▶ 0:45:32>> we will convene in about 30 seconds if that is ok. The committee will come to order.
▶ 0:46:04The committee meets to discuss the 2026 national defense strategy. This nds comes at a time of up people as the axis of aggressors seeks to undermine an american led 21st-century. Last month barked at the beginning of vladimir putin's ruthless war of choice in europe .
▶ 0:46:27Then over the weekend president trump rightfully struck iran to end forever the ayatollahs quest to use conventional and nuclear weapons to threaten america and our allies and china's massive military buildup casts a pall across the indo pacific. Beijing looks to dominate asia and supplant U.S. leadership around the world.
▶ 0:46:53Given such threats the importance of this nds cannot be overstated. These uncertain times call for strong U.S. leadership and crystal clear articulation of the threats we face and a prioritized set of achievable objectives for how we will defend our interests.
▶ 0:47:13This was the approach we saw and president trump first defense strategy, a consequential document that focused on homeland defense, acknowledge the return of great power competition and correctly identified china as the threat. Our witness is Mr. elbridge colby, the department's undersecretary for policy help treat -- helped lead that process and for that he deserves considerable credit.
▶ 0:47:41The first trump administration's realist approach to china policy enabled a long overdue departure on the wishful hope of previous administrations who sought to view china as a strategic partner rather than the enemy it clearly is. There are parallels between 2018 and 2026 versions of the nds. For example the prioritization of homeland defense.
▶ 0:48:09The identification of china as the basic threat and the importance of equitable burden sharing with our allies. I welcome consistency in these themes is the underlying concerns have only worsened in the intervening years. Unfortunately these common themes highlight some flaws in the new 2026 nds, principally the strategy document fails to acknowledge the global nature of the threat posed by the axis of aggressors working together.
▶ 0:48:42The 2020 six nds rightly makes clear that our adversaries best strategy is to act in "a coordinated or opportunistic fashion across multiple theaters." however, it nonetheless draws the wrong conclusions about what to do about this. It is no secret we are currently on prepared to compete against the axis of aggressors. We need to do more. The administration proposes to do more.
▶ 0:49:13Right now but we lack the industrial capacity to alter this condition in the near term. This committee has spent considerable time working with secretary fienberg and secretary duffy. We are supercharging our defense industrial base to meet the demands for this type of competition to build a more resilient american economy in the process.
▶ 0:49:37We have much work to do, particularly we must continue incorporating new weapons and new companies with advanced manufacturing capabilities that can contribute rapidly. Until we fix our industrial base we need to get more creative in how we support our allies and partners, particularly when they represent the front line of our adversaries aggression.
▶ 0:50:03The president issued a call to arms to our allies and partners urging them to spend 5% of their gdp on defense. That call has been remarkably successful. Congratulations, Mr. president. Any clear eyed assessment of the military situation in europe makes it clear we cannot fully delegate the russia problem to our european allies. In my view the nds ignores the implications of the war in ukraine to U.S. security.
▶ 0:50:37The document downplays america's interests in denying putin the benefits of his criminal aggression and to the threat his success would pose to the U.S. interests in europe. Currently europeans are paying for every weapon america is supplying. I do not see a concerted strategy to get new types of weapons to ukraine, particularly those weapons that are not in high demand for U.S. military forces at the present time.
▶ 0:51:08Programs like the low cost cruise missile. We have to do better there. The nds also says little about our vital interest in the middle east. This seems out of step with repeated military actions to deal with the ongoing threat of iran. President trump is demonstrating that we can and will do more than just one thing.
▶ 0:51:34He is exercising limited but decisive force to ensure the region and the world will not be threatened by a nuclear iran or its terrorist proxies. Of course the president's national security strategy proclaims that the U.S. will reassert its preeminence in the western hemisphere. The 2026 nds does not describe how the department will achieve this objective.
▶ 0:52:04It is not describe what this enhanced focus means in terms of forced posture or investment priorities. The reality is president trump's actions in the western hemisphere, middle east, and europe are inextricably linked to our overall struggle against the chinese communist party.
▶ 0:52:30Tailored use of military force and support in venezuela, iran, and ukraine has boarded chinese and russian objectives and denied their access to resource and technology. The 2020 six nds articulates the president's vision for our allies and partners to step up and get for more serious about their defense. They are doing just that and I applaud that. We cannot ask our allies to do more for us while we do less for them.
▶ 0:52:59In that regard this nds signals a diminished intent to deter existential threats posed by russia and north korea. We need more clarity on how america's military will continue to support our allies in new and different ways in deterring those threats.
▶ 0:53:22Another specific critique of the strategy is in effect it off you states the threat posed -- it obfuscates the threats posed by the chinese communist party. Beijing remains the focal point. The strategy is clear in its focus on what it describes as the first island chain. This seems to be a way of talking about taiwan without mentioning taiwan.
▶ 0:53:53The unclassified nds does not mention taiwan at all even though the national security strategy directly identifies it. This is an example of what the nds calls a strong but not necessarily confrontational posture towards beijing. This equivocation has real consequences as it risks misinterpretation of U.S.
▶ 0:54:22Support for this island's democracy. This perception is furthered by a failure to execute previously authorized and appropriated assistance to taiwan. Authorized and appropriated by the congress and signed into law. Finally and perhaps most troubling, the nds is nearly silent on the role of nuclear weapons.
▶ 0:54:53The U.S. faces an unprecedented set of strategic threats worsening every day as we move towards a world with russia and now china as nuclear peers. The lack of any significant statement on these developments raises the question are we ignoring existential dangers that china and russia and north korea posed to our way of life? On the other hand there is much to like in this strategy, particularly its emphasis.
▶ 0:55:25I believe we have much work to do. I believe we must be clear eyed about the long-term threats of the chinese communist party and I think we need to take the president successful peace through strength approach used in the middle east and the western hemisphere and applied to europe and asia. We should do that as we give our allies and partners better clarity on the appropriate role of U.S. forces in the future.
▶ 0:55:51It is my hope that moving forward we can work together to build and implement a living strategy to meet the demands of the moment, particularly as we seek to execute a $1.5 trillion budget that will rebuild our military for a generation. With that I turned to my colleague ranking member read.
▶ 0:56:11Sen. Reed: Thank you, Mr. chairman. Welcome, Mr. colby. Thank you for testifying on the 2026 national defense strategy or the nds. I will turn to the specifics of that document but I must be direct at the outset. The nds is now in many respects already obsolete.
▶ 0:56:39Sen. Reed: As we sit here today the president has engaged united states in major combat operations against iran. Over the past several days american forces operating alongside israel have conducted thousands of strikes against iran's missile plants, command-and-control sites and senior regime leadership. Ayatollah khomeini and many other senior leaders have been killed.
▶ 0:57:05Sen. Reed: Iran has retaliated with missile and drone attacks across the region, resulting in american casualties. To the family is those service members killed and wounded we owe our deepest condolences and solemn commitment their sacrifices will be honored. The iranian regime had been a brutal and corrupt and deadly institution for decades of the day it is replaced by a government that actually serves the iranian people will be a victory for all.
▶ 0:57:34Sen. Reed: In taking these offensive military actions president trump has unilaterally started a conflict that is rapidly spreading throughout the middle east. The end state is unknown. Even administration officials cannot say clearly what objectives they are trying to achieve. What happens when those objectives are met? In the meantime will be immense cost for the department of defense in readiness and opportunity and most important lead american lives?
▶ 0:58:05Sen. Reed: The president and the secretary of defense have promised this conflict will be brief and decisive and I am skeptical. With perhaps the exception of desert storm the war in the middle east has ever been brief or decisive. If the past is prologue I believe president trump will simply claim he has won, withdraw and leave behind a crippled state any regional proxy war and a humanitarian catastrophe that could be reverberating for years.
▶ 0:58:34Sen. Reed: If this regime ultimately survives, the iranian people pay a heavy price. On the topic of ongoing operations, I hope you will provide the committee with clarity. What are the administration's objectives in iran? What authority does the administration believe it waging this war under given congress has not been consulted or authorized any conflict?
▶ 0:59:02Sen. Reed: One could argue very seriously this is not consistent with the constitution. Let me turn to the national defense strategy. I would like to note at the outset something that is easy to overlook but impossible to ignore. The tone of this document. Previous national defense strategy is authored by republican and democratic administrations have been sober analytical assessments of the threat environment. This is littered with partisan commentary.
▶ 0:59:33Sen. Reed: It attacks the rule-based international order, the very norms and institutions we built after the most devastating conflict in human history and have helped help prevent a third world war while enabling america's rise as the world's foremost military and economic power. I would welcome a debate about how we can improve our alliances. We should not disparage the foundations of our own success.
▶ 0:59:58Sen. Reed: Secretary colby, I would ask you to explain the highly partisan and backward looking language of the national defense strategy. The nds starts by stating that of the department's priority mission is to defend the homeland. That has always been the priority of the military and our nuclear deterrent and cyber forces, among other capabilities.
▶ 1:00:21Sen. Reed: In addition, the defense department has long been a key partner to the department of homeland security providing intelligence and logistical support for drug interdiction. This nds intends to reach much further, blending national security and law enforcement by fundamentally involving the military in border security and counter narcotic trafficking operations.
▶ 1:00:47Sen. Reed: On china the nds states our presence in the indo pacific should not be used to "dominate, humiliate, or strangle beijing" and that "a decent piece on terms favorable to america but that china can also accept and live under is possible." I would like to know what military options the department is prepared to forgo within that framing and what precisely constitutes a "decent peace"
▶ 1:01:21Sen. Reed: When china has spent the last decade systematically manipulating the security environment in its favor? I would also note this strategy appears focused almost exclusively on the first island chain while china is actively expanding its security partnerships across the indo pacific, africa, and latin america. I hope you will address whether the department intends to see to the competition to beijing on default.
▶ 1:01:50Sen. Reed: On russia your strategy is quite clear, russia is europe's problem. It would seem america's concern should be limited to moscow's nuclear arsenals and its capabilities in space and cyber. While I understand the logic of pursuing the right balance of U.S. military capabilities with those of our european allies, I do not accept the abdication of our clear national security interests in europe. By suggesting russia is there problem to manage.
▶ 1:02:21Sen. Reed: Further, the contrast between how this document treats china and how it treats the allies is dumbfounding. The nds takes a conciliatory posture towards beijing yet derives -- yet derives the nations that have stood beside us for 80 years, describing our allies as more dependencies than partners.
▶ 1:02:44Sen. Reed: I am encouraged by the progress our allies have made in increasing defense spending, but alliances are not sharing arrangements, they are the foundation of our international strength and also bear the cost of united states military conflicts are receiving the middle east. To meeting our partners is a self-inflicted wound.
▶ 1:03:03Sen. Reed: Secretary colby, if we are recalling the 2018 nds from the first trump administration which described our alliance network as "the backbone of global security." you are one of the lead authors of that nds and I would like to understand what has so thoroughly changed your perception of the role of our allies. I would point out the most fun a mental problem with this nds.
▶ 1:03:29Sen. Reed: If bears no resemblance to what this administration is actually doing. The strategy states the department will "empower regional allies and partners to take primary responsibility for defending against iran and its proxies." yet united states has just launched the largest military campaign since the 2003 invasion of iraq. It is unclear if our allies are even aware of the planning of this operation.
