Speaker 1 (00:01):
60 Minutes Overtime.
Major Garrett (00:06):
CBS News has three sources telling us that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran on US positions and movements. The average American might hear that and think that's a big and dangerous deal, is it?
Pete Hegseth (00:18):
Well, we're tracking everything. Our commanders are aware of everything. We have the best intelligence in the world. We're aware of who's talking to who, why they're talking to them, how accurate that information might be, how we factor that into our battle plans, our CENTCOM commander. So, we know what's going on and the president has an incredible knack at knowing how to mitigate those risks. And so, the American people can rest assured, their commander-in-chief is well-aware of who's talking to who and anything that shouldn't be happening, whether it's in public or back-channeled, is being confronted and confronted strongly.
Major Garrett (00:50):
The American people can therefore expect conversations with the Russians to stop this?
Pete Hegseth (00:54):
Well, President Trump, as people have seen, has a unique relationship with a lot of world leaders where he can get things done that other presidents, certainly Joe Biden, never could have. And through direct conversations or indirect through him one-to-one or through his cabinet, messages definitely can be delivered.
Major Garrett (01:11):
Does this put US personnel in any more danger than they otherwise would be, the Russian involvement.
Pete Hegseth (01:16):
Well, no one's putting us in danger. We're putting the other guys in danger. That's our job. So, we're not concerned about that. We mitigate it as we need to. Our commanders factor all of this, but the only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians that think they're going to live.
Major Garrett (01:31):
The president said recently, "There will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender." What does that look like, unconditional surrender? How will you know it's real?
Pete Hegseth (01:39):
It means we're fighting to win. It means we set the terms. We'll know when they're not capable of fighting. There'll be a point where they'll have no choice but to do that. Whether they know it or not, they will be combat ineffective. They will surrender.
Major Garrett (01:52):
Typically, the understanding of a surrender is person-to-person. Is that what would be required in a matter like this?
Pete Hegseth (01:57):
Well, there's a lot of different ways. Whether they want to admit it or not, whether their pride lets them say it out loud or not. It's President Trump will set the terms of that. Again, combat ineffective. We're fighting to win. He sets the terms. We'll decide when they're ready or not. We'll decide when our objectives are met. President Trump has set those clear objectives, but what I think some folks have been confused by is that our will might be limited or our capabilities might be limited or our munitions might be limited. They're wrong. And the Iranians are wrong to miscalculate American will and American authorities and American capabilities and American munitions. We have just now begun to fight, just now begun to surge. And so, if the Iranians haven't factored that into who's going to be the winner at the outcome of this, over time they'll start to realize how deep President Trump's will is on this fight.
Major Garrett (02:48):
There was a very long war between Iran and Iraq, almost eight years, and they never surrendered in that war. And I'm just wondering if that factors into your calculus of the president's [inaudible 00:02:57]?
Pete Hegseth (02:57):
I mean, there was a really long fight that I was a part of and my generation was a part of.
Major Garrett (03:00):
Yes, I know that, sir.
Pete Hegseth (03:00):
... in Iraq and Afghanistan, where a lot of foolish approaches were used. This is war. This is conflict. This is bringing your enemy to their knees. Now, whether they will have a ceremony in Tehran Square and surrender, that's up to them. But ultimately, their ability to fight, their ability to project power, their ability to shoot missiles, their ability to confront us, their ability to shut down shipping, all of those things will decide the terms of that, and President Trump has made that very clear.
Major Garrett (03:30):
Understood. You just said the word war. Earlier this week, Speaker Mike Johnson said, the US "is not at war right now." Are we at war? Is he confused about that?
Pete Hegseth (03:42):
The lawyers will debate all these things and we have great lawyers and we're making sure it's all buttoned up. There's a reason we changed our name from the Department of Defense to the Department of War. Not because we seek war, not because we want more war. Frankly, we want peace. That's what the president has put us in charge of, creating a world where we can live more peacefully. But if war is necessary, call it war, call it conflict, call it a campaign, call it an operation, call it a contingency, call it what you want, if war is necessary, we're going to fight to win. And that's different than what Joe Biden had done, or Barack Obama had done, or others have done in this position. Or take that long war I talked about in Iraq. George W. Bush and others sending in hundreds of thousands of troops with a nebulous end state, dissolving the security forces and then unleashing an insurgency that had us tied there for over a decade, costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
(04:33)
President Trump's not fighting that way, and if the world hasn't taken notice of that yet, they're not fully factoring in how this commander-in-chief leads. He leads with clarity, with the clear America-first objectives that protect our people and our interests. And then, he gives the military everything they need to accomplish it. That means we set the terms. That means we decide when our mission is achieved and then we bring our folks home, which I think is what the American people expect, that kind of strength from a commander in chief.
