We're beginning at 10:04 A.M. We just completed a very successful and bipartisan markup of several nominations. We were working, even though we are a minute or two late. I welcome our witnesses and their families. I thank them for being here this morning. I'm going to say what I've said for months and months at the kickoff of most of our hearings. The United States faces the most dangerous threat environment since World War II. It bears repeating, in these challenging times, I'm grateful that the individuals here today have stepped up to serve. Mr. Platt Moring III has been nominated to be the Inspector General of the Department of Defense. Mr. Moring is a retired Lieutenant Colonel and a Bronze Star recipient. He served with distinction in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. He now teaches political science at the Citadel. Under the first Trump administration, Mr.
Moring was the Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Defense. He also worked in private practice as well with the Department of Justice. Welcome to you, Mr. Moring. We look forward to hearing about how Mr. Moring intends to ensure transparency, accountability, and clear communication with Congress in the performance of these duties. Ms. Kirsten Davies has been nominated to be Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense. Ms. Davies has over 15 years of executive cybersecurity and technology leadership with experience at five global and Fortune 250 companies. It confirms she will bring expertise in designing and leading comprehensive security reforms and digital transformation initiatives. Ms. Davies will help implement advanced technologies at the speed of the commercial industry without compromising security standards.
I look forward to hearing her views on modernizing our cyber defenses, rapidly integrating cutting-edge capabilities, and ensuring our warfighters have the technological edge they need to defend our nation. Mr. James G. Maisel has been nominated to serve as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. In this role, it is critical to ensure that our technology outpaces that of our adversaries. Mr. Maisel has both House and Senate experience in national security and technology policy. He's therefore uniquely qualified to support the Department and to be a true partner with this committee to work hand in hand with Congress. The U.S. We must accelerate our efforts to develop, field, and transition operationally relevant capabilities to our warfighters, including everything from artificial intelligence to biotechnologies. We must leverage and steer our key advantages, such as private capital, toward national security objectives.
We must do so in critical technologies so we can surpass China's efforts. I'm confident Mr. Maisel is the exact person we need to help us experiment rapidly and to integrate promising technologies at scale. I will have the honor of saying a bit more about Mr. Maisel later on. I look forward to hearing his testimony about his vision for how we can act to make progress in this area. Mr. Derek Anderson has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. If confirmed, he would serve as the Principal Civilian Advisor to the Secretary of Defense on Special Operations, Counterterrorism, and Irregular Warfare-related matters. This Assistant Secretary role is also responsible for overseeing the training, equipment, and readiness of our nation's Special Operations forces. Mr. Anderson was the first in his family to attend and graduate from college.
Following his graduation, he went on to serve the nation in uniform as an Army infantry officer and as a Green Beret. His experience in uniform and in the private sector gives me confidence he will do an excellent job. I look forward to hearing Mr. Anderson describe his priorities for our special operations enterprise. With that, I turn to my colleague, Ranking Member Reed, Senator Reed.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all witnesses. Congratulations on your nominations. Let me also welcome your family members. I think one of the requirements in this White House is that children have to be adorable and well-behaved. So far, so good. Mr. Moring, you are nominated to be the Inspector General of the Department of Defense. This position is among the most consequential oversight roles in our government. The American people rely on the IG to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse and to hold accountable those who misuse the enormous power and resources of the Pentagon. I must be direct. You have been nominated by a president who has shown outright hostility to the role of Inspector General.
In his first week in office, President Trump fired your predecessor along with every other Inspector General in the federal government, not because of poor performance, but because they did their jobs, in fact, too well. He has repeatedly demanded political loyalty from those who must be dedicated to the Constitution and laws, not to an individual. Equally troubling is the broader record of the administration. President Trump has consistently shown a willingness to bend or ignore.
Par le prisme de l'homme. Par le prisme de l'homme. Être utile, c'est aussi d'émerer dans sa présence. Être utile, c'est aussi d'émerer dans sa présence.
Information Officer, the Principal Advisor on Information Technology and National Security Systems. If confirmed, you will face several severe challenges. First, the Software Fast-Track Initiative requires a 90-day framework to modernize outdated procurement systems that are slow and opaque. You will need to drive this initiative and additional reform across acquisition, research, and intelligence while safeguarding supply chains. At the same time, the Department of Defense has struggled for years to hire IT professionals to work in software development, cybersecurity, operations, and acquisition. This challenge has been compounded by the widespread workforce cuts and contract cancellations. These actions risk slowing modernization rather than accelerating it. Ms. Davies, I would ask how you plan to address each of these complex issues. Mr. Maisel, you are nominated to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.
If confirmed, you will oversee investments in modernization priorities, such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonics, biotechnology, and microelectronics. Maintaining our lead over China and Russia in these fields requires addressing several challenges. You must advocate for modernization while balancing near-term readiness, requiring close coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the military services. Equally important, you will need to overcome the Department's so-called Valley of Death, ensuring research innovations become operational capabilities. This means strengthening ties between research activities and service acquisition programs and investing in the people and infrastructure of DARPA, the defense labs, and test ranges. Mr. Maisel, I hope you will share your views on these responsibilities at this pivotal moment. Finally, Mr. Anderson, you are nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. If confirmed, there are several urgent issues you will need to address.
To begin, the law requires timely and substantive notification to Congress of sensitive military operations and access to executive orders. Under President Trump, these obligations have been routinely ignored. This regard undermines oversight and erodes trust. In particular, the administration's recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean represent, in my view, a blatant violation of international and domestic law. In February, the White House designated two dozen cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. This designation, however, does not grant new authorities for military targeting. Given the large number of U.S. military assets that have been deployed to the Caribbean, it is clear that the administration intends to continue such operations. Skirting the law and denying transparency for the American people risks a dangerous escalation with international ramifications. Mr.
Anderson, if confirmed, you will be at the center of this situation, and it will be your responsibility to ensure the law is followed. I would ask your views on the operations in the Caribbean and request your commitment to follow the law, no matter how uncomfortable that position may become. Again, to all the nominees, thank you. I look forward to your testimonies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. At this point, it is customary for other members of Congress to come in and sit at that desk in front of us and introduce particular individuals that we have a particular interest and history working with. For today's purpose, Mr. Maisel has done me the honor of asking him to be that person. I will make a few extra remarks about Mr. Maisel from the dais, and then I'll be followed by Senator Cotton to make another individual introduction. I am flattered, James, and I'm delighted to introduce one of our today's nominees. Mr. James G. Maisel is here today along with his wife, Deborah, his son, Jack, who's well-behaved. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. His mother, Toni, who's also acting very, very behaviorally correct today. He's been nominated to serve as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.
