- 5 months ago
During a House Armed Services Committee hearing in July, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) accused President Trump of firing Air Force Gen. Tim Haugh because pro-Trump influencer Laura Loomer had called for his removal.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00We now consider log number 5407R4 by Mr. Moulton.
00:07For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?
00:10Mr. Chairman, to quote you, I have a compelling and important amendment to the desk.
00:15The clerk will please distribute the compelling amendment.
00:18Without objection, the reading of the compelling amendments dispensed with,
00:22the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
00:25Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:26And before I get started, I want to take a moment to thank my colleague, the generalwoman from New Jersey, Ms. Sherrill,
00:31for her leadership on this issue.
00:32Her work helped make this amendment stronger, and I'm grateful for it, as always.
00:37Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth have claimed that meritocracy is back at the Department of Defense.
00:42We've heard the argument for meritocracy several times throughout today.
00:46But last month, during his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee,
00:49Secretary Hegseth couldn't even tell me how many generals he had fired.
00:53It's eight, by the way, let alone name them or tell me what a single one of them had done wrong.
01:01Is it a meritocracy to fire General C.Q. Brown, possibly the most qualified Air Force officer I've ever met,
01:07with deep Indo-PACOM experience, multiple prior commands at the four-star level,
01:11leadership on modernization, and profound bipartisan respect, including from this committee,
01:16just because he apparently talked about his experience of being black in the military?
01:21Is it a meritocracy to fire General Hawk, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command,
01:25who served this country professionally, honorably, and apolitically for more than 33 years,
01:30because apparently Laura Loomer told Trump she didn't like him?
01:34Is it a meritocracy to attempt to fire the three judge-advocate generals of the service,
01:38advocates-general of the services,
01:40unsuccessfully, by the way, because you didn't even know that one of those positions was empty,
01:46and without having ever had a conversation with any single one of those career service members?
01:52No.
01:53Secretary Hegseth's purge is not about merit.
01:56It's about loyalty and ideology, and that is utterly inconsistent with our democracy.
02:01Our service members swear their oath to the Constitution of the United States.
02:05All of us who have taken it know that oath is sacred,
02:08and only dictators or would-be kings demand personal loyalty from their generals,
02:13not the president of a democracy.
02:15Dismissing an officer should either be because of a failure to uphold that oath,
02:19or because that officer has failed to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the office.
02:24These dismissals have been neither.
02:26They are nothing short of an attempt to politicize our military.
02:30A politicized military, a politicized general and flag officer corps,
02:34is a danger to our democracy, and I don't say that lightly.
02:38A military built to be loyal to a party or a politician
02:41puts the guys with the guns on the side of his politics,
02:45and then democratic politics becomes an uneven playing field
02:48because people are afraid to oppose the other side.
02:51That's untenable for our military.
02:54Republicans have spent years decrying the politicization of the military.
02:58It's shocking to see them so quiet now that it's actually occurring.
03:02My amendment does not limit the president's constitutional and democratic right
03:07to remove an officer.
03:08That's essential to civilian control of the military.
03:10It simply says that the secretary needs to provide us with a statement of cause,
03:15after the fact indeed,
03:17because he should be able to provide an actual reason
03:19for firing professional military leadership.
03:23I think it's reasonable and necessary for our democracy,
03:26and I urge support.
03:28I yield back.
03:29The gentleman yields back.
03:31Chair recognizes himself.
03:32Current law, 10 U.S.C. 601, states,
03:35the president designates positions of importance and responsibility
03:38to carry out the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral.
03:43By law, the appointment of an officer to pay grade above 08
03:48for service in a position of importance and responsibility
03:50ends on the date of determination of the assignment of the officer to that position.
03:54The president makes these decisions, and we will not tie his hands
03:58with these reporting requirements.
04:00For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
04:03Before I go to the next person, again, I want to remind the staffs
04:07of the various members who are not in the chamber,
04:10have your boss get back to the chamber,
04:12because at the conclusion of this,
04:14we are going to have a series of recorded votes,
04:16and we need everybody here.
