▶ 0:17:18Chair Wicker: The committee meets today to share about the deployment of national guardsmen domestically to assist with immigration enforcement and to help restore law and order in our cities. I welcome three witnesses today. We are joined by Mr. charles young, the principal deputy general counsel for the department of defense. We have Mr.
▶ 0:17:41Chair Wicker: Roosevelt ditlevson, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and america's security affairs. And we will hear from general gregory guyot -- guillot. Writing, drug trafficking, and heinous drug trafficking have escalated.
▶ 0:18:08Chair Wicker: The bureau of justice statistics has released data on these trends. According to the bureau's national crime victimization survey, the rate of violent crime in urban areas increased by 61% from 2019 to 2024.
▶ 0:18:27Chair Wicker: Last year, the rate of violent crime in urban areas was 46% higher than the national rate, and it was 104% higher than the rural rate. The statistics are clear. Public safety is at risk in our cities and we are in need of well supported and effective law enforcement. This situation was made all the worse during the biden administration.
▶ 0:18:56Chair Wicker: We saw widespread efforts by democrats to defund the police. These moves constricted law enforcement effectiveness across the nation. For one example, consider seattle in 20 20. Hundreds of violent protesters took over several downtown blocks. They declared it a police-free zone and demanded that the police budget be cut in half. And apparently, it did become a police-free zone.
▶ 0:19:28Chair Wicker: In the absence of all police presence, violence, open drug usage, and shootings escalated. All the while, the city's elected officials did little to stop the chaos. This is but one example of what happens without sufficient law and order. I would be remiss at this time if I did not recognize that in trying to restore that law and order, there are costs.
▶ 0:19:52Chair Wicker: In particular, I am reminded of the two west virginia national guard members who were shot in this city just before the thanksgiving holiday. Today, we remember army specialist sarah beckstrom, who lost her life, and we agree with her loved ones. Air force staff sergeant andrew wolfe remains hospitalized but is showing signs of progress, and we likewise pray for his swift recovery.
▶ 0:20:18Chair Wicker: The public sees these examples of crime in their communities and they expect more from their government. They demand and deserve action. For this reason, president trump ordered an immediate and coordinated response by deploying the national guard to some of our nation's most dangerous cities. These strategic deployments are not only appropriate, but essential.
▶ 0:20:42Chair Wicker: Current crime rates in our largest cities have become a substantial burden on local and federal law enforcement agencies. Increasingly, these agencies are unable to keep our communities safe. They are underfunded and stretched them, unable to reinstitute law and order on their own. The guard is uniquely suited to assist with the fight against crime.
▶ 0:21:08Chair Wicker: It can provide manpower, resources, and specialized expertise that local police departments may lack. Additionally, national guard units are trained for rapid deployment and are versatile, able to handle a public safety operations and provide immediate relief to communities in need. In fact, the national guard has a strong history of assisting in domestic law enforcement during times of national crisis.
▶ 0:21:37Chair Wicker: Their expertise in crowd control, search-and-rescue operations, and logistical support makes them well suited for environments struggling with crime related violence. Not surprisingly, democratic governors and left-wing pundits have decried these deployments. They raise concerns about violations of the posse comitatus act, which prohibits the use of military for domestic policing except in specific circumstances.
▶ 0:22:07Chair Wicker: Others have said these deployments waste money and reduce troop readiness. These concerns are both manufactured and misguided, in my judgment. Mobilizing the guard is an excellent opportunity for units to enhance cohesion, complete mission-essential tasks, and ensure training is complete. Moreover, guardsmen operate with the highest degree of professionalism.
▶ 0:22:33Chair Wicker: They serve purely in support roles, never crossing the line into law enforcement functions. They are limited to protecting federal employees and federal buildings, providing logistics and communications to law enforcement operations, and most importantly, to providing a visible security presence which supports law enforcement and deters crime. Furthermore, all national guardsmen serving in our cities operate under the standing rules of the use of force.
▶ 0:23:04Chair Wicker: These rules prohibit the use of force except in instances of self-defense. All guardsmen receive extensive training on these rules. I am confident in their ability to operate within them. I am proud of the guardsmen serving in our nation's capital and in cities throughout america. I thank them for their service and sacrifice, and for their commitment to restoring law and order. Every day, they help americans feel safe in their communities.
▶ 0:23:35Chair Wicker: With that, I turned to my colleague, senator duckworth, and senator duckworth, I hope your voice is in better shape than mine this morning.
▶ 0:23:47Sen. Duckworth: Thank you, Mr. chairman, and thank you to ranking member read, chairman wicker, and leader thune for working with me to hold this meeting. I first want to acknowledge the horrific shooting in the sea, as the chairman has already acknowledged, resulting in the tragic death and injury. These heroes served with honor and showed up to do the mission despite the risks, as service members always do. It is a tragedy that never should have happened in the first place.
▶ 0:24:17Sen. Duckworth: That is exactly why I let my colleagues to push for this hearing. Military service involves risks, and all service members except those risks knowingly, selflessly, so we better be sure that the mission is clear and effective, that it serves our national security.
▶ 0:24:35Sen. Duckworth: If we stand by while this administration pursues another irresponsible, open-ended campaign with no defined mission, no clear authorities, no set authority, and no transparent and state, we fail our troops. We fail their families and we failed the american people. Today, we must shine a light on the cost of these domestic deployments to the american people and to those who wear the uniform of this great nation.
▶ 0:24:59Sen. Duckworth: I look forward to getting answers about where this crusade of using the military in american cities is going, and hearing how anyone can justify the damage is doing to service members, civil rights, public trust in the military, and service members ability to execute critical war fighting missions. One of the proudest moments in my life was the first time I ever raised my hand to swear my oath to the constitution as a member of the illinois army national guard.
▶ 0:25:25Sen. Duckworth: I cherished every day, every single day, that I got to call myself a soldier. It is because I love our military so deeply that I refuse to let anyone, including the president, abuse it for their own gain. Right now, thousands of troops are deployed across the country under false pretenses. Here in D.C., the national guard has been performing missions that do not help with their military training, like spreading mulch and picking up trash.
▶ 0:25:53Sen. Duckworth: But that, as we have sadly seen, nonetheless carries risks for our service members. Let me be clear. Safety in our community is paramount. But these deployments do not make our streets safer. They do not keep our families more secure. In fact, it is just the opposite.
▶ 0:26:11Sen. Duckworth: Instead, president trump has taken our troops away from their core mission just to do that -- to his personal bidding, forcing them to patrol tourist areas where residents are protesting his inhumane policies. We know trump's actions are not about so-called law and order. If he cared about law and order, he would not have literally defunded or policed by freezing and slashing federal dollars that train and equip law enforcement.
▶ 0:26:37Sen. Duckworth: If this administration cared about law and order, it would not be ignoring the judges who have deemed these deployments illegal. A judge in the northern district found that dhs's account of the situation on the ground was simply unreliable. The U.S.
▶ 0:26:55Sen. Duckworth: Court of appeals for the seventh circuit, in a three-judge panel that featured two republican appointed judges, including a trump appointee, upheld this view that the facts do not justify the president's action. These judges went further, explaining that political opposition is not rebellion, and reaffirming that first amendment activity in illinois is not the sort of threat that would justify a military deployment.
▶ 0:27:21Sen. Duckworth: Similarly, another trump-appointed federal judge, this time in oregon, wrote that the administration had no credible evidence that the protests had gone out of control and that the deployment of the guard was unfettered to the facts. Our troops deserve to know why they are being asked to do such legally unprecedented and deeply unpopular things on american soil. And make no mistake. This is deeply unpopular. Most americans don't want this.
▶ 0:27:49Sen. Duckworth: Poll after poll has found that a majority of americans oppose deploying troops for missions that should be handled by law enforcement. This all raises a core question for our hearing today. Why is this administration so focused on turning our military against americans here at home? Our military's number one priority must be readiness. We face real growing threats from china, russia, iran, and more bad actors on the global stage.
▶ 0:28:17Sen. Duckworth: The department of defense needs to be focused on defending american interests abroad, not performing tasks meant to be done by civilian law enforcement here at home. No one else can do the critical work of keeping our families safe from these actual threats, and our troops are already stretched thin for time and resources. These deployments are burning priceless readiness, morale, and resources on open-ended, unjustified missions.
▶ 0:28:41Sen. Duckworth: So far, this administration is estimated to have spent over $341.3 million on the deployments to illinois, l.a., oregon, D.C., and memphis alone, not including the costs of thousands of troops along the border. But these are tabulated -- these costs are tabulated in more than taxpayer dollars, and cannot be overstated, nor can the risk of politicizing our troops for one man's game.
▶ 0:29:08Sen. Duckworth: Enabling any president to send military troops into american cities under transparently flimsy pretexts will have a dangerous and profoundly damaging impact on our nation's military. Our heroes did not sign up for this. They signed up to defend american rights to free speech, not to intimidate americans from exercising that right. We were willing to die to defend this country, not one man's partisan agenda.
▶ 0:29:35Sen. Duckworth: We cannot say silent as our troops willingness to sacrifice is abused, as president trump erodes the trust earned from the american public. While our armed forces have a sacred role in our country, public trust can be easily lost when the commander-in-chief uses them so recklessly, especially when the commander-in-chief is gone so far as to suggest that the military use american cities as, and I quote, training grounds for the war with them. Again, I quote the president.
▶ 0:30:03Sen. Duckworth: These days, I may no longer be wearing my army uniform, but it is still hanging up in my closet. But as a senator and as a member of this committee, my core mission remains the same as when I was in the national guard -- to keep america as strong and safe as she should be. The power to deploy our troops domestically must remain exceptional, comfortable, and rooted in law, not one man's judgment about what constitutes disorder. That is why I am here today. That is why I am so outraged.
▶ 0:30:33Sen. Duckworth: That is why I am so determined to make sure that for the sake of our troops, we get some answers today. Thank you.
▶ 0:30:38Chair Wicker: Thank you, senator duckworth. Let me observe that my air force uniform is also hanging up in my closet, but there is no way I could get into it at this point. Also, let me just mention for the purposes of our audience that these three witnesses were chosen by the leadership of this committee by consensus, and we welcome them here today. Mr. ditlevson, your opening statement, sir.
▶ 0:31:09Mr. Ditlevson: Good morning, Mr. chairman, Mr. ranking member, and established members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the department of war's role in supporting homeland defense, particularly regarding the mobilization of the national guard. As the principal deputy assistant secretary of war for homeland defense and america's security affairs, I oversee the policies and plans related to these missions, and I welcome the opportunity to brief you today.
▶ 0:31:38Mr. Ditlevson: The trump administration has taken every available opportunity to restore law and order in the united states. To that end, the department has reinvested in its relationship with our federal, state, and local partners to strengthen safety within our country.
▶ 0:31:59Mr. Ditlevson: Americans must know that they can walk home at night, that they can take their children to the playground, that they can exist without fear of being attacked. President trump promised law and order, and through his fearless leadership, he is delivering. Promises made, promises kept.
▶ 0:32:18Mr. Ditlevson: The department of war, and specifically the national guard, plays a crucial role in responding to a variety of domestic challenges, and protecting federal facilities and personnel to supporting law enforcement and disaster relief efforts. The importance of the national guard in this mission comes straight from the top. Secretary hegseth, a decorated former member of the D.C.
▶ 0:32:43Mr. Ditlevson: National guard, is ardent and steadfast in the critical role the national guard plays in supporting law enforcement and keeping the american people safe. Our efforts are guided by comprehensive legal and policy framework undergirded most importantly by the constitution of the united states. We prioritize strict adherence to legal parameters in all of her activities, all faithfully executing the president and secretary's direction.
▶ 0:33:10Mr. Ditlevson: To do otherwise would jeopardize good order and discipline and would be dangerous and irresponsible. Recent executive orders and presidential memorandums have directed specific support in several key areas.
▶ 0:33:25Mr. Ditlevson: Currently, the national guard is deployed in several states that are both title x and title 30 two authorities, providing support for a diverse set of missions, including federal protection missions in california, illinois, and oregon, support to federal law enforcement in tennessee, and restoring law and order in our nation's capital. We are committed to ensuring that all national guard personnel are properly trained and equipped for these missions.
▶ 0:33:50Mr. Ditlevson: Every single service member undergoes specialized training before being entrusted with the duty to protect american citizens. We emphasize de-escalation techniques, respect for civil liberties, and adherence to the rules for the use of force. We also work closely with state governments and other federal agencies to ensure a coordinated and effective response to domestic challenges. The department of war understands the concerns surrounding the use of national guard domestic operations.