▶ 1:03:59Sen. Reed: Further, the administration has carried out thousands of strikes in syria, somalia, nigeria, and other nations over the past year and we carried out a massive military attack in venezuela. We continue to conduct strikes on alleged drug boats with no clear articulation of what goals they are pursuing. Mr.
▶ 1:04:19Sen. Reed: Secretary, your nda states "no longer will the department be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, nationbuilding" yet we have repeatedly intervened, started wars, and sought regime change in the past eight weeks alone, much less the past year. I look forward to your testimony and explanation of this nds and how it reflects what the department of defense is actually doing.
▶ 1:04:49Sen. Reed: Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:04:50Chair Wicker: Thank you, Mr. ranking member. Secretary colby, the ranking member and I took a little longer than necessary so take as much time as you choose and giving us your opening statement. You are recognized.
▶ 1:05:05Sec. Colby: Thank you very much Mr. chairman and ranking member reed. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and the other distinguished members of this committee to testify on the department of war's 2026 national defense strategy. The animating purpose of this strategy was to put into reality the logic of president trump's common sense america first peace through strength approach.
▶ 1:05:30Sec. Colby: At its heart as detailed in the 2025 national security strategy, this approach is channeled through the principle of flexible realism. The effort to practically and realistically advance and protect the interests of regular americans. The core of his strategy as the nss describes as to evaluate, sort, and prioritize. This is of special importance around war and peace.
▶ 1:05:59Sec. Colby: The responsibility of doing so motivated our work to produce the 2026 nds and we believe that under secretary hegseth's leadership we have done so. Under president trump's leadership and with your support in congress the american military is and will be the world's finest, and unmatched fighting force that has demonstrated its prowess in recent months and operations midnight hammer, absolute resolve, and now epic fury.
▶ 1:06:27Sec. Colby: At the same time we recognize that as secretary hegseth has put it, we cannot do anything -- everything everywhere all the time. This is a practical reality. The american military is not infinite in its application. Opponents have been building their strength and capabilities and it is not fair or sustainable to ask the american people to bear burdens that are inequitably distributed with those of our allies and partners. As a result we must prioritize and this strategy does so.
▶ 1:06:58Sec. Colby: It does not do so in a way that is hesitant. Instead it does so in a way that practically navigates between two unreasonable extremes. On the one hand the isolationism that pretense we can retreat from the world in a favorable stability will emerge in on the other hand an unfettered use of military force for overly expansive ends that would train the american people's will and resources in unnecessary conflict.
▶ 1:07:25Sec. Colby: This strategy prudently adopts a middle course that will put us in a far firmer and more lasting course than either of these extreme alternatives. In particular the nds does so by intelligently and strategically allocating our resources towards the priorities that most affect regular americans and where our efforts are most material and necessary to achieve american interests. This is a reflection of common sense america first thinking.
▶ 1:07:55Sec. Colby: As a deduction the strategy is built on four pillars. It restores after decades of neglect by some administrations the military's role in securing our homeland and ensuring that our key interests in her native hemisphere are protected. This is critical for regular americans because we must ensure we are directly protected and secure in our home area.
▶ 1:08:18Sec. Colby: While the military is only a part of this effort and often far from the leading element, it does play a critical role that will be enduring. The strategy focuses our military effort on ensuring the preservation of a favorable balance of power in the indo pacific. America's interests are real and significant. At the same time our interests are not limitless. We do not need to dominate that region.
▶ 1:08:44Sec. Colby: We only need to prevent that fast and dynamic region from being dominated so we can trade interact with it on fair and reasonable terms for regular americans. As a result our strategy there is to deter china through strength, not confrontation. We understand china is a very powerful country undertaking an extraordinary military buildup. That is a simple fact. At the same time we are clear we do not see conflict with china. We seek to avoid it.
▶ 1:09:16Sec. Colby: We made clear their interests -- that our interests with respect to china are reasonable. Rather, we seek to prevent china becoming the hegemon of the indo pacific. This requires, as the nss clearly states, being able to deny the feasibility of successful aggression along the first island chain.
▶ 1:09:39Sec. Colby: Because of its significance and the central importance of the military role in meeting this requirement, meeting the standard of an effective denial defense along the first island change is the primary focus of the U.S. armed forces. At the same time, ensuring our forces can hasten to this standard will ensure the department will always offer the president the operational flexibility and agility required for other objectives, especially the ability to launch decisive operations against targets anywhere, including from the
▶ 1:10:10Sec. Colby: U.S. homeland. It is critical to emphasize that our strategy is well aligned with the interests of our allies in the dough pacific and with many countries as well that are not formally our allies. These states seek to preserve their economy -- their autonomy. This is our goal as secretary hegseth eloquently laid out last year in singapore. Our military focus alongside the efforts of our allies and partners is designed to uphold that ability.
▶ 1:10:40Sec. Colby: We recognize clearly there are other very real threats around the world that imperil our allies and indeed our own interest directly. We did not neglect that. We see it clearly. We need to understand we need to allocate our own resources realistically and prudently we must account for allies and partners ability and will to meet those challenges as well. This is why the strategy so strongly emphasizes burden sharing which is its third pillar.
▶ 1:11:12Sec. Colby: The logic is to encourage, enable, and press our allies and partners and other theaters to take primary responsibility for their conventional defense. This makes sense because as is so often pointed out we are allies with many of the world's largest and most advanced economies. As a result we do have an alliance network that has tremendous latent military power.
▶ 1:11:33Sec. Colby: Over the last generation after the end of the cold war, partially due to our own permissiveness across a number of administrations and even hubris on this point, many of our allies have functionally demilitarized. This is unreasonable and to be perfectly frank, our allies know it, have admitted it, and are moving rapidly and substantially to step up and I can say this from extensive personal experience.
▶ 1:12:01Sec. Colby: Because of president trump's leadership as well as leadership in places like europe and south korea and from any of you in congress, they are no longer fighting this scenario. They have now accepted they must step up and are beginning to do so. As a result our approach is adapted to one of let's get down to business. In europe we are urging our allies to move to a model of nato 3.0 in which wealthy european allies take the lead for the conventional defense of european nato.
▶ 1:12:31Sec. Colby: On the korean peninsula we are urging our south korean allied to do the same vis-à-vis north korea and in both cases they have agreed. The good news is this is working. Our allies are stepping up along these lines. Now the issue becomes a practical want of helping them to do so and making this transition as rapidly and effectively as possible. In other regions we are also seeing progress with our allies.
▶ 1:12:59Sec. Colby: Along the first island chain with countries like japan and australia, we are urging these capable allies to do their part for defense as the nss urges. In the western hemisphere we are working with many countries in the region to address shared threats to our prosperity and well-being. In the middle east we are working with our ally israel and other regional partners to address the threat of iran and terrorism as we see right now.
▶ 1:13:26Sec. Colby: The final pillar of the strategy is to supercharge the defense industrial base. The nss and nds both call for nothing short of a national mobilization of our industrial capacity to arm our own forces and those of our allies. As you on this committee know so well this is vital because we must be able to arm our own forces and those of our allies and partners with the best weaponry quickly come at scale, and at a reasonable price.
▶ 1:13:54Sec. Colby: We are seeing tremendous progress on this front next to president trump, secretary hegseth, debbie secretary fienberg, undersecretary duffy, as well as your support and leadership on this committee and throughout the congress. This will have to be a critical area of focus in the coming years. In closing the strategy promises to put our country and our allies and partners on the path to lasting security.
▶ 1:14:21Sec. Colby: In the next few years we can reasonably expect the war fighting eat those to be restored in armed forces and for them to be armed with the most modern and effective weaponry at scale. We can expect our wealthy allies and partners around the world to have stepped up to do their part for collective defense and their own security.
▶ 1:14:40Sec. Colby: We can expect our opponents to see the armed forces of the united states and the highly capable forces are allies and partners together and to conclude that peace and restraint is the better course for them. Thus we can very much reasonably hope for a decent piece for americans, for our allies, and for potential opponents. This is a very good future to which we can reasonably aspire. At the same time we at the department of war that we cannot take this future for granted.
▶ 1:15:11Sec. Colby: To the contrary we will hope for the best but prepare for the worst. We will ensure our armed forces are as ready as they can possibly be in line with the priorities outlined. Should our potential opponents burnt this reasonable offer, members of congress, your support and ensuring our forces are ready should be absolutely vital. Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions.
▶ 1:15:34Chair Wicker: Thank you Mr. secretary. Members are reminded we will have a classified session after this with the senator -- with the secretary and that in all senator's briefing on iran in the afternoon. Because of our schedule and the fact we will have another round in a classified setting, I am going to strictly enforce the five minute rule on all members, including myself. Mr.
▶ 1:16:03Chair Wicker: Secretary, let's talk about taiwan. I expressed some misgivings about the inattention to this issue as I perceive it. Congress has authorized and appropriated the use of taiwan security cooperation initiative and authorize the use of president drawdown authority to accelerate the buildup of taiwan's defenses. We do not appear to be using these authorities.
▶ 1:16:34Chair Wicker: As this money been obligated -- has this money been obligated? If not, why. I will ask my follow-up question. Why was there no mention of taiwan, only the mention of the first island chain, which seems to be a way of finessing that issue?
▶ 1:16:54Sec. Colby: On the question of tsc I'll, I defer to my counterparts to give you a precise answer. The administration as a whole has undertaken already and announcement and I think congress played an important role in this late last year on significant arm sale to taiwan. I don't need to elaborate on that. I think that is a significant part of the administration's record.
▶ 1:17:24Sec. Colby: I cannot say to you -- I'm not trying to be evasive. I cannot give an informed answer. Can I get back to you on that?
▶ 1:17:32Chair Wicker: Perhaps between now and the classified. Thank you very much. Proceed.
▶ 1:17:38Sec. Colby: Obviously this document is read very carefully and we recognize there are multiple audiences including international partners. We are very tightly aligned with the degree of alignment and coordination with her white house partners as well as the extensive internal coordination.
▶ 1:18:02Sec. Colby: I don't think anyone can mistake that the focus of this strategy on preparing for a denial defense along the first island change, that is elaborated in the national security strategy which includes a reference to taiwan. That has been clear to all of our audiences. As secretary hegseth laid out at the reagan forum, I think you were there, our approach is strong and clear but quiet.
▶ 1:18:29Sec. Colby: We are focused on delivering military hard power readiness not only to our own forces but allies and partners and less focused on making significant rhetorical statements. That is a topic of debate as to whether that is the right mix but our approach is the strong and clear but quiet.
▶ 1:18:51Sec. Colby: I cannot doubt anyone doubts are focused that we support the presidential direction to deny aggression along the first island chain.
▶ 1:19:01Chair Wicker: Thank you. Let's let you respond to some doubts I expressed in my opening statement. Do you think the nds signals a diminished intent to deter existential threats posed by russia and north korea?
▶ 1:19:23Sec. Colby: I don't at all. I think the nds details and does so from a realistic perspective that matches our perspective. Obviously the primary existential threat posed by russia and north korea nuclear weapons -- in the case of russia they have other capabilities. That is explicitly detailed.
▶ 1:19:45Sec. Colby: We recognize our interests in europe and center on that as well but also say the europeans are even more indexed and focused on that. The basic logic is not to ignore or downplay but array our overall strategy in a way that works with our allies.