04:17With that, I will now recognize Ms. Sherrill of New Jersey.
04:22Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
04:24On February 21st of this year,
04:26President Trump and Secretary Higseth made the unprecedented decision
04:30of removing two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
04:34Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, C.Q. Brown,
04:37and Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti,
04:40were capable and experienced leaders
04:42with 75 years of combined military service,
04:46and they were fired without cause or even an explanation.
04:50This amendment today would change that.
04:52It would require the president
04:54to submit a written justification to Congress
04:56to remove any senior general or flag officer.
05:00As far as I can tell,
05:01the only difference between General C.Q. Brown
05:05and Admiral Franchetti and their colleagues
05:07is that C.Q. Brown is black
05:09and Lisa Franchetti is a woman.
05:10We don't have an explanation
05:13from the administration for why they were removed,
05:16and when I posited my theory that I just listed,
05:19Secretary Higseth did not even dispute it.
05:22So even if some of my majority colleagues believe
05:25that General Brown and Admiral Franchetti
05:27should have been removed,
05:29I hope they would agree that Congress needs
05:31to at least be given an explanation.
05:34The Joint Chiefs of Staff are our military's top leaders,
05:38overseeing their respective services
05:40and directly advising the president
05:42and the secretary of defense on everything
05:44from operations to man, train, and equip challenges.
05:49And leaving those positions unfilled
05:51is a serious risk to national security,
05:53depriving our military of experienced leadership
05:56and slowing down the decision-making process.
05:58In fact, we still don't even have a confirmed Chief of Naval Operations
06:04because President Trump waited four months
06:07to select a new nominee after firing Franchetti.
06:11This committee regularly discusses the importance of shipbuilding
06:14and modernizing our Navy,
06:16but for the last five months,
06:18we have not even had a Chief of Naval Operations.
06:21There are real national security consequences
06:24to removing one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
06:26a combatant commander, or other senior officer.
06:29And if a president is going to make such a monumental decision,
06:33they owe this committee and the rest of Congress an explanation.
06:36Thank you, and I yield back.
06:39Jen Lilley yields back, Chair,
06:41and I recognize a gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crank.
06:44Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
06:45I do oppose the amendment of my friend from Massachusetts.
06:50As we know, each flag officer serves at the pleasure
06:52of the president of the United States,
06:54and each president has a duty
06:56to ensure that his military leadership
06:58is in alignment with his administration's national defense strategy.
07:03And because of this, it is normal to expect turnover
07:07in military leadership at the start of each new administration.
07:11New strategy priorities might require new leaders
07:15to execute the commander-in-chief's plan
07:18to ensure national security.
07:20It's not like President Trump is the first commander-in-chief
07:25to fire flag officers.
07:27President Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
07:31and President Obama,
07:32all fired military leaders over strategy disagreements.
07:38All this amendment does is politicize decisions
07:41that should be made on merit alone.
07:45This is about the president having trust
07:47in the decisions his military leaders will make,
07:50not job security for officers.
07:54I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous amendment,
07:58which would not be offered but for Donald Trump
08:02being the current commander-in-chief.
08:05And I yield back the balance of my time.
08:08Gentleman yields back.
08:09Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia,
08:11Mr. Vindman.
08:13Thank you, Mr. Chair.
08:14This is truly a compelling and important amendment.
08:17Everything that the chair said about the president's power
08:23to appoint his officers is true,
08:29but that is not mutually exclusive
08:31with the president doing it for a proper purpose.
08:34And as opposed to what my colleague just said,
08:39Mr. Crank, there is nothing normal about the firing
08:44of eight senior officers,
08:45including all of the senior judge advocates
08:48and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs staff,
08:52Chief of Naval Operations.
08:53There is nothing normal about that.
08:56Our general officers and flag officers
08:58are nonpartisan patriots who swear an oath
09:00to the Constitution.
09:02That should be their only loyalty,
09:04not to the president of the United States.
09:08Service members serve regardless of party,
09:11background, race, or creed.