It's clear to me, and I think to everyone who's worked with him and met him, that he's ready to assume this role. The reason I say this with such confidence is that I've witnessed his competence and his character. Mr. Maisel joined my staff in 2017 and served there with distinction until the beginning of this year. When I led the Sea Power Subcommittee, Mr. Maisel led my response to the hypoxia episodes naval aviators were facing. He also helped me draft and implement the Surface Warfare Enhancement Act after U.S. sailors were killed in warship collisions. I was so impressed with James' work that I tapped him to be the Policy Director of my Commerce staff when I became Chair. In that role, he led a team focused on aviation, space, science, and technology issues.
He helped craft aviation safety legislation following the 737 MAX crashes, and he helped me direct more research funding to institutions in typically overlooked states. In 2023, I once again appointed him to be the Policy Director, this time for my Armed Services Committee staff. Once again, he handled research, engineering, science, and technology portfolios. In addition to that work, Mr. Maisel helped develop and negotiate the NDAA, run committee activities, and lead the SESC team. That history demonstrates Mr. Maisel's readiness for this role. Most members of this committee are intimately familiar with his service this year and before, and that's made him even more prepared. James Maisel is brilliant. He's strong. He's scrupulously honest. I could not be more delighted to speak on behalf of him today. Mr. Maisel, I will now turn to you for your opening statement, and after that, Senator Cotton will be recognized.
Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you as the nominee for Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, a position which serves as the Department's Deputy Chief Technology Officer. Chairman Wicker, thank you for that incredible introduction, sir. After many years of sitting behind you, it's a bit surreal to be sitting down here. Thank you for taking a chance on a young House LD eight years ago. It was an honor to serve you, and I'm grateful to you, Mrs. Wicker, and Team Wicker, past and present, including my former colleagues on this committee. I'm grateful to my family, friends, and colleagues for your support. Today, I am joined by my mother, Toni, my wife, Deborah, and our five-year-old son, Jack.
Deborah and I met on Capitol Hill 10 years ago, and the marvelous Mrs. Maisel is an outstanding wife and mother, and her daily sacrifices have enabled me to continue pursuing a career in public service, including this potential role. I'm grateful to Secretary Hegseth for selecting me at the beginning of the second Trump administration to perform the duties of the Department's CTO position and then the Deputy CTO position upon the Honorable Emil Michael's confirmation and as a senior advisor to the Honorable Emil Michael now. In addition to my congressional roles, performing these senior roles has provided me with significant insight into and experience shaping R&E's budget and programs. Perhaps most important, they have given me a greater appreciation for the technological challenges facing the Department. Make no mistake, the United States is running a race against China for 21st-century technological supremacy.
As the Department's CTO, R&E plays a critical role in ensuring the DoD helps the United States win this race. Congress has charged R&E with establishing policy on supervising and unifying defense research and engineering, including tech development and transition. This congressional mandate shapes what I believe constitutes four significant areas for R&E. First, ensuring the Department's R&D budget is wisely invested and aligned to the Department's priorities. From basic research to developmental test, R&E faces the formidable task of overseeing and vectoring in the right direction over $150 billion in the R&D budget annually, spread across hundreds of programs and thousands of projects. Second, in alignment with President Trump's AI Action Plan, making the Department an AI-first organization from the enterprise level to the tactical edge. Third, improving the speed of tech development and transition into operational capabilities.
It is important that the Department and R&E not miss the opportunity to leverage the explosion of private capital invested into defense technology. Fourth, serving as the trusted source of unbiased, deep technical expertise across the Department. R&E should continue to be the office that senior leaders continue to turn to when needing to make informed technical decisions and hard choices. At the macro level, I view the role of Deputy Under Secretary in simple terms: help the Department catch up and surpass China and other adversaries and potential opponents in critical technology areas where we may have fallen behind and widen our lead in the areas where we remain ahead. To me, that's peace through strength defined in terms of technological overmatch. If confirmed, I look forward to assisting Under Secretary Michael carry out his duties in concert with Secretary Hegseth's vision.
Thank you again for the opportunity, and look forward to your questions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Maisel. Senator Cotton will now be recognized to introduce Mr. Anderson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honored to introduce to the committee a true American patriot and the nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, Derek Anderson. Derek and I first crossed paths more than a decade ago. We each served at the Old Guard of Arlington. Derek has also served our nation honorably while in the 3rd Infantry Division and later during his time with the 5th Special Forces Group and more recently in the Washington, D.C. Army National Guard. Throughout his time in the military, Derek received numerous awards, including a Bronze Star Medal, a NATO Medal, and a Meritorious Service Medal. He also earned multiple honors and recognitions, including the Ranger Tab, the Special Forces Tab, and the Master Parachutist Badge.
I also worked with Derek on legislation to rectify previously unknown weapons system flaws that jeopardized the safety of our men and women in uniform. Through these efforts, I saw how deeply Derek cared about the brave men and women of our military and their families. Derek has continued to dedicate his time and his talents to his fellow Americans, most recently in the White House as the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and earlier as a Director of Counterterrorism at the National Security Council. Throughout his career, Derek's dedication to our great nation has been evident, and I am pleased to support his nomination. I strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Senator Cotton. Now, Mr. Anderson, your opening statement, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished members of the Armed Services Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as the nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. It's an exceptional personal honor to be considered for this role. I'd like to begin by expressing my deep gratitude for the trust and confidence that President Trump has placed in me to once again serve our great nation. I'd also like to express my gratitude to Vice President Pence, Secretary of Defense Esper, and Under Secretary Colby for their support and confidence. I very much appreciated my engagements with you and your staffs over the last weeks, and if confirmed, I look forward to deepening this relationship. Specifically to Senator Cotton, a fellow member of the Old Guard, thank you for the years of mentorship.
I'm sincerely blessed to have your support and truly appreciate the introduction. To my friends and family who've joined me here today, to include those who are unable to make it but supported me throughout my life and career, thank you. To my mom and grandma, I cannot thank you enough for the love and support and inspiration that you've given me to allow me the opportunities I have today. I don't think that any of us could have predicted some 40 years ago as we drove across the hills of West Virginia to Virginia that we'd be sitting here today. To my fellow Green Beret and grandfather, thank you for pushing me at every juncture in my career, de oppresso liber. Most importantly, to my fiancée, Maggie, who is sitting behind me, an accomplished attorney and Army reservist in her own right.
You have sacrificed so much for me to pursue my dreams. You continue to be my rock and best friend. Thank you, sweetheart. Lastly, I want to thank the men and women of the United States Military, past and present, whose courage and dedication inspire all of us every day. My commitment to this role is rooted in my family's long lineage of military service. My father served in the Army as an MP and my stepbrother in Afghanistan as a U.S. Marine. Two of my uncles served as U.S. Marines and two of my great uncles served as Army infantrymen in Vietnam, including my Uncle Blum, who earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. 9/11 changed the trajectory of my life. I joined ROTC at Virginia Tech, became the first person in my family to earn a college degree.