▶ 1:20:08Sec. Colby: That is why to be honest even last couple of months -- my first trip was in alaska and that I went to south korea where they have agreed to take primary conventional responsibility of south korea vis-à-vis north korea and in europe I had the honor of representing the department for secretary hegseth at the brussels ministerial at the munich security conference. The europeans are stepping up. We are not saying we are pulling up. We are looking for them to take the lead.
▶ 1:20:40Sec. Colby: I know I will have the chance to talk to senator reed. This is a return to the cold war mentality where these were expected to be real numbers with burden sharing members in the 1970's and 1980's when make a point of making sure allies did their part. We are going back to that heritage.
▶ 1:20:59Chair Wicker: My time is expired. The ranking member is recognized.
▶ 1:21:04Sen. Reed: Thank you Mr. chairman and thank you secretary. The nds specifically states that in the middle east the department "will empower regional allies and partners to take primary responsibility for defending against iran and its proxies." furthermore the nds repeatedly states that while our allies will receive critical support from the U.S., it will be much more limited. This national security strategy was published about 39 days ago.
▶ 1:21:39Sen. Reed: Secretary colby, the military operations unfolding in the middle east are contrary to the strategy moving forward. Why has the department a band of the strategy after 39 days?
▶ 1:21:52Sec. Colby: I reject that characterization. If you look at the strategy it detail stunningly the threat posed by iran and ensuring the president has options to act against iran. It also explicitly and repeatedly details the strategy will provide the ability for the president to use air and maritime forces to do exactly this kind of operation. Things like midnight hammer.
▶ 1:22:24Sec. Colby: Third I would say we are seeing real example. Our israeli allies are really in again but we see that from our gulf partners. I do not think this is an invalidation at all.
▶ 1:22:39Sen. Reed: Our gulf partners are taking primary responsibility as described in nds?
▶ 1:22:46Sec. Colby: Primary responsibility applies to the european context. It is a general theme. It is more differentiated. We want allies and partners throughout to take responsibility but it is not a straitjacket.
▶ 1:23:11Sen. Reed: Did we notify our allies and partners except israel?
▶ 1:23:16Sec. Colby: I deferred to operational.
▶ 1:23:19Sen. Reed: I assume you would be vitally involved in the notification process. Did you identify them?
▶ 1:23:29Sec. Colby: I've been on the phone since the outbreak of the operation on saturday. I know we have notified but the exact timing I deferred to others.
▶ 1:23:38Sen. Reed: The objectives of the iran operation have varied from illuminating the nuclear, taking out the ballistic missile arsenal, protecting iranian civilians, cutting off support to iranian proxies, and defending the american people in general and our allies. The president has moved the goalpost constantly and is now conveniently throwing out all of the rationales as justification for this war of choice.
▶ 1:24:10Sen. Reed: And he was the lead policy advisor of the pentagon -- can you as the lead policy advisor of the pentagon explained the objectives of this operation and can they be accomplished by air power alone?
▶ 1:24:21Sec. Colby: I think in -- I think I can lay out the objectives of the military campaign laid out by the president and elucidated by secretary hegseth which are focused on reducing the ability of the islamic republic to project military power against us and our allies and partners in the region and beyond and that is primarily the missile forces of the islamic republic which have been growing substantially and pose a threat
▶ 1:24:54Sec. Colby: To all of those I mentioned and the iranian navy. Those are the focuses of the military campaign. Those are reasonable objectives. At the same time the president has made comments that I would not speak for him but my interpretation is he is urged the iranian people to take this opportunity to supplant or overthrow this oppressive islamic republic.
▶ 1:25:18Sec. Colby: The military campaign is focused on the power projection capabilities and at the end of this campaign, primarily relying on airspace and maritime forces, that will have substantially set back a threat you just detailed as such a noxious threat.
▶ 1:25:35Sen. Reed: If regime change was nothing with respect to the military objectives and the president was just wandering off, why was the first objective in the campaign the attack and death of ayatollah khomeini and key leaders of the regime?
▶ 1:25:56Sec. Colby: I would not characterize the president -- he sets our agenda and he directed these military goals. I'm talking about the goals of the american military campaign.
▶ 1:26:07Sen. Reed: How do you separate date of the military goals from the president of the united states?
▶ 1:26:13Sec. Colby: I am not. I was talking about the israeli operations.
▶ 1:26:18Sen. Reed: The chairman is in forcing his role as he must.
▶ 1:26:23Chair Wicker: Senator fischer?
▶ 1:26:28Sen. Fischer: I believe all strategies must evolve as geopolitical threats shift. When a regime responsible for the deaths of thousands of americans remains committed to building nuclear weapons and growing a ballistic missile force that encloses an unacceptable risk to the united states the president will respond. That said, there is one pillar of the strategy that will remain relevant no matter the conflict. We need to supercharge U.S. industry.
▶ 1:26:58Sen. Fischer: For too long the department has used the munitions funding for other programs. No more. We need to build more weapons systems, do so at scale and negotiate better terms and prices. You mentioned that. How is the department reviewing the total munitions requirement to address the long-term strategy for production?
▶ 1:27:20Sec. Colby: Thank you and I think that is key to note. I think the president's truth last night has shown the light on this. Deputy secretary fienberg has shined a light on this. There are a lot of people involved. I have seen an unprecedented degree of focus on this.
▶ 1:27:46Sec. Colby: The way I was talking to the secretary and senator reed was talking about this the other day , we see a mindset shift in the degree of urgency. One is $1.5 trillion, that is the president saying we have to get out of this problem, first of all you need the money and the strategies as we will advocate for higher topline. Money alone is not sufficient.
▶ 1:28:11Sen. Fischer: How will you address this?
▶ 1:28:14Sec. Colby: I would defer to deputy secretary fienberg but we are all very confident. I don't need to be dodging your question. I know my lane.
▶ 1:28:26Sen. Fischer: We have a lot of critical weapons program that overlaps the supply chain. How the department identify the key bottlenecks out there and address those? Should we talk to the deputy?
▶ 1:28:41Sec. Colby: I would talk to the deputy secretary. They're not specific boutique solutions.
▶ 1:28:49Sen. Fischer: Is a huge concern.
▶ 1:28:52Sec. Colby: It is a huge concern and it is not a band-aid. This is surgery.
▶ 1:28:59Sen. Fischer: Defending the homeland should always be the first priority of any nds and its includes a commitment to modernizing and diversifying our nuclear forces which are foundational to our national security. Since the united states now faces for the first time in history two nuclear powers in russia and china I encourage any changes in forest structure to result in greater nuclear deterrent capability, not less.
▶ 1:29:31Sen. Fischer: As beijing continues its military buildup, including their breathtaking nuclear breakout, how will the department seek to achieve strategic stability?
▶ 1:29:43Sec. Colby: Thank you. This is something I was emailing the admiral about this morning. The nuclear strategy has my personal attention. We fully agree that the two peer environment and the potential peer of the people's republic on the nuclear side requires a re-think. We nested the nuclear elements at that high level into the national defense strategy. That does not mean we are just ignoring the nuclear piece.
▶ 1:30:15Sec. Colby: We are going to do a deeper review and nuclear but with more of a focus on actually getting at the classified level in one of the problems we need to solve. I will say I think most of the problems and challenges are a matter of execution and money unless -- there are a key strategy elements I would be happy to talk about.
▶ 1:30:37Sen. Fischer: Do you plan to do nuclear posture review?
▶ 1:30:41Sec. Colby: I don't think we plan to do a formal posture review. Declaratory policy from the first trump term was very good. One thing about this strategy is it is designed to move the bureaucracy and organization in a certain direction, not to do things because we have done it. Rest assured nuclear forces are the top of our priority list.
▶ 1:31:01Sen. Fischer: As we look to deterring china as the second line of effort, do you anticipate we will increase our efforts in partnership with south korea, japan cooperation?
▶ 1:31:18Sec. Colby: We will deepen partnerships especially with japan and south korea. Happy to elaborate.
▶ 1:31:25Chair Wicker: Senator shaheen?
▶ 1:31:29Sen. Shaheen: Under secretary colby, you have previously written the middle east is "relatively unimportant for the united states." he also wrote in an article entitled "why not to attack iran" that strikes against iran's nuclear program without a clear strategy would leave tehran every incentive to reboot the program with greater vigor.
▶ 1:31:57Sen. Shaheen: You wrote in the same article military strikes were unlikely to "embolden resistance to the government" and you concluded it is probably best not to start down a road that has no end in sight. In 2012 the road that putting boots on the ground would "-- in 2012 you wrote that putting boots on the ground would " likely be protracted and costly." president trump and secretary hegseth have left the door open to boots on the ground.
▶ 1:32:28Sen. Shaheen: You agree with them now?
▶ 1:32:29Sec. Colby: We discussed this almost exactly a year ago in my confirmation hearing and I committed to provide credible military options freshly coordinated to america's interests and I have done so in furtherance of that commitment.
▶ 1:32:43Sen. Shaheen: Then do you with secretary rubio that the reason we took this action now is because of israel's intent to strike and was there any effort to dissuade israel from making these strikes now?
▶ 1:32:58Sec. Colby: I would defer to secretary rubio on his specific comments. He and others fall talk about the threat iran has posed and I was clear about that in my testimony. We have been clear about that here. I would say operation midnight hammer did have a clear objective and that distinguished it from the perspectives I was writing about 15 years ago in a private capacity.
▶ 1:33:20Sen. Shaheen: You do agree now that putting boots on the ground is a possibility?
▶ 1:33:25Sec. Colby: The president --
▶ 1:33:30Sen. Shaheen: I have heard what the president said. I want to know what you think.
▶ 1:33:35Sec. Colby: I'm a lieutenant of the president. I am keyed on his attempt -- I am keyed on his intent.
▶ 1:33:43Sen. Shaheen: Whatever the president decides, you will be supportive of? Let me switch to another issue. Your opening statement you did not mention russia or ukraine. This is the largest land war in europe since world war ii. You think it is central to U.S. deterrence or not?
▶ 1:34:01Sec. Colby: I think the war in ukraine is very important. As the president has rightly said it is especially important for people on the european continent place which is one ofe reasons he is trying to end the war. I think they are making good progress. I think the war in ukraine is important.
▶ 1:34:23Sen. Shaheen: They would be making better progress if we put pressure on russia, don't you agree? Has russia had any role in supporting iran in this operation?
▶ 1:34:34Sec. Colby: I cannot speak about that in this hearing. I would be happy to discuss that in the closed hearing, my assessment of that although I would defer to my intelligence community colleagues on the specifics. Your first question was pressure. The administration has put pressure on russia through economic measures. I've been personally involved contrary to press reporting in facilitating the transport of weaponry to help ukraine.
▶ 1:35:05Sec. Colby: The goal is peace.
▶ 1:35:07Sen. Shaheen: I certainly agree with that and I think the fastest way to get peace in ukraine is to put more pressure on russia and vladimir putin and what he is doing in this war and that the way to do that is to further sanction shadow fleet, further sanction oil production. It is to provide the weapons and the support ukraine needs to continue to execute this war.
▶ 1:35:33Sen. Shaheen: Sadly we are not doing that in the way that I think would lead us to peace. I just came back from ukraine and from eastern europe in one of the things I heard from all of military leaders I talked to, both american and among our allies is that what the ukrainians are doing in executing this war is the most highly innovative technological advances that are happening in
▶ 1:36:05Sen. Shaheen: Conflict anywhere in the world right now. We are not at the table to take advantage of getting the best information about what is going on because in the pentagon ukraine has become a dirty word. Can you respond to that and tell me why we are not taking advantage of the opportunities ukraine is showing us?