Major Garrett (05:01):
The speaker of the House said late this week, "The mission is," and I'm quoting him directly here, "nearly accomplished by all estimates." Is that true?
Pete Hegseth (05:09):
We're very much on track, on plan. I was down at CENTCOM-
Major Garrett (05:13):
Someone might hear that and think it's almost over.
Pete Hegseth (05:15):
Well, we're not flying a mission accomplished banner like George W. Bush on an aircraft carrier. We're not doing that and we haven't done that. But we can be clear with the American people that this is not a fair fight, and that's on purpose. Our capabilities are overwhelming compared to what Iran's are. And frankly, when you combine our Air Force with the Air Force of the Israeli Defense Forces, it's the two most powerful Air Forces in the world. The ability for us to be up over the top and hunting with more conventional munitions, gravity bombs, 500-pound, 1,000-pound, 2,000-pound bombs on military targets, we haven't even really begun to start that effort of the campaign, which is going to showcase even more how we will execute on those objectives. So, he's trying to explain the fact that we have an overwhelming advantage, which we do, but we'll decide when our objectives are met and we'll get there.
Major Garrett (06:04):
You mentioned America-first. Some who identify with that movement, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene, have said from their perspective, this isn't an America-first campaign. Do you want to address that criticism?
Pete Hegseth (06:17):
All I know is I'm in the room every day and I see how President Trump operates and what he's putting first and it's America, Americans and American interests at every level. How long should our bases be tolerating thousands of short-range ballistic missiles in one-way attack drones pointing at our bases and our people? After 47 years of Americans being targeted and killed, the men I served with in combat in Iraq coming home with no arms and no legs targeted by Iranian EFPs, thousands of Americans killed. Beirut. You want to go back? We can go back to how long...
(06:48)
I mean, the regime itself is premised on death to America. So, 47 years, thousands of missiles, and an unrelenting pursuit of nuclear ambitions. I mean, President Trump's right. When he says we obliterated their nuclear program, he's right. We did. We dropped those bombs exactly where they needed to be, set them back. But that doesn't mean they've stopped their pursuit. Doesn't mean in the back of their mind they're thinking, "Well, maybe we'll wait it out and keep..." They've miscalculated the resolve of President Trump. Ask Nicolás Maduro about that. Ask the Houthis about that. Look at the Southern Border. Look at the cartels and drug boats. When President Trump says he'll take care of something, he's going to take care of it.
Major Garrett (07:27):
Let's talk about the nukes for a second. Is it possible to achieve the objectives President Trump has set before you if we don't locate and obtain and extract the highly-enriched uranium?
Pete Hegseth (07:38):
There's a lot of different ways we can get after that. They've used a conventional umbrella of missiles that was growing every single day, their production capacity to try to cover over their nuclear blackmail ambitions. As far as how you get at that nuclear option, we'll make sure that their nuclear ambitions are never achieved.
Major Garrett (07:56):
Will we take it out ourselves?
Pete Hegseth (07:58):
Well, I would never tell you or anybody else what our options are. See, that's another thing. People keep asking-
Major Garrett (08:02):
It's a legitimate question.
Pete Hegseth (08:03):
It's a very fair question. People ask, "Boots on the ground? No boots on the ground? Four weeks, two weeks, six weeks? Go in? Go in?" President Trump knows, I know, you don't tell the enemy, you don't tell the press, you don't tell anybody what your limits would be on an operation. We're willing to go as far as we need to in order to be successful. We want the Iranians guessing and second guessing and triple guessing what we might be willing to do because under President Trump, we just might and they need to factor for that.
