's treat them as such.
▶ 2:01:10Uh I want to talk a lot more about Hampton Roads just the maritime industrial base that's there. I know that's an important part of this uh the national defense strategy. So what are your plans again just prioritizing the east coast and our role there? We have ship building, we have ship repair, but what steps the department taking to reduce acquisition and contracting delays that are slowing the ship repair and construction?
▶ 2:01:32Well, thank you ma'am. This is obviously not so much in the policy lane, but I can say uh from the leadership of the department and from the president, we are working uh very very hard to try to get better uh output from our defense industry and reduce red tape um in in the Department of War, including for instance on FMS reform that's happened that we were all uh part of. But I think I think that's a that's a the frustration about that is felt um throughout the administration and a real urgency to try to rectify the problem.
▶ 2:02:00We have the resources there in Hampton Roads. It's all under one umbrella. So uh so please uh please don't forget about that when making those policy decisions. And I know that you know the USS Ford is currently on a deployment that it could extend even up to not 10 11 months. Uh so I just want to know if if you have any insight into what the Navy when they're extending deployments like this uh because current carrier force levels are insufficient to meet global demand signals. What risks do longer deployments pose to these readiness maintenance cycles and sailor
▶ 2:02:31Ma'am, I defer on that to the Navy and and the Joint Staff, but uh I think you know we're we're very conscious on on you know honoring and and uh supporting our our war fighters and also making sure that our forces are ready. How often do you get to sit down with Navy leadership because it sounds like you're not communicating with them a lot.
▶ 2:02:45Pretty pretty frequently, but more on sort of strategic issues. Again, just to re reiterate, I mean, I sort of know my role and what my role isn't. I'm not, you know, the one trying to tell the Navy how to how to do their business. Uh, but I've sat down with Admiral Codle and Secretary Failen on a range of strategic guidance documents on the office review and a number of other issues. But I don't I'm not trying to tell them how to manage, you know, the aircraft carrier readiness schedule and that sort of Can I ask who is the one trying to tell the Navy how to do their
▶ 2:03:11I don't I don't know.
▶ 2:03:12Okay, I'd like that name, please, when you get a chance. Uh, switching gears a little bit in my last remaining seconds, talk about munitions capacity and Ukraine support. The war in Ukraine operation epic fury and Iran have drawn heavily on US precision munitions and air defense interceptors. Has the department increased production of key munitions such as artillery shells, air defense interceptors, and long-range missiles over the past year?
▶ 2:03:33I'm sorry, could you could you say that again? Has the Has the Department of War increased production of key munitions such as artillery shells, air defense interceptors, and long range missiles over the past year? I'm worried about
▶ 2:03:42I'd have to get you specific figures, ma'am, but my we certainly are moving very much in the right direction. I'm confident that we're going to continue
▶ 2:03:49My time is expired. I'll yield back.
▶ 2:03:52Chair recognized gentleman from New York, Mr. W Ryan.
▶ 2:03:56Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Morning, Mr. Colby. Uh I want to start with a quote. quote, "From a military perspective, the focus really needs to be tightly on the Pacific, especially the first island chain in Taiwan." Does that ring a bell?
▶ 2:04:10Rings a bell, sir.
▶ 2:04:11That was you. Uh, quote, "Some believe that Washington can conduct a major military effort in the Middle East and maintain its advantage in Asia." That's a self-coming delusion. Quote, does that ring a bell?
▶ 2:04:25I defer to you, sir. Where the source?
▶ 2:04:27That was you, Mr. Colby. Uh, quote, "Does the USA want to be the policeman of the Middle East, getting nothing but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars? Do we want to be there forever?" Does that ring a bell?
▶ 2:04:41I defer to you on the sourcing, sir. That was uh actually President Trump in his first term. Uh, how about this one? Quote, "We simply cannot afford to get inshed in a large Middle East war." That one I defer to you, sir. That was actually you, Mr. Colby. Uh, one more quote, "Our interest, I think very much, is in not going to war with Iran. It would be a huge distraction of resources.