▶ 0:34:22Mr. Ditlevson: We are committed to transparency and accountability in all of our activities. We strive to balance readiness for both domestic and overseas missions, adapting our training and resourcing to meet evolving needs. My office is committed to ensuring that these resources are used effectively and responsibly, as we have throughout president trump's time in office. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to answering the committee's questions.
▶ 0:34:50Chair Wicker: Thank you. Mr. young, you are recognized for your opening statement.
▶ 0:34:55Mr. Young: Chairman wicker, ranking member read, and distinguish members of this committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on an important topic of national guard mobilization.
▶ 0:35:10Mr. Young: The overarching concern in all of our national guard deployments is to ensure that our communities remain safe places where our citizens can enjoy the constitutional protected rights in peace, and were federal officers can perform their valid federal functions without fear of being physically harmed.
▶ 0:35:27Mr. Young: When the department of war receives a presidential mobilization order, supreme court precedents requires that we presume that he exercised his statutory and constitutional authorities as the commander-in-chief, in a manner consistent with the law.
▶ 0:35:45Mr. Young: These lawful orders, given in exigent circumstances, requires the department of war to rapidly muster a response to prevent loss of life, of limb and property in emergency situations. The department issues carefully tailored guidance to commanders and mobilize national guard personnel, focusing their mission on the protection of federal functions, personnel, and property.
▶ 0:36:11Mr. Young: In doing so, the department has operated well within the law established by long-standing supreme court precedent and long-standing department of justice legal opinion. The department of war has also received, evaluated, and responded to numerous requests for assistance from the department of homeland security and the department of justice, under well-established statutory frameworks for assisting other federal agencies and performing their federal functions, and assisting state and federal law enforcement authorities.
▶ 0:36:43Mr. Young: The dedicated women of our national guard have selflessly stepped forward to heed the call of duty and have served our nation with distinction. From all reports, they are well received by the citizens they serve and have comported themselves in an exemplary manner. As a result of their service, our communities are safer. Our federal law enforcement officers can more safely perform their legal functions, and instructions to the proper execution of federal law.
▶ 0:37:15Mr. Young: I look forward to answering your questions.
▶ 0:37:17Chair Wicker: Thank you very much. Now, general keogh -- guillot, you are recognized for your opening statement.
▶ 0:37:26Gen. Guillot: Thank you, distinguished members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to appear today alongside Mr. ditlevson and Mr. young, regarding deployments of the national guard and title x status within the united states. I would like to start by acknowledging the central role the army and national guard teammates play in defending the homeland every day.
▶ 0:37:50Gen. Guillot: Right now, guardsmen under the control of norad and usnorthcom are defending against ballistic missile threats, protecting national airspace, supporting federal law enforcement, and hoping seal and repel illegal activity at the southern border. There is not a single norad or usnorthcom mission that does not rely on our national guard teammates.
▶ 0:38:10Gen. Guillot: I will center my comments this morning on the roles and responsibilities in commanding and controlling title x forces in the federal mission in support of federal law enforcement agencies. At the direction of the president and the secretary of war, army national guard personnel operating in title x status are tasked with protecting federal functions, which includes property, entities, and federal personnel performing federal functions, including enforcement of federal law in california, oregon, and
▶ 0:38:42Gen. Guillot: Illinois. There are currently 200 national guard personnel in title x status at fort bliss, texas, who are available for this mission if necessary. The assigned forces in all four locations operate under the command and control of usnorthcom while reporting to U.S. army north. This provides a unified command structure that ensures disciplined execution of the assigned missions and clear accountability.
▶ 0:39:08Gen. Guillot: Accountability and adherence to all applicable laws and policies are critical, and usnorthcom will continue to comply with all laws, regulations, and applicable court orders. In adherence with federal court rulings, personnel in oregon and illinois remain federalized but are not executing federal protection operational mission.
▶ 0:39:29Gen. Guillot: Meanwhile, one hundred service members in california in title x status are executing the federal protection mission in accordance with the state issued by the north circuit as litigation continues to progress. Northcom is in coordination with the department regarding the order issued yesterday by the district court in california. From the outset, I have directed that every service member participating in federal protection missions be thoroughly trained on their authorities and limitations.
▶ 0:39:55Gen. Guillot: It is essential that everyone involved in this mission understands precisely what they are authorized to do, but perhaps more importantly, what they are authorized not to do. To be clear, title x forces are prohibited from conducting traditional law enforcement activities, including arrest, seizure, search, or evidence collection in connection with the enforcement of laws.
▶ 0:40:21Gen. Guillot: They must prevent the destruction or defacement of federal government property, including preventing civilians from attacking federal facilities, stopping ongoing interference with federal functions by civilians, or preventing civilians with a demonstrated attempt to interfere with federal functions from such interference. The mission also includes protecting federal personnel from harm or threat of death or bodily injury.
▶ 0:40:46Gen. Guillot: As such, service members may temporarily restrain civilians, conduct cursory searches, or take similar efforts to ensure the safety of persons on the property. To date, only one civilian has been temporarily detained by military personnel. That occurred on june 13, when despite verbal warnings, an individual crossed a clearly marked boundary surrounding wiltshire federal building in los angeles.
▶ 0:41:11Gen. Guillot: In accordance with federal law, that individual was only detained until they could be handed over to proper law enforcement personnel. Title x forces are present to protect federal property and federal personnel in the execution of their ability to enforce federal law, not to replace them.
▶ 0:41:28Gen. Guillot: Local, state, and federal law enforcement remain responsible for public safety and policing while the objectives of the military professionals are safety and continuity of the federal functions, and if necessary, de-escalation, not confrontation. I met a young marine in los angeles this summer. When I asked him to describe his assigned mission, he told me that it was to ensure that the american citizens exercising their right to peaceful assembly and protest were able to do so safely.
▶ 0:41:58Gen. Guillot: I think that sums up both the mission and the professionalism of the service members assigned to this mission very well. The federal protection mission is an example of the department's unique capability to support partners during extraordinary circumstances. We are proud of the command's ability to rapidly deploy trained, disciplined forces when and wherever they are needed, and the well trained and professional national guard is crucial to that effort. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today.
▶ 0:42:31Gen. Guillot: And I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:42:36Chair Wicker: Thank you general, and I think I will start with you. Specifically, why bring the guard in? What does it offer that law enforcement and other federal agencies cannot do?
▶ 0:42:50Gen. Guillot: First and foremost, chairman, they are extremely disciplined and they can very quickly be trained to conduct any mission that re-task of them.
▶ 0:43:03Gen. Guillot: When they come in, we train them on what they are authorized to do, which is rooted in the may day opinion and 124 06 authorities, and the secretary's directive action, which is to prevent destruction and defacement of federal facilities and protect the execution of federal functions. They can do that because they are disciplined. They are well trained and they very well understand the limits of their authorities.
▶ 0:43:31Chair Wicker: What are the benefits to the guard? My first question was the benefits to the community and what they could bring, but what about the individuals that are being deployed? Do they benefit from this?
▶ 0:43:47Gen. Guillot: Yes, sir, they do. We work very closely with the state to ensure that the training they received not only benefits them and the federal function they are performing for us, but also in their state role. In the conduct of the mission, they get not only training on standing for the rules of use of force, and also the civil disturbance operations that could potentially execute, but they get small unit training.
▶ 0:44:18Gen. Guillot: They get all of their medical training complete. They get all of their weapons qualifications, and many other small unit tactics that benefit them in both statuses. Also, at this time, the majority of those serving in this role our volunteers, so it helps them in their pursuit of a career, and it also allows us to trade out people who are assigned to maybe have school and other functions, to ensure that the people who are serving not only are very good at their job, but
▶ 0:44:49Gen. Guillot: They want to be there and they are on voluntary status.
▶ 0:44:52Chair Wicker: Mr. young, you are the council in this panel. Tell us what the posse, taught this act is and how this deployment, this type of deployment we are talking about today, does not violate the posse, taught us.
▶ 0:45:14Mr. Young: Thank you, senator. The posse, taught us -- posse comitatus act addressed the use of federal troops in conducting domestic law enforcement. Up to that point in our nation's history, there had been a long practice of using federalized troops domestically.
▶ 0:45:40Mr. Young: Congress, in order to make sure that local officials were not able to gain the support of the use of federal troops, and in dealing with local circumstances, past the posse comitatus act. It precludes the department and military personnel from being used in a manner that would pervade the local law enforcement and that would subject civilians to direct military authority.
▶ 0:46:11Mr. Young: And over the course of time, the department of justice has analyzed that rule in relation to national guard departments. In the vast majority of national guard deployments, they are considered to be non-federalized. Most of the time that the national guard is used, they are used under the control, direction, and authority of the governors.
▶ 0:46:33Mr. Young: They are in either what is called a state active duty status or they are in a federally funded but state controlled status is otherwise called title 32. In both of those circumstances, they are considered to be non-federalized. They are also considered to not be part of the army. While that is an important legal distinction, because therefore the posse comitatus act prohibits any part of the army from being used domestically.
▶ 0:47:03Mr. Young: Therefore, non-federalized national guard have long been used to be able to conduct domestic law enforcement operations, and there is a very long-standing and consistent practice of using non-federalized national guard, such as what is here in the district today and what is in memphis as well today, following title 32.
▶ 0:47:24Mr. Young: The other aspect is the authority of the president as the article to authority to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, and to protect the sovereign to be able to use federal forces, whether it be active component troops or whether it be national guard personnel, to protect federal functions and property.
▶ 0:47:47Chair Wicker: Just to nail this down, there are federal case law precedents that cause you to believe that what is being done currently is in accordance with federal law?
▶ 0:48:01Mr. Young: That is right, senator, as well as long-established department of justice legal opinions that say that when federal functions and property are at jeopardy, the posse comitatus act does not limit the president's ability to be able to protect those functions.
▶ 0:48:18Chair Wicker: Thank you Sen.
▶ 0:48:22Reed: The national guard has been deployed on numerous occasions, but these circumstances seem somewhat unique, and in addition to that, the secretary of defense has just ordered the national guard to create a response force and a nationwide deployable quick reaction force. These forces -- what is the purpose of these forces?
▶ 0:48:55Mr. Ditlevson: Thank you for the question, Mr. ranking member. These situations -- the national guard response force and the national guard quick response force are already pre-existing functions that are being reorganized and re-equipped to a high level and modernized to be able to serve their functions better.
▶ 0:49:19Mr. Ditlevson: So these are already existing capabilities within the national guard and we are just changing the matter in which they are task organized to be more effective.
▶ 0:49:29Sen. Reed: So there is no change in mission? So they have to respect the posse comitatus act and not become enforcers of domestic law?
▶ 0:49:40Mr. Ditlevson: If they are deployed in title x status, that is correct.
▶ 0:49:46Sen. Reed: And title 32 status would require the concurrence of the governor?
▶ 0:49:50Mr. Ditlevson: That is correct.
▶ 0:49:55Sen. Reed: When this program was rolled out, there was a suggestion that one of its main purposes is deterrence, which touches upon a basic right of americans to come together peacefully and demonstrate in cities and towns. Across the country. But this deterrence effect, one could argue, could inhibit or is designed effectively to inhibit those assemblies.
▶ 0:50:25Sen. Reed: Would that be constitutional?
▶ 0:50:30Mr. Young: Mr. ranking member, thank you for the question. I think the presence of national guard personnel at federal locations is designed to protect those federal property and functions from violence, from the threat of burning a building, officers being harmed in the execution of functions, or the impedance of those federal functions. Those functions do not impede in any way or deter people from exercising the valid constitutional right to protest.
▶ 0:51:03Mr. Young: Obviously, people have protested throughout the history of the course of our country in many ways. When they go beyond what is a legal protest and cross the line into violence against federal officials in the execution of that protest, the design for the deployment of these national guard personnel is to simply protect the federal functions and the personnel that are being harmed.
▶ 0:51:27Sen. Reed: So you would concur with judge breyer in california federal courts who declared the actions of a national guard or military as unconstitutional? I believe one of the areas they were protecting was macarthur park, which is not a federal facility, or at least they were making sweeps through macarthur park. But you concur with judge breyer's conclusion that the president acted unconstitutionally?
▶ 0:51:57Mr. Young: No, senator, I would say that I concur with the ninth circuit decision that the president acted lawfully, and I disagree with the district court's decision. I respect the district court's decision. And it is my understanding that the actions in macarthur park were designed to attack federal officers that were otherwise there that were not uniformed military personnel that were performing a valid legal federal function.