Major Garrett (08:33):
Do we have any overt or covert forces inside Iran now?
Pete Hegseth (08:40):
I wouldn't tell you that if we did.
Major Garrett (08:43):
Only reason I ask is earlier this week you said no, is that still the answer?
Pete Hegseth (08:48):
Yeah, that's still the answer, but we reserve the right. We would be completely unwise if we did not reserve the right to take any particular option, whether it included boots on the ground or no boots on the ground.
Major Garrett (08:59):
President Trump also said this week he would like to protect some of the people who he would like to come to power in Iran. Is that a new mission for your department?
Pete Hegseth (09:07):
No.
Major Garrett (09:08):
How would you protect people that are inside the country that he might think could rise to the level of leadership there?
Pete Hegseth (09:14):
Well, the best way to protect them is what we're doing right now. What you see right now between American efforts and Israeli efforts is a generational opportunity for the people of Iran. What happens, how that gets followed through with, they'll choose. The president has been clear, "Now, is your time." Not yet. Bombs are dropping, be careful. But over time, the Iranian people are going to have a great opportunity. And if they do seize that opportunity, they will have President Trump to thank for it.
Major Garrett (09:40):
Do you want the Kurds involved to help them with that?
Pete Hegseth (09:43):
That would be up to them, but that's not currently part of our mission scope.
Major Garrett (09:46):
You know they're massing in Northern Iraq and some of them are approaching the border, thinking it might be a good time for them to go in.
Pete Hegseth (09:52):
Well, we know a lot about what's going on.
Major Garrett (09:55):
Would you discourage them from that?
Pete Hegseth (09:56):
I would say that when you look at our mission set, we have described it very clearly what it is. Whatever other groups attempt to take advantage of that, that's on them and we wish them well, but that's not part of what we're doing.
Major Garrett (10:07):
Would we coordinate with them?
Pete Hegseth (10:09):
Well, I wouldn't tell you who we are willing to coordinate with or not.
Major Garrett (10:11):
Understood. It has been said that the Israelis, through Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, provided on February 23rd, key information about intelligence they had developed about the likely whereabouts of Ali Khamenei and many in his inner circle. That the US then checked it out through the CIA, confirmed that, and that was an opportunity that presented itself to the president. And that was the precipitating factor for this war. That's the way it's been reported. Is that accurate, Mr. Secretary?
Pete Hegseth (10:40):
President Trump's approach has been our interest in advancing those interests from the beginning. And so, the fact that intelligence was gathered, whether from Israelis or ours, and always checked by our intel agencies to make sure it's accurate. A lot of times the best way to start operations is a trigger-based or condition-based moment. And you can work together on whether that makes sense, but we were always controlling the throttle about whether or not to go or not go. And ultimately, to advance American interest and protect American lives.
Major Garrett (11:11):
Some might look at that sequence of events and say, "Well, then it was an opportunity more than an imminent threat."
Pete Hegseth (11:16):
I mean, I think much of that discussion is silly and academic. They've been killing us for 48 years, 47 years. They have unabated nuclear ambitions. And when we obliterated their nuclear program at the end of the 12-day war in Operation Midnight Hammer, they should have come to the table and said, "Okay, we get it. You mean business? We're not going to have nukes," and they haven't. And as a result, when the president looks at it, generationally, he sees a threat that would continue to gather. And if they build more missiles with a conventional shield, then that's a danger to US persons, US people and our interests. And unlike previous presidents, President Trump had the courage and the boldness to act, and I'm grateful we have such a commander in chief.
Major Garrett (12:00):
You said, "This is not a regime change war, but the regime has changed. That's obvious." Can you square the two?
Pete Hegseth (12:06):
Sure.
Major Garrett (12:07):
Go ahead.
Pete Hegseth (12:09):
I meant what I said. It's not a regime change war in the conventional George W. Bush context of hundreds of thousands of troops. I mean, in Afghanistan, what I watched as a young captain was Americans thinking we were going to remake a society that was basically biblical times with AK-47s and cell phones. The hubris of, "We're going to take Afghanistan and turn it into a Jeffersonian democracy by building Western-style forces and Western-style institutions." It was never going to work and I saw it and watched it play out. And it doesn't dispel the courage of the Americans who fought there, who I know there, but this is not a remaking of the Iranian society from an American perspective. We tried that. The American people have rejected that. President Trump called those wars dumb, and we're not fighting that way.