▶ 1:36:23Sec. Colby: I don't think that is true. I think people like secretary driscoll are incorporating a lot of lessons in there a lot of lessons to be learned.
▶ 1:36:33Sen. Shaheen: I hope we are learning. Thank you.
▶ 1:36:37Chair Wicker: Senator rounds.
▶ 1:36:40Sen. Rounds: Secretary colby, thank you for joining us today. I sincerely appreciate the attention you and your team have paid to the simultaneity problem in the national defense strategy.
▶ 1:36:56Sen. Rounds: The simultaneity problem is the fact that in the event the united states is engaged in hostilities with one of our adversaries, other adversaries will likely initiate hostilities with us and seek to press their advantage in their region or theater after U.S. forces are committed elsewhere. You and your team seem acutely aware of that problem.
▶ 1:37:23Sen. Rounds: I also appreciate the department is trying to maintain deterrence in multiple theaters with finite resources and that protecting our interests in the western pacific must be the priority in the face of the existential threat posed by the ccp. That is the background for my question. The national defense strategy places heavy emphasis on burden sharing with our partners and allies.
▶ 1:37:50Sen. Rounds: Is it the position of the administration and the intent of the nds to build up partner and ally capacity prior to shifting resources out of a theater such as europe or the middle east and if we could ask it in a different way, how do you think the department should sequence the marshaling of resources and the capacity between indo pay, and the rest of the world?
▶ 1:38:12Sec. Colby: I appreciate the spirit of your question because your understanding of what we are trying to do. The strategy is obviously a high-level capstone -- it is a living document -- it is more of a heuristic or framework. The publication is a point in time but the idea is it should be adapted to events. It came out before operation epic fury but I think it anticipates for it.
▶ 1:38:42Sec. Colby: What I would say to your point is we are trying to get to the best point where everybody is in the right position to deter. And if necessary to fight effectively for denial as soon as possible and certainly within the window of any potential danger. Part of what is happening, senator, this is part of what changed early this year from our town and our partners have noticed it, I regard 2025 as a lot of it is about reframing.
▶ 1:39:11Sec. Colby: Giving our allies partners credibly in understanding that things are going to be different, that the demand signal is different. The hypothesis is whether they would change or register. What we have seen in the course of 2025 as they are not fighting the scenario. In europe you have countries like germany, poland, finland, sweden, norway, netherlands.
▶ 1:39:40Sec. Colby: Netherlands is raising the retirement to 70 in order to fund their defense buildup. They are doing what we've been asking. The change in tone is become -- is because things have adapted and now it is get down to business. That is when it becomes how do we deal with the transition in a situation in which as the president said yesterday there are areas where we would like to be in a different place than we are. That is where we want to take the conversation.
▶ 1:40:11Sec. Colby: I am confident that together across the department of war and are very capable allies and partners we can do that but it is very important but this is not a joke or a joke or recipe for more lassitude by our allies and that has happened.
▶ 1:40:24Sen. Rounds: There is strong support in congress to provide additional resources to our national defense. Engagement between the administration and congress is critical to identifying and addressing the resources or shortfalls. Have you shared any specific resource shortfalls or capability gaps that will cause us to assume additional risk as the nds is implemented?
▶ 1:40:50Sec. Colby: That is some of the implementation work we are doing right now, especially in light of ongoing dynamics. I was talking to the chairman of the staff about this yesterday just to say we are doing targeted looks at this and I definitely would like to come back to you because some of this needs -- is something that would appeal across the aisle where we all benefit from having the right stuff at the right place at the right time.
▶ 1:41:17Sec. Colby: My personal advocacy will be open kimono on what we find on that because euro participation is critical.
▶ 1:41:26Sen. Rounds: That open kimono should probably be done in the classified section.
▶ 1:41:31Sec. Colby: For your safety.
▶ 1:41:34Chair Wicker: Senator king? -- senator kaine? >> a rare opportunity to go before senator kaine. I will ask you some policy questions with regard to iran. The first question that popped into my mind is why now. What was the precipitating factor?
▶ 1:42:02Chair Wicker: There was discussion of an imminent threat, discussion of rebuilding the nuclear capacity but none of those were imminent in any way. Yesterday secretary rubio told us why now in a stunning statement. We knew there was going to be an israeli action.
▶ 1:42:22Chair Wicker: We knew that would precipitate an attack against american forces and we knew if we did not preemptively go after them before they launched these attacks we would suffer higher casualties. Have we now delegated the most solemn decision that can be made in our society, the decision to go to war to another country? That is the breathtaking implication of secretary rubio's statement which to me is the only explanation I have seen as to why this action was taken when it was.
▶ 1:42:55Chair Wicker: There were no objective facts on the ground that said this is something we have to do now. There were no missiles being loaded on launchers, there was not a nuclear bomb being rolled out. I would like some response on policy. Is it now the policy on the united states will be taken into a war by the prime minister of another country?
▶ 1:43:17Sec. Colby: What I would say and I think secretary hegseth did this yesterday and the president was talking about this as well is the very rapid buildup of iran's ballistic attack drones.
▶ 1:43:30Sen. King: That has been going on for some time. The question is why was it saturday or sunday?
▶ 1:43:38Sec. Colby: The perception is the threat has been manifest. They've been killing americans for 47 years and we can see where this is going and we will have this missile shield.
▶ 1:43:49Sen. King: Do you dispute secretary rubio's statement? I think secretary rubio inadvertently told the truth that this was driven by benjamin netanyahu and here we are in a major conflict. Do not agree that seems to be the precipitating factor?
▶ 1:44:07Sec. Colby: I agree that secretary rubio told the truth. I know he has spoken a lot. The remarks I have seen of his and the president and the vice president and the secretary of war, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff focus on the buildup of iran's missiles.
▶ 1:44:25Sen. King: I find it disturbing we are committing this nation to war based on a decision by a staunch and I'm a supporter of israel, but I don't think anybody should drive the decision to go to work but in the interest of the united states.
▶ 1:44:40Sec. Colby: It was a president, my understanding. The president made our decision. He makes the decision.
▶ 1:44:48Sen. King: But it appeared to be based upon the fact israel was going to strike and my question, when my questions is going to be at the hearing this afternoon was an effort made to dissuade the prime minister? Prime minister netanyahu for invasion of iran for 20 years. U.S. presidents have consistently said no. I question is, why now? Let me move on to something else. I am concerned about the president's words to the iranian people.
▶ 1:45:18Sen. King: In his speech the other night and speeches back in january, the other or not he said "I call upon the iranian patriots who yearn for the freedom to seize this moment, be brave, bold, heroic, and take back our country. America is with you. I fulfilled that promise." we cannot protect the valiant people of iran from the irgc from the air. There is no way that can be protected without troops.
▶ 1:45:48Sen. King: Do you have any different understanding of that? My concern is we may be raising the expectations of these people that we will truly have their back when we won't and they will be slaughtered again as they were in january.
▶ 1:46:01Sec. Colby: My understanding, and I don't chrism to interpret the president's words, this is objectively an historic opportunity. Had this significant erosion of the most oppressive members of the islamic republic government but also I think one of the reasons this isn't an example of nation and this interventionism senator reed mention is because it is looking to the iranian people to take the initiative.
▶ 1:46:28Sen. King: But they are people don't have the guns. They don't have the force. It may work. I hope it does. In this case, the risk is great and I'm afraid we may have put these people in harms way by misleading them about our commitment. Thank you.
▶ 1:46:43Chair Wicker: Thank you fred senator scott.
▶ 1:46:48Sen. Scott: First of all, thank you for being here. I want to think president trump his decisive leadership in operation epic fury. Clear objectives to ensure iran never has a nuclear weapon and this regime is no longer able to terrorize and target the american people in our great ally israel. We have known for decades the only way to deal with the rent is to totally destroy this evil regime and president is doing it.
▶ 1:47:15Sen. Scott: I want to take this opportunity to talk about the incredible men and women in our military to answer the call to serve each and every day. What it means to be an american, sign up for cause greater for themselves to serve their country and stand for our freedoms. Unfortunately as we saw, the answer the call to serve can come with great sacrifice. That we can never repay them. Our heart goes out to their families and I ask every american to keep their loved ones in their prayers.
▶ 1:47:40Sen. Scott: I have been the senate for a little over seven years and have traveled all over the world to be with our servicemen and women. Diplomats, foreign leaders to foster american business. Prioritize national security interest. Grow relationships with our allies. Everywhere I go, I hear great things about president trump's leadership on the world stage and incredible support he has received from secretary rubio and hegseth.
▶ 1:48:04Sen. Scott: In advancing his peace through -- countries have shifted their views on national security because they now know under this administration, standing with the united states is beneficial to our mutual security. In my recent visits to the indo pacific and northern eastern europe, I witnessed this firsthand as countries are siding with us against their enemies, investing in our economy, most important, buying american weapons.
▶ 1:48:31Sen. Scott: I tell every government official I meet with in my office who -- or overseas, be like israel, baltics, poland. Do everything you can for yourself and ask where your need is and what you need us to do. Many of our allies who traditionally failed to do so or started to do that because they know president trump will hold our friends accountable to step up to the plate.
▶ 1:48:55Sen. Scott: Secretary rubio, he said the president is succeeding and will continue to succeed because he believes the entire world is important to the united states and for our security and prosperity. He understands united states and europe are inseparable. The present reaffirms it and his marks when he outlined the threats the regime have a nuclear weapon would have on the U.S. and are very good friends and allies in europe.
▶ 1:49:26Sen. Scott: The president clearly understands we have enemies around the world. Governments communist china, russia, iran, north korea. They chose to be our enemies. They're deftly not focus just on the region they live in. They don't change their action simply because we tried to be nice to them or tried to ignore them. I didn't work for president obama did not work for president biden. It only makes our enemies bolder and more aggressive toward us and our allies. President trump proved he is not what his critics say he is when it comes to foreign policy and military matters. He is not a reckless warmonger.
▶ 1:49:56Sen. Scott: Nor is he an isolationist. He understands nowhere on the planet can we say whatever happens there is not our business. He knows our world is a safer place when our enemies wake up every day scared to death about what we might do to them and knowing miscalculations on their part will not go unanswered. Just ask iran and venezuela. Back to my travels. As I learned about conversations with our allies in europe and the indo pacific, there is a problem.
▶ 1:50:24Sen. Scott: Allies tell us they want to train with us but the department of war ignores these requests and tells them they are too small and insignificant. Allies tell us they want to buy weapons from us. Some of our allies have told us the department of war that they may not buy them, resulting in frustration or not at the president but the failures of the process that won't let them by the weapons we told them to buy in the first place. They're going to other countries to buy weapons. The president and the national security team have sent a clear message to partners and allies, step up. Do your fair share.
▶ 1:50:55Sen. Scott: The U.S. will be selling you the best american-made weapons so you can use them. However, seems our allies are getting a mixed message when it comes to the department of war to buy weapons. What you recommend those of us on this committee say to our allies who are aligned with president trump and ready to do their part that are left fused with the process fail same?