▶ 2:05:09It would be massively expensive to our country." That one to refer to you, sir. Uh, that's the vice president, Mr. Vance, in October of Last one. quote, "An intervention would not only cost American lives, but also consume vast munitions and equipment and distract American readiness from Asia, harming US capacity to deter China." That one I defer to you on sourcing,
▶ 2:05:40And I'm not trying to play gotcha. I'm trying to understand a massive inconsistency in what you've said and others in the administration. Uh that was actually um from a piece that you wrote. I'll put the title up as just to help recall. I think it's pretty straightforward and I remember reading it and largely agreeing with it at the time. The subhead of the piece, the title, don't let Iran distract from China. The subhead Beijing's bid to dominate Asia is a far greater threat than anything Tan can do in the Middle East. Mr.
▶ 2:06:08Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter this article from the Wall Street Journal, by the way, into the record.
▶ 2:06:13Without objection, so ordered.
▶ 2:06:15Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Colby, my question is, do you still believe this?
▶ 2:06:21Excuse me, sir. I don't think we are uh going to be distracted. We're very conscious of this uh the strategy and the efforts of the department including
▶ 2:06:28not the distraction piece. I mean you you're very clear that it's a mistake that there's a far greater threat.
▶ 2:06:35Sir, I I don't think the current operations are a mistake. I think we are scoping the military objectives uh in light of the overall strategy under the president's direction. Uh they are reasonable and attainable military objectives. In the interest of time, I think any reasonable observer would say there's a massive inconsistency in what you've said for years and frankly dedicate a lot of your personal career to before this position versus what you're doing now. So the question is were you wrong then
▶ 2:07:00or are you wrong now?
▶ 2:07:01I don't agree with your characterization
▶ 2:07:03That's fine. And to bring it to the present moment, as many of my colleagues have quoted, the national defense strategy, which you wrote, helped lead anyway, which was signed by the Secretary of Defense, which was approved by the president, begins with a line that for good reason has been repeated many times today, and I'll repeat it again on the record. No longer will the department be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nation building.
▶ 2:07:31In case that wasn't crystal clear, in October 2024, then candidate Trump said, quote, "You're not going to have a war with me." In case that wasn't clear, in his victory speech on election night, he said, quote, "I'm not going to start a war.
▶ 2:07:49I'm going to stop wars." my constituents, the American people, everybody watching this, how could we consider that anything but just a straight up betrayal of promises made and and a lack of any strategic coherence. I I frankly think, and I don't use this word lightly, I think you are lying to the American people about it. I think the vice president has lied about it.
▶ 2:08:15The president is lying about And to bring it into stark relief is these six brave patriots that we lost. And don't you think we at least owe them and their tremendous sacrifice which our nation is grateful for just being honest?
▶ 2:08:33And you came in here and three or four times at least when I was in the room made going out of your way to say I'm a loyal lieutenant to the president and I know you're exhausted because I don't think you actually agree with a lot of what he's doing. So, I'm going to give you a chance to to at least say
▶ 2:08:51Well, I fully reject your characterization, sir. Uh, and I am being honest and I think this is uh we this administration is going to be prepared uh for peace through strength and that's what the president's talked
▶ 2:09:03Chair and I recognize gentleman from Georgia, Mr. McCormick.
▶ 2:09:05Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm actually gonna help explain this to one of my peers here as we do this hearing because I think I know where you're going with this. And in with the statements you've made, I I know where you're what you're talking about when you talk about getting involved in Iran in a forever war. Would you consider this a forever
▶ 2:09:24No, sir.
▶ 2:09:26In some ways, I would say been at war with them for about 50 years. We've been attacked over 40 times through their proxies and their weaponry. We've had jewelers recently killed by their weaponry. Uh he just just talked about my my my friend from the other side of the aisle just talked about the six lives we lost. We lost over 200 Marines in one day from Iranian proxies. Some of them were my friends. I have a buddy of mine who was blown out of the window that day who I played rugby with for many years. He'll never forget that.
▶ 2:09:57Uh we don't forget. The fact is the Biden administration and the Obama administration have both given them money, billions of dollars, and allowed them to have access to billions of dollars that have funded terrorism throughout the Middle East and the world. And quite frankly, they were nearing uh the precipice of nuclear arms. And then on top of that, they were able to produce about a hundred advanced weaponry uh platforms uh as we opposed them with about seven during the time same time frame of about a month.
▶ 2:10:26they're outproducing us with something much cheaper, too. Would you say that that new information, that new technology has kind of also changed our foreign policy in that region knowing that Iran now has become disproportionately more powerful and more uh more of a threat to the United States and the entire world in it
▶ 2:10:46Well, thanks, Congressman. would say uh you're right, absolutely right, and agreed uh to put your finger on the reconstitution of Iran's missile and and drone capability and so forth and and the and the balance between Iran was at has been at a weaker point after Operation Midnight Hammer and the 12-day war. But we could see, as the secretary and the pointed out the other day that Iran was going to build up a conventional shield from which it could then seek to to uh again resume its its nuclear ambitions. So, this was the time to take action in a way that's consistent with the strategy, which is of course with Israel, with our Gulf partners.
