During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) questioned Anthony J. Tata, nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, about his commitments if confirmed.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Thank you, Senators. Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tata, thank you for being here
00:07and also meeting with me in my office in March. I want to get right to it here. In a since-deleted
00:15tweet published on November 8, 2024, you tweeted, and this is a quote, the Pentagon is hyper-politicized
00:24and needs a thorough vetting to include senior active-duty military personnel who are participating
00:32in these discussions. You went on to tweet, loyalty to the Constitution is the only test,
00:41and then outlined six must-do actions, including two, this is number five, review every SES
00:51appointment and find a path to off-ramping many. They are a large part of the resistance
00:56in DOD and will lead the underground efforts to undermine the administration as they did
01:03in 2016 to 2020. And then number six, so that was five, this is six, appoint strong leaders
01:10who are aligned with POTUS's vision. No independent agendas, all oars in the water to achieve
01:20Trump Agenda 47, end of quote. Mr. Tata, what did you mean by the fact that leaders should
01:29be, quote, aligned with POTUS's vision to achieve Trump Agenda 47?
01:35Senator, thank you for the opportunity to have this conversation. The Trump Agenda 47 is one
01:42piece through strength, strengthening rebuilding our military, focusing on not engaging in needless
01:50wars. And that tweet was in direct response to a CNN article that discussed credible sources
02:01of generals and admirals having conversations about how to resist lawful orders from the commander-in-chief
02:10who was appointed under Article 2 of the Constitution as the commander-in-chief. And so I found it
02:17quite unacceptable that admirals and generals, as reported by CNN, were having conversations
02:25about how to resist our president and for lawful orders. And in so doing, I was also shocked
02:35that General Brown had never acknowledged this report, said it was bogus, or...
02:41Who was the report by?
02:42CNN. It was an article by CNN that cited credible sources that said that admirals and generals
02:50are having conversations about how to resist lawful orders from the president. Lawful orders
02:57they didn't like.
02:57Let me ask you this. So which is more important, loyalty to the Constitution or loyalty to the
03:05administration's agenda or to the president?
03:08We all raise our right hand, Senator, to uphold and defend the Constitution. And it's also very
03:16important that we accomplish the president's vision of no unnecessary wars, rebuilding the military, taking
03:28care of our men and women in uniform. Those are all the goals that I'm talking about. And I found
03:35it reprehensible that admirals and generals in the Pentagon were having conversations about how to
03:43usurp the commander-in-chief's authority that's given to him by our Constitution, Article 2, and disobey lawful
03:52orders. How were they going to resist? And that's what I found offensive, Senator.
03:57Well, I think it's interesting that folks who often don't give a lot of credence to what
04:06comes from CNN are now quoting CNN as a reliable source when it is convenient in a political argument.
04:15So I do. So I think you're saying that loyalty to the Constitution comes above loyalty to any
04:26individual, including the president. Is that correct?
04:29I've raised my right hand for 44 years to support and defend our Constitution, Senator. And I also
04:38believe it's important as a political appointee, if confirmed, that all the vision of the president
04:46and the administration gets implemented appropriately.
04:49So if you're confirmed and sworn into this position, who will you be swearing an oath to?
04:57I will swear an oath to the Constitution Center.
05:00And are you willing to get fired from this job?
05:02Absolutely.
05:03Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.