(12:55)
And so, that's the paradigm I hope Americans will look at this... This is a president who believes that American strength is important, that we get more peace in the world when we are strong, and that the Iranian regime seeking these kinds of nuclear weapons, it was an unacceptable risk for the United States of America, and he took action. And what you're seeing now is overwhelming swift action, not to simply compel a slight change in a week, but to truly get rid of that threat and provide maximum options and decision space for the president on behalf of American interests in the world.
Major Garrett (13:27):
President also said this week, "Venezuela is a model." What did he mean by that in Iran?
Pete Hegseth (13:33):
I heard a few senators in our closed door briefings say, "Well, how do you know this is going to end up like Venezuela?" Citing now Venezuela as the positive model of what these types of things can look like. Of course, it would be incredible if it ends up looking like Venezuela. They're very different countries. We're not foolish enough to think that they look the same or have the same dynamics. Again, these comparisons are thrown out there as if we don't understand that, we very much do. But Venezuela is a great example of American power and pressure on an adversary who had a lot of capabilities in our own hemisphere, which previous presidents tolerated for far too long.
(14:09)
The Trump corollary to the Monroe doctrine, the Donroe doctrine is alive and well. We just held a conference yesterday, America's Counter Cartel Conference, where we're building together countries in Central South and America and the Caribbean to fight the cartels. I mean, he's going on offense against problems that have been lingering for a long time, but we're doing it smartly. We're doing it with a power projection and application, seeking certain outcomes. And so far, because of the way the president leads, we've achieved them.
Major Garrett (14:37):
Since you brought us into that room where you got that question from those senators, "How could it be like Venezuela?" What did you tell them?
Pete Hegseth (14:44):
Well, that was more of an observation. We didn't say anything on that. Just the fact that they're now citing Venezuela as a positive outcome, considering two months ago, everyone was saying, "You can't do Venezuela." I mean, the reality is what a shining example of what American strength can produce and outcome folks thought was almost unforeseeable. And now, we've got American officials there, we're reestablishing relationships. We've got an embassy there. They're participating and making sure that oil only goes through the proper processes, expelling Iranians, totally remaking what was an adversary into a strategic opportunity. I think it's an incredible thing and a story that needs to be told.
Major Garrett (15:21):
Let's talk about oil. President said this week, "The Strait of Hormuz will be taken care of." How will that be taken care of? And how will the ships that are there, that are not moving, start to move and be moving with a degree of confidence that they will not be inhibited by what remains of the Iranian either boats or gun implacements along that strait?
Pete Hegseth (15:40):
Well, we're taking care of a lot of that.
Major Garrett (15:42):
How?
Pete Hegseth (15:42):
Well, American firepower. What was the Iranian Navy is largely no more. There'll be more boats to be sunk for sure. So, their ability to project any power in that area in a naval sense is being-
Major Garrett (15:55):
Is diminishing?
Pete Hegseth (15:57):
Diminishing, and will be increasingly diminished. Again, what I want your viewers to understand is this is only just the beginning. We are only just now getting over the top of the country with impunity where now the munitions we're dropping are still precision-guided munitions. We've got unlimited supplies of them and we'll be picking those targets and sinking those boats. But I would also remind your audience, it's early. It's six days into this campaign, six days. So, we are going to have a lot more options over time on critical waterways like that to ensure that we can safeguard them and make sure safe passage-
Major Garrett (16:30):
From your vantage point, and I imagine from the direction of the president, we are not going to have a global oil shock as a result of this conflict?
Pete Hegseth (16:38):
Well, certainly, we've got a world-class energy secretary and treasury secretary and interior secretary, all who know that industry really well and have a deep reservoir of relationships, so they've got an eye on that for sure. And we've got allies and partners willing to participate in mitigating that. But the president's also been clear that, hey, he's prepared to see this through, mitigating that, but also not allowing that to be a limiting factor. This is a generational challenge he's prepared to be addressing. When we want to manage all those things, but ultimately taking care of Iran's power-projection capabilities changes the world for a generation and gives an opportunity to that region in ways that we haven't experienced before.