▶ 2:11:15And now we're seeing uh partners from around the world in a way that was scoped and attainable. Military objectives, those are the objectives of the campaign. And so I think that's uh that's why it's going to be and it's not going to be a forever war. It's not going to be a nation building uh effort as as the president and the secretary have made clear.
▶ 2:11:30I think that's the takehome for me is that when you show strength when you when you develop uh relationships with other nations and this the Abraham Accords and and seeing the other countries in that region that traditionally were not friendly to us historically when I was there in the 90s I was stationed in the Persian Gulf and and deployed there several times. We didn't have the relationship we have now. This huge advancement was made through the first Trump administration with the Abraham Accords has benefited us in amazing ways, not just economically, but strategically and militarily in that region.
▶ 2:12:01I think times have changed. And I want to point out I I was going to make this all about the Marine Corps and the amphibious shipping because that's why I focus on typically. But I think this is much bigger than all that. Uh it doesn't matter how many Marines you put there. I'm not talking about boots on the ground. It is a limited projected war. Now you could say it's a war. I don't care if you don't want to characterize it or not. It doesn't matter. To me, it's all about destroying Iran's capability in a very unstable regime with unstable leadership. When I say unstable, mentally unstable. People that could start a nuclear holocaust.
▶ 2:12:30Anybody who's read the read the book Nuclear Nuclear War should be scared to death of a country with two nuclear arms. Times have changed, technology have changed, and the the threat has changed. And I think what your point and and I want you to summarize for me because I got about a minute and a half, but summarize why thei United States could not any longer stand on the sidelines and literally supplement and I'll I'll go back to the Obama administration which gave them billions of dollars in bad faith because they never were honest with us in negotiations and the Obama
▶ 2:13:00administration which said or or the Biden administration that said I'm going to take off sanctions allow you to have billions of dollars more to then fund terrorism throughout the entire regions which American died by and now they want to a nuclear power. Uh just tell me what the consequences are um long term in American lives, what the potential con even if it's a 10% chance that they could kill millions of people, wouldn't that be a reason to act?
▶ 2:13:27I think sir, as you pointed out and the president has been clear that we were and the vice president as well that we will ensure that we and the strategy makes clear that we will deny Iran a nuclear weapon. um and the Islamic Republic was rebuilding its military capabilities and so the military campaign is designed to degrade that. It's designed to take advantage of a range of realistic outcomes, but it's clearly a threat to the United States, to Israel, to our allies and partners in the Gulf and beyond.
▶ 2:13:50And I'll just use my last 15 seconds to say it's interesting when we lost 2,462 lives in Afghanistan and we had already won it, paid the price, we then gave it back to the same people we took it from. And that's the Biden administration's legacy. With that, I yield. Gentleman's time is expired. The chair and I recognize a gentleman from California, Mr. Cesteros.
▶ 2:14:09Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Colby. Secretary Kby for being here today. I want I want to go back to the Joe Ford. Um, was there an ESOB meeting before the uh Ford was moved down to the uh the the uh off the coast of Venezuela?
▶ 2:14:27Uh, sorry, I'd have to defer that question. I'll get back to you with not sure what I can say in this open
▶ 2:14:32Okay. Were you part of that meeting,
▶ 2:14:34sir? Same answer. I just not sure. Uh classification and so forth.
▶ 2:14:39Okay. Um was the uh was the GI gift map modified during that meeting?
▶ 2:14:48Same answer, sir. I'll get back to you based on classification and just uh deliberative discussions.
▶ 2:14:53All right. So, is this something that we can discuss in the close session?
▶ 2:14:57I I I think so. I think we can talk around some of the general issues. Not sure what what uh from a legislative executive point of view might be uh sort of privileged information that's
▶ 2:15:08Okay. Well, I will bring this up in the close session as well if you won't answer it here. But my concerns are really is like what concerns were brought up by moving the Ford around and keeping it out for 11 months. But if you won't answer those for me here.