As an infantry officer, I earned my Ranger Tab and immediately deployed to Iraq for 15 months as part of the Surge. Following my time at the 3rd Infantry Regiment, the Old Guard, where I led over 150 funerals in Arlington National Cemetery, I earned my Green Beret, leading two Special Forces ODAs and two companies as an XO over the course of five deployments, including Bahrain, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and Afghanistan. Following my time on active duty, I earned a law degree from Georgetown University, clerked for two federal judges, and worked at one of the nation's top law firms, all while serving in the National Guard. If confirmed, I'll be the Secretary of War's Principal Civilian Advisor for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict matters. I believe my background makes me qualified because I understand from various points of view what the special operations community requires to be successful.
It also helps that many of my colleagues I grew up in the SOF community continue to serve. While I remain accountable to the President, Secretary, and Congress, my SOF brothers and sisters have my number, and they will 100% hold me accountable. Terrorists and nefarious actors did not wake up on January 21st and say, "America is now focused on X, Y, and Z, so we'll leave them alone." This is why the special operations enterprise must be flexible, agile, and resource-cognizant. While we are no longer at war in the traditional sense in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we must build our irregular warfare capabilities to deter, prevent, and be prepared for the next conflict.
As such, SOCOM and AFW SOLIC have a unique task to ensure that we find, fix, and finish those entities who choose to target the United States so that we as a country can focus on our long-term threats. Lastly, I recognize the importance of working closely with Congress. It is an honor of my life to be given this opportunity to earn your trust and continue my service to our great nation. I look forward to responding to your questions and discussing how we can work together to support the service members, civilians, and families who make up the special operations community. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Congratulations on your testimony and your nomination, and congratulations on your engagement. Have you set a date?
We do, Senator. We have it in November.
Very good. You know, it's a felony to lie to the Congress. We expect you to keep that. Now, Mr. Moring, please top that. You're recognized, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as the President's nominee to serve as Inspector General of the Department. It is a high honor and distinct privilege to be considered for this role. First and foremost, I recognize my wife, Susan, without whose love and support I would not be here today. My daughter, Lee, and her Navy veteran husband, Blake, are seated behind me today and are a tremendous source of encouragement and kind assistance. My son, William, serves as a mental health counselor in Denver, Colorado, and could not be with us here today. I would also like to acknowledge the cadets and my former students at the Citadel who made the journey to the nation's capital to witness this most important advice and consent process.
The motto of the Citadel is honor, duty, and respect. If confirmed, I will continue to uphold these core values as the Inspector General. I'm grateful to the President for the special trust and confidence he has placed in me by this nomination. I'm also thankful to the Secretary for his endorsement. In preparation for today's hearing, I've given considerable thought to the role of the Office of Inspector General and my approach to the fulfillment of its mission of promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in Department programs. In this reflection, I was led to the oft-quoted Bible verse from Micah 6:8. What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly. This verse is a call to action, emphasizing the importance of justice, mercy, and humility in one's relationships. If confirmed, this verse will instruct my performance of this very important position.
I will painstakingly pursue the facts of each matter with the intent on achieving justice and accountability within the Department. At the same time, if confirmed, I will extend professional courtesy to all Department employees with the ideal of preserving their dignity, respect, and constitutional rights in the conduct of impactful audits, evaluations, inspections, and reviews. I will, if confirmed, strive to remain transparent, open, helpful, considerate, resilient, and most of all, independent. My commitment to the Department is rooted in my family's long lineage of patriotic service to our nation. My multiple-generation great-grandfather and his brother signed the Tryon Resolves in 1775, prior to the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, vowing to take up arms and risk their lives and fortunes in maintaining the freedom in the North Carolina Colony.
Other distant relatives served on the Continental Line and North Carolina Militia during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Both my grandfathers served our country in the Army and Merchant Marine in World War I. My father and father-in-law both served in occupied Germany and Austria following World War II. It has been my lifelong intent to continue this tradition of service to our great nation. To that end, my career has involved a variety of experience which, if confirmed, prepared me to take on this new appointment. I've been employed in the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, private law practice, the military, and teaching law school and college courses. The primary focus of my legal work and private practice in the Department of Justice was the investigation and prosecution of fraud. On active duty with the U.S.
Army in Afghanistan, my duty assignment was Rule of Law Officer for Operation Enduring Freedom, developing a constitutional criminal procedure code and judicial system for that war-torn country. If confirmed, it will be my honor to protect and advance the Office of the Inspector General in support of the Constitution of the United States of America, the men and women of the Department, and the great citizens of this country. If confirmed, I also pledge to work with this committee and Congress to ensure that the Legislative Branch is fully informed of the activities of the Office of Inspector General. Thank you again for your time today at this hearing, and I welcome your questions.
Thank you for that fine testimony. Were the Tryon Resolves signed before or after the Halifax Resolves?
They were the first.
OK.
Mr. Chairman.
Nice to know. Ms. Davies, you're now recognized for your opening statement.
Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as the nominee to serve as the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense. I'm deeply grateful to President Trump for this honor and for his confidence in me, and I'm thankful to Secretary Hegseth for his trust. I first want to recognize many treasured people supporting me today, my dear friends who have traveled to be in person here, my dad, who served in the Eighth Army Boat Detachment during Vietnam, watching from home due to his health, my dear cousin, extended family members, brother, and close friends watching online right now, my mom, my greatest supporter, is peering over the balcony of heaven. Finally, I'm thankful beyond words for the presence today and grace of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
People know me as a leader with a unique blend of heart and heads. I'm passionate about the work I do, solving complex problems and accomplishing what many claimed would be impossible. I'm purpose-driven and excellence-focused. I also lead analytically, using data-driven insights. I'm precise when planning, agile in delivery, and drive measurable results. I bring an extensive background in industry. I'm unique as I have multi-vertical experience across multinational and Fortune 500 companies, some of the industry's largest and most complex networks and supply chains. For nearly two decades, I have led change, transforming organizations for the digital age, building cyber defenses, tackling tech debt, and innovating at scale. I've applied key principles across my career that, if confirmed, I will also bring to the Department: build a strong culture, ignite a bias for action, and lead with and drive accountability.
While living in Africa to establish one of the largest banks on the continent, I led end-to-end security, resilience, and anti-fraud operations, building the cyber program and a cyber skills academy from scratch. I co-led broad tech modernization, extensive migration to the cloud, and tech innovations. President Trump has set the charge for America to dominate in innovation, especially artificial intelligence, ahead of our adversaries. Digital transformation and data optimization are critical building blocks for artificial intelligence. I have successfully led this work at scale and am a known innovator. For a consumer goods conglomerate with a footprint in 190 countries, I led cybersecurity and tech risk reduction across enterprise IT, R&D, manufacturing, and the global supply chain. I spearheaded a cultural movement to embed cybersecurity as a safety requirement from the top floor to the shop floor, a massive shift for manufacturing.