Major Garrett (17:18):
So, when I just heard you say, Mr. Secretary, "not a limiting factor," is that a way of saying to the American public, "You might have to deal with something that's a little bit uncomfortable in terms of oil and gas prices for a little bit of while because it's a larger, more important goal to achieve"?
Pete Hegseth (17:32):
Well, it's my way of saying that it is an important goal to achieve, but we have the best team on the planet addressing it. So, anything that does happen on the energy side is after maximum mitigation and not done so lightly. But ultimately, this objective and achieving this objective is critically important. And we can do it not just with overwhelming lethality, but with precision as well, and that's how we aim to do it.
Major Garrett (17:55):
You were asked earlier in the week about this girls' school. You said the US was investigating it. Have you made any conclusions about whether or not the United States advertently or not was involved in any military strike at that school?
Pete Hegseth (18:07):
Well, we're still investigating, and that's where I'll leave it today. But what I will emphasize to you into the world is that unlike our adversaries, the Iranians, we never target civilians.
Major Garrett (18:17):
There was a report late in the week from two officials that it was likely US involvement. Is that report false?
Pete Hegseth (18:22):
I've already said we're investigating.
Major Garrett (18:24):
If you could tell the American public, "It definitively was not us," you would tell us, wouldn't you?
Pete Hegseth (18:29):
I would say that it's being investigated, which is the only answer I'm prepared to give.
Major Garrett (18:33):
There's reporting from our Margaret Brennan that not us, but allies in the region are running very low on interceptors. Is that true, number one? Number two, how prepared are we to help them restock interceptors to protect them as we continue this campaign?
Pete Hegseth (18:49):
Very prepared. We plan for that. As you heard Admiral Cooper yesterday layout, the CENTCOM commander, their missile projection is down 90% from that height. Excuse me, missile shots. So, if they can't shoot anywhere near that volume, our projections and munitions are well beyond what we would need and we can cross-load for allies if need be. Always ensuring that our forces and our troops and our bases are taken care of first, but where we can help allies, we will.
(19:17)
And I will just say that as we continue to attrit missile launchers... That's the biggest one. They have a very limited supply of missile launchers. It's like lots of bullets without a gun. If you got 5,000 rounds of 9mm, but you'd only have two pistols, once you get rid of the two pistols, you don't have anything. And so, those launchers are what we've been targeting with great success. And if they want to continue shooting, they have to continue exposing them, which means we continue to target them. And then, you get at the missiles as well, and then you get at the missile production, and then you get at the drones. And the more you do that, the less interceptors you need in that process.
(19:50)
That's one of the theories of the case is that you've got all these American troops and all these American bases and others with missiles pointed at them in a way that you can't tolerate with a country that's seeking nuclear weapons. So, we don't have concerns on munition. Our projections are clear and we're also supercharging the defense industrial base in our own country. And there's a reason I spent the previous month on an Arsenal of Freedom Tour, going across the country, ensuring that our defense contractors are delivering. We're about to meet with them and talked about ensuring that they deliver.
(20:18)
Speed, scale, under cost. We're setting out demand signals for years of critical munitions to make sure that we're full up beyond what we need. We have more munitions than we need. We need even more for that for the world that we live in. And that's why the president's spending $1.5 trillion on defense next year. We take this deadly seriously. There's a lot of countries that talk about this stuff. There's a lot of forums that happen in Europe and they debate these questions and problems. President Trump takes them head on, on behalf of the security of the American people. He's a unique and generational leader.
Major Garrett (20:47):
Admiral Cooper also made reference to drone capabilities for the Iranians. What would you assess them to be and how much of a risk factor is that, not just for those US forces' position, but our allies in the region?
Pete Hegseth (20:57):
We're taking them on. As we see in the war in Ukraine and Russia, drone warfare is part of future warfare, there's no doubt about it. We're ahead-
Major Garrett (21:05):
It's exponentially advanced in the last four or five years.