▶ 2:15:19So I could address that. I mean I think actually the aircraft carrier is precisely and I have advocated for it to be moved around to priority theaters. It's part of its a huge part of its value is the ability to be mobile and go where the president uh whichever president is. It decides that that's the priority theater that it's not fixed in place. It can move around delivers a tremendous combat.
▶ 2:15:38We all know the value of an aircraft carrier and its ability to kind of move around and and having it go, right? But we also knew too there's concerns about keeping it out for 11 months. There's maintenance concerns and there's concerns about when it has to go into the work period and what's going to come next after that, right? Um, those are some of the things I want to address, but I want to talk about the ESOB as well and the changes that were made, but we'll try answering those in the close session. Um, so if you want to answer that, then I guess we'll get to the next thing. What is the Dunroe doctrine?
▶ 2:16:07Uh, the way we put it in in uh this document is the Trump coral or the Monroe Doctrine, which is basically ensuring that American interests uh in the Western Hemisphere are respected once again.
▶ 2:16:16So, what is the difference between the Monroe Doctrine and the Dunroe doctrine? Uh I wouldn't I I'd have to get back to you with a specific answer in terms of the precise text, but obviously the Monroe Doctrine is a historic document going back 200 years. And this is more of an updating same similar um approach as uh US policy has been uh towards the Western Hemisphere for for two centuries, which is to ensure that our interests are respected.
▶ 2:16:39Right. All right. I think
▶ 2:16:40except in recent generations,
▶ 2:16:41I would say that the Monroe Doctrine is was a policy that came out by President Monroe to kind of keep outside influence outside of the Western Hemisphere, not to come in here. And now the Denroe doctrine, as the president is calling, is one not only to keep outside influence in, but it's to exert influence upon the Western Hemisphere to make sure that they bend to American will and need. Would would you concur with that?
▶ 2:17:06I don't. And I think we also have to look at the Roosevelt correlary to the Monroe Doctrine from about 100 years ago, which is important about as the United States grew in power. Obviously, I take your point, sir, about the Monroe Doctrine. Um, but I think and I don't think even today the secretary's leading the uh coalition of Latin American states, a lot of Latin American states have responded very positively to our actions in the Western Hemisphere.
▶ 2:17:27Again, are they doing that out of fear? Right? Because are we not blockading the coast of uh
▶ 2:17:31I think a lot of are doing because they sh there's a shared view of the threats naroterrorism instability etc.
▶ 2:17:37Well again okay now you want to talk about naroterrorism and we'll get to that but what authority does the uh department of defense have to conduct these operations which are basically law oper you know lawful operations to kind of supersede and bomb these boats that are claiming to be transporting illegal drugs. We don't know because we just bombing them and we never kind of go in there and kind of see or try to gather any of the evidence.
▶ 2:18:03Sir, I defer on the legal issue, but I would say that I think the view from a kind of broader point of view is that these are uh um you know these narotists are bringing very deadly lethal uh drugs. Let me ask you a story as as the director of policy at the Department of Defense and and really to get your opinion, how did you advise the uh the secretary to that? Okay.
▶ 2:18:25Now basically the department of defense is conducting um legal operations really justice operations police operations rather than you know which is not our authority to do so.
▶ 2:18:38Well, I I I I think a different assessment uh that I'd defer to my colleagues on the legal side, but I fully support the operations that are done in consistent with the law and they are and this is a very serious threat to the American people and that's one of the main points of the strategy is to introduce the the military instrument into the defense of our interest in the Western Hemisphere but not over there to conduct law, right? It's not a law enforcement agency,
▶ 2:18:57but law enforcement wasn't working, sir.
▶ 2:18:59Well, it's still sufficient. Obviously, it's a critical part.
▶ 2:19:02I will say I will not argue that point, right? But that doesn't make the Department of Defense a law. all of a sudden now it has to start enforcing the law because it wasn't being done properly. With that, I yield back.
▶ 2:19:13Gentleman's time has expired. I have just been made aware by staff that we have a hard stop at 12:45 to go into classified session. So, we will try to uh adhere to that. Mr. Magcguire of Virginia is recognized.
▶ 2:19:26Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh thank you, Secretary Kby. And thank you to um all of our men and women that are veterans are continuing uh continuing to serve our country that are here. I I say it all the time and I mean it uh of all the committees I could be on, this is my favorite committee because I'm a protector. I'm a father of five. I'm a Navy Seal veteran and I know we would not have a country without our men and women who uh serve in our incredible military. We have the best military in the world with the best spirit and the best training and the best equipment.