Secretary Hegseth recently said cyber will be a part of every single way that we plan and look at the world. If confirmed, I will passionately drive this forward. For a global 50 manufacturing giant, I led a multi-year transformation across information security, eliminating excessive policies, dismantling ivory tower silos, and collaborating on what is now arguably the leading approach to industrial control system security. Challenging the status quo and gracefully employing targeted, constructive disruption are necessary for modernization and innovation. These are hallmarks of my career. America's warfighter readiness and lethality depend upon secure, resilient, modernized systems and innovative technical and cyber capabilities. The Department has challenges to overcome. It is weighed down with legacy systems and unoptimized data. There are great people, but at today's speed of change, skills must constantly be refreshed and future-fit.
New entrants with innovative tech solutions struggle with red tape and lack of access. Cyber attacks are pervasive, and America's adversaries are motivated and capable to inflict massive impact, and there is little deterrence. Great change is needed in this time and in this hour. If confirmed, my priorities will be to actively address tech debt at the Department, surgically prioritizing modernization initiatives which support readiness. I will work across the Department to embed the building blocks of AI, supporting data supremacy and decision dominance for our warfighters, partners, and allies. I will forge the next generation of industry tech and cyber partnerships. I will work across the Department and interagency to catalyze cyber deterrence, and I will bring the voice of the warfighter into the very DNA of the Office of the CIO. Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to your questions.
Thanks to all three of you. At this point, I ask, thanks to all four of you, I ask you to answer at the same time these questions that we have to ask all of our civilian nominees. Just a yes or no. Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Yes.
Yes.
Have you assumed any duties or taken any actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process?
No.
No.
Exercising our legislative and oversight responsibilities makes it important that this committee, its subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress receive testimony, briefings, reports, records, and other information from the executive branch on a timely basis. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify before this committee when requested?
Yes.
Do you agree to provide records, documents, and electronic communications in a timely manner when requested by this committee, its subcommittees, or other appropriate committees of Congress, and to consult with the requester regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing such records?
Yes.
Will you ensure that your staff complies with deadlines established by this committee for the production of records, reports, and other information, including timely responding to hearing questions for the record?
Yes.
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Yes.
Will those witnesses and briefers be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Yes.
OK. That concludes those standard questions. I recognize myself for five minutes for individual questions. Let me ask this of all four of you. Much of the funding for the Defense Reconciliation Bill is unspecific and will technically be at the discretion of the Department, though we have provided recommendations for them. A quick yes or no from each of you, beginning down here, Mr. Moring. Do you commit to following the Congress's spending recommendations in defense reconciliation unequivocally? Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Davies?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maisel?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Anderson?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Davies, the Department has historically struggled to adopt information technology at the speed of relevance. For example, software applications can take anywhere from four months to two years to go through all the required security and compliance processes at the Department of Defense. I'm encouraged by the various initiatives like Software Fast Track and the Department and others that the Department announced last year. Yet, delivery of meaningful change is the key. How would you leverage your somewhat unique experience to give us a quantum leap in making this accomplishment?
Chairman Wicker, thank you for the time we spent in your office in preparation for this.
Just a mouth closer to the mic.
Thank you. Right there.
That's much better.
Thank you very much. Thank you for the time we spent in your office, Chairman. This is a very important topic. You're right over the target on this one. Speed, innovation, and agility are hallmarks in industry that we see. We run the clock based upon quarterly revenue and projections and things like that. In my history and roles, I have driven a lot of the bias for action. If confirmed, the principles that I will bring to this role are a lot of what I've demonstrated in my past. The agility for speed, driving principles of adoption, interoperability, I believe, is actually quite critical for the Department across the software applications themselves. I look forward to partnering with you on this very important subject.
OK. We're really going to expect a change from the Department in that regard. You've got your marching orders. Mr. Anderson, thanks for your service. You'll play a key role in ensuring U.S. Special Operations Forces are trained and equipped to deal with what we're facing now. What lessons have we learned from Ukraine, Israel, and other ongoing conflicts, sir?
Senator, thank you for that question. Spending time in that area as a former Green Beret, I can tell you we have a lot of great networks and opportunities within that region. We're constantly learning from the Ukrainians, specifically in the operations when it is dealing with the counter UAS/UAV systems, Senator. We're also seeing some of the technologies that Israel is able to provide. If confirmed, Senator, I think those connections and ability to be able to work with our counterparts and empowering them as well will be critical for the special operations community to be successful.
To what extent is it a major factor that in both of those instances, and I wasn't limiting my question simply to them, but in both of those instances, the defenders are fighting for their own soil, their own land?
Yes, Senator. What's been very interesting, not being in the position, but understanding it from open source and having friends that have operated in the area, one of the interesting things specifically that we have noticed and been able to learn from, one, the Ukrainians are fighting on their own soil, which makes it a very different operational environment. Additionally, when we talk to the counter UAS and the UAV systems, one of the things that we've seen and I've seen is their ability to adopt and make their UAV systems at a cheaper price. I can tell you, in my background as an operator, we used older, hunkier, more expensive drone systems. They're able to do it cheaper and faster. I think that that is a huge lesson learned that the special operations community could push forward.
They can innovate because they have to. I'll make this observation, I won't ask you to agree, but it is significant to me that in both of those situations, they are being opposed by larger efforts led by people who claim that neither of those countries have a right to exist. I think that's very significant. Thank you very much for your answers. Mr. Reed, you are now recognized.
Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moring, welcome. I think the President has made a very wise choice. You have such extensive experience, and I thank you for your service, particularly as the Commander of the Advocate and Rule of Law Officer in Operation Enduring Freedom. You had to face the reality of very difficult decisions about does the law overcome command wishes, etc. Can you elaborate on that? If you're confronted with a problem that the administration or anybody wants to pursue and you find legal objections, you have an obligation, I presume, to say you can't do that. Is that fair?
Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member Reed, for the opportunity to comment on that issue. I appreciate the time that you spent with me in your office yesterday discussing some of these issues. There is inevitably going to be conflict in the conduct of the Office of the Inspector General. I imagine there will be times where there will be disagreements, just as I experienced when I was a Rule of Law Officer in Afghanistan. The best way to resolve those conflicts is by meeting face to face with the individuals with which we disagree and try to find some common ground. I did that in Afghanistan in a combat situation, not even speaking the same language as the people that I was trying to work toward a consensus. I will try to carry that same perspective into my role, if confirmed, as Inspector General.
I think that's exactly the right approach. There are a few times when you come to a situation where the chain of command may disregard your best legal advice, and that puts you in quite a dilemma, I would assume. That's something you're going to have to be conscious of every moment as you go forward. I think you know that. Thank you. Ms. Davies, you have an extraordinary background. I mean, you've been everywhere and done everything when it comes to cyber. One of the areas you're going to encounter is classified programs, which is something I don't think you have a lot of experience with. Can you give us an idea of how you're going to approach this issue of the classified programs that you deal with?