▶ 0:52:25Sen. Reed: Thank you. General guillot, first of all, thank you for your service and your very difficult job of maintaining a balance between your military responsibilities and many of the orders you are given.
▶ 0:52:44Sen. Reed: If you were if the president declared an organization a terrorist organization or dto, which is on a secret list, and you were ordered to attack them on U.S. soil, would you carry out that order?
▶ 0:53:04Gen. Guillot: Senator reed, as with any order I get, I would assess the order, consult the legal authorities to ensure that it was a lawful order, and I would, if I had questions -- I would elevate that to the chairman and the secretary, as they welcome at all times. And if I had no concerns and I was confident in a lawful order, I would execute that order.
▶ 0:53:30Sen. Reed: You were at quantico when the president addressed the officers?
▶ 0:53:34Gen. Guillot: I was, sir.
▶ 0:53:38Sen. Reed: He said there is an enemy within, and he also said that, to these officers, you included, you are going to be a major part, for some of the people in this room, that is a war, they were from within. The president essentially indicated that you should be prepared to conduct military operations in the united states against this enemy within. Are you doing that?
▶ 0:54:06Gen. Guillot: Sir, I have not been tasked to do anything that reflects what you just said.
▶ 0:54:13Sen. Reed: Do you have any indication of who this enemy within is?
▶ 0:54:15Gen. Guillot: I do not have any indications of an enemy within. We maintain readiness to execute the orders both to defend the homeland in many ways -- but I have not been tasked in that way.
▶ 0:54:30Sen. Reed: I would assume that the enemy within does not include the thousands of people who attacked the capital and were later pardoned by president trump, so it must be some other group of americans. Thank you.
▶ 0:54:42Chair Wicker: Sen. cotton:.
▶ 0:54:46Sen. Cotton: General, you have been on the job since last year. Have you received any illegal orders this year?
▶ 0:54:51Gen. Guillot: I have never received illegal orders throughout my career.
▶ 0:54:56Sen. Cotton: : never once in your entire career?
▶ 0:54:58Gen. Guillot: Never.
▶ 0:55:02Sen. Cotton: You have been around for a while, haven't you?
▶ 0:55:04Gen. Guillot: Yes sir, I have.
▶ 0:55:09Sen. Cotton: You have lawyers to make sure that people act lawfully. That is why our combatant commanders have jags, our president has lawyers, by business executives have lawyers. Is it the case that nonlawyers, laymen, don't always know what the law is? Is that so?
▶ 0:55:28Gen. Guillot: Yes, senator, that is true.
▶ 0:55:32Sen. Cotton: : I'm sure you have had a client who has asked you whether a course of action is lawful or not and you have had to tell them that is not lawful, right?
▶ 0:55:42Mr. Young: Certainly, senator.
▶ 0:55:46Sen. Cotton: : that is why we have lawyers around, to help inform the decisions of responsible persons who are lay men and who are not lawyers, right?
▶ 0:55:55Mr. Young: Yes, senator.
▶ 0:55:57Sen. Cotton: Is there a presumption of lawfulness of orders in the military?
▶ 0:56:02Mr. Young: There is a presumption of lawfulness not only in the uniform code of military justice, but the supreme court precedent that is long established going back more than 150 years says that whenever a statutory authority is given to the president, it is presumed that he is acting in accordance with that law, and long-standing supreme court precedent that deals with the necessity for the valid presumption of lawfulness in an order that is issued by the
▶ 0:56:33Mr. Young: President.
▶ 0:56:33Sen. Cotton: Thank you. Let's turn to some other basic questions of constitutional law. I know you are familiar with them from your time in the department. Does the president -- not just this president, but does any president have the constitutional authority to federalize the national guard to protect innocent life and property?
▶ 0:56:55Mr. Young: The answer to that is in the constitution, the states relegated their authority to congress to be able to call forth the militia in times of exigent circumstances. Congress in turn granted that authority to the president through the federal statute which remains in effect today and is the basis for these deployments.
▶ 0:57:14Sen. Cotton: And that authority extends in the states that refused to mobilize the national guard or governors oppose the president executing that constitutional authority? Is that right?
▶ 0:57:24Mr. Young: That is certainly true, sir. We have, in the course of history, been in circumstances where the president has had to mobilize the national guard over the objection of a governor.
▶ 0:57:35Sen. Cotton: Can you cite any specific president of that?
▶ 0:57:42Mr. Young: Yes, senator cotton, little rock, arkansas.
▶ 0:57:46Sen. Cotton: I thought you might say that. That is a regrettable moment in our state's history when our democratic governor mobilized the national guard specifically to obstruct in order to desegregate little rock central high school in 1957, which then forced president eisenhower to immediately federalize the guard to ensure those students could actually go to school, in accordance with that order.
▶ 0:58:17Sen. Cotton: I think I will just leave it there and say thank you all for your testimony and for your service, and I want to join my colleagues in expressing prayers on behalf of all arkansansark -- all arkansasans for all our guardsmen whether they are mobilized around the country or around the world, including the arkansas national guard that just got in to D.C.
▶ 0:58:49Sen. Hirono: I would like to also convey my immense respect for the men and women who serve in the national guard, and of course particularly the brave soldiers who were shot prior to thanksgiving, one of whom having since tragically passed away. Today's hearing asks a simple but profound question. What kind of country are we becoming?
▶ 0:59:19Sen. Hirono: In august, referring to domestic military deployments, the president said, quote, not that I don't have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the president. In september, he doubled down, admitting he wants to use america's cities as, quote, training grounds for the military, telling merit -- military leaders to handle the enemy from within. Enemy from within. Before it gets out of control. So we have a president who does not believe the rule of law applies to him.
▶ 0:59:50Sen. Hirono: We have a president who believes that whatever he does and says is lawful. That is why whenever we have witnesses say that they abide by lawful orders of the president, it makes me question what you think is lawful, because you all believe that whatever the president says and does is lawful.
▶ 1:00:09Sen. Hirono: For the past year, this regime has deployed national guard troops into american cities under legal theories that are untested at best, and at worst, stretch the law beyond recognition. They have used vague claims of rebellion and chaos to justify putting soldiers with rifles and military vehicles onto our streets, even as crime in many of these cities has actually fallen.
▶ 1:00:35Sen. Hirono: This is a regime that does not use facts as the basis for their decisions. We are not here today because local law enforcement failed. We are here because the trump regime chooses to treat ordinary public safety challenges as a pretext for a sweeping show of force. Again, this is not about the effectiveness of local law enforcement. How do we know?
▶ 1:01:01Sen. Hirono: Because this regime has cut over 800 million dollars in department of justice grants to state and local law enforcement for community safety initiatives like policing and violence prevention. We will hear a lot of legal stuff, I call it today -- title x versus title 32, the reach of section 12 40 six, posse comitatus.
▶ 1:01:26Sen. Hirono: But behind those legal debates is a basic question about how we think about the use of power in our democracy. When americans stepped out of union station in washington, D.C., for example, do we want them to see soldiers on street corners, military trucks at intersections, and the visible sign of a police state? Or do we want them to see the openness, the energy, and the confidence of a democracy that does not need to put troops on its streets to feel secure?
▶ 1:01:58Sen. Hirono: Right now, the daily relationship between americans and the D.C. national guard is being fundamentally altered. These deployments are challenging -- are changing how people experience their own capital city, and how they view our military. This is not normal. Don't tell me it's normal to have national guard in -- where are the cities? L.a., portland, chicago, D.C., memphis. Don't tell me this is normal.
▶ 1:02:30Sen. Hirono: It is not normal for a president to attack blue cities controlled by democratic mayors or governors. This regime has pushed boundaries that prior presidents , republican and democrats alike, respected for generations, and that has to do with the non-politicizing the military. The american people deserve answers to what we are doing in deploying all these trips to our cities. And I just want to ask Mr. young.
▶ 1:03:00Sen. Hirono: The president at one point said the protesters should be shot in the street. Is that a legal order? He put no conditions on that.
▶ 1:03:09Mr. Young: I'm not aware of the president giving any order to that nation.
▶ 1:03:17Sen. Hirono: He said it to secretary esper. Take my word for it.
▶ 1:03:19Mr. Young: I'm not sure when the conversation may or may not have heard.
▶ 1:03:25Sen. Hirono: Let's say the president issue such an order. He said so. He said so, ok? Is that a legal order?
▶ 1:03:31Mr. Young: Orders to that effect would depend on the circumstances.
▶ 1:03:37Sen. Hirono: The president applied no conditions. So we have a president who does not think the rule of law applies to him, and he wants a show of force. The question I have for Mr. ditlevson is I would like to know what kind of assessments were done as to the impact of these kinds of deployments that have already used up $240 million to date, and more, as long as these troops are going to continue to be deployed to the U.S.
▶ 1:04:05Sen. Hirono: Citizens I mentioned that she was cities I mentioned and others. What kind of assessment, done by who, estimate the impact of these deployments are on our readiness, and other questions?
▶ 1:04:18Chair Wicker: Can you answer that question briefly, Mr. ditlevson?
▶ 1:04:23Mr. Ditlevson: In the department, we are constantly assessing all costs related to these deployments -- readiness costs, fiscal costs. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that this is not having any effect. This is a modest burden on the department. Most of these deployments are reimbursable in nature.
▶ 1:04:43Mr. Ditlevson: And the number of troops that have been deployed are very small relative to the overall national guard force, and the national guard bureau has given us assessments and said this is not negatively affecting them.
▶ 1:04:56Sen. Hirono: I find that hard to believe, thank you.
▶ 1:04:59Sen. Rounds: Good morning. I thank you for taking the time to participate in this and recognize that as the committee has asked, we have brought you in here because we want to learn as much as possible to make sure that -- with the american public, I would also like to take the time to recognize the guardsmen who are keeping our capital city safe, especially the west virginians who were so viciously attacked last month.
▶ 1:05:29Sen. Rounds: Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the army specialist sarah beckstrom and her family, and the staff sergeant member who survived but has a long road to recovery ahead. Their presence in america's capital made a significant difference, and we honor their service and their sacrifice. Gentlemen, as you know, the national guard has been deployed to assist with domestic security since before the constitution was written.
▶ 1:05:58Sen. Rounds: National guard has often been deployed to assist in law enforcement operations between state -- when state or local authorities were unwilling or unable to do so, ranging from enforcing desegregation laws to helping quell riots.
▶ 1:06:13Sen. Rounds: Based on your analysis of the historic deployments of the national guard, do these deployments, initiated by the current administration, deviate in any material way from the domestic national guard deployments initiated by previous administrations? I'm going to start with Mr. young.
▶ 1:06:34Sen. Rounds: I would really like you, if you could -- you have kind of done it a little bit for a number of different members, but you have given historical context for the legal framework and the use of federal troops for domestic missions. But could you take a few minutes and kind of bring the committee and those listening kind of up to speed as to how this works, and the political background on how we actually use the national guard throughout our history?
▶ 1:07:03Sen. Rounds: And the legal framework for doing so.
▶ 1:07:06Mr. Young: Thank you, senator. I would be happy to. The nation established the framework of state/federal authorities in being able to administer the national guard. In many ways, as the country developed, the national guard was considered the force of first resort, rather than bringing in troops from the regular army, the active component of the army, navy, or air force.
▶ 1:07:37Mr. Young: The founding fathers wanted to resort to utilizing the national guard because they were citizens , and from the communities that were involved. These books that I have here are books on the role of federal military forces in domestic disorders, and there is tons of examples of that. It is quite voluminous. There are lots of examples over the course of the nation's history.
▶ 1:08:02Mr. Young: Most of the deployments that are coming are done in the cooperation of state authorities . State authorities asked for it. State authorities are in control. Most of them are state-funded or state operated. There are times when, for instance in katrina, being able to address the disaster that was coupled with civil disturbance, the scope and magnitude of the circumstances or the nature of it necessitate federal funding.
▶ 1:08:34Mr. Young: They are still under state control. But the constitution recognize there could be certain exigent times, at which time the country and the president would need to be able to act quickly and be able to mobilize the militia to be able to respond to the threats that were present. They are enumerated not only in the constitution, but in the
▶ 1:08:57Statute Sen. Rounds: . We talk about federal funding under state control. We call that title 32. Under the direction of the president, it is title x. Fear to separate? -- is it fair to separate? We have two different sections that are utilized.
▶ 1:09:22Statute Sen. Rounds: Can I emphasize how critical it is to differentiate between those two uses for the national guard. The training that goes in to guardsmen or officers to understand the differences?