▶ 1:51:15Sec. Colby: To answer your question on training, I think this is a priority for secretary hegseth on things like 127 echo so I think that should be something where there should be a lot of recent activity and allies are not getting that message, are beastly, they are welcome to look me up. On weapons, this is something that has our top attention and we were just talking about with the national mobilization industrial base. There's been a process over a whole.
▶ 1:51:42Sec. Colby: One thing we have done, and I'm a big advocate of this, pushing the fms process and consolidating it under secretary duffy because it is the acquisition people, industrial lessons people who have the whole stack, as they say. We have a role in policy from a strategic point of view but ultimately, I call it an excellent problem rather than a word problem.
▶ 1:52:04Sec. Colby: I believe fms sales demand have quadrupled since 2021, so just a massive scale issue and own services are also in line. This something I think we all really want to attack this problem. We have deputy secretary feinberg, really amazing on this.
▶ 1:52:20Chair Wicker: Thank you. Senator peters.
▶ 1:52:24Sen. Peters: Thank you. Before getting to my questions, I want to talk briefly about president trump's decision to basically drag america into another war in the middle east without congressional approval. The constitution is very clear the reason for congressional approval.
▶ 1:52:45Sen. Peters: If you look at the debate to the constitutional convention, having unconditional power for president to going to war was a power to great and reminded them of the king had just defeated in the revolutionary war. And believe the people's house, congress in article I of the constitution, should have that power to declare war and bring those powers into play.
▶ 1:53:21Sen. Peters: As a navy reservist from a former navy reservist, I served in bahrain in the uae, places right now that are under risk. Servicemembers are under risk for attack. My thoughts are with them and others serving to the middle east. I know the thoughts of all american people are with the men and women serving in the middle east as well. But what I am hearing from my constituents is that they do not want to send their sons and daughters to war. That is not something that america people want. What I hear from them is they want to see costs come down in america. Costs continue to go up.
▶ 1:53:50Sen. Peters: Trump policies have raised prices and now we may see spikes in energy prices. They don't want a word. I want to be clear, iran is a bad actor in we must ensure they never, ever produce a nuclear weapon. I also want to be clear, we should remember we had a diplomatic agreement with iran on nuclear proliferation and president trump withdrew from that first -- from that agreement during his first term without a plan for it he was basically playing politics. I get it. Now he is sending U.S.
▶ 1:54:17Sen. Peters: Forces back to the middle east to fight in a war rated without the support of congress and without the support of the american people. That is why the administration must immediately seek congressional approval to make clear to not just to congress but more importantly to the american people that there is an actual end goal and strategy to ensure what he is doing products are homeland security as opposed to endangering it.
▶ 1:54:47Sen. Peters: Mr. colby, my question is, president trump has provided a number of conflicting reasons for his decision to declare war himself unilaterally on iran. And at no time did he offer any evidence of imminent attack, as we heard from my colleague, which would be an exception to getting an immediate approval if there is an immediate -- imminent attack.
▶ 1:55:09Sen. Peters: Sometimes he stated a goal is regime change, sometimes it is about eliminating the proxy forces, ballistic missiles, thinks he is considering as goals for the program. The president has stated he is willing to negotiate with the current resume to bring in hostilities. I want to remind you of a discussion we had in january last year. We met prior to your confirmation hearing and you are clear that you did not want to enter another war in the middle east without a clear purpose and clear end state.
▶ 1:55:41Sen. Peters: I want to hear from you what you think that is. You have been consistent on this point throughout your career. Some of the articles I have recently come just in 2021, three or four years ago, where you said U.S. military focus on iran should be dramatically reduced and request for additional U.S.
▶ 1:56:00Sen. Peters: Forces to "deter iran should be rejected." he also said iran can be checked for many possibility of dominating the gulf states by supporting theirs and israel's efforts to check iran's emissions. They can do it. You said iran draws critical from far more important defensive objectives, namely ensuring favorable and stable balance of power in asia.
▶ 1:56:26Sen. Peters: My question is, given your strongly held beliefs you tell me face-to-face in my office and you are very sincere in those efforts, I never would have questioned what you said, do you feel the president has actually articulated a clear purpose and end state to the america people as they articulated to the american people that we need to go to war in iran.
▶ 1:56:46Sec. Colby: I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful question. I think the -- first of all, in terms of your questions on the imminence issue, legality, I know there's going to be a briefing later today and I differ general counsel and intelligence counterparts to get you the answer you need on that. I do think there president and the military campaign, the president has directed the military campaign. Honestly, those are not exclusive of other goals like his encouragement to the iranian people to take this opportunity.
▶ 1:57:17Sec. Colby: This is to -- I mentioned things. The israelis are taking -- it is the israelis conducting a great jewel of these operations and gulf states conducting operations as well some european partners. I think you've seen the reaction not just from regional countries like canada, australia, a number of german -- I met with the german chancellor yesterday.
▶ 1:57:40Sec. Colby: I'm not on the uniform side with the department of war has been provided with we are going to degrade and destroy the iranian missile threat from one way attack drawing threat and the navy in particular and of course in a position to deny iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon.
▶ 1:57:59Chair Wicker: Senator mullin.
▶ 1:58:03Sen. Mullin: I think I need to respond to some things the senator was bringing up by accusing the president of pulling out of a nuclear deal in this first term. It was a horrible deal. A disastrous deal. A deal we all know what originally allow to have enrichment they could make a nuclear weapon.
▶ 1:58:22Sen. Mullin: And then for the senator that was saying the president needs to come back for authorization, I don't remember him saying anything in 2016 when barack obama at the time dropped 26,000 bombs in syria, pakistan, libya just to name a few. I definitely don't remember my colleagues in 2013 at all complaining about the president going -- present barack obama going into syria.
▶ 1:58:50Sen. Mullin: I would like to ask the question, what threat did siri have to the united states? What threat did libya have to the united states during the arab spring which these leaders were removed? Then I would ask the question, what threat did iran how do s? Do we really need to talk about? Do we need to talk about how many times they have killed thousands of americans since 1979 from the first time they took hostages in november 1979 until the last time they attacked us in june 2025?
▶ 1:59:22Sen. Mullin: And anybody that wants to doubt they were a threat to us and a central threat to us, does anybody doubt on that side of the aisle -- does anybody doubt iran if or when they got a nuclear weapon would deliver it to the united states if they had the capability of doing it?
▶ 1:59:38Sen. Mullin: Does anybody deny the fact the president was being proactive on an adversary that has been chanting "death to america" since 1979, does anybody deny iran was a threat to us and our service members or do we have to remind you how many they have injured and killed through their proxies and direct action? This is the first president in seven presidencies that actually did something about the thorn that can constantly -- that constantly came after us and now you criticize him and say it is illegal? It is not.
▶ 2:00:09Sen. Mullin: The same authorization is the same authorization democrats and republican presidents in the past have used. Thank god we had a president with a backbone to finally get rid of this murderous regime read and now we're complaining about it? Remember, legally, he has to respond to congress or inform congress in 48 hours. That has happened. Within 60 to 90 days, he needs to inform congress if we are going to war and asked for service -- specific were authorities.
▶ 2:00:37Sen. Mullin: The president through article ii clearly has an obligation of powers under the constitution to defend our interest home and abroad and there is no question he is defending our interest. No question. So what is this grandstanding about? Do you think we should have left the ayatollah in place? Do you think he was a good guy? Are you defending the ayatollah now?
▶ 2:01:01Sen. Mullin: Or aren't you glad that america finally stood up and took care of this murderous regime that is been sponsoring terror around the world for 47 years? How about we stay thank you, Mr. president, for finally getting rid of this nuisance, this murderer, this sponsor of terror. He did the world a favor. In the world is a safer place because of it.
▶ 2:01:27Sen. Mullin: You may disagree with a lot of his actions, you may disagree with some of his policies, but you cannot deny that this was a threat and essential growing threat to the united states. And you just say he is playing politics? You get the politics behind it? You guys are playing politics. You guys are the ones that are grandstanding we had the president is doing his job as commander-in-chief.
▶ 2:01:56Sen. Mullin: I think at one time or the next we should say thank you rita thank you for being a strong leader. There is no wait on gods green earth you guys can never give the president, president trump any credit. Sorry. I still got 49 seconds. I have one question.
▶ 2:02:17Sen. Mullin: Strategically speaking, how does your department work with the department of defense -- sorry, how are you guys directly working with the department of war on strategies specifically toward russia, canada, and is there a strategy there?
▶ 2:02:39Sec. Colby: Actually, we are working with our canadian partners. They are one of the countries that really does need to step up. Canada has an incredibly storied and proud military history. In all the years of world war I and world war ii, I think that the fourth-largest navy. At the inn of world war ii, they had their own beach I d-day. The canadian armed forces, they have dismantled particularly since the end of the cold war. We are trying to get more from canada.
▶ 2:03:08Sec. Colby: We have worked with him extensively. The secretary and I met with Mr. mckenzie a few months ago and we have been in constant contact and continuing contact with them with a sense of where they need to go not only to meet but homeland defense norad, potential for golden dome rid of these other things. We are really looking very carefully at canada to make sure they're stepping up in line with collecting defense.
▶ 2:03:33Chair Wicker: Senator warren.
▶ 2:03:36Sen. Warren: Over the weekend, donald trump and benjamin netanyahu watched illegal strikes against iran. This war for regime change is both unconstitutional and dangerous.
▶ 2:03:52Sen. Warren: We have already lost six service members in this war, and president trump has said "we may have casualties prayed that often happens in war." yesterday in his briefing to the american people on why our sons and daughters are being sent to war, trump highlighted the quality of the white house drapes he had purchased and the gold ballroom he is building. Giving us a sense of what is top of mind for him.
▶ 2:04:23Sen. Warren: Under secretary colby, both you and I have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states. Under the constitution, who declares war, the president or congress?
▶ 2:04:32Sec. Colby: Congress declares war if I understand correctly.
▶ 2:04:37Sen. Warren: Thank you. All three of my brothers served in the military. This is personal for me. I am praying for the families who have already lost loved ones and for all of our troops that the president has put in harm's way without legal justification or moral justification.
▶ 2:04:57Sen. Warren: Donald trump ran on lowering prices on day one and on a "pro-peace ticket." he called himself "the peace president" and claims to put america first. So, under secretary colby, do you think america first means starting another war in the middle east?
▶ 2:05:23Sec. Colby: I will say the administration does have a legal and more justification and I would certainly support the idea that the president is the president of peace.
▶ 2:05:34Sen. Warren: All I can say is the justification seems to be changing every 20 minutes. Could you answer the question I just asked you? And that is do you think america first means starting another war in the middle east? >> out with a america first and peace through strength are served by rolling back the military campaign designed to do. The threats posed by iran's large program, navy, and ensuring it doesn't happen a nuclear weapon.
▶ 2:06:02Sen. Warren: I think the evidence, proof of that is demonstrated by the global support --.
▶ 2:06:08Sen. Warren: You think america first means starting war anywhere, anytime? I am confused because you are here to discuss the trump administration's national defense strategy, and I will quote you back to you, "no longer will the department be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nationbuilding." interventionism -- that means going to another country and
▶ 2:06:38Sen. Warren: Bombing them. Endless wars -- wars that may last we don't know how long because there is no clear endpoint. Regime change -- which the president has said this is all about. And nationbuilding rate evidently, the president seems to think he is going to come in and build a different iran. Now, is that -- is that putting america first and following your own foreign policy? Sec.