Ranking Member Reed, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you yesterday and also to expand on this. In my history, I've dealt not with classified programs from a government perspective, however, with very sensitive information, detailed intellectual property, health care information, things like that. The approach that I will take will be similar, if confirmed, to what I've done in the past, which is a risk-based approach. What that means is when you have data networks, systems that are extraordinarily more sensitive or, in the government case, classified, as to public systems and public networks, there's a different approach. You put the shoulder of security much more rigorously and proactively behind those things that are significantly more classified. I have extensive experience in this, and if confirmed, I will bring that principled approach to that as well.
Thank you. Mr. Davies, you just indicated, excuse me, Mr. Anderson, you just indicated to Chairman Wicker that you will provide reports and information if required and also follow the law in terms of the statutory requirements to inform Congress. There are a number of legally required notifications, including operational actions in the Special Forces. Do you commit to following these? Because, frankly, as I said in my opening remarks, we have not received the kind of detailed information that we should. I would hope that you would take that seriously. Your comments, please.
Ranking Member Reed, like my colleagues, I want to thank you again for taking the time to meet in your office and have discussions. You have my commitment, if confirmed, as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, that I'll follow all applicable laws.
Thank you very much. When you go in, I think you should look at the situation because that's not happening now, in my perspective. Please. The other factor I alluded to, which we can follow up with questions, is our operations in the Caribbean have to be analyzed not just operationally, but also legally. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have questions for you.
Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Rounds.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me begin by thanking all of you for your offer of service to our country. Mr. Maisel and Ms. Davies, I've discussed the spectrum with you privately. As I promised, I'd also like to ask you about it in this public forum. I've heard from over 30 senior DoD officials in hearings over the past two years, including the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, every Service Chief, and eight Combatant Commanders that vacating or sharing the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz band of the electromagnetic spectrum would have an extremely detrimental impact on our warfighting capabilities. The Department of the Navy alone estimated that relocating their systems to a different spectrum band would cost them $250 billion and take perhaps 20 years.
Secretary Hegseth has said that he would go to the mat when necessary for spectrum capabilities that he believes are an absolute requirement for the DoD and the men and women in uniform. Does the Department have capabilities which require the 3.1 to the 3.45 gigahertz and the 7.4 to the 8.4 gigahertz bands of the spectrum that would play a critical role in a conflict with the PRC?
Yes.
Ms. Davies?
Senator Rounds, I'm not fully briefed on this. I'm aware of the critical bands that do need to be protected. If confirmed, I look forward to being fully briefed and also supporting the President and the Secretary in national security needs for the spectrum.
If confirmed, will you speak out and defend the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz and the 7.4 to 8.4 gigahertz bands of the spectrum if there are attempts to force other federal or commercial users into those bands in a way that impacts DoD capabilities?
Yes, Senator.
Yes, Senator.
Thank you. Mr. Maisel, I also want to ask you one final follow-up on spectrum as it pertains to Golden Dome. Will current plans for the Golden Dome architecture require increased usage of the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz band of the spectrum across the United States?
Senator, I would defer on the specifics to General Mike Gutlein, who's the direct reporting program manager for Golden Dome. As I look at the President's executive order, his vision for Golden Dome and the exacting requirements in that executive order, I can't imagine a situation where we would need less access and less frequent access to spectrum in the bands that you described.
It would be fair to say then, and I think that forcing the Department to share the lower three and the seven and eight bands of the spectrum in a suboptimal way, it would negatively impact the Golden Dome. Is that what you're saying to us today?
Senator, that's what I'm saying.
Thank you. Mr. Maisel, we've also discussed the importance of integrating AI into DoD capabilities throughout the joint force. Do you agree that integrating AI-enabled systems and capabilities is essential to developing a superior kill web to the PRC, and that whichever side has a superior kill web is more likely to prevail in a conflict?
Senator, I absolutely agree with that assessment. I'll just say that since I've been in the Department since the beginning of the administration and become familiar with this technology, I believe that the U.S. military that is forged in the white heat of the AI revolution is going to be much different than the force that we have today.
I agree. Mr. Anderson, the SOF space cyber triad presents a powerful operational synergy. Integrating these capabilities across different commands can be challenging. What are the biggest hurdles to full synchronization, and how do we overcome them? Senator, I want to first thank you for the question and for the opportunity to speak to you about some of these issues in your office. I believe that triad of cyberspace and the special operations community has a unique opportunity, specifically when we look at the information operations. We talk about how SOF provides a value proposition. If we are not, if the Department is not working in conjunction within those three realms, we'll be leaving a lot on the table when it comes to assets and opportunities.
If confirmed, Senator, it will be a priority of mine to work with my counterparts in the Department within the cyber and within the space community to make sure we have that synergy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Rounds. Senator King.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There seems to be some confusion this morning because several of you mentioned that you were going to work for a department that doesn't exist. The name of the department is the Department of Defense. That was established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1949. I'll commend to you 10 U.S.C. Section 111. If that name of that department is going to be changed, it has to start right here. Congress has established the name of the department is the Department of Defense. I hope that you understand that that's who you're going to work for, not some other department that several of you mentioned in your testimony. Mr. Moring, you're being appointed to a position that's an anomaly in any government. That is an independent watchdog over the government itself. I guess my first question is, do you need this job?
Because your predecessor was summarily fired without cause and without the statutorily required notice to Congress. Will you take the necessary actions to look at waste, fraud, and abuse and abuse of illegal actions by the Department in your job without fear of retribution?
Yes, Senator, I will in an independent and objective manner as required by the statute.
You understand that that's a solemn obligation because we can't be in the Department every day. We can't be in touch with whistleblowers, people that are of concern. You are performing an essential function in the Department, and I believe that you're eminently qualified to do so. I think you understand that responsibility. I would like a renewal of that commitment of independence, fearlessness, and calling them as you see them.
Senator King, as we discussed in your office yesterday, you have my commitment to be everything that you just described. It's been a hallmark of my legal career to provide independent, unbiased legal advice, whether it's to a client, a commander, or the General Counsel of the Department.
I believe you will do that. For that reason, I'm going to be supporting your nomination. Mr. Anderson, what is the authority for the lethal strikes on the ships in the Caribbean that have recently been carried out by the administration that I believe would fall under your jurisdiction in the new position you're being nominated for?
Senator, I appreciate the question. I was not involved in the operation, nor do I know any of the details, but what I've seen on the news and in small clips, Senator. What I can tell you is in my capacity as a Green Beret, I understand the complexities of operations, planning operations, and all the different factors. I was not involved in it. I feel as if it would be my only responsibility.
Don't you think one of the early things that you should assess, you listed all those things, the first is, is this a legal action of the United States government? Wouldn't that be part of your calculation?
Senator, again, I was not involved in that operation.
I understand that. I'm talking in the future. You may be in this job in three weeks and be ordered to strike another ship in the Caribbean. Are you going to ask a question about what is the legal authority for that strike?
Senator, certainly, and even in my capacity as a Green Beret team leader on the ground, we always had legal opines and legal chops on our operations. If confirmed, Senator, I will comply with all laws, regulations, and ensure that we have input from all portions of the Department.