▶ 1:09:38Mr. Young: The distinction is critical. When national guard personnel are in a title 32 status, subject to the control, direction, and authority of state officials, the governor is their commander-in-chief. When they are ordered to federal service, by federal law, that relationship with the state is severed by federal law. And the president becomes their commander-in-chief.
▶ 1:10:05Mr. Young: That then governs the rules of the use of force when they are in state authority. They are following state rules, state law, state responsibilities. When they are in a title x status, they are following standard use of force under general guillot's concerns.
▶ 1:10:24Chair Wicker: Thank you, senator rounds. Senator king?
▶ 1:10:29Sen. King: I begin again, as many others have, expressing condolences to the family of sarah beckstrom, 20-year-old specialist from webster county, west virginia. She enlisted in the west virginia army national guard when she was a senior in high school. Andrew wolfe, the staff sergeant, 24 years old, who is, thank god, recovering.
▶ 1:10:58Sen. King: In critical condition, but recovering, from martinsburg. Had been in the guard, also enrolled in his senior year in high school. I also want to mention a name that has not been mentioned -- alabama staff sergeant jacob hill, 30-year-old, who had served in the guard for 13 years. He died during the deployment to D.C.
▶ 1:11:20Sen. King: And a nonduty medical emergency when he was stationed -- residing in a hotel in virginia. He died on november 13. The D.C. deployment has been the subject of litigation, and I want to read the ruling of the court in district of columbia versus donald j.
▶ 1:11:43Sen. King: Trump from november 20, 2025, six days before the two soldiers were assassinated. Here is the ruling of the court. First, the dod defendants have exceeded the bounds of their authority under title 49 of the D.C. code, and thus acted contrary to law. In deploying the D.C.
▶ 1:12:05Sen. King: National guard for nonmilitary crime deterrence missions in the absence of a request from the city's civil authorities. And second, these defendants lacked statutory authority under 32 usc section 50 two, section 32, to support the request for assistance from out-of-state national guards and their actions in calling those cards to the district. The court ruled that the D.C.
▶ 1:12:35Sen. King: Guard could not be used for garden-variety law enforcement activities without a request by the mayor, and the out-of-state guards could not be summoned here. That violated the defendant's legal authorities and exceeded them. The administration is appealing that order. That order came down six days before the assassination of these troops. The administration has appealed, as is their right.
▶ 1:13:02Sen. King: But I just want to say to the families, what we owe to you is a bigger risk prosecution, to the full extent of the law, of the criminal who assassinated these two individuals, killing one and badly wounding the others, badly wounding staff sergeant wolf. But if this legal order is upheld and these were unlawful missions, these individuals should not have been there.
▶ 1:13:29Sen. King: They should have been celebrating thanksgiving with their families at home, rather than patrolling near farragut square in washington. And if those legal orders are withheld, there is something additional we of these families, and additional prosecution of the assassin. The civil officials responsible for an unlawful deployment will owe these families a deep, deep apology for the losses that they have suffered.
▶ 1:14:01Sen. King: The prosecution of the assassin is important. But responsibility and acceptance of responsibility from civil servants issuing illegal orders is also important. It is deeply important. I would encourage my colleagues to read this 61 page order that was issued. I think it is quite persuasive. We will see how it stands up on appeal.
▶ 1:14:29Sen. King: But I had the deep feeling on the day this sad news broke about the shooting that the two west virginians should have been home with her family celebrating thanksgiving that they rather than here on a mission of questionable legality. General guillot, you talked about the training that cardmembers receive.
▶ 1:14:53Sen. King: What training to guard members receive when they are deployed in these missions about dealing with folks who present with mental health issues? Local law enforcement receive very significant training on this topic. I wonder what training our national guard members received on this topic?
▶ 1:15:06Gen. Guillot: Senator carper those deployed in title x status received two primary types of training before allowed to go on mission. The first is on the standing rules for the use of force, to ensure at first they learn how to de-escalate and then use any force as a last resort but first nondeadly force before deadly force only when all lesser meanings have been attempted and failed and they are protecting themselves.
▶ 1:15:36Gen. Guillot: >> I am over time but in either of the two kinds of training that you're describing, do these cardmembers receive the critical training about him with folks with mental health incidences? I spoke with mayor bowser the other day and she talked about the fact that metro pd all received significant mental health training because a significant percentage of the incidences where they are interacting with folks who might be a danger to themselves or others are driven by mental health issues.
▶ 1:16:04Gen. Guillot: It was her impression and mine as a former mayor and governor that that is not the kind of training that are national guard members receive.
▶ 1:16:10Chair Wicker: What is the answer to that?
▶ 1:16:13Gen. Guillot: They do not receive specific training in that regard.
▶ 1:16:17Chair Wicker: Senator scott.
▶ 1:16:20Sen. Scott: Thank you. Thank each of you for being here and you're decades of service to our country and were fighters. I want to recognize specialist sir, staff sergeant andrew wolfe, heroes that were tragically attacked. I want to ask every american to keep specialist beckstrom's family and their prayers. I can't imagine what that is like. All of our prayers go for a recovery for staff sergeant wolf.
▶ 1:16:50Sen. Scott: These are two heroes like our national guardsmen who volunteered to keep our country safe and stepped up to clean up democrat run cities all around the country there were running rampant during crime and lower lives -- and lawlessness. People are comfortable living in their own homes. Comfortable coming to washington, D.C. again because I felt safe. Can you each give me an example how some of the work -- what you're most proud of?
▶ 1:17:20Sen. Scott: Starting with you, general.
▶ 1:17:21Gen. Guillot: I am proud of all of the guard forces that have come under title x command and control. They are discipline, their adherence to all policies and their cooperation with local law enforcement and state law enforcement in each of the regions where they are deployed to me is very impressive, much appreciated from our standpoint.
▶ 1:17:48Gen. Guillot: I think it shows they continue to be citizen soldiers even in title x status.
▶ 1:17:53Mr. Young: As the former general counsel for the national guard bureau with 20 years of service they are as well as service in the west virginia guard, first I would share your sympathies for the family of specialist sarah beckstrom and wolfe. I would say I've seen the national guard in my 20 years having advised on national guard issues to exceptional things.
▶ 1:18:21Mr. Young: Everything from domestic emergency response and making sure our communities are safe to helping us execute operation midnight hammer in a way that really could not have been done without a total team effort. The national guard is always ready, always there, and every member of the national guard that I have served with our exceptional professionals who are able and willing and ready to accomplish the mission whenever it presents.
▶ 1:18:51Mr. Ditlevson: An excellent question. I am most impressed with situations where governors have stepped up and taken the federal government's offer of doing title 32 activations because of how they can help local law enforcement. The data speaks for itself. Serious crime rates in memphis for example are down over 45% year to date. I believe that it's a direct reflection of the national guardsmen at work. Their similar numbers in D.C.
▶ 1:19:21Mr. Ditlevson: And we are incredibly grateful to the the over 10 states that have sent national guardsmen to the city including the D.C. national guard who are doing a great work. The results are impressive and speak for themselves.
▶ 1:19:34Sen. Scott: Thank you. President trump is focused on keeping our cities safe and I'm thankful he has been willing to do this to make it safe for people who travel this country. Thank you.
▶ 1:19:44Chair Wicker: Thank you very much, senator king.
▶ 1:19:54Sen. King: A large standing army in time of peace has ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a country. George washington. The founders of this country understood the dangers of a military presence within our borders. James madison, standing military force with an overgrown executive -- that sounds familiar. Overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.
▶ 1:20:26Sen. King: Again, medicine at the constitutional convention come the means of defense against foreign dangers have always been the instruments of tyranny at home. Patrick henry, a standing army we shall have also to execute the execrable commands of tyranny. Samuel adams, standing army shall be established will undoubtedly be permanent and the people will become slaves.
▶ 1:20:53Sen. King: I want to broaden this discussion from the specifics of the more general. What concerns me about the cases we are talking about today is the normalization of deploying the military domestically. We have got laws about it and you guys can thread the needle and talk about how this or that deployment is ok or not ok, but the idea of deploying federal troops into american cities, particularly against the wishes of the governor. Mr.
▶ 1:21:22Sen. King: Ditlevson, you said, we are working closely with state and local governments. That did not happen in illinois or california. We are talking about a broader issue here that I think is extremely dangerous. And the reason it is particularly dangerous in the present moment is we have a president who has a very low bar as to what constitutes an emergency. I live in maine. On the border of canada. There is no emergency with canada.
▶ 1:21:54Sen. King: And yet this president declared an emergency in order to impose tariffs on canada, which is wrecking their economy. So the idea that we are saying the president has the power to in his own mind decide what an emergency is and then deploy troops into our cities, I think is exceedingly dangerous. The people who founded this country thought so, too.
▶ 1:22:18Sen. King: So I just -- I think we can talk about the legality of a particular deployment here or there, but the principle is what is so dangerous. The founders of this country understood that. In many, many ways. For example, in the constitution, the army, you are only allowed to fund the army for two years. That was for a purpose. In order to limit the whole idea of a standing army. We now have a standing army. We have an all volunteer army.
▶ 1:22:48Sen. King: And then we had this quick reaction force which is essentially become a special army on behalf of the president. I am not -- I do criticize this president for his low standard of what constitutes an emergency, but this is a dangerous precedent for any president. That is what concerns me about this. Mr.
▶ 1:23:12Sen. King: Young, you are familiar with the concepts and the principles of the constitution. Speak to the more general question that I am raising. Not the specifics of washington or los angeles, but the idea of the normalization of use of troops in our streets I think is extremely dangerous and the founders of our country would I think agree.
▶ 1:23:37Mr. Young: Thank you, senator. I would just say immediately after the passage of the constitution congress passed a law that would delegate their authority to determine when the militia could be called forth. They delegated that authority to the president. George washington, whom you quoted, immediately put that to use.
▶ 1:23:59Mr. Young: George washington mustard 13,000 militiamen and marched them to pennsylvania -- whiskey rebellion was in pennsylvania where they tarred and feathered tax collectors. The president sent them there to protect federal functions and the officers who were performing their duty. Similar to what was there.
▶ 1:24:25Mr. Young: That original statute, sir, it had a provision in it that a federal judge would need to make the determination that the laws were not being able to be enforced. And after george washington moved the troops to pennsylvania, congress came back and admitted that and took that out and put it within the discretion of the president.
▶ 1:24:46Mr. Young: It wasn't long after that that the supreme court reviewed that muster, went in and reviewed in an actual mobilization of the militia to deal with in exigent --.
▶ 1:24:58Sen. King: No realistic check on the president? Can the president declare an emergency? I think it is been testified today, what is bothering everybody is this president keeps using the term "the enemy within" and not talking about al qaeda and not talking about the russians and not talking about the chinese. We can't tell quite who he is talking about.
▶ 1:25:19Sen. King: The abuse of the term "the enemy within" as a justification for deploying troops, maybe it is a question of judgment and what the standard is. It strikes me -- you seem unconcerned about this.
▶ 1:25:35Mr. Young: I think the supreme court has directly asked that question in the context of the president's ability to mow bless the militia. If I may, I would answer by giving you some of the language of the supreme court. It says by whom is emergency to be judged? Is the president the sole and exclusive judge as to whether an emergency has arisen? Or is it to be considered an open question which every officer may decide for himself?
▶ 1:26:04Mr. Young: Or could testify every militiamen who should refuse its order? The supreme court unanimously ruled that the authority to decide whether the emergency exists belongs exclusively to the president. And that his decision is conclusive on all other persons. And the supreme court again in another supreme court decision said, after the president has acted and called out the militia, is the circuit court of the united states authorized to inquire whether his decision was right?
▶ 1:26:34Mr. Young: If the judicial power of the united states extends so far than the guarantees of the constitution are a guarantee of anarchy and not of war. Lastly, with respect to whether or not there is a remedy, the supreme court recognized there might be circumstances where this may be perceived to be abused. It says the law does not provide any appeal in the judgment of the president and for any right in a subordinate officer to review or question his decision before they enforce it.
▶ 1:27:06Mr. Young: It says such power may be abused for there is no power for which is not susceptible of abuse but the remedy for this as well as for any other official misconduct if it should occur is to be found in the constitution itself. Sir, that is the supreme court's decision.
▶ 1:27:24Sen. King: What is the remedy in the constitution? Impeachment? Elections? >> elections. I think one of the frequency of elections is one of the things in the supreme court decision marking the amount of 1847 is that is one of the factors of the supreme court discussed -- martin v mott of 1847 is that one of the factors of the supreme court discussed. Exigent circumstances.
▶ 1:27:54Chair Wicker: Council behind us would like for you to state for the record what case you are quoting an answer to senator --.