▶ 2:07:05Sen. Warren: Colby: the defense strategy does talk about the iran -- this is not nationbuilding. This is not going to be endless.
▶ 2:07:21Sen. Warren: This is not interventionism?
▶ 2:07:24Sec. Colby: Nationbuilding, endless wars --
▶ 2:07:29Sen. Warren: That is the very first word in the department of defense --
▶ 2:07:33Sec. Colby: Interventionism, say that is responsibly to protect or something. It is obviously --
▶ 2:07:41Sen. Warren: If we did not do this in order to try to protect israel?
▶ 2:07:43Sec. Colby: That is one of the goals.
▶ 2:07:48Sen. Warren: So it is interventionism prayed how about the endless war part? Is there a clear goal that we will know when this is over?
▶ 2:07:55Sec. Colby: The present will decide how we're going to do it.
▶ 2:08:00Sen. Warren: The resume change part. Remind me about that. The president has caught resume change. Do you disagree?
▶ 2:08:05Sec. Colby: He said this is an opportunity for the people of iran to rise up and overthrow their oppressors.
▶ 2:08:12Sen. Warren: He has called on them to do that. Does that sound like resume change?
▶ 2:08:15Sec. Colby: Obviously, along the iranian people to take this matter into their own hands is one of the options.
▶ 2:08:25Sen. Warren: That is great. So the trump administration first says it is going to be america first and then puts out a national defense strategy and then goes to war alongside israel illegally, unconstitutionally prayed and that is now the policy of the trump administration. Say one thing in a campaign, write it down on paper, then go do whatever the hell you want.
▶ 2:08:45Chair Wicker: The time of this editor has expired. Senator schmitt rated Sen.
▶ 2:08:50Schmitt: Thank you. I want to thank you for your leadership and your fortitude to take on, in my view, this foreign policy blob in these entrenched experts that seemingly no go -- never go in this town who have been continuously wrong for so many years.
▶ 2:09:10Schmitt: I think the 26th national security indulges a bunch of things but certainly that after the cold war ended, there was never really an adjustment whether it trade policy or foreign policy, the idea was your -- we would help europe get back on their feet, japan get back on their feet with these unfair trade deals. Defense umbrella that quite frankly europe did not ever really pay for. And that is changing.
▶ 2:09:39Schmitt: I think that is a good -- that is a good thing. I think it reflects any urgent need on the ground or foreign policy for discipline realism rather than bouncing around from wilsonian pet project to wilsonian pet project that there really wasn't -- nds does outline a strategy because the people are concerned about the things happening in their communities. The influx of drugs.
▶ 2:10:10Schmitt: When people try to point out some inconsistency with taking out his cartel boat runners -- I had a fake news reporter characterize them as fishing boats. But I think it also, you know, it requires us to take a look at our foreign aid, too. And making sure it is aligned with these america first principles.
▶ 2:10:31Schmitt: I want to ask you as it relates -- limited time -- I think your presence at the nato in a serial meeting in the munich security conference thereafter, hopefully, it was a signal to our european allies that you are willing to engage with them and have thoughtful but constructive dialogue.
▶ 2:10:51Schmitt: How are you communicating to our allies this new reality that in order for america to continue to be strong that they have to step up in a much more meaningful way? We have heard a lot about the 5%. The 5% can't be for pensions. How are you communicating that and what is your feedback?
▶ 2:11:12Sec. Colby: Thank you rated I appreciate it. I think you put it well and I would like to go back to something if I could connected to senator reed's comments about the tone. I would say the tone of this document is not partisan but rather a reputation of a post-cold war.
▶ 2:11:27Sec. Colby: I would like to stress that point that I think during the cold war, the substance of this strategy is much more akin to what you would have seen something like a flexible response document or flushing their or cap weinberger and of course the secretary gesture.
▶ 2:11:45Sen. Schmitt: Would we be better off if the 1993 we would've had something like this?
▶ 2:11:48Sec. Colby: I think so. This is not saying it is only democrats. We are pointing at ourselves as well. I think part of the communication here and this relates back to senator reed's question is welcome is to be clear and there is -- as people point out, bob gates went to nato in 2011 and panetta and president obama, etc. And we were not seen as credible. This is designed to have an impact on real behavior.
▶ 2:12:18Sec. Colby: In order to do that, after break through to people and sometimes that is being pretty sharp and direct not with the point of being sharp and direct to be insulting but to actually get through to people because the best friend is one who tells you when you need to change something. Biggest your question, senator, about top allies prayed I talked to allies all the time and talk to europeans. I talked to them often privately.
▶ 2:12:39Sec. Colby: What I think the point of what we're trying to do with the visit in brussels and with the secretary's full support and state department and others in the white house was to say, I think the message has been conveyed. We are obvious to continue it but now people are no longer fighting the scenario and willing to step up and had meetings with the german minister of defense for instance, a social democrat. He has been a leading probably the number one figure along with the chancellor in raising germany's defense spending grade bullish government of both types, obviously.
▶ 2:13:10Sec. Colby: Scandinavian governments. We want to work toward a results-oriented goal which I think, senator, you put it really well which is common sense. I've had these conversations of how does it make sense for americans to be spending 3.5%, 6% of gdp and wealthier europeans spending 1%? That makes no sense. The ministry of defense of new zealand, a reliever on this, she said over the summer, since the cold war, will dismantled our military. The free ride is over.
▶ 2:13:46Sec. Colby: Not only is what we're doing, that is what is happening.
▶ 2:13:50Chair Wicker: Thank you, senator schmitt, for your questions regarding the subject matter of this hearing. Senator kelly.
▶ 2:13:59Sen. Kelly: Thank you. Mine, too, at least the first one, the subject matter. Secretary colby, is that correct administration is justifying the ongoing military operation against iran in part because of the urgent threat posed by iran to U.S. forces in the region and the perceived future threat of running ballistic missiles to the U.S. homeland?
▶ 2:14:27Sec. Colby: From a general perspective -- I would not comment on the legal rationale but certainly from a general strategic point of view, absolutely.
▶ 2:14:36Sen. Kelly: So your 2026 national defense strategy downgraded the middle east and did not label it as a core strategic theater on the same level as the indo pacific and the western hemisphere. Correct?
▶ 2:14:51Sec. Colby: I think when we said we were very clear on -- the proposed threat by iran and its missile program and the potential for resumption of its nuclear program after operation midnight hammer and the need to give the president options.
▶ 2:15:07Sen. Kelly: Put on the core strategic theater question, it was the indo pacific and the western hemisphere that should be the focus.
▶ 2:15:13Sec. Colby: The overarching focus of the american military is homeland hemisphere and first island chain.
▶ 2:15:20Sen. Kelly: That is how I read it. When that was drafted, to the administration believe as it claims now that iran was close to having a ballistic missile capability that could threaten the homeland?
▶ 2:15:36Sec. Colby: I defer to my intelligence community collects on the specifics of that question. Obviously, the administration, I think I can speak for the administration as a whole, thinks they are running missile program is --
▶ 2:15:50Sen. Kelly: How about you?
▶ 2:15:52Sec. Colby: Yes.
▶ 2:15:54Sen. Kelly: He believed iran was close to having a ballistic missile capability that could range the united states? >> we're talking about the general threat of running cruise missiles one way attack towards we are seeing now.
▶ 2:16:09Sen. Kelly: But those are different.
▶ 2:16:10Sec. Colby: I would differ --
▶ 2:16:14Sen. Kelly: I would talk about a missile that could get to the united states.
▶ 2:16:19Sec. Colby: Sorry, I'm not trying to be evasive. On that question I would differ to judge community colleagues. It is not limited to whatever the status of that is.
▶ 2:16:31Sen. Kelly: Sounds like you did not know of anything that could range united states are close to it. Here's the thing I'm trying to understand whether you believe iran to be primarily contained by a regional partners which is what you wrote a few weeks ago or is it an imminent threat to the united states as president trump, secretary hegseth and secretary rubio have told the american people over the last few days -- it can't be both.
▶ 2:16:55Sec. Colby: Operation midnight hammer obviously was written before operation epic fury but we fully anticipated providing the present with credible military options to do with the iranian threat.
▶ 2:17:08Sen. Kelly: Here's the thing, Mr. secretary, none of us here heard about iran having missile technology that was that advanced. Being able to range united states or in close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The last thing we heard from the president on the nuclear weapon before this war, as he calls it, it was the iranian nuclear program was obliterated. That means completely eliminated.
▶ 2:17:39Sen. Kelly: Gone for good. That is what obliterated means. Then on saturday, this administration started a war on that basis inconsistent with the document that I think you are responsible for. And now, at least six U.S. service members have paid the ultimate price. Based on this notion that iran posed an imminent threat to the united states, to the homeland, and to our military.
▶ 2:18:08Sen. Kelly: And many more are risking their lives right now to eliminate a threat that six weeks ago when you published that document, you didn't really believe existed.
▶ 2:18:19Sec. Colby: I think it is demonstrably untrue the strategy did not count for the military to use -- I think it is demonstrably untrue the document did not count against a provision of credible military options for the president to use force. It specifically refers to that. Obviously, I think the military campaign that is underway --
▶ 2:18:45Sen. Kelly: Wouldn't you think it would be a primary theater we would be focused on in the document if that threat, imminent threat to the homeland existed?
▶ 2:18:51Sec. Colby: The document countenances the military force globally as part of the strategy.
▶ 2:19:00Sen. Kelly: I'm about out of time. I think it is important to say we have seen this playbook before. It is what dragged us into a war decades ago. A blood he in iraq -- a bloodied war in iraq. If you intend to avoid this mistake again, I think we have to rethink about how we need to be really straight with the american people about what is going on. Thank you.
▶ 2:19:23Chair Wicker: Thank you, senator. Senator banks.
▶ 2:19:28Sen. Banks: Securing the western hemisphere is not a distraction from deterring china. Securing our own backyard enables us to project power to the indo pacific and beyond. Just look at panama. Secretary colby come just a removal of chinese companies from the canal zone support our ability to search forces to the pacific?
▶ 2:19:50Sec. Colby: I think the ability to operate freely and without any hindrance through the canal is essential.
▶ 2:19:56Sen. Banks: Look at venezuela where the majuro regime -- your regime heavily discounted oil to china, same for china, however reduce discounted oil shipments from venezuela possibly now iran impact china?
▶ 2:20:14Sen. Banks: >> I defer to my colleagues but I think one of the things we are seeing is this perception that everything was connected and that these sort of aligned adversaries is a lesser administration would put it is not happening. The president through his diplomacy is a so-so targeted use been able to break off in key respects, even working with a government that obviously majuro has been brought to justice or is being charged.
▶ 2:20:44Sen. Banks: We can put a lot more and they're much more compliant with reasonable conception of our interest and I think it is demonstrating and enlisting a lot of support in the region and beyond showing people from I think senator scott said, people want to associate with our country.
▶ 2:21:00Sen. Banks: The nds talks about our adversaries coordinating aggression across multiple theaters. If iran were no longer a threat to the U.S. and our allies, how would that impact our ability to respond record dated aggression?
▶ 2:21:11Sec. Colby: The degradation of a running military powers is the goal of the campaign being carried out, certainly will lessen the middle east and will put us in a better position from that point of view.