Make no mistake, I've been urging in this committee for years stronger interdiction of drug smuggling coming in through the Southern Ocean. Interdiction is different than a lethal strike. I think it's just a question of what's the authority. We should have notification back and forth to Congress. That's the way this process is supposed to work under the War Powers Act and under the Constitution. It's our job to declare war. It's the President's job to be the Commander in Chief. I hope you will take that question seriously. It will be one of the first I hope you look into should you be confirmed for this position. Mr. Maisel, you and I discussed it. I think you have one of the most important jobs in the United States government, and that is thinking about the next war.
We have been woefully behind in things like hypersonic directed energy and also, frankly, drone technology. Ukraine has proven that. Talk to me about the importance of additional scientific research and supporting scientific research throughout the Department, but also throughout our ecosystem of research, including our universities. If we lose the AI race, we're sunk. The AI race is based entirely on research and development, which is your job.
Senator, I had the opportunity this week to visit with a couple of amazing Americans who were involved in the Midnight Hammer strike. I have reflected on the fact that the technology that was used to execute that strike has its origins, all of it, in basic research, which the Department of Defense relies heavily on our universities to perform, as well as our defense labs. You have my commitment and certainly my understanding that the research that we do in our universities and our labs has real operational impact. If confirmed, I'm committed to ensuring that we have the resources that we need in our universities and our labs.
The simple fact is that the first country to implement the new technology is the one that wins the war. Your job is to be sure that's us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Senator Rick Scott.
Sure. Thank you, Chairman. First off, congratulations to each of you on your nominations. If you look at your backgrounds, you have every ability to be very, very, very successful. I look forward to your confirmation and the great work you're going to do. One thing that's disappointed me since I've been up here is the inability of our military branches to perform something as simple as an audit. I'm a business guy. I couldn't sell stock without an audit. If I couldn't audit my financials, nobody would give me a dime. The banks wouldn't lend me money. No shareholder would invest. I would have been kicked off the New York Stock Exchange if I didn't do an audit. I have no comprehension of how somebody can be the leader of a branch of the U.S. military knowing your obligation is to do an audit and you don't do it.
I'm proud of the Marines. They're the one branch that took it seriously, did their job. Recently, when they testified, it was just night and day. The Marines were absolutely committed to whatever their responsibility was. They got their stuff done. Mr. Moring, as the nominee for the Inspector General at the Department of Defense, you'll oversee audits and protect the Department from waste, fraud, and abuse. Why is it important for the Pentagon to pass an audit? Thank you for the question, Senator Scott. For all the reasons that you mentioned, accountability, transparency, and responsibility to the taxpayer.
Why aren't they doing it? I mean, why can companies all over this country do it and our military can't do it? Why is that?
The systems in place that the components are using are not necessarily compatible with the programs they use to do the necessary accounting processes. In order to correct that, there has to be a department-wide effort and cooperation between the Secretary, the Controller, and my office to emphasize that this committee, this Congress, has made it a statutory requirement to produce a clean audit by fiscal year 2028. It will be, if I am confirmed, a top priority of the Office of Inspector General to help coordinate and collaborate on that effort.
Even though it was an obligation, the fact that what you're saying is that we weren't even making progress to get it done, and there's been no accountability.
From what I've read publicly, every year there are recurring material deficiencies in the financial statements prepared by some of the defense components. It's a mystery to me why we have those recurring deficiencies. I will direct the individuals in my office responsible for the auditing process to try to better work with the military components to correct these material deficiencies so that they can produce sound financial statements and, in turn, the Office of Inspector General can produce a clean audit.
Going back to what Senator King was talking about, accountability, do you feel comfortable that if you see that there's not the commitment to getting it done, you feel comfortable you'll be very direct to make sure that people are going to be held accountable to get the audits accomplished?
Under the Inspector General Act, I'm supposed to have access to the Secretary frequently. I will make that an agenda item each and every time I meet with the Secretary.
You'll be completely transparent with us if you don't believe we're heading in the right direction, or if somebody's not doing the job, or we're not putting in the processes to get it done?
Yes. Each step along the way, if I see that significant progress is not being made to correct these recurring material deficiencies, I will make Congress and particularly this committee aware of it.
Do you have any feel for how long it's going to take you to come up with a roadmap to get there?
I do not, candidly, Senator. I'm going to have to meet with my Deputy Inspector General for Audit and map that out.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator. Senator Warren.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moring, if you're confirmed as Inspector General, you would be the Pentagon's top cop on the beat for waste, fraud, and abuse of power. Government should work for the people. That's something I think all of us should agree on. President Trump has purged IGs, including your predecessor. It is extra important for us to understand whether or not you're going to be an independent watchdog. One piece of that is holding big defense contractors accountable. In 2024, the Department of Defense Inspector General reported that Boeing charged the Air Force unreasonable prices under the C-17 contract. An example, a soap dispenser. Cost
80 times more in the charge to the Department of Defense than was commercially available. We don't know the actual dollar amount. Was that $80 or was that $8,000? Because the Air Force, we don't know how much they charged because the Inspector General redacted the actual dollar figures. This kind of lack of transparency from the Inspector General helps contractors hide how much they are price gouging the military, and it makes it harder for all of us to do our job on accountability. Mr. Warren, if you are confirmed, I'm just following up here on Senator Rick Scott's question, but with specificity, if you are confirmed, will you commit to being transparent with the American people about how much these companies are overcharging the Department of Defense?
Senator Warren, it's a mystery to me how an $80 soap dispenser you can buy at Target, yeah, Boeing sells to the Department of Defense at $1,500.
I want to know that you are going to report the actual numbers and not black them out.
As much.
Because you give us more ability to do oversight here. Can I get your commitment on that?
You can, and I will be as transparent as the law allows.
Okay. I'll let you put those numbers in there. There's no secrets in those numbers. Good. I'm going to hold you to that. Based on its investigation, the IG recommended requiring contractors to fess up to the Department of Defense when they're hiking prices. This week, I introduced a bipartisan bill, the Transparency in Government Pricing Act, with Senators Ernst, Slotkin, and Grassley to do just that, and I hope we're going to be able to get this bill signed into law. The IG has to be independent from contractors and from Department of Defense leadership. At the bipartisan request of Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Reed, the IG is investigating whether Secretary Hegseth improperly disclosed classified information on Signal.
Under law, the IG must report to the head of the agency cases of "particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses, or deficiencies," and then the agency head must report it to Congress within seven days. You may be familiar, this is called the seven-day letter, and it's been used in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Mr. Warren, if confirmed, will you commit to issuing a seven-day letter if you believe the Signal Gate investigation or any other work being conducted by your office is being improperly interfered with?
The short answer to your question, Senator, is yes. The seven-day letter I've read in the Inspector General Act is one of the tools in the toolboxes available. The authorities Congress gave to the Inspector General to provide informed.
I appreciate that you had me. Yes.
Okay.