09:13It is perhaps one of the most American institutions
09:15precisely because it demands loyalty, honor, and respect
09:17based on one's shared quality love of country.
09:21And this keeps us safe because merit is the measure
09:25of advancement above all other qualities.
09:28That is why it's deeply concerning
09:29that the secretary of defense fired eight generals
09:32and flag officers without any explanation
09:34or report to Congress or their American people.
09:37The Senate confirms all general and flag officers
09:39to their rank, and the Constitution is clear
09:42that this is a congressional prerogative.
09:45The secretary and president owe Congress
09:47the American people an explanation
09:50why they fire America's finest,
09:52those that have sacrificed, frankly, the most,
09:54decades overseas, apart from family.
10:00Why is Laura Loomer and her insane whims,
10:03why is that the driving principle
10:05behind the firing of a four-star general,
10:08the commander of CYRUCOM?
10:10Incompetence or concerns,
10:12they would follow unlawful orders.
10:14Maybe that's the reason.
10:15They want blind obedience and loyalty.
10:19We just don't know.
10:21This common sense amendment for my friend
10:23from Massachusetts would fix that.
10:25Congress and the American people deserve to know
10:27that our military remains nonpartisan,
10:31loyal to the Constitution and the American people,
10:35and not to the president of the United States.
10:39I yield back.
10:39The gentleman yields back.
10:40The chairman now recognizes the gentleman
10:41from California, Mr. Tran.
10:44Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:45Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my colleague,
10:48Rep Moulton, as a co-sponsor of this amendment,
10:50requiring written justification
10:51from the secretary of defense
10:52before the removal of certain general
10:55and flag officers from the military.
10:57When President Trump abruptly fired
10:59several high-ranking military leaders
11:01earlier this year,
11:02Congress received no reasonable justification
11:04that these officers' actions or performance
11:07were cause for removal.
11:09The decisions were purely political
11:10and made without regard
11:11for the strategic impact
11:13on our military readiness
11:14or the loss of important institutional knowledge.
11:17Back in February,
11:18when the Trump administration
11:19began mass layoffs of federal employees,
11:22I introduced the Protect Veterans Jobs Act
11:24to ensure that any veterans
11:25who served our country
11:27were immediately reinstated.
11:29Today, I endeavor to prevent
11:32more indiscriminate layoffs
11:33from happening in the first place.
11:36Congress must assert itself
11:37this amendment is necessary
11:39to ensure that President Trump
11:40does not further gut
11:41our senior military leadership
11:42simply because they were acting
11:44out of loyalty to the Constitution,
11:47not a wannabe king.
11:49Our military leaders deserve our support,
11:52not their dismissal,
11:53simply for defending diversity
11:55in the military or serving their country.
11:57In the name of keeping our military nonpartisan
11:59and the greatest fighting force
12:01this planet has ever seen,
12:02I urge my colleagues to vote yes
12:04on this common sense amendment.
12:06Thank you and I yield back.
12:08Gentleman yields back.
12:09Chair now recognizes another gentleman
12:11from California, Mr. Whitesides.
12:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
12:14and thank you to Mr. Moulton
12:16for leading on this important amendment.
12:17I believe that this amendment
12:18should have the support
12:19of every member of this committee
12:20on both sides of the aisle.
12:22This is not political.
12:23It does not tie
12:24the Secretary of Defense's hands
12:26and it doesn't constrain
12:27the President's ability
12:28to have the military leaders
12:29he trusts advising him.
12:31If there is cause to release
12:32a general or flag officer from command,
12:35the President and the Secretary
12:36have the right to remove that officer.
12:38No one is arguing that they don't.
12:40This amendment simply protects
12:42two sacred parts
12:43of our defense infrastructure,
12:44Congress's constitutional oversight
12:46responsibility
12:47and the non-political nature
12:48of our military.
12:50The firing of a general officer
12:52isn't something to take lightly.
12:53It has serious national security implications
12:56for military operations.
12:57It ripples down the chain of command.