▶ 2:19:56And evidence of that is Operation Midnight Hammer. Who would have thought that we could do that? I bet you our adversaries can't believe how successful that mission was. How about absolute resolve? Amazing. All equipment in, out, all people out. And of course, epic fury. 49 leaders. One of the number one things you want to do is take out leadership. And that could normally take six months to a year and lots of boots on the ground. One strike took that out. And of course, air superiority.
▶ 2:20:23But we couldn't do that without the leadership of this commander-in-chief, Secretary of War Pete Hexth, General Kaine, uh, Secretary KBY, and the Department of War, but also without the leadership of the chairman and this committee, that success is because of what we do here. So, my message to our troops that might be watching this is as we mourn our fallen, we've lost a thousand or more troops over the last 47 years. Um to their to their families, we're praying for you.
▶ 2:20:53To our troops that are on the front line right now, we have got your back. We can do politics later, but right now as a country, we need to all be on the same team wearing the same jersey. And that jersey says USA. One of the worst things in the world is to be deployed down range and see your representatives downplay what you're doing and how important it is. They are on the front line. We can disagree. Okay, but let's worry about that later. Let's make sure they're fully supported. Now, right now, I believe 3.8% of our force is in the Middle East in this uh these operations.
▶ 2:21:24Um, China, China has a philosophy. They believe that anything can and should be used as a weapon. And that's why we're dealing with them all over the place. Um, Iran, I believe that Ukraine, we learned a lot about drones. We weren't even talking about that till um until Ukraine Russia conflict, but these drones and what we've learned has made us better. We have peace through strength thanks to Secretary Pete Hexth. And as uh Sentcom commander said, he asked our troops to be relentlessly lethal.
▶ 2:21:55Um so Mr. Secretary, I'd like to give you one minute to clarify your position prioritization of Iran and China. Sir, I think under the president's leadership and the secretary's leadership, we are prioritizing the first island chain in accordance with his national security strategy and national defense strategy while we are also enabling him to take decisive action along the lines of the military campaign that he's authorized against the Islamic Republic of Iran which is in uh the strategy.
▶ 2:22:18This is fully encompassed and it builds on the successful operation operation midnight hammer and as I said earlier uh I think it contributes to deterrence around the
▶ 2:22:27You guys are doing an incredible job. I I did I I do trust the chairman's judgment though. If we got to work on communication, I think you've conceded that we'll do that. So, thank you. But in the sense of keeping the homeland um how are we going to keep adversaries from getting a foothold in the Arctic and the Panama Canal? And again, it would be stupid for us to tell people how many soldiers we have, when we're going to attack, but with what you can say to answer that question.
▶ 2:22:50Well, sir, I think that's exactly what the Trump corro doctrine discussed in the national defense strategy is all about is making sure that our interests are are respected in this hemisphere with the military playing an important part but not always the dominant or leading one.
▶ 2:23:02In the cyber domain um how would you define the homeland in thei in the cyber
▶ 2:23:07Uh maybe I could get back to you sir with a a more specific answer just given the complexities there.
▶ 2:23:12Yeah, I understand that. And then I would say this um I couldn't agree more with the uh number four supercharging our defense industrial base strategy number four pillar in your um your plan on supercharging. We need to call a call to industrial arms. We need it today. However, I want to make sure that we're not just investing in weapons and equipment but the infrastructure needed to build and maintain our factories, hangers, and arsenals. Uh so this is a yes or no question.
▶ 2:23:41Does achieving this strategy require us to invest in skilled trades like welding, machine and IT?
▶ 2:23:48Uh I think absolutely sir. Yeah.
▶ 2:23:50And how does the department encourage growth in these sectors?
▶ 2:23:54Sir, I defer to some of my colleagues in the services and otherwise uh PNR etc. But uh but I think we all know that getting a skilled workforce is actually a huge part of addressing this issue.
▶ 2:24:03Well, we've got your back. Thanks for all you do and God bless America. God bless our troops. Thank you. I yield
▶ 2:24:09Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognize gentle lady from New Hampshire, Miss Goodlander.
▶ 2:24:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Colby, thank you for being here today. Am I correct? I think you testified earlier that the department is committed to a $1.5 trillion budget this fiscal
▶ 2:24:25But that's uh I'm not exactly sure what the parameters are, ma'am, but we're advocating for a $ 1.5 trillion uh budget under the president's direction.