Department of Defense Inspector General must act independently, and that's what we're counting on here. Let me get in one more quick question. Earlier this year, Secretary Hegseth's office reportedly implemented a new policy requiring Department of Defense officials to sign non-disclosure agreements before they can work on projects. These kinds of agreements can have a chilling effect, which is why federal agencies are prohibited from implementing NDAs without including an anti-gag provision to protect whistleblowers. This language informs the employee that they still have the right and obligation to report abuses to Congress and to your office. Mr. Warren, if you are confirmed and your office learns that these NDAs violate the law, will you make those findings public as soon as possible and report to us about them?
The short answer, Senator, is yes. I can elaborate if you'd like.
I think the Chairman will take yes for an answer here, and we can close up.
Absolutely. Of course, witnesses can supplement their answers on the record. Senator Budd.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Maisel, good to see you. I enjoyed our time in the office recently. China produces over 90% of the world's rare earth magnets, which is critical. It's a critical vulnerability to our national security. North Carolina is home to one of the only, if not the only, U.S. companies making rare earth magnets that are 100% decoupled from China. I am interested in how, if confirmed, you would work through the Office of Strategic Capital and alongside the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment to ensure the critical supply chain.
Thank you, Senator. I really enjoyed the time in the office. Thank you for bringing up Office of Strategic Capital, which is a direct report to R&E, and OSC, as its first deal out of the gate, was involved in the Department of Defense's Mountain Pass deal and provided a significant direct loan as part of that deal. I think there are major opportunities for OSC to play a role, noting that the reconciliation bill devotes significant funding for OSC credit subsidies in this regard. I'd also say that if confirmed, I'd look for opportunities to work with entities like DARPA, another direct report to R&E, that's doing very interesting work in the critical mineral space.
Thank you. You mentioned some of those other offices. There are multiple offices that report to R&E that seek to innovate and advance technologies. You are going to oversee a variety of units looking at emerging tech. I am concerned. I am all about the innovation, but I am concerned about duplication of effort as well. If confirmed, in what ways would you encourage cooperation among these offices, as well as others like DIU and Strategic Capabilities Office, to accelerate innovation and end stove pipes, but eliminate duplication?
Senator, I agree that coordination between R&E and other innovation entities that are both at the OSC level and in the services is very important. If confirmed, you have my commitment to ensuring that we're working with OSC and the Strategic Capabilities Office, Defense Innovation Unit, and others, regularly meeting with them to make sure, understanding their portfolio of programs, to make sure there is no duplication of effort.
Great. Thanks so much. Mr. Anderson, thanks for your service to our country. When you served at the U.S. Army Special Operations Command in, I think, some time in North Carolina, you know it's home to numerous SOF units that are vital to winning our next wars. As SOCOM recalibrates its focus to irregular warfare and operating within great power competition, how do you expect the SOCOM budget and force structure to change?
Senator, first and foremost, thank you for the opportunity to come speak about this with you and your office. As we discussed, the Special Operations Community, Special Operations Forces, brings an interesting value proposition to the Department of Defense. One of the things, being a former operator who lived the OEF/OIF timeframe, we had 20 years of war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I do think this is a great opportunity for the Special Operations Community to reevaluate themselves, how they're structured as we shift to the Indo-PAICOM fight. I would say that there's another unique opportunity here where we can go back to some of our irregular warfare capabilities. I mentioned my grandfather in the beginning of this. He's one of those, I won't say old Tula, but old Green Berets.
That was one of the snake eater generations where we had our Green Berets going to places like Laos and Cambodia and building up forces, leaving, and having them conduct operations. At the end of the day, in the Special Operations Community, we are attempting to work our way out of a job. If confirmed, those are some of the priorities that I would put forward, Senator.
Thank you. You know, information operations, it's a space that the Chinese have prioritized and are clearly leveraging to gain an advantage over us to persuade local populations. Here's a question. What role can SOF play in information warfare to counter our adversaries?
Senator, thank you for that. Information operations has to be integrated into our special operations in order to combat adversaries like China. What I can say from a high level is that while we might not necessarily win a conflict with IO, we can certainly lose it. It is very critical that the Special Operations Community, one of the biggest values that we have, or one of the biggest things we have at our benefit, is truth. Within the Special Operations Community within the United States, I think that builds incredible credibility with our partners. As we shift to the Indo-PAICOM, using that credibility and those years of working with our partners is going to be absolutely critical as we move forward with our information operations.
Thank you. Thank you all.
Thank you, Senator Budd. Senator Budd, in your opinion, was the Tryon Resolves the first Declaration of Independence in the colonies or the Halifax Resolve? You represent both counties.
I'm going to have to go back and take a poll on that one.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Senator Slotkin, you're recognized.
Thank you, Chairman. Welcome to all of you. Mr. Anderson, I want to follow up on the conversations about these ships that the U.S. fired upon in the last couple of weeks. Without clear explanation, we haven't been briefed up here. We haven't had a hearing on this. The full video of the encounters has not been released. Back in April, we had the acting SOLIC director here, the man who was filling the job you are now applying for. I told him what I'll tell you. I have no problem with these groups being designated foreign terrorist organizations. Fentanyl is killing just as many people, if not more, as any terrorist group we've ever seen. I do have a problem with the lack of transparency and potential violations of international law. The U.S. government has a way of interdicting ships. You know this. The U.S.
Coast Guard uses patrol boats and helicopters. They're able to shoot out a motor and disable the vehicle, board it, and then indict all those people, grab all those people, show everyone all the drugs that they have secured. They did this back in April. The Coast Guard seized 76,000 pounds of drugs off of ships in one encounter and showed all of that to the world. I guess my question is, you will be informing the chain of command. You will have a role. You will be an important voice in that conversation. We are hearing that there are individual folks in uniform involved in these operations who are now asking for legal cover in these operations because they believe that they potentially violate the law.
My question is, if folks in uniform, as you used to be, come forward to you and say, "I'm concerned about these operations, could you please provide me a piece of paper with legal cover saying that I will not be personally responsible for violating international law," will you provide that?
Senator, first and foremost, I am unaware of the details within the operation. I've not been briefed.
I understand, but you want the big job. You're going to be in two or three weeks, you are going to be in the hot seat. I don't want to talk about the past. I'm saying if a soldier or a seaman comes to you and says, "I'm really worried. This is really squishy. The Wall Street Journal reported on this. I want your legal cover that I'm not going to be held personally liable," which you can imagine no one in uniform wants to be held personally liable, will you, in the future, provide such cover?
Senator, not being in the position, I wouldn't understand the legalities of what you're saying.
I would offer that you should get familiar with those legalities. This is a very live issue. I understand you have no involvement in what happened in the past, but this could be your job in three weeks. My question is, we've asked the Mexican government to also step up their involvement in stopping these cartels and stopping the huge amount of drugs that are coming across. If the Mexican Navy saw a group of American fishermen that they thought were suspicious of potentially moving drugs, and they moved in to kill the 15 American citizens without contacting you, without going through any normal procedures, would you be okay with that?