12:59It impacts on our relationships
13:00with our security partners
13:02and can even have a chilling effect
13:03on up-and-coming officers.
13:05That's a serious thing
13:06and having the ability
13:07to conduct oversight
13:09over choices of that magnitude
13:10is intrinsic to our roles
13:12on this committee.
13:13Here's the thing.
13:14The President and the Secretary
13:15may have perfectly valid reasons
13:17for relieving several members
13:19of the Joint Chiefs.
13:20They may have perfectly valid reasons
13:22for removing General Howe
13:24from Cyber Command.
13:25But the fact remains,
13:27we just don't know
13:28that the members tasked
13:30with conducting oversight
13:31over our national defense
13:32have been kept out of the loop
13:34on major personnel moves
13:36implicating Senate-confirmed
13:37defense leaders
13:38should concern all of us.
13:41I urge my colleagues
13:42to support this common-sense amendment
13:43that will enable the members
13:45of this committee to do our jobs
13:46and I yield back.
13:48The gentleman yields back.
13:49Chair, I recognize
13:50the gentlelady from Maryland.
13:51Ms. Elfruth.
13:53I don't think we designed that,
13:54Mr. Chair,
13:54but it was fun.
13:55So I appreciate my colleague,
13:57Mr. Moulton,
13:58for bringing up this issue.
14:00And as the ranking member highlighted,
14:02since April 3rd,
14:03Cybercom in Maryland,
14:05headquartered in Maryland,
14:06has been without a combatant commander.
14:08And in the more than three months
14:09since he was fired by the President,
14:11we still don't know why.
14:12And all we have has been mentioned
14:14are breadcrumbs.
14:16Far-right influencer,
14:17Laura Loomer,
14:18known for spewing hate speech
14:19and spinning conspiracy theories,
14:21claimed the General Hawk
14:22was disloyal to the President
14:24because he was selected
14:25for the role by General Milley.
14:27Last month,
14:27I questioned Secretary Hegseth
14:29on when a replacement
14:30would be announced.
14:31And yet,
14:32despite the Secretary saying
14:33an announcement would be imminent,
14:35there is still no general officer
14:36selected for that critical command.
14:39Firing combatant commanders
14:40on the whims
14:40of a social media influencer
14:42does not help our military
14:44become more lethal.
14:45It only harms our national security
14:46and makes America look weak
14:48on the world stage.
14:49Congress,
14:50this committee,
14:50and the American people
14:51deserve the President
14:52to show his math
14:53and explain why he is firing
14:54those entrusted
14:55with leading our combatant commands.
14:57Thank you,
14:57Mr. Chair.
14:57I yield back.
14:58General Lady yields back.
15:00Chair,
15:00and I recognize the gentleman
15:00from New Jersey,
15:02Mr. Norcross.
15:03Thank you, Chairman.
15:04I yield my time
15:05to Mr. Moulton.
15:07I thank the gentleman.
15:09Mr. Chairman,
15:09in the vain hope
15:10that the debate
15:11actually matters here,
15:12I do want to respond
15:13to some of the suggestions
15:16made by my colleague,
15:17Mr. Crank,
15:17from Colorado.
15:19First of all,
15:20he cited Lincoln,
15:21Roosevelt,
15:21and Obama
15:22for firing generals,
15:23which they all did
15:24because they made clear mistakes.
15:27In every case,
15:28the President explained
15:29what those mistakes were
15:31and what his rationale
15:32now for firing them was.
15:36You said
15:37that they should only be fired
15:38for merit,
15:38so then where is it?
15:41Why is it
15:42that the Secretary of Defense
15:43came before this committee
15:44and could not answer
15:45that simple question
15:46about any of the eight generals
15:48or flag officers
15:49that he fired?
15:50He couldn't even cite
15:51how many there were.
15:54Now, the Chairman said
15:55that this reporting requirement
15:57would hobble the President.
15:58I mean, really?
15:59Like, the Secretary of Defense
16:00can just have his aide
16:01literally write down
16:02why he's firing them
16:04and send it to Congress.
16:07That's the bare minimum.