▶ 2:24:32Mr. Colby, we cannot do our job without your budget. Your budget was due the first Monday in February. Here we are in March. When can we expect your budget?
▶ 2:24:42Uh, ma'am, let me get an answer for you
▶ 2:24:44We look forward to that answer. You're asking for a 50% increase over the FY26 request. Can you give us any sense of where this plus up is going to be dedicated to within the department? Ma'am, I wouldn't want to get ahead of the department in terms of the specifics, but I think the conversation we've had here today illuminates a lot of the issues. We all know, as the president indicated, we've got plentiful munition supplies, and the last administration worked on this as well, but we know we need to, you know, we can we can get uh uh we can we can work harder on that and get more productive.
▶ 2:25:14So, I think that's a munition is going to be a big part of it. Obviously, there's a lot of platforms, some of the personnel issues that were just
▶ 2:25:21Uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit to the record two articles from the Washington Post dated August 12th, 2025 and August 30th, October 30th, 2025, if I may.
▶ 2:25:34Thank you. Um, Mr. Colby, these articles detail a plan that you were a part of crafting uh to send more than 23,000 troops to all 50 states as part of a domestic civil disturbance quick reaction force. Are these reports accurate? Ma'am, I'd have to get back to you with an answer.
▶ 2:25:53You can't tell us now whether you were a part of this planning or this exists at
▶ 2:25:57Ma'am, I just want to make sure I give you accurate answers and we'll get back to you as soon as as soon as possible on the specifics.
▶ 2:26:02I look forward to that. Are American cities or communities in this country an appropriate training ground for our I mean, I think we have training grounds, if you're using the term, ma'am, uh, literally, uh, throughout the United States, but, um, I mean, I think the US forces can be deployed in the country for lawful purposes, and they would be. I wouldn't probably characterize them as training grounds myself, but
▶ 2:26:24you wouldn't. Well, what do you think the president meant when he said on September 30th, 2025 that quote, "We should use American cities as quote, training grounds for our military, National I wouldn't speak for the president if if that I mean that's that's uh his words speak for themselves and we follow his instructions. Ma'am,
▶ 2:26:46are you concerned about National Guard deployments to American cities to as as part of some training exercise? Well, ma'am, I think the main purpose, as I understand it, for those is is lawfully uh pursuing uh you know, presidential and other authorities to ensure, you know, law and order and other kinds of uh or supports of law and order, I should say, which are important parts of of uh traditional American, but obviously uh the use of the American military, it's been done in the past.
▶ 2:27:11We're very careful uh in what we um how we give advice uh in the Department of War and make sure that it's lawful.
▶ 2:27:20Mr. Colby, when Secretary Hexath was here in June, I asked him a very simple question that has one one answer and one answer only. I asked him whether the department would abide by a decision of the Supreme Court. Can you make a commitment that if the department is asked to comply with a Supreme Court decision, you you will do
▶ 2:27:38Well, as I said to Senator Slot and we all, you know, commit to the Constitution and so forth and whatever the appropriate uh lawful response to a Supreme Court decision is, of certainly I will commit to follow it. Mr. Colby, concerns have been raised on a bipartisan basis in this hearing about your commitment to the truth, and I want to give you an opportunity to truthfully answer a very simple question, which is who won the 2020 presidential election.
▶ 2:28:04Uh, ma'am, I'm going to I'm not going to talk about that issue. It's not irrelevant to my responsibilities here, but I I fully uh rebut any um uh characterization that I'm not being Do you have any question about who won the 2020 presidential election?
▶ 2:28:19Ma'am, that's not my my topic of responsibility here. I'm
▶ 2:28:22You swore an oath to our Constitution. You are a citizen.
▶ 2:28:25You're a lawyer.
▶ 2:28:26I'm not a lawyer. I should
▶ 2:28:29I went to law school.
▶ 2:28:30Okay. Well, in any event, you swore an oath to the
▶ 2:28:33You will not answer this simple
▶ 2:28:35I'm not ma'am. I'm not going to be drawn out on an issue of political contention. That's it's totally irrelevant to my testimony here. I'm here being very open with all of you. uh and uh I I am being truthful and I uh absolutely am being
▶ 2:28:47Well, it's very disappointing that you won't answer this basic question. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:28:52Gentlemen yields back. Chair now recognizes a gentleman uh Mr. Hrigan.