Senator, I think.
Because that's what you're asking for. We understand, you understand certainly as a former military man that what we do in combat, there's reciprocity, and we're concerned about what other militaries will do to us because we've opened the door on this. Are you okay with the Mexican Navy killing 15 American fishermen off of, whatever, San Diego, if they're suspicious that they are carrying drugs?
Senator, first, I think it'd be irresponsible for me to engage in hypotheticals. To your point, Senator.
is not a hypothetical. This is like a live issue you're going to be asked to touch. I want to capture that fentanyl. I would love it if the Trump administration showed us the full video from that encounter, showed us that these men didn't have their hands up, that they weren't waving a white flag, that they weren't turning around and getting out of there, and then show us the drugs. The president said that there were all kinds of drugs that were in that ship. Show it. Show us the video that he's apparently alluding to. Will you commit to showing us the video publicly?
Senator, if confirmed for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, I can commit to be transparent and be law applicable.
I think, yeah, my suggestion is we have a briefing on this issue. This is a fundamental issue of this committee. I would ask that you get smart on the legal authorities because if individual folks in uniform are going to be held personally liable for your decisions, you should take accountability for that. Yield back.
Just noting, Senator Slotkin, each witness has answered in the affirmative to this question: Do you agree to provide records, documents, and electronic communications in a timely manner when requested by this committee, et cetera?
Do you understand that as?
Just to put this on the record.
Do you understand that as video? Just to clarify for me, Chairman.
Electronic communications.
Okay.
Documents, records. I think each witness has answered in the affirmative.
Great. I look forward to that.
They'll be obligated to follow that. Senator Kaine, you're up.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just continue the line of not inquiry because I don't have a question about this, but I just want to follow up on Senator Slotkin. Twenty-five of us in the Senate wrote a letter to the president a week ago, and we asked questions about these operations in the Caribbean. Give us the evidence that these boats were carrying drugs. Tell us who was on the boats. Tell us what your legal authority was to take a military strike that had not been authorized by Congress. The question that I really want to know is, why did you decide to attack rather than interdict? If you interdict a drug boat, you get evidence.
You seize the drugs, but you also get evidence by having access to people, and often it's that evidence that leads you to be able to go after the kingpins and the real, you know, muscle behind these operators. If you attack a boat and destroy it, it makes an impact, but you don't get the evidence. It may actually be counterproductive in fighting narco-trafficking to destroy a boat rather than seize it. If you know where it is enough to destroy it, you could have seized it. We asked the president to give Congress answers to these questions, which are fundamental questions about an Article I branch's responsibility to be engaged in decisions about military action. We gave the White House seven days to answer. These are not hard questions. They've not answered. The seven days expired yesterday. We have no indication that they will answer.
That's likely to lead to a war powers resolution and a required vote in Congress. Sometimes when a vote is required, the administration will begrudgingly provide information. I credit what Senator Wicker said. Each of you have indicated that you will provide information to Congress. On a basic question, this fundamental issue: should the United States be engaging in military action, putting the lives of our men and women who serve at some risk? The Article II branch shouldn't stiff-arm the Article I branch, and that's what's happening right now. That's why I'm sure Senator Slotkin and so many other members of the committee are very, very concerned. There might be answers to these questions that would satisfy us. I can tell you when the questions are not answered, we end up with some real suspicion about why they're not being answered. Mr.
Warren, I want to ask you this question. I know many have asked you questions about sort of the independence of the IG role. The Ranking Member talked about the administration's decisions to fire IGs right out of the gate has caused folks to have a little bit of concern about this. Assure the committee, assure me, that you will be independent and that you will also keep Congress informed, as IGs should, of the work that you're doing.
Senator Kaine, thank you for the question. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you yesterday. I really enjoyed our session. You have my personal pledge to be independent and objective. The statute itself, the Inspector General Act, provides certain safeguards to ensure the independence of the Inspector General, the ability to initiate an investigation on the own determination of the Inspector General that it's necessary. Also, if a Secretary determines that an investigation is not warranted and it's not being blocked for national security reasons, the Inspector General can still go ahead with that investigation. I pledge to you to follow the letter and tenor of the statute.
Thank you for that. One other question. You would be the IG of the largest IG operation in the U.S. government. I guess you kind of compete with HHS, but I think you're probably the largest. I believe that the complement of employees in the Department of Defense IG is about 1,500. I asked you the question yesterday, how many of those IG employees have accepted the resign offer, and how much is that likely to shrink the workforce of your office?
After I left your office yesterday, I got the answer to that question. The workforce had a high watermark of 1,800 as a result of the deferred resignation program. It's been reduced by 200.
Down to 1,600?
Yes.
Thank you for that.
There have been some people that have been subject to the layoffs of probationary employees.
Thank you.
I don't have the number for that.
That's helpful. Mr. Anderson, I'm going to ask you a question for the record because I think it's probably better that it's just not be on the fly. I'll submit it, but I'll tell you what it's about. The GAO did a report in November of 2024 about high-risk training oversight, and they recommended that special forces take a number of actions to reduce injuries and even fatalities in high-risk training operations. That was about a year ago, and a number of the recommendations have not yet been implemented. I'm going to ask a question for the record about what you might do should you be confirmed to implement those recommendations so that we can continue to do appropriate training, but bring down the risk of injury to our troops and special forces. I'll submit that for the record to you. Thank you.
This concludes our question and answer. Let me say this, though, too. First of all, Mr. Ranking Member, I don't know when I've seen a more impressive slate of witnesses. I appreciate their willingness to serve, and I appreciate them being here today. Let me say this, Mr. Warren, how many cadets did you, how many of your former cadets did you bring today?
There are three alumni of The Citadel that were part of my mock trial team. They're all serving in the military now as active duty military officers. They're seated right here: Marcos Quinn, Thomas Weiss, and Steve Woteck. I have four Citadel cadets that the college was kind enough to buy plane tickets for and bring up here. They are also members of my mock trial team.
That's excellent. You know, you have an obligation to follow a statute that's very difficult. You may very well be called on to give unwelcome advice. Also, in your testimony, you've committed to follow the sixth chapter of the Old Testament book of Micah. I appreciate that. Let me just say, when you are faced with tough decisions, Mr. Warren, and you will be undoubtedly, if you live up to the sixth chapter of Micah and the statute, you'll be doing them proud. Thank you. This concludes our hearing. For the information of members, questions for the record will be due to the committee within two business days of the conclusion of this hearing. Mr. Ranking Member.
I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also commend the witnesses for taking on huge responsibilities. I look forward to working.
Let me say this also, to anyone listening, the questions about what happened in the Caribbean are going to have to be answered. This committee has congressional oversight responsibility. Members are entitled to ask the questions that they've asked, and answers will be given. I just think it's important for every American to understand that obligation. Thank you. We're adjourned.