▶ 1:28:05Mr. Young: It comes from martin v mott, 1827 as well as luther v borden. >> the organization you work for is the department of defense. 10 usc 111a. Thank you.
▶ 1:28:29Chair Wicker: Thank you for repeatedly making that point, senator. Senator sheehy.
▶ 1:28:39Sen. Sheehy: Thank you. I always find it interesting when constitutional scholars and law parachute from the rafters during every trump decision. We are not a legal body, we are political body. If you want a legal body, there is one block away, beautiful marble, building. Just to set the record straight, Mr.
▶ 1:29:03Sen. Sheehy: Young, has the president issued any illegal orders or have illegal orders been followed in the course of the national guard to plummet to our southern border in our cities?
▶ 1:29:13Mr. Young: Senator, no. The president has not issued any illegal orders. The ninth circuit has ruled in that favor.
▶ 1:29:24Sen. Sheehy: We have cleared that up. There is a case under appeal which is senator kaine pointed out the administration's right to appeal a judgment that called one of the deployment illegal. Right now no loss of been broken as far as we know.
▶ 1:29:38Sen. Sheehy: General guillot, northern command which consists of the entire continent, obviously, continental united states and alaska included, we have been hearing about threats, hearing about what constitutes an emergency and the president's authority to respond to such an emergency.
▶ 1:30:00Sen. Sheehy: As military commander, what do you feel is a greater threat to our national security, 500 volunteers trained national guardsmen walking the streets of our cities or 20 million illegal immigrants who have entered this country over the past five years?
▶ 1:30:16Gen. Guillot: Senator, the U.S. northern command is situated -- excuse me, tasked to seal and repel at the border as you mention with the illegal activity. And I think the results are very strong and speak for themselves.
▶ 1:30:39Gen. Guillot: However, the other group that you mentioned, the 700 guardsmen that are in title x status are also doing an excellent job protecting federal functions and facilities when they are allowed to by the court. Right now that is just in california. I think they're doing an exceptional job there and protecting the federal building.
▶ 1:30:58Sen. Sheehy: The transnational organizations that fill our country with fentanyl poison and other human trafficking, is that a national security threat? Gen.
▶ 1:31:10Guillot: It is. I think we are responding to that very well in cooperation with the department of homeland security.
▶ 1:31:18Sen. Sheehy: Under a national security threat, which is unquestionably fueled by foreign powers that do not want american values to succeed, co-opting transnational criminal organizations, they are actively attacking this country using illegal immigration, using transnational crime, using drugs to do so. Would that be a correct statement?
▶ 1:31:36Gen. Guillot: Yes, sir.
▶ 1:31:40Sen. Sheehy: 70,000 americans-ish are dying from fentanyl overdoses are being trafficked, murdered, thrown under bridges by illegal immigrants and terminal organizations related to those. That sounds like a pretty big emergency. You and I went to work for 20 plus years with 5000 americans were killed on and around 9/11.
▶ 1:32:03Sen. Sheehy: The number is much higher now as they have unfortunately died from sickness is related to what happened on 9/11, our first response and more. I think we are on the 7000 now is that cancers have taken many lives. We have said legal questions.
▶ 1:32:18Sen. Sheehy: We are talking about we are being told 300, 500, 700 honorable young americans who asked to join the military can erase the right hand, volunteering for these deployments, we are being told them walking the streets protecting americans from being mugged, carjacked like our congressmen are two blocks away from here, like one of my staffers was hit over -- clubbed over the head of humans to go in the icu, woke up stripped of all valuables.
▶ 1:32:46Sen. Sheehy: Apparently, these guardsmen on our street art or greater threat to our nation than the tens of millions of illegal immigrants that were welcomed to this country by the biden administration. The biden administration selectively open or border. They made the choice to do that. It was not an accident. It was a decision they made. The venezuelan boat drivers who went to bring poison to this country come they made a choice to get on that boat and drive it here. We are making the choice, the america people made the choice last year they are sick of it.
▶ 1:33:12Sen. Sheehy: They want an end put to this disgusting policy that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans. I think it is an absolute disgrace we are impugning the integrity of our people in uniform, the integrity of this administration and the will of the america people to live safely on their own streets. The constitution says life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. America people have a right to expect the government will protect them from being murdered in the street.
▶ 1:33:38Sen. Sheehy: I'm sick and tired of the constitutional lawyers parachuting out of the rafters every day when we are doing exactly what the america people asked us to do. Thus far a year into this administration come to america people asked to be protected from these threats and we are doing that. Thank you.
▶ 1:33:59Chair Wicker: Thank you, senator. I recognize senator warren and I have a markup across the street in the rules committee and senator budd will preside during my absence.
▶ 1:34:17Sen. Warren: Thank you. I want to start by extending my condolences to the family a specialist sarah beckstrom who paid the ultimate sacrifice while deployed in bc. My thoughts are with staff sergeant andrew wolfe as he continues to fight for his life. I want to make clear, nobody here is impugning the people who are on the streets. No one here is impugning the integrity of our national guard.
▶ 1:34:45Sen. Warren: We're just asking about how they got to put their by people in leadership positions. It has been six months since president trump and secretary hegseth deployed the national guard on american streets. Investigation that I just released with several senators on this committee found dod has footed the bill for more than $2 billion in support of the department of homeland security and immigration enforcement.
▶ 1:35:15Sen. Warren: That is money that was meant for military training facilities, crumbling military barracks, schools for military families. Instead, it was spent on deploying our national guard to pick up trash in washington, D.C. and deal civilian protesters in other cities. I think we are right to ask the question about how this happened. Mr.
▶ 1:35:39Sen. Warren: Young, are one of the senior attorneys at dod and you are the acting dod general counsel when the decision was first made to deploy the national guard to los angeles. If an attorney raises concerns about the legality of military operations, do you think the appropriate response is to tell them to shut up and get out of the way? >> could you repeat the question?
▶ 1:36:06Sen. Warren: If the jack attorney raises concerns about the legality of a military operation, do you think the appropriate response is to tell them to shut up and get out of the way?
▶ 1:36:17Mr. Young: Senator, the law provides military judge advocates are able to provide independent advice.
▶ 1:36:26Sen. Warren: That's right.
▶ 1:36:26Mr. Young: To military commanders, the chief of staff and the secretary of the army.
▶ 1:36:32Sen. Warren: I'm asking about their appropriate response. Do you think the appropriate responses to tell them to shut up and get out of the way?
▶ 1:36:38Mr. Young: I'm not aware of a response at that natute. -- nature.
▶ 1:36:47Sen. Warren: Co. It should be an easy answer.
▶ 1:36:50Mr. Young: By whom?
▶ 1:36:53Sen. Warren: Value. Their disturbing reports when the top uniformed attorney in the army raised questions about the legality of using national guard soldiers and other dod resources for immigration enforcement, you told him to stop meddling in state affairs and then shortly after that secretary hegseth fired the jag officer with no explanation. Mr.
▶ 1:37:19Sen. Warren: Young, the report does not have a direct quote but is it true you said something along those lines?
▶ 1:37:24Mr. Young: The context of that is that the officer was wanting to comment on whether the state in a state capacity could provide personnel who were in a state status, not federal military status, not part of the army, to help assist -- we have many missions, senator, that are occurring on the border right now. We have 3000 approximately national guardsmen.
▶ 1:37:53Sen. Warren: Your answer is to confirm that report and that is what you said?
▶ 1:37:57Mr. Young: That is not what I said.
▶ 1:37:59Sen. Warren: He did not say that?
▶ 1:38:01Mr. Young: I did not say that.
▶ 1:38:04Sen. Warren: This is not the only report of jag being sidelined by this administration. I'm glad you think it might be inappropriate for jack to be sidelined. -- jag. It was reportedly overruled we said the boat strikes are extrajudicial killings. These deployments are not just legally questionable. They come at an extreme cost.
▶ 1:38:33Sen. Warren: And a come at the cost of mounting billions of dollars and at reports that hurts troops morale. In fact, the first trump administration discontinued military support to dhs at the border and detention facilities citing both the costs and the fact that our troops were demoralized by being put in that position.
▶ 1:38:58Sen. Warren: So I think it is exactly right that we are raising these questions and whether or not jag is receiving the appropriate opportunity to weigh in on illegal orders. If you say you did not say it, then I trust what that means is you don't intend to say it and you do not intend to sideline jag when they raise questions about legality. Do I have that correct?
▶ 1:39:22Mr. Young: Senator, it has been my experience having been a judge advocate both the air force and in the army with him is 30 years of judge advocate express that judge advocates are able to quickly and clearly communicate their concerns to leadership and that leadership is very attentive to their concerns when they are raised and they have the ability to provide that advice.
▶ 1:39:45Sen. Warren: I don't have concerns about the judge advocates, have concerns about --.
▶ 1:39:49Chair Budd: Your time has expired. Warren
▶ 1:39:56Warsen. Warren: I take it you're saying they should not be sidelined. >> own to think our witnesses. I also would like everybody else to keep the families and victims of this outrageous shooting of our national guardsmen from west virginia here in bc was just an outrage. I try to go running on the mall every morning come exercise.
▶ 1:40:27Warsen. Warren: Whenever I see our national guardsmen out there, I feel good about them. I will stop them and thank them. I hope that is what everybody does. By the way, that incident should help spur I hope on both sides of the aisle legislation called the protect our heroes act. I introduce it every year. A lot of republican cosponsors. No democrat cosponsors yet.
▶ 1:40:51Warsen. Warren: It is a simple bill that says if you try to hurt -- purposely ambush and lure a first responder, law enforcement, national guard, police, firefighter into a situation where you then attack them, kill them, that we will federalize that crime. We will make penalties very high. And if you kill that person, you will get the death penalty. It is called protect our heroes.
▶ 1:41:16Warsen. Warren: I would love it if some of my democrat colleagues could come on board because that is exactly what just happened to these young brave national guard men. And the people who did it should get the death penalty when they kill someone. Let me go to you, Mr. young. The legal framework a precedence of this, I think it is important in the history -- there's a lot of revisionist history. When I first a plummet as a U.S. marine, I did -- deployment as U.S.
▶ 1:41:43Warsen. Warren: Marine, into pay come region, was based at camp pendleton. When I came back, I battalion was a six month deployment we had half the battalion was ordered by the president, president clinton -- I've been around a while -- to go to the southern border and the other part of the battalion was sent to the national force to fight forest fires because it was a really big forest fire season.
▶ 1:42:14Warsen. Warren: The forest fire capability of united states was tapped out. So they called up the marines. We have been doing this for a long time, including a deployment to the border, secure the border. In the mid-1990's. That is when we did it. There was no demoralized feelings. I don't know where the hell center wearing a step. We were motivated marines. The president told us to go different places and we went. That is what you do.
▶ 1:42:40Warsen. Warren: Can you give me a sense of the legal framework and the precedent of these kind of national guard deployments Mr.
▶ 1:42:47Young Mr. Young: -- national guard or plummets?
▶ 1:42:54Mr. Young: This has been long enduring.
▶ 1:42:59Sen. Sullivan: Decades.
▶ 1:43:01Mr. Young: Democrats and republicans.
▶ 1:43:06Sen. Sullivan: Two secure the border. Bill clinton did it when I was.
▶ 1:43:11Mr. Young: Where governors would send troops to the border in a collaborative sense, also title x under differing administrations.
▶ 1:43:21Sen. Sullivan: There is a legal precedents that extends decades with republican and democratic demonstrations?
▶ 1:43:29Mr. Young: It is.
▶ 1:43:33Sen. Sullivan: General guillot, you've seen this chart many times. My state is a busy place. We get incursions from the russians, chinese all the time. Another one, thanks for giving me a heads up, right before thanksgiving, including joint russian chinese strategic bomber taskforces, naval taskforces.
▶ 1:43:54Sen. Sullivan: I wanted to ask you particularly, general, the role of the national guard in these operations because these are frontline operations going directly against our adversaries, wing to wing when our fighters go intercept russian bombers and megs that are armed, dangerous work. We do it all the time in alaska. How critical is the national guard in those missions?
▶ 1:44:19Gen. Guillot: The national guard is essential.
▶ 1:44:23Sen. Sullivan: Indispensable.
▶ 1:44:24Gen. Guillot: Absolutely. I say this success starts and stops with our relationship with the national guard. To answer your question specifically, in alaska, we have the 49th missile-defense brigade battalion.
▶ 1:44:43Sen. Sullivan: The unit that is protecting the entire united states of america right now as we speak. National guard unit.