▶ 2:21:26Sen. Banks: How would that free up military assets that could be assigned to indo pecan?
▶ 2:21:30Sec. Colby: I think I have a lot of confidence in our military forces that hopefully that should put us in a position where iran at a minimum is not significant back and I discussed with the minority members allowed, there may be a range of more optimistic outcomes in terms of fundamental change in the government and the islamic republic but in any case, it will be significantly degraded and put in a position where our very model ally israel which is willing and able to take a lot
▶ 2:22:00Sec. Colby: More responsibility, our golf partners were doing a lot but defensively but also increasing assertively. European allies are moving more assertively. I think that will put us in a position where obviously the U.S. will still play a very important role in the middle east but allow us to enable this focus on the first island chain.
▶ 2:22:20Sen. Banks: I want to give president trump a lot of credit for his historic arm sale to taiwan in december. How do fms cases like this contribute to taiwan's ability to assist U.S. forces in the denial mission?
▶ 2:22:32Sec. Colby: Honestly, issue of taiwan is particularly sensitive one and we are clear in the national defense strategy we are not changing or seeking to change american policy or declare -- policy in any way but it has been the position of the united states promised half a century to provide taiwan with weapons of a defensive character and to oppose the use of violence or coercion to change the status quo. I think our policies are consistent with that.
▶ 2:23:03Sec. Colby: Also consistent as I spoke with the chairman about earlier with the strong and clear but quiet, I think this defense strategy and approach of this administration is more focused on delivering on results and I think we could favorably compare president trump that respect to president biden who was very vocal in a number of ways but did less in terms of the ability to actually deter.
▶ 2:23:27Sen. Banks: How important is it that taiwan pass is special defense budget?
▶ 2:23:31Sec. Colby: I would not comment specifically on taiwan due to sensitivity but it is vital our allies and partners who expect our defense to do their part for defense. And I think members of this committee I think have been making at this point very clearly.
▶ 2:23:49Chair Wicker: What was the question?
▶ 2:23:54Sen. Banks: About taiwan passing a special defense to find their capabilities.
▶ 2:23:57Chair Wicker: Thank you.
▶ 2:23:59Sec. Colby: Members of this committee I think you're making a similar point and I've said without specifically addressing the issue of taiwan, etc. But in general, it is critical our allies and part of step up to defend themselves if they expect us to potentially defend them. I think that message is important.
▶ 2:24:18Sen. Banks: I has 17 more questions about the chairman took my time.
▶ 2:24:26Chair Wicker: Thank you, senator banks. Senator kaine. You have been very patient.
▶ 2:24:34Sen. Kaine: Mr. secretary, I don't like responding to colleagues after they have left the room but collects race to other committee hearings and I get that. Senator mullin asserted because we don't like president trump. He has misstated the concern. I think I can speak for most of my colleagues who have concerns as they are concerned is this, have we learned nothing from 25 years of war and the middle east?
▶ 2:25:05Sen. Kaine: Or than 14,000 U.S. troops and contractors killed? More than 61,000 U.S. troops and contractors injured, including one on our committee. Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost in iraq and afghanistan. $8.2 trillion the estimate is what the U.S. taxpayer has paid for the wars and the necessary v.a. Care for those who have suffered and the debt we incurred to find the wars.
▶ 2:25:34Sen. Kaine: And so you may criticizes for raising these concerns but virginians have lived through wars that very little people can see was worth that degree of sacrifice. To also make some corrections for the record, the iran deal was a bad deal read was a bad deal r.
▶ 2:26:03Sen. Kaine: He ignored their advice to get out of it that it was going to lead iran to a nuclear weapon. The first paragraph of the deal, karen committed it would never seek to develop or car nuclear weapons that was a forever promise that have been enforced until president trump. There was an assertion that president obama took us to war in syria in 2013.
▶ 2:26:28Sen. Kaine: President obama proposed military action in 2013 and democrats forced him to bring it to the senate foreign relations committee. We said, you don't have the authority to wage war without a vote of congress. We have upheld this constitutional standard against democratic presidents and we are going to uphold it pursuant to our oath against a republican president. So that is what we are worried about. Have we learned nothing.
▶ 2:26:54Sen. Kaine: We hope this will not be a war that will lead to so many casualties but six families are already being informed that their loved ones will never come home. And it may well be more than that. Mr. colby, the national defense strategy, you play a key role in draftsman ship discussion and then it goes up the ranks and gets approved the secretary also gets approved by the president, correct?
▶ 2:27:24Sec. Colby: I would say this strategy has been more extensively coordinated within the department --
▶ 2:27:33Sen. Kaine: But in terms of approval. This does not get published on january 23 without the secretary in the president saying, I'm fine --
▶ 2:27:41Sec. Colby: I wouldn't get into the specifics. It is signed by the secretary of war. It is his statutory responsibility but I would also say -- I would assert this is the most extensively coordinated defense --
▶ 2:27:54Sen. Kaine: The secretary of war is not going to issue it unless the president agrees.
▶ 2:27:57Sec. Colby: Certainly not something a significant.
▶ 2:28:03Sen. Kaine: So you have agreed with me and taken 10 seconds of my time to do so. The national defense strategy no longer will the department be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, resume change, and nationbuilding. Venezuela and iran. I'm not going to ask you whether or not that is interventionism because I'm not going to embarrass you by making you try to say it is not. It is interventionism.
▶ 2:28:30Sen. Kaine: It is interventionism bread second, we hope it is not endless war but we don't know how a particular iran is going to go. Third, is arresting maduro and killing the ayatollah, is that resume change?
▶ 2:28:43Sec. Colby: Senator, I don't think ben is -- I think the venezuela operation is a perfect example --
▶ 2:28:52Sen. Kaine: Just answer my question.
▶ 2:28:53Sec. Colby: I think absolutely we have learned the lesson and I think --
▶ 2:28:59Sen. Kaine: But it is the arrest of a foreign leader in the assassination of another crime is that resume change? Contrary to what you said six weeks ago in the document.
▶ 2:29:07Sec. Colby: What I would say is both operations have learned -- precisely --
▶ 2:29:12Sen. Kaine: Is it regime change? Can you answer the question?
▶ 2:29:17Sec. Colby: Perception of the
▶ 2:29:21Issue -- Join Sen. Kaine: How do you --
▶ 2:29:21Sec. Colby: An interesting debate but I think in the case of it as well --
▶ 2:29:26Sen. Kaine: Let me just say, you are uncomfortable having your own words read to you and are uncomfortable saying the assassination of a leader in the arrest of a leader, you want to acknowledge that his regime change. I think that is very instructive to those listening. Thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 2:29:42Chair Wicker: Thank you very much. Senator sullivan.
▶ 2:29:51Sen. Sullivan: Thank you. Good to see you. I want to thank you. I think we have had a good discussion back and forth. Coming into my office, meeting with other senators, emailing, texting. I appreciate that input from you guys. You guys get input from us. I think it helps both sides. I want to thank you for that. I think it is important. I encourage you to keep it up.
▶ 2:30:23Sen. Sullivan: I appreciate that very much. Look, just to answer senator kaine a little bit, my view iran is been at war for us from us 50 years. They have killed and wounded thousands of service members starting with the beirut bombing, the towers, the ied's that were very sophisticated that the quds force commander.
▶ 2:30:49Sen. Sullivan: They built those, provided them to shia list to shia li militias. I was in a top secret hearing with general dunford and I asked a question, we lost deterrence against iran. They're killing our guys everywhere. They are not afraid but he said, we have lost deterrence. They feel they can kill americans at will with no consequence. So to mike collins college on the other side of the break isle, wake up.
▶ 2:31:17Sen. Sullivan: This country has been at -- to my colleagues on the other set of the aisle, wake up we had to have killed and wounded thousands of our best and brightest. By the way, I was in another classified hearing october 2024. All the top intel officials, the fbi director, 100 U.S. editors about election interference one month before the 2024 elections. I directly asked the fbi director, are the iranian still trying to kill president trump?
▶ 2:31:48Sen. Sullivan: A month before the election. The fbi director s you want to talk about election interference, that is what this was about. Trying to kill the lead candidate. He said, senator, yes, rent is still trying to killed -- government's leadership is still trying to kill the president of the united states. Again, they have been at war with us and I think what is happening now is reestablishing deterrence and the allies that we have in the middle east.
▶ 2:32:15Sen. Sullivan: By the way, it is been a bipartisan goal of every president to make sure the iranians don't get nukes and don't get ballistic missiles. And that is what the president and our brave troops are undertaking right now. Do you have a comment on that?
▶ 2:32:31Sec. Colby: I agree with everything you said. In terms of the threat they pose, I know you are marine and my uncle who is here with me for my nomination was a marine in beirut and was killed. He was missing for a few days. That is less than a lot of people.
▶ 2:32:47Sen. Sullivan: I think 232 marines, 16 soldiers.
▶ 2:32:51Sec. Colby: We have brought in the lessons and as a president said, he is not going to have the yeps I think as he put it yesterday. We are going to learn the lessons of the last 25 years. I think in operation absolute resolve, we have seen the results that a been favorable. Something I really stress without consuming our time, we are at the earliest stages of this campaign.
▶ 2:33:19Sen. Sullivan: It is dangerous, no doubt about it. Let me ask, there's been some articles about munitions and how we are running short of munitions. I don't know if that is true. I am just reading the press. How are we doing on defense industrial base? Do you want to send a message to any other countries around the world who might be reading, hey, america's ally munitions, maybe it is our time to move on taiwan or something. You want to send a message here in a public hearing like don't think about it, we are not low I munitions? Where are we on that?
▶ 2:33:50Sen. Sullivan: Do you want us in a clear message to anyone else who might be --
▶ 2:33:53Sec. Colby: I think our president has got the will and resolve to use the american military, not afraid of it. I would say he spoke on the issue yesterday of munitions and I will get back to that in a second. I would say I know for a fact our potential -- looking at the prowess of the joint force under president trump and secretary hegseth's leadership and they are intimidated and our right to be intimidated.
▶ 2:34:17Sec. Colby: We have the president with a resolve in the department of war is giving them the ability to do so with a strategy but especially $1.5 trillion budget, overall national mobilization of our defense industrial base and allies stepping up.
▶ 2:34:30Sen. Sullivan: Are we making progress? Should our potential adversaries around the world not read these articles about we are running low on munitions and think it is time --
▶ 2:34:40Sec. Colby: Absolutely. I think we need to work hard on the defense industrial base but double should get the wrong impression we are --
▶ 2:34:50Seco Sullivan: I appreciate your visit to alaska we have seen your neighbor officials this coming week, the chief of staff of the army up there I visited with him and his leadership so a lot of military up the most strategic place in the world. I look forward to summoning records.
▶ 2:35:11Chair Wicker: Thank you, senator sullivan. The secretary pointed out early in this hearing that his first visit after confirmation was in alaska. Senator gillibrand.
▶ 2:35:26Sen. Gillibrand: Thank you. Thank you for appearing. The reason why so many people on the side of the aisle are so concerned, it is not that senator sullivan said that we don't know iran is an enemy, that iran is conducted so many terror attacks against the united states through its proxies against our allies multiple times, multiple years, over many, many decades. There is no confusion there.
▶ 2:35:54Sen. Gillibrand: There is no love lost for the ayatollah. And we are grateful for the strategic capability of the bravest men and women in the world in armed services. They can do and execute any mission we give them with precision, with extraordinary bravery and courage. And they will serve regardless of what president trump -- what mission he sends them on.