16:09And the fact that
16:11we would throw out
16:13our constitutional responsibility here
16:16to provide some modicum
16:18of oversight
16:19because we can't ask Trump
16:23and Hegseth
16:24to explain
16:25the unexplainable
16:27why they would just fire
16:28these folks.
16:29That is the definition
16:30of politicization
16:33of the military.
16:35Having Laura Loomer
16:36make these decisions
16:39is a definition
16:42of politicization
16:44of the military.
16:46So we're about to vote
16:47on a whole slew
16:48of amendments
16:49that the majority claims
16:51will take politics
16:53out of the military.
16:55Just have the courage
16:56to vote for this one, too.
16:58It's not that hard.
17:00A simple explanation.
17:01We ask for it
17:03all the time
17:04for this committee.
17:06There will be many
17:07reporting requirements
17:09included in the bill
17:10that we're all about
17:12to vote to pass
17:13later tonight.
17:16This one,
17:17out of respect
17:18for men and women
17:20who have put in
17:21far more years of service
17:23than just about anyone
17:24on this committee,
17:25myself included,
17:26is, I think,
17:28the least that we can expect
17:30from the leadership
17:31of any administration,
17:32Republican or Democrat,
17:34when it comes
17:36to overseeing our military.
17:39Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17:39I yield back.
17:40Gentleman yields back.
17:42Chair, I recognize
17:42a gentlelady
17:43from Pennsylvania,
17:44Ms. Huland.
17:45Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17:46And I also support
17:48this really important
17:49and vital amendment
17:50from my colleague,
17:51Mr. Moulton.
17:52This is a non-political amendment,
17:55or at least it ought to be.
17:56And I agree that the people
17:58who we are speaking of
18:00serve at the pleasure
18:00of the commander-in-chief,
18:02but there ought to also be
18:04a clear reason
18:04or justification
18:05behind the actions
18:06of removing them
18:07from their offices,
18:09and none has been forthcoming
18:10in any of these cases
18:12that we've observed
18:12in the last several months.
18:15Loyalty to the Constitution
18:16is the measure and standard
18:18that we should hold
18:18these professionals to,
18:20not fealty to the president.
18:22The U.S. Navy Vice Admiral
18:24Shoshana Chatfield,
18:26Admiral Lisa Franchetti,
18:27Lieutenant General Short,
18:29Jennifer Short,
18:30are just a few,
18:31all removed,
18:32and perhaps with valid reasons,
18:34but we just don't know.
18:36These names are some of the many names
18:39of the most senior women
18:40in our armed forces
18:41who have been strangely removed
18:43from their post
18:43by the Trump administration.
18:45And each of these women
18:46presumably earned their titles
18:48based on their merit,
18:49their experience,
18:50and their unwavering commitment
18:51to service and this nation.
18:53They didn't earn these titles
18:55based on their gender,
18:56but they were removed
18:57from their titles
18:58because of it,
18:59most likely.
19:00It's hard not to see this
19:02as being the reason
19:03with no other explanation provided.
19:06This administration's systemic
19:07and intentional rollback
19:09of women's roles
19:10and overall troop diversity
19:11diminishes the military's readiness
19:13and it devalues the standards
19:15and integrity of the military itself.
19:18Diversity in our armed services
19:20improves innovation
19:21and mission outcomes,
19:23making our military stronger
19:24and smarter
19:25and more prepared
19:25to face the challenges
19:26of modern warfare.
19:28It's for these reasons
19:29that I urge support
19:30of this amendment
19:31and I yield back.
19:32Generality yields back.
19:33Does any other member
19:34seek recognition
19:35on this Mr. Moulton's amendment?
19:37If there's no further debate,
19:39the question occurs
19:40on the amendment
19:41offered by Mr. Moulton.
19:42So many as in favor
19:43will say aye.
19:44Those opposed
19:45will say no.
19:47Opinion chair,
19:47the no's have it.
19:49Recorded vote.
19:49Recorded vote is requested.
19:50Recorded vote will be postponed.
Be the first to comment