▶ 1:44:52Gen. Guillot: And charlie national guard. -- entirely national guard. The defense is run by 14 different national guard wings for fighters, six national guard wings for refuelers including one in alaska, as well as air defense squadron in alaska that works side-by-side with the active duty forces to conduct the intercepts you mentioned.
▶ 1:45:17Sen. Sullivan: One but question, you have to make the balance between state related national guard missions and national issues I would say intercepting russian bear bombers and tanking the fighters that go do that is certainly national mission. Matters to alaska, matters to the country. I want to complement the national guard, coast guard on this big typhoon that hit western alaska. It did not make a lot of press out here.
▶ 1:45:46Sen. Sullivan: 51 rescue missions, saved 51 lives. Unfortunately, we lost a couple of alaskans and those brutal storms but that was kind of a state-specific example. How do you make the balance on the national guard's mission when you have national and state-related missions?
▶ 1:46:02Gen. Guillot: The way we do it, we have constant and steady relationships with the tags to let them know federal forces are available if needed to complement initial response in the state. In the case you mentioned, I think the response by the alaska national guard was phenomenal and they did not require any federal assistance.
▶ 1:46:26Gen. Guillot: But through northcom, we contact your tag and tags all across the country to make sure they know we are ready with title x assistance if needed.
▶ 1:46:36Chair Budd: Senator peters.
▶ 1:46:38Sen. Peters: Thank you for being here. Your testimony. I want to put out first off I think we all agree here and everybody in this room is that keeping the american public safe and fighting crime and making sure folks feel secure in their communities is absolutely fundamental to the government. I would say probably a primary role of government is to keep people safe first and foremost. So that we all agree.
▶ 1:47:06Sen. Peters: The second question is, how do we do that in the most effective way? How do we actually reduce crime? How do we make sure people are safe and spend scarce taxpayer money as wildly -- why is this possible?
▶ 1:47:21Sen. Peters: I had my homeland security staff, whom I serve as ranking member, look at the cost and based on information we have gone from the administration, national guard or plummets to american cities by this administration have cost taxpayers a little over $410 million so far with the stated mission of restoring law and order in reducing crime.
▶ 1:47:46Sen. Peters: The federal government, however, I think you know, already has some really effective ways of bolstering public safety now such as the department of justice cops hiring program, which puts highly trained professional full-time police officers in the community helping those communities in particular that need additional law enforcement help. It funds local agencies to hire career enforcement law.
▶ 1:48:19Sen. Peters: Training 1193 fully trained professional police officer's nationwide at a cost of $157 million. If we just do a bit of back of the napkin math, the $410 million spent over the past four months of guard deployments, if annualized, we would be able to hire 9366 local trained police
▶ 1:48:50Sen. Peters: Officers who know their communities, have local trust and are often part of the community. They live there as well. Mr. ditlevson, do you agree spending these funds on career law enforcement officers would be much more effective use of taxpayer money than a temporary employment of national guard folks?
▶ 1:49:13Mr. Ditlevson: Senator, thank you for the question. You make a great point as far as the difference in cost but I would counter that by saying in exigent circumstances where we need to move fast, where things are not standard or normal come the national guard is the response force that needs to be utilized in those situations. Look at los angeles and the writing that was occurring.
▶ 1:49:39Mr. Ditlevson: President trump had to take action in that situation and mobilize the national guard to help our partners in federal law enforcement respond to the vicious attacks that were happening on those officials. In those scenarios, it makes a lot more sense for national guardsmen to deploy. Additionally in areas where we are able to work with state governments such as the state of tennessee, we have been able to help dramatically reduce the overall crime rates in that city .
▶ 1:50:08Mr. Ditlevson: And we are constantly reassessing the situation on the ground. If were able to get crime rates down or local law enforcement can handle these issues once again without additional federal support, there is nothing more we would like to do than to end these deployments. With normalization of criminal activity come the president has jumped at this opportunity and led to make sure we are a nation of law and order.
▶ 1:50:34Sen. Peters: Let me reiterate. You talked about putting those troops come the governors and mayors who actually are on the ground, those are their cities, those are there folks, did not believe that support was necessary, that in effect it increased tensions in those communities. That is not a long-term solution come that we should probably be a medially to plan things like cops grants to help folks.
▶ 1:50:57Sen. Peters: In fact, which I thought was interesting in how this is so inefficient, and in response to written questions from my staff, the D.C. national guard confirmed 38 of their service members who are metropolitan police department officers, 10 of them were called up or I should say 38 of them -- 10 are supporting D.C.
▶ 1:51:23Sen. Peters: Safe beautiful task force and are not serving their day jobs as police officers. They basically have been taken off the streets as D.C. trained police officers and their doing things like painting fences, picking up trash with the D.C. national guard. Why would you take trained police officers off the street in washington, D.C., and call them up for the guard and say, and I could help beautify the city instead of been on the street fighting crime? Does that make any sense?
▶ 1:51:52Mr. Ditlevson: Is a good question, senator, but I would pause at two things. First off, there different missions for the D.C. deployment. There are presence patrols taking place constantly to make sure people feel safe and secure.
▶ 1:52:09Sen. Peters: These folks were not doing it. What we understand, they were doing the unification mission.
▶ 1:52:13Mr. Ditlevson: I can't speak to the specifics on that. In addition to that, oftentimes local law enforcement are also national guard and that only helps our national guard.
▶ 1:52:23Sen. Peters: I agree. They should be doing law enforcement work not picking up trash. These are the kinds of things that are inefficient. We have to be efficient. Taxpayer money is sacred. We have to protect our communities. Let's do it in the smart weight, not a way that may make tv news. Let's do it in a way that helps people on the ground and keeps them safe.
▶ 1:52:45Chair Budd: Senator schmitt.
▶ 1:52:50Sen. Schmitt: I will point out I do think it is important to understand why we are here, the context. The fact of the matter is, the excusing of violence in this unlawful behavior by rioters and folks who seek to do harm against our law enforcement across this country has metastasized. You don't have to go back into ancient history.
▶ 1:53:15Sen. Schmitt: You look in the summer of love of 2020 when democrat mayors and democrat governors sat idly by while bricks were dropped off when the sun went down and buildings burned. Law enforcement officers were shot. They were spit at. You know the democrat response was?
▶ 1:53:32Sen. Schmitt: "we hear you, we should defund the police." my friends on the other side went a memory hold that but you can run a tale of the tape about elected democrats who spouted this nonsense. When we talk about having local solutions come the fact of the matter is, I was attorney general at the time, law enforcement folks left. Police officers took early retirement.
▶ 1:53:58Sen. Schmitt: You're not going to just magically create this group of local law enforcement folks to take on violent crime. I think the pendulum is starting to swing back. I want to talk about two different scenarios. You have the D.C. scenario and then you have the l.a.
▶ 1:54:12Sen. Schmitt: Sort of portland scenario where antifa in particular, which has thankfully been designated not only as a domestic terrorist organization but a foreign terrorist organization because of their tactics, the fact is this is a network decentralized that has safe houses and financing across the world, including in the united states, who wants to do harm to ice agents.
▶ 1:54:39Sen. Schmitt: What I don't care a lot for my democratic colleagues, they may condemn the violence but what is telling is you don't hear any of them say stand back and let ice do their jobs. The fact is, they don't actually believe in immigration enforcement. They think everybody has a right to be here and no one should ever have to go home read borders don't really matter.
▶ 1:54:58Sen. Schmitt: So davila villain icing of our law enforcement agents, especially ice, is destructive which then brings us to today which is why the national guard has been deployed in places like los angeles and oregon. And it is not unprecedented.
▶ 1:55:14Sen. Schmitt: The most obvious example people also remember is other democrats , including the democrat governor of arkansas, who did not want black kids to go to school with white kids -- president eisenhower not only deploy the national guard but since the 101st airborne in. Let's not pretend this is some constitutional crisis. The president is very clear authority, send them to protect federal buildings and protect the law enforcement, which is all that is happening.
▶ 1:55:43Sen. Schmitt: I want to ask the general, maybe you or anyone, what are some of the tactics that are being used right now by these thugs on the streets, these criminals who are seeking to entice federal agents out with firecrackers or whatever it is so they can actually take shots at them so they can assault them? I think is important for the america people to understand what is actually happening. The violence they are being subjected to.
▶ 1:56:09Sen. Schmitt: We saw yesterday a national guardsmen being harassed by some clown on the street for doing this job protecting people. What are some of the tactics being used that are really dangerous for law enforcement right now?
▶ 1:56:22Gen. Guillot: Senator, you just described many of the tactics that were being used when title x forces were directed into los angeles to protect federal activities to include ice, conduct of their duties.
▶ 1:56:41Gen. Guillot: Also in other cities, however, with court orders, forces have not been on mission there to work in conjunction with the lead agencies like they have in california.
▶ 1:56:55Sen. Schmitt: I think you see no coincidence 1000% increase in assaults on ice officers. To my democrat colleagues who want to have this hearing, we have got to be honest about what is actually happening out there. This rhetoric is making it open season on law enforcement. It is incredibly dangerous.
▶ 1:57:17Sen. Schmitt: So when we villain eyes ice agents who have family members or husbands who -- mothers who are simply enforcing the laws at this congress or not this congress but congress has passed over the years, this is insane rated and the condoning of people blocking off vehicles from, you know, enforcing the law, these ice agents come this is a powder keg. It is a powder keg.
▶ 1:57:45Sen. Schmitt: I am very thankful for the men and women who are serving this country who are protecting those agents, who are protecting federal assets. The president is well within his authority. Thank god we're challenging some of these assumptions that have existed for so long that people, particularly minorities, had to live in these crime-ridden areas forever. It doesn't need to be that way. They don't deserve to have to sweep up glass every sunday morning or have a loved one that is shot. We don't have to accept that anymore. Thank you for being here.
▶ 1:58:15Chair Budd: Senator duckworth.
▶ 1:58:19Sen. Duckworth: There was no rioting in chicago before ice was sent in and for the past two months, illinois have seen dhs federal agents abusing our communities read president trump wanted to put our troops in the middle of it. The courts have stopped them so far in the courts are finding again and again there is no legal reason for what he is doing. In his ideal world, trump was a professional military to defend a professional and abusive federal law enforcement agent. Let me tell you what is happening in chicago.
▶ 1:58:49Sen. Duckworth: It is not ice agents being attacked. They are the ones who tear gas over 2000 chicago police officers. Ice agents are the one who tear gas toddlers. They're the ones pointing loaded weapons at unarmed by standards, hauling preschool teachers from daycare in front of their kids and repelling from dhs helicopters onto apartment buildings in the dead of night to rip families from their beds and detain them from ours just for hours and then when they go to court have to admit they have
▶ 1:59:19Sen. Duckworth: No basis to file charges. That is the terror happening ice in chicago. It is not ice ages that are victims, it is the civilians of chicago. Trump claims they need protection plus of the same age in a federal judge found repeatedly used excessive force against civilians and light about it in court because we showed up with videos footage of them abusing civilians.
▶ 1:59:44Sen. Duckworth: Trump was ready to throw troops onto the streets of chicago to protect these violent agents under a vague and unprecedented mission with little realistic guidance for what their experience would actually be like on the ground and the conflict decisions they will face. Let's play this out. What are our troops task with the to protect federal agents supposed to do if they witness an agent throw a child of the ground? Like us happened in chicago? Do our troops intervene and pull the agent off the child?
▶ 2:00:12Sen. Duckworth: Or do they stand by and do nothing? Trump is forcing our military men and women to make a horrible choice, uphold their loyal to the constitution and protect peaceful protesters or execute questionable orders from the president. Mr. young, with the department commit to provide legal protection to any title x servicemember who intervenes to stop a federal agent from wrongfully harming a civilian? Easy question, yes or no?
▶ 2:00:39Mr. Young: Senator, are you asking if the department will defend them?
▶ 2:00:45Sen. Duckworth: Yes?
▶ 2:00:48Mr. Young: Generally, it is the department of justice that would provide representation not necessarily the department of defense.
▶ 2:00:54Sen. Duckworth: The department of defense would not commit to providing legal protection to any title x servicemember to intervene to stop a federal agent from wrongfully harming a
▶ 2:01:03Civilian Mr. Young: Mr. young: that is not what I said. I said the department of justice is one that provides --. The department of defense makes recommendations based on the facts and circumstances of each event as it occurs. That is part of the package.
▶ 2:01:16Sen. Duckworth: You're not committing to support our troops were under title x to intervene to stop a federal agent from wrongfully harming a civilian?