▶ 2:36:19Sen. Gillibrand: The reason why they're so much consternation is because president trump has not given us a clear reason why he is in iran . If he wants to declare war on iran, that is the job and responsibility of congress under the constitution. So he is subverting our authority in every respect. Second, he has had a mixed message. He has talked about regime change. The secretary of defense has talked about regime change. He has talked about take out the missiles.
▶ 2:36:48Sen. Gillibrand: He has talked about take out the explosives, take out the centrifuges, and take out the capacity to create their weapons. And he has used this messaging over many, many instances. And so we are rightly concerned that president trump does not or has the clarity or disposition to execute a mission that he feels is for the defense of america. We have not heard that. We have not heard how this is an exigent circumstance where he must defend america.
▶ 2:37:18Sen. Gillibrand: From a policy perspective, since you are the under secretary of defense for policy, do you not agree that president trump should be coming to congress asking for an authorization for use of military force?
▶ 2:37:31Sec. Colby: I deferred my colleagues in terms of the legal requirements. I think the military campaign the president directed has clear goals. The destruction and aggregation of the iranian ballistic missile force and production capacity as well is one way attacked roads and the iranian navy and always preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
▶ 2:37:53Sec. Colby: By understanding and speaking for the president but listening extremely closely to him is he has indicated or stated this is a unique opportunity for the iranian people to take matters in their own hands. The fact is there has been substantial degradation and leadership in the islamic republic -- in leadership in the islamic republic. I think the goals of the military campaign that he himself is directed are indeed clear.
▶ 2:38:19Sen. Gillibrand: By those goals are ones that should be directed by congress because they are declarations of war. And if he is interested in america is backing it with overwhelming strength and devastated force and access as other one is freedom for the people, then you should have them to congress first. That is not an exigent circumstance where we must defend the united states. His only authority under the constitution is to protect america if they're being attacked or imminently going to be attacked.
▶ 2:38:48Sen. Gillibrand: We believe the american people have a right to know if we are going to get involved in a war. They have a right part of it through the representatives, congress, senators, house members, to decide whether it is in america's best interest to go to war. The last time I was in new york, what new yorkers want to talk about is the cost of groceries, the cost of housing, the cost of transportation, the cost of medicine. And they voted specifically for nonintervention throughout this country.
▶ 2:39:18Sen. Gillibrand: They voted for lowering costs not forever wars. Those were promises of the trauma administration getting elected. We expect when this country decides to go to war, our citizens will arguably be vulnerable to attack whether they live abroad or serving in the military, that we can use our voices to represent our people and to decide whether we will authorize the use of military force by the president.
▶ 2:39:46Sen. Gillibrand: He owes it to the american people to go through us to ask to go to war.
▶ 2:39:53Sec. Colby: Under the leadership of the administration is going to come this afternoon and brief you and engage with congress. I know how important -- I know secretary rubio is here and I believe secretary hegseth. Exactly what those conversations are going to be, I'm sure you will get detailed answers to your questions.
▶ 2:40:10Chair Wicker: Thank you. We have senator rosen and senator duckworth.
▶ 2:40:20Sen. Rosen: Thank you for this hearing. I also first want to take a moment to share my sorrow for our service members killed and wounded in action over the past few days. I especially want to express my sorrow and gratitude to their families and we must always be sure their sacrifice will not be forgotten. I've always said we can never allow iran to get a nuclear weapon.
▶ 2:40:44Sen. Rosen: And that they are the number one state sponsor of terror around the globe with the blood of american service members, israelis, and countless others on their hands. They have oppressed their own people for decades. Those same people are rightly celebrating what could be the end of the reign of terror. Like so many others, I'm glad the supreme leader is dead. I believe the world is better off without him.
▶ 2:41:06Sen. Rosen: But the president approach to armed conflict and history of repeatedly withholding information and misleading congress raised concerns that he may be leading us into another protracted middle east conflict. Without clear objectives. Without presented evidence that the reigning attack was imminent and without authorization from congress.
▶ 2:41:35Sen. Rosen: Sending in contrast to regional produce of the national defense strategy that we are here to discuss today -- I hope today this hearing will provide some clarity. Secretary colby, I'm going to move on and talk about cyber strategy.
▶ 2:41:56Sen. Rosen: Cyber capabilities integral to the success of our military operations, we are seeing it right now literary powers no longer just about bombs, bullets , cyber has evolved into a fully integrated domain of warfare. Now more than ever, we need a cyber workforce equipped with the expertise to defend our networks which execute offensive operations and rapidly changing battle space to achieve america's national security objectives. The domain has shifted.
▶ 2:42:24Sen. Rosen: We can't fight today's digital wars with outdated and inflexible personnel structure. However, the nds sparingly mentions cyber. I'm surprised how little emphasis has been placed on cyber as compared to other capabilities discussed does not -- understanding of its significance in every area that we engage in.
▶ 2:42:54Sen. Rosen: Not sure it is an urgency or priority for this administration. Why does the strategy fail to protest offensive and defensive cyber capabilities required for addressing today's conflict the cyber environment.
▶ 2:43:15Sec. Colby: I reject the characterization we are not super focused on cyber and it would be happy to go into it in a fantastic -- in my organization have a fantastic assistant secretary for cyber. I believe these to work on this committee. She is leading a real effort on upon the strategic principles to cyber. One point is we did not want to just repeat things that have already been settled on.
▶ 2:43:43Sec. Colby: More of a living kind of -- we don't need to solve every particular problem within a domain or area but rather we want to provide a framework that then create people like Ms. sutton and then go and drive along with general hartman, now the cyber mentor as well is general roddick if confirmed. We see very much that cyber is critical. I think the chairman talked about epic fury.
▶ 2:44:15Sec. Colby: The way we see sever is linked across the board. -- we see cyber is linked across the board.
▶ 2:44:23Sen. Rosen: It is foundational part of to talk about the withdraw from syria and the isis threat. U.S. begin withdrawing troops out of the largest base in northeastern syria last month. It appears to be part of the complete withdrawal from the country. Pleased to see syrian government joined the defeat isis campaign. We have seen repeated isis attacks alas lesser moments including one in december result in the death of does result in the death of two U.S.
▶ 2:44:45Sen. Rosen: Soldiers and a civilian interpreter as well as break us up to 20,000 isis affiliated-individuals so does the department intend to withdraw forces and see it as a threat to U.S. interests?
▶ 2:45:03Sec. Colby: We take very seriously from the president and secretary on down the need to sustain long-term counterterrorism fight and that is encompassed in the strategy and you have seen military operations against isis recently. If a political strategy in syria. Sen.
▶ 2:45:30Sesen. Rosen: I will take this last question off the record.
▶ 2:45:33Chair Wicker: Senator rosen commuted as the next to the last question you asked in the classified session? I think we might get an answer there. Senator duckworth.
▶ 2:45:48Sen. Duckworth: Thank you, Mr. chairman. This week's operations against iran and trump's with military adventurism shows a huge gap between his promises to get america out of foreign wars and his actions. This illegal military campaign against iran has resulted in the deaths of service members so far along with a serious injury of others.
▶ 2:46:13Sen. Duckworth: It was a target on the back of every american in the middle east and it has no clear end state other than vague promises about the freedom of the iranian people. From claims this was necessary to grant imminent threats against americans but he has failed to present a shred of legitimate evidence and this is a pattern.
▶ 2:46:31Sen. Duckworth: Between iran, venezuela, strikes of the caribbean sea, deployment's to american cities threats to greenland and the way he is treating our nato allies, trump has created more chaos than he is eliminating and exhausting our military in the process. He insists on fabricating excuses to push our military to wars of choice. His choice. Instead of preparing for potential future crises that could have real impacts on americans at home and abroad. We are here to talk about the nds so, Mr. colby, I want to talk about our specific nation.
▶ 2:47:02Sen. Duckworth: Every day flashpoints threatened to spill over into war in a region of the united states, the indo pacific. You and I have many conversations about the region. I want to make something clear, we are a pacific nation. Securing americans requires securing the pacific grid where hundreds of thousands of americans live and work and millions more depend on peace for their livelihoods. Five U.S. states and three U.S. territories are either in or along the pacific ocean.
▶ 2:47:27Sen. Duckworth: In fact, the only veterans affairs hospital outside of the united states is in the philippines because so many american veterans call it home. Nds rightly points out, the american economy is powered by key trade and energy routes in the pacific. There are very real signs the people's republic of china is exploiting trump's adventurism to threaten all of this. Just in the last three must come there at least four flashpoints in the prc across the region. In february alone, U.S.
▶ 2:47:55Sen. Duckworth: And chinese fighter jets engage in a state of near south korea and in the south china sea from the philippine coast guard claim the prc jammed their internet access the first time the communications have been disrupted. To show what americans might lose if this administration gets a crisis in the indo pacific, I want to discuss with you just one example out of dozens of possible regional flashpoints the disputed islands on the western side of the philippines. Mr.
▶ 2:48:22Sen. Duckworth: Colby, do you agree one of dod's major decisions in the initial hours of any crisis will be coordinated with the state department and local nations on how to deploy the military to ensure the safety of american families, including range of noncombatant evacuation if necessary? Anywhere?
▶ 2:48:39Sec. Colby: I do and I was doing that in the middle of the night last night.
▶ 2:48:47Sen. Duckworth: More than 750,000 americans are living in the country and they would be caught in the crossfire and getting them out would involve coordination across as many as six countries air spaces across southeast asia. Mr. colby, you agree dod would need to make quick decisions about how our military should be used to protect access routes and sites where ice is key to global and domestic economy?
▶ 2:49:09Sec. Colby: I do and if I could briefly say I think the U.S. philippines relationship and alliance is especially critical and I think we have made tremendous progress over the last year.
▶ 2:49:19Sen. Duckworth: Yes, we have prayed public on the western side of the philippines of the south china sea could disrupt as much as one third of global maritime trade, especially supplies of oil, gas, electronics, agricultural goods americans depend on, generating economic catastrophe for americans at home. There's a clear danger to this administration's failure to prepare for crisis in this region that is the central to american prosperity. If U.S. delays response to p.r.c. Exploited, we have to be ready right away.
▶ 2:49:46Sen. Duckworth: But that requires focus and preparation. And it can't be done when indo pacific is not a top priority. And it can't be done with president trump insists on illegally and recklessly using our military to generate chaos around the world. If we continue to strain our military with wars of choice all over the world and make our enemies that whether we will deepen our interest in the pacific, we will all lose. I cannot emphasize how important it is we continue to focus on the indo pacific.
▶ 2:50:16Sec. Colby: Needless to say I disagree with your characterization of the president. I will stress that is exactly why we are focusing on data pacific I agree -- the indo pacific and I am personally focused and people like the admiral watching things carefully and operated from a position of strong and clear but quiet and very close alignment with our allies and partners in the region. My first trip to korea and japan.
▶ 2:50:45Sec. Colby: My first call I believe on operation epic fury was the minister of the philippines. We are laser focused on the first island chain.
▶ 2:50:55Chair Wicker: Senator duckworth, thank you for ending our public hearing with a question about this subject matter of the hearing. It is 11:36. The committee will reconvene in the senate and precisely 15 minutes. We are adjourned.