▶ 2:28:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh Secretary Kby, thanks for your testimony today. Really appreciate it. Um, I would just like to say, you know, I've I've I've been disposed in in other meetings, but I've been watching C-SPAN here and and watching your comments and watching some of the questions from the other side. And uh, you know, the the the lack of of commitment to the truth is something that continually is coming up from the other side.
▶ 2:29:20And I I really take issue with that because uh, I've heard many of my colleagues talk about how they don't know what the strategy is. Uh the truth is is that they have not read this document. Uh the truth is that only three members from this committee actually went in to read the classified version of this document. And so when they sit here and they ask for what is the strategy, they simply don't know because they have not informed themselves.
▶ 2:29:50But very clearly there is a strategy and that strategy is working to turn the tables on our adversaries around the globe. And we are seeing that play out in real time right now thanks to President Trump's commitment to peace through strength. And I think what most of us fail to understand sometimes is that because we were so weak for so long, we have had to exert force to reassert that strength.
▶ 2:30:16Certainly, I believe in wholeheartedly what the ranking member has said, which is we've got to have a commitment to the rules-based order. But the reality is when America is perceived to be incapable of enforcing the rules-based order, some things have to change. And I think this administration has properly understood that paradigm and responded to it.
▶ 2:30:39Simultaneously, as a veteran of the global war on terror, as many of my uh fellow veterans are very concerned about long-term open-ended commitments overseas that take away from our focus on our strategic adversary, our true strategic adversary, which you have properly identified in this document as China.
▶ 2:31:03I would also caution my veteran friends to understand that sometimes we have to use force in order to not fight for the long term. That we are using a very specific application of force in such a decisive way that we are actually avoiding longterm conflict. And I think that's exactly what we are doing in Iran right now. So uh all of this being said, I do have a question for you.
▶ 2:31:32uh given the action that we are taking in Iran and when we look at our strategic stocks, our magazine depth, you've talked about your fourth pillar uh which is supercharging the defense industrial base.
▶ 2:31:46If we are conducting sustained operations in the Middle East, what specific posture adjustments, munitions allocations, or surge authorities are in place right now to ensure that Beijing does not perceive an opportunity to move against Taiwan.
▶ 2:32:03Uh thank you very much, Congressman. I appreciate your comments uh very much. Um and maybe just kind of go in reverse order. I think in that maybe we can get more into the in the close session, but we are paying very close attention to the reactions of other potential opponents out there and we see very clearly that the prowess of the joint force which you have referred to has a deterrent effect.
▶ 2:32:21But we are also paying very close attention at the nuts and bolts level not only in terms of quantity but in terms of how how we're thinking about how we employ or how our armed forces would be employed for most effectively along the lines of a denial defense along the first island chain. So sir I just I think you you nailed it there. Um uh I I appreciate your points about veterans, sir, and I know you have a distinguished, uh record yourself. Um I think that's exactly right. We certainly I know Secretary Hegsth, all of us in the leadership of the department, Under Secretary Hansel, etc.
▶ 2:32:48Uh we are all very conscious of the This is not another Iraq war. This is not nation building. This is not an endless war. This is But the just as I said in my opening statement, we're not isolationists. We're not restrainers. We're flexible realists. We understand you've got a threat with the Islamic Republic. If you look too weak, then you get another problem. And so you got to get, as you said, sir, the best outcome, which is the fewest Americans, you know, killed over time or our interests disrespected, important interests disrespected. Um, and sir, I appreciate your point about the truth. I take my commitment to the truth very seriously.
▶ 2:33:18To be a little humorous, I think if people who know me know that uh that is not one of my faults, being being deceptive, I might be truthful almost to a fault. Uh, so I think um I I have plenty of other faults, but uh if that's the best that they can throw at me, uh anybody who knows me knows I'm uh not a a false uh person. So I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on that, sir.
▶ 2:33:38Hey, thank you, Secretary Kby, for all of that clarification. And uh I truly truly encourage my colleagues, let's be about national security here, not politics. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 2:33:49Gentlemen yields back. that will bring a close to the open uh portion of of today's hearing. I thank the secretary for being here and um I I think that he has heard some concerns about um communication and has pledged to improve communication between his office and this committee and I look forward to that. We all want the department to be successful and the best way for us to help that uh along is by having open channels of communication with your office.
▶ 2:34:17So with that this open session is adjourned. We will reconvene at 1:00 in 2212.