▶ 2:01:25Mr. Young: The presumption is our troops will act lawfully and so therefore we would normally work with a troop --.
▶ 2:01:34Sen. Duckworth: This is a straightforward answer in the fact it is into you is deeply concerning to me. Federal law enforcement agent actually have a legal duty to intervene to prevent a fellow officer from using excessive force. Uniformed service members on the other hand have no comparable obligations nor accompanying legal protection if they decide to intervene against a federal agent to protect a civilian. They do so at their own risk.
▶ 2:01:57Sen. Duckworth: Our troops could be dragged into court and would be on their own to plead their case to a jury because her commander and she put them in the unprecedented situation that they don't regularly train for. If that servicemember decides not to intervene, what will americans think when they see someone in uniform who they were taught served protected them from standing by as a child, is harmed by one of abusive agents as has happened in chicago? I fear the day when americans stop thanking troops for service because they're afraid of our troops.
▶ 2:02:27Sen. Duckworth: We know this administration is trying to bar the respected image of the military. We have seen dhs agents dressing and camouflage and building military style weapons. They are making the hard for americans who tell the difference between abusive federal agents a professional troops. General guillot, what guidance or insurances have you received from dhs or dod about distinguishing dhs personnel from the military when they're operating in close proximity to one another? What are you prepared to do to help make the distinction?
▶ 2:02:55Gen. Guillot: I have not received any guidance or direction to doing anything with him I authority, though, I can order distinguishing markings on a uniform or for instance replace the name with the last letter or the first letter of the last name and numerical designator to ensure your protecting the military members. And were able to distance them from others.
▶ 2:03:23Sen. Duckworth: If we fail to draw a bright line between our highly trained troops and lawless federal agents, by the way, shot a priest in the head with a pepper balls after he prayed for them and they were up on a three-story building. He raised his hand, prayed, they shot him in the head. There was no riot. He was praying for them. If we fail to draw a bright line between troops and federal agents, I fear our public's trust may never recover.
▶ 2:03:48Chair Budd: I recognized myself for five minutes. Thank you all for being here today. Thank you for your willingness to serve our country. I want to highlight how important it is for americans to know that we are looking out for them and we have their back.
▶ 2:04:09Chair Budd: Deploy national guard, it would not be necessary -- I think you pointed this out, but it would not be necessary if state and local officials were helping get criminal illegal aliens in violent repeat offenders off the streets. If the problem had not metastasized or present trump needed to step in. Thank you all for what you're doing. My colleagues across the aisle like to talk about the importance of the rule of law. Unfortunately, not when it comes to enforcing immigration or criminal law.
▶ 2:04:41Chair Budd: I think we should be thankful each and every day for our men and women in uniform who put themselves in harms way to keep americans safe. Some elected democrats made the dangerous claim it was the national guards very presence that led to the murder of specialist sarah beckstrom. And the winning of staff sergeant andrew wolfe. I think that is -- and the wounding of staff sergeant andrew wolfe.
▶ 2:05:10Chair Budd: They were simply carrying out their mission to keep americans safe. They were not attacked because of president trump or operation make D.C. safe and beautiful or anything that service members themselves had done. We mourn specialist beckstrom's loss and pray for the healing of wolfe. I want to take the national guard for the service to our country. My wife's family is from west virginia. My wife is from west virginia.
▶ 2:05:40Chair Budd: From berkeley county, home of martinsburg. Before martinsburg many years ago, they were from webster county come the two counties in west virginia that were affected. This is personal. Most families know each other in small communities. One degree away. Our prayers are with them and we are grateful for them. Let me read off a few statistics from D.C. deployment.
▶ 2:06:03Chair Budd: The national guard has rendered medical assistance 136 times here in D.C. they found 12 lost children. They have stopped 86 physical altercations. They have administered narcan 27 times. 27 times servicemember has given lifesaving treatment to prevent an opioid overdose. I don't know how anyone can actually be against this assistance to local law enforcement.
▶ 2:06:34Chair Budd: Maybe it is the same way the left has become the pro-cartel, pro-drug boat party. I don't get it. These are my friends over there. I don't understand it. My only question for you, Mr. ditlevson, I know crime has gone down here in D.C. objectively as well as in memphis. Can you talk about the differences compared to deployments in other cities and what is driving the factor -- what is the driving factor bringing the crime down?
▶ 2:07:05Chair Budd: What all are you doing to bring crime down? Are there approaches from local law enforcement you notice that have really helped bring about some favorable outcomes?
▶ 2:07:13Mr. Ditlevson: Thank you for the question. The distinguishing difference in those two situations versus the other deployments is the willingness of governors to step up and ask for help on the federal government. That title to 30 -- that title 32 status allows national guardsmen to do much more than they would in title x status in a strictly defensive posture, protecting federal law enforcement and federal property.
▶ 2:07:41Mr. Ditlevson: It is important to note because in the cases of oregon and illinois, secretary hegseth offered governor kotick and governor pritzker respectively the support of the federal government. To help fund title 32 deployment in portland and chicago.
▶ 2:07:56Mr. Ditlevson: And that offer was rejected by those governors we had president trump as commander-in-chief fulfilling his campaign promises of restoring law and order in this country led on that issue, federalize troops and sent them to those cities to protect american citizens. Because all american citizens, regardless of whether they live in a red or blue area, they deserve the right to be able to walk in their cities safely and securely.
▶ 2:08:24Chair Budd: Thank you for that. Thank you for your service. It seems it is the issue of who is offering this support. American people overwhelmingly elected president trump. We have heard the statement, if you cured cancer, they would not want to take the medicine. Some people wouldn't. He is bringing down crime. He is offering help to states in communities because he just wants to help the american people. I'm grateful for that.
▶ 2:08:55Chair Budd: I'm grateful again for your service. Thank you. Senator kelly.
▶ 2:08:59Sen. Kelly: Thank you, Mr. chairman. I want to express my condolences to sarah beckstrom's family into the family and also to andrew wolfe. I understand personally how hard it is to recover from those kinds of injuries. To my good friend senator budd across the aisle, I don't think -- there's nobody on this committee that is pro cartel and prodrug boat. For this congress.
▶ 2:09:29Sen. Kelly: General guillot, americans deserve to feel safe in their communities. As the son of two cops, and understand the sacrifice and the hard work it takes to do that job. That is why I know we have got to do more to support law enforcement especially local law enforcement, those professionals who do that will job every single day.
▶ 2:09:54Sen. Kelly: I also recognize that not every challenge faced in our cities should default to a military response. September 30, president trump addressed military leadership, senior officers, admirals, senior enlisted at quantico about the deployment of national guard to U.S. cities.
▶ 2:10:21Sen. Kelly: He said "I told pete we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military national guard." general guillot, is there an established dod policy that authorizes using civilian communities as training grounds and american citizens as training tools?
▶ 2:10:44Gen. Guillot: No, there is not.
▶ 2:10:50Sen. Kelly: Is there any precedent in dod history for conducting combat-oriented training in american communities?
▶ 2:10:56Gen. Guillot: No, a senator.
▶ 2:11:00Sen. Kelly: And have you been consulted at all about using any specific cities for training?
▶ 2:11:07Gen. Guillot: I have not been consulted nor directed to use any american citizens -- excuse become american cities for training.
▶ 2:11:16Sen. Kelly: Has any federal official asked you to plan training operations in U.S. cities?
▶ 2:11:24Gen. Guillot: No, sir, not training.
▶ 2:11:28Sen. Kelly: Has northcom ever designated an american city as a training ground?
▶ 2:11:35Gen. Guillot: No, sir.
▶ 2:11:39Sen. Kelly: Thank you for that. If U.S. cities are training grounds, so based on what the president had said and indicated he wanted the secretary of defense to consider doing, then how are the service members in this scenario expected to perceive the civilian population in that environment?
▶ 2:12:06Gen. Guillot: Senator, I can tell you that for the areas that are under title x control, we provide very clear training and reinforce that with daily meetings on what our purpose is there and that is to protect federal buildings. It is not for any other function.
▶ 2:12:28Sen. Kelly: But if you carried out the president's objective of using a city for training, does this imply that civilians could be used as potential adversaries?
▶ 2:12:42Gen. Guillot: Senator, I am very confident that that is not a factor within my chain of command because of the very clear guidance and direction that we get on what the mission is and what our proper response to any activities there which includes de-escalation as the first step in this standing rules for the use of force.
▶ 2:13:12Sen. Kelly: What you think the president meant by that statement?
▶ 2:13:14Gen. Guillot: Sir, have only gone on what has been directly tasked to us and what my authorities and responsibilities are.
▶ 2:13:35Sen. Kelly: Would it be ok to regard U.S. citizens as adversaries or enemies?
▶ 2:13:43Gen. Guillot: Sir, that is hypothetical. Our initial response is no. Of course, could be illegal activity that is under way. We may have the authority vested in us to respond in accordance that we have. These are like double, triple hypotheticals.
▶ 2:14:11Sen. Kelly: I don't mean it as a hypothetical. Even if there was illegal activity, that could be viewed that person is a criminal. I am asking specifically is it ok to regard U.S. citizens as enemies?
▶ 2:14:25Gen. Guillot: No, sir. We defend the united states and U.S. citizens. We do not view them as enemies.
▶ 2:14:33Sen. Kelly: My concern is the labeling a city as a training ground inherently puts civilians and is sufficient -- position of being an adversary or enemy. I appreciate your response. Thank you.
▶ 2:14:44Chair Budd: Senator slotkin.
▶ 2:14:47Sen. Slotkin: Thank you. I join the rest of my colleagues in recognizing the two west virginia guardsmen who were shot and one fatal shooting. And thank them and their families for what they have done. My questions are for you, Mr., or the number two lawyer at the department of defense. You come before this committee before.
▶ 2:15:14Sen. Slotkin: C1 a couple of weeks ago, some of us put out a video talking about unlawful orders. People were asking us, I don't know if we are going to be asked to do something illegal, I don't know to handle that.
▶ 2:15:36Sen. Slotkin: Do you believe a president of te united states to issue illegal orders that the united states military should reject? >> senator, that is theoretically possible.
▶ 2:15:51Senator Slotkin: I think in the past and then major hegseth and 2016 said the military has a responsibility to reject illegal orders. Attorney general pam bondi wrote last year that military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders. Can you give me an example of what would be an unlawful order of any kind? >> senator, I would say that the oath this congress has prescribed.
▶ 2:16:21Sen. Slotkin: Just an example. We have prosecuted people, right, for carrying out illegal orders? So tell me an example. >> the one that would come to mind would be the meal I massacre where a young platoon leader issued that. It was not the president of the united states.
▶ 2:16:43Sen. Slotkin: As long as an order is not patently and facially illegal, it is presumed to be lawful and service members are to obligate without having to consult.
▶ 2:16:53Sen. Slotkin: Understood and I think the conversation we were starting is not because we don't trust the military. If anything, I worked alongside the military my entire life. It is that the decision-makers and the words coming out of the mouth of the commander-in-chief, using our cities as "training grounds" -- going after "the enemy within" does not give us confidence that this president is going to always use the
▶ 2:17:24Sen. Slotkin: Military in an apolitical way that is exclusively meant on protecting the united states. You said earlier and rightfully so that the national guard of course if they are doing missions like helping to clean up from an ice storm in michigan I don't think anyone questions the typical way that we use the national guard.
▶ 2:17:46Sen. Slotkin: For these folks who are deployed against the wishes of the sitting governor you said the troops are there to protect federal personnel, functions, and property. People and functions or buildings.
▶ 2:18:04Sen. Slotkin: If you were asked to approve the placement of uniformed military on and around polling locations for a federal election in 2026, what would your legal judgment be about whether those uniforms could do that?
▶ 2:18:19Mr. Young: Senator, again, that's a hypothetical situation. There are federal laws that prohibit the stationing of troops at polling places. However, the question would be whether or not the degree to which that would apply in a non-federalized status under title 32 and it would depend on the status of the personnel and the mission parameters.
▶ 2:18:41Sen. Slotkin: So it is possible that if you were asked, if you said, look, we've got a problem in chicago, we've talked about federal troops in chicago, we need to put uniformed military surrounding polling locations in downtown chicago. Are there circumstances in which you would approve that?
▶ 2:19:00Mr. Young: Senator, I would say this. During covid many poll workers were unavailable.
▶ 2:19:12Sen. Slotkin: You can understand when there is a trust deficit, when the president of the united states says we have to go after the enemy within and if he loses an election it is because it is rigged, his words, the idea that we surround polling locations with uniformed military, for you to not understand what that means for the american public, that playbook of authoritarianism I have seen play out over and over again as a cia officer in other countries, for you to not understand that that sends a
▶ 2:19:42Sen. Slotkin: Shiver down the spine of every american and should whether you are a demo at a republican, that is why there is a trust deficit. There are some circumstances in which you would use the military in the middle of our democracy like that and I continue to believe it is not our uniformed military that have a problem, it is the leaders directing them in these missions.
▶ 2:20:00Chair Budd: Senator rosen, you are recognized.
▶ 2:20:04Senator Rosen: I want to thank chairman wicker and ranking member read for holding the hearing and like the rest of my colleagues and all-americans, my heart rakes for the murder of specialist sarah beckstrom and the shooting staff sergeant andrew wolfe, who is thing fully recovering.
▶ 2:20:26Senator Rosen: My family's -- my thoughts and prayers go out to the west virginia national guard. We need to tackle challenges directly by investing in local law enforcement. We need to strengthen community policing strategies and address the root causes that drive crime and sending the national guard into communities as my colleagues has suggested is not a long-term solution or any solution to crime in our cities.
▶ 2:20:55Senator Rosen: It is a show of force that removes our guardsmen from the essential missions they perform at home, like the nevada air national guard air left-wing which flies the very dangerous c-130 mission of fighting wire fires -- wildfires through the mountains of the western united states. It unfairly erodes the trust of the american people.
▶ 2:21:25Senator Rosen: It places armed men and women in uniform in deeply fraught situations in their own home communities. States like nevada with large latino and immigrant populations , communities, communities which members of the national guard also hail from. Sometimes even coming from mixed status families themselves. Deploying guardsmen alongside ice raises real concerns about trust and community safety.
▶ 2:21:52Senator Rosen: We cannot ask our guardsmen to shoulder missions that strained the relationship with the communities that they proudly, proudly serve. So my priority is ensuring our guardsmen and women can continue carrying out the mission sets that matter most of their states including nevada. All of our states, where our communities depend heavily on their support.
▶ 2:22:16Senator Rosen: That is why I want to understand what guardsmen are being pulled from across the united states and whether the department has taken steps to mitigate the strain these deployments back home. General guillot, can you outline what missions guardsmen were pulled from in their home states and have any been pulled from time sensitive missions such as wildfire response, medical evacuation support, cyber defense teams, and annual training?
▶ 2:22:42Gen. Guillot: Senator, the guard units that were activated to federal status in support of operations in california, oregon , and chicago were selected when we presented the tasking to them. The units that were actually selected to fill those roles.
▶ 2:23:09Sen. Rosen: You are saying there was an option given to what states would be deployed and those tags are the ones he made the decision? That is what you just said.
▶ 2:23:17Gen. Guillot: No I said once the task came to that state, we consulted with the tag to determine who in this state would fill the tasking.
▶ 2:23:26Sen. Rosen: Did you provide any backfill support to the governors of these affected states or the home state missions that are going unmet?
▶ 2:23:33Gen. Guillot: No, ma'am.
▶ 2:23:34Sen. Rosen: No backfill support.
▶ 2:23:37Gen. Guillot: No. We don't have forces to provide backfill, ma'am. We were tasked to fail, the states were tasked with the order and what I'm explaining is that we worked with the tags to make sure they picked the best for the mission in the state.
▶ 2:23:57Sen. Rosen: Did the governors raise concerns about losing personnel during peak operational periods and could you share with us those concerns if so?
▶ 2:24:06Gen. Guillot: I have not received any concerns. Mr. ditlevson, could you walk us through how the federal government weighed state demands versus federal missions before moving personnel?
▶ 2:24:19Mr. Ditlevson: Absolutely. In the department as the coordinating lead for these particular mobilizations, we consult with the national guard bureau, the joint staff, we speak with ogc, we speak with the comptroller and we make sure you are balancing all of those different needs to provide the best advice to the secretary and how these trips are mobilized.
▶ 2:24:40Sen. Rosen: Thank you, I have just a few seconds left, so general, I'm going to go back to you. I want to know from your perspective, our guardsmen being placed in situations where they are working in close proximity to ice or are otherwise involved in sensitive community actions and what guidance has been given to avoid eroding trust in diverse communities, as my esteemed colleague deferred to? And what is the division of mission responsibilities between dod and ice? Thank you.
▶ 2:25:09Gen. Guillot: Senator, the difference between the duties of ice and the title x forces is extreme. The title x forces are only there to protect the federal facilities. Sometimes it is a nice building. Sometimes it is los angeles.
▶ 2:25:32Sen. Rosen: I have seen them just walking around parks in my neighborhood in D.C. there are no federal buildings around where my apartment is.
▶ 2:25:41Gen. Guillot: I have to make the distinction there. I'm only responsible for the forces under title 10 authority is, which are in los angeles, oregon, chicago, and fort bliss. I do not have any command control over the forces in memphis or here in D.C.
▶ 2:25:59Chair Budd: Thank you, senator. I believe ranking member read has additional questions?
▶ 2:26:06Senator Reed: I want to follow up. You told me at the beginning of the hearing that the national guard quick reaction force already existed. I understand that is not accurate. The secretary of defense ordered the establishment of this national qrs on september 27 of this year.
▶ 2:26:30Senator Reed: Not only that, he ordered they be trained for specifically and I quote "civil disturbance and law enforcement missions and to be available for immediate nationwide deployment, ready to deploy within eight hours, 12 hours, and 24 hours notice with weapons. Can you clarify your earlier answer.
▶ 2:26:54Mr. Ditlevson: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the statement from before. The secretary ordered the establishment of a new unit, you are correct. However, it is an old unit that will be repurposed to create that new unit. The national guard bureau refers to that as the homeland response force and the domestic response force. We are repurposed in something that already exists to create that newly established unit.
▶ 2:27:21Sen. Reed: Now, the secretary explicitly directed this qfr to be used for law enforcement. How would that be allowable under the title 10 authorities?
▶ 2:27:42Mr. Young: If I may, that is probably in the legal lane and I have some background on the way in which these forces have been used historically and mustard within the states, having been the general counsel at the national guard bureau. Every state generally will have an element of their force that they identified to be on a more ready recall notice. And so some states, that may be 50 people, some states, 700 people.
▶ 2:28:12Mr. Young: Some forces need to be able to muster to the location quickly and technically when they come in that status they would be non-federalized and therefore the posse, status act would not apply.
▶ 2:28:28Senator Reed: You are saying that these forces would not be mobilized in a title x mission?
▶ 2:28:35Mr. Young: I am saying if needed the primary usage of these would be domestic within the state itself, it could also be used in other states if another state requested under what is called an emergency management compact request. Called the emac.
▶ 2:28:59Mr. Young: They may be used in a non-federalized status and would be trained and ready in the event they would be needed for a title 10 purpose.
▶ 2:29:07Sen. Reed: Why would they train for law enforcement?
▶ 2:29:10Mr. Young: Well, sir, historically after the events of kent state back in the 1970's, the army wanted to make sure that all national guard personnel received training in domestic law enforcement and civil disturbance operations. So that has been a long-standing requirement for military forces, senator.
▶ 2:29:35Sen. Reed: General, do you train the national guard or urge them to train in law enforcement activities? Other than military police activities?
▶ 2:29:46Gen. Guillot: Senator, when they come to title 10 status, we do not train them for law enforcement. We train them in the federal protection mission and with the standing rules for the use of force.
▶ 2:30:01Sen. Reed: So the secretary's order contradicts the current practice which title x are not trained for for law enforcement.
▶ 2:30:09Gen. Guillot: As I understand it, these national guard troops would be trained to do law enforcement activities if they are employed in their state active duty or's dashboard title 30 two role, well knowing if they are put in title 10 role, we would make it very clear that they are not allowed to execute any of those activities they have been trained to well they are conducting title 10 missions.
▶ 2:30:33Sen. Reed: Could you clarify under title 32, what role would a state governor have?
▶ 2:30:40Gen. Guillot: They would be under the state governors control. So title 32 status.
▶ 2:30:46Sen. Reed: So you would have the permission of the state governor to deploy these quick reaction forces in a law enforcement capacity? Under title 32.
▶ 2:30:57Gen. Guillot: Yes, sir, and they would not be under my command and control under that authority.
▶ 2:31:04Sen. Reed: It's interesting that we now have a small group in the national guard that are being trained not only in civil disturbance, but in law enforcement that are being deployed, that would be able to deploy within eight hours, some of them, with weapons. How you are telling me that the secretary of defense or the president could not deploy them in a law enforcement capacity unless the governor agreed. Is that correct?
▶ 2:31:34Mr. Young: Sir, that is not necessarily correct. The authority under which the president can mobilize national guard personnel to be able to perform federal law enforcement functions and to enforce the law is technically 12 406 which does not require the consent of the governor.
▶ 2:31:56Mr. Young: This training and this construct of having a readily mobilized and well trained cadre of national guard personnel well-trained with interacting with the civilian populace is nothing new. We did it in 2020 when we had 40,000 national guard personnel in the streets all over the country. There was a similar quick reaction force that was stood up.
▶ 2:32:20Mr. Young: We used it essentially from july of 2020 through approximately january of 2021.
▶ 2:32:27Sen. Reed: And that was for law enforcement?
▶ 2:32:30Mr. Young: Senator, it is my understanding, but that is five years ago and I don't have the documents in front of me.
▶ 2:32:38Sen. Reed: The course of that deployment, was what? What prompted that deployment?
▶ 2:32:43Mr. Young: Senator, I don't know that any of them were deployed. The need for them to be deployable was that they were protests going on around in every major city and we had at that time 40,000 national guard personnel deployed and when they were deploying, it was federal officials were reticent to use active component troops and they only wanted to use military -- national guard personnel who had military police training.
▶ 2:33:12Mr. Young: And there are only so many of them. As a result because we had 40,000 of them on the street, there was a need, senator, for it to make sure that they had received --
▶ 2:33:21Sen. Reed: If I may, I know I'm going over time.
▶ 2:33:24Chair Budd: Ranking member graham I would like to conclude that and recognize senator duckworth for one remaining question and after that we will conclude. Any additional questions we will ask to be questions for the record please.
▶ 2:33:36Sen. Reed: Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:33:39Senator Duckworth: So let me clarify, Mr. ditlevson, can you commit that the mission of any deployment of active-duty troops will never expand beyond the protection of federal buildings and federal law enforcement agents? In illinois, you have texas national guardsmen deployed to illinois against our governor's wishes.
▶ 2:34:01Senator Duckworth: So, if following up on the previous conversation that they would never be allowed to do law enforcement under title 10, are we saying that there would never be a time in the future where texas national guardsmen will be sent to illinois to do law enforcement? I'm confused as to how this is going to happen.
▶ 2:34:24Senator Duckworth: So will national guard troops domestically ever be told to carry out a mission beyond protection of federal buildings and federal law enforcement agents in any state? Such as has happened in illinois. Where texas national guardsmen were sent to illinois. Forced down our throats. Mr.
▶ 2:34:42Ditlevson: Senator, based on what Mr. young just went through, I can't commit to that. I think Mr. young could go into the legal reason why. In the title 10 status as a federal troop, the president has the authority to move them into another state.
▶ 2:34:58Sen. Duckworth: And you are saying that you can't commit that those troops under title 10 borders -- for the record, everybody in this room hears you, you are not emitting -- committing that national guardsmen will not be moved under title 10 status into a different state to perform law enforcement functions? To do a mission beyond protecting federal buildings.
▶ 2:35:22Chair Budd: Any additional questions will be questions for the record.
▶ 2:35:25Sen. Duckworth: Can you let them answer?
▶ 2:35:27Chair Budd: Please.
▶ 2:35:31Mr. Ditlevson: Senator duckworth, for that question, these troops are deployed in the 12406 status protecting federal buildings and property. I respect the president's decision space on this one and it is something we would evaluate in the building if we received an order.
▶ 2:35:49Sen. Duckworth: So your answer is no, you can't commit to it?
▶ 2:35:54Mr. Ditlevson: Mr. young, I believe I can defer to him in of the specific legalities.
▶ 2:35:59Sen. Duckworth: My question is to you.
▶ 2:36:01Mr. Ditlevson: I understand that senator, but whatever would come into our office in policy, I commit that that would absolutely go through the office of general counsel to make sure whatever we are doing is 100% legal under the law.
▶ 2:36:13Chair Budd: Thank you to our witnesses. This concludes today's hearing. I want to thank you all for your testimony. For the information of members, questions for the record will be due to the committee within two business days of the conclusion of the hearing. We are adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap.org]