Pete Hegseth (21:09):
No doubt. And we've advanced with it. That's why we've made drone dominance one of the top priorities of the Pentagon. The Department of War is ahead and going to surge ahead in our ability to scale drones, simple drones, attributable drones, one-way attack drones, exquisite drones. I mean, it's Predator drones that do a lot of the hunting of these mobile launchers and others. So, when it comes to drone technology, we're surging quickly. We know what they've got and we know how to mitigate it and we're getting after it.
Major Garrett (21:38):
Are they harder to stop?
Pete Hegseth (21:40):
I wouldn't say harder, it's just a different problem set. What is good to see though six days in is that they're having to scoot and shoot because they see-
Major Garrett (21:47):
What does that mean?
Pete Hegseth (21:48):
Meaning, if you're not under threat, just like anything else with a rifle, you can take your time and aim and point. It's a lot easier. But when there's a threat of a loitering munition or something striking you once you shoot, you get out there quickly and set up and try to fire more quickly and then hide again. You're just not as accurate in that context. So, their salvos are less accurate and a lower volume, which allows us more opportunities to shoot them down.
(22:11)
I want to say though, and the president's been clear about this, it doesn't mean they won't have some get through, as we tragically saw, and we're going to greet those families at Dover and honor and respect the sacrifice they gave. And president's been right to say there will be casualties. Things like this don't happen without casualties. There will be more casualties. And I mean, especially our generation knows what it's like to see Americans come home in caskets, but that doesn't weaken us one bit. It stiffens our spine and our resolve to say, "This is a fight we will finish on behalf-"
Major Garrett (22:43):
You said at CENTCOM rededicate.
Pete Hegseth (22:44):
Rededicate to the mission on behalf of recognizing their service and sacrifice in Operation Epic Fury. So, that will happen, it's combat, it's war, as the president has... We don't say that callously or loosely, but if Iran thinks they're going to attrit our will, they're wrong. Our capabilities are better. Our will is better. Our troops are better. The providence of our almighty God is there protecting those troops, and we're committed to this mission.
Major Garrett (23:12):
And you made that reference to the providence of Almighty God. Is there any part of you, Mr. Secretary, that views any of this in a religious context?
Pete Hegseth (23:19):
I mean, obviously, we're fighting religious fanatics who seek a nuclear capability in order for some religious Armageddon. But from my perspective, I mean, obviously, I'm a man of faith who encourages our troops to lean into their faith, rely on God. There's no atheists in foxholes. Your mortality's right in front of you. I remember prayer for me on combat missions, how important that was. That's why we're making the Chaplain Corps great again and active again, making sure we're pouring into the faith of our troops. My Christian faith, faith in general is important to the president, it's important in our fighting ranks to give them perspective on human nature, on their own humanity, on our own mortality. And we lost a lot of that with self-help, self-esteem nonsense, which is not what troops need. They need a connection with their almighty God in these moments. And I'm proud of how our troops are conducting themselves and I pray for them every day.
Major Garrett (24:15):
There were some who interpreted, Mr. Secretary, what you said earlier in the week that reporting about casualties is done to make the president look bad. Do you believe that?
Pete Hegseth (24:25):
I just know the media spends a lot of time making cheap shots at the commander-in-chief. They made a whole industry doing it. And so, ultimately, far too often, networks and reporters spend all their time trying to find things that are wrong. That was not to dismiss casualties. Tell a combat vet and guys like us who've served and under... I don't wear this bracelet for decoration. I wear it because I remember the men that I served with that are lost, that paid the ultimate sacrifice for me to be sitting in this chair and for us to be having this conversation. That's real every single day, the decisions that we make. And I think part of the reason recruiting is so high in our military right now is they understand they got leadership that has their back, that has walked in their boots, that's not going to use them callously or recklessly or for some nebulous mission, but is going to pour into them and give them every authority they need to be successful. I think that's motivating for troops.
(25:19)
So, my point was, as it was after Midnight Hammer or the Maduro raid, simply put, the media immediately jumps to try to find what's wrong or what maybe didn't happen perfectly. Instead of stepping back and saying, "Man, I live in a country of the United States of America where our military can do things no other country's military can conceivably do." Maybe we should celebrate that and recognize the significance of that, other than just trying to find what's wrong. Casualties are casualties and they should be reported and I understand that. No one's taking away from that, but ultimately-
Major Garrett (25:52):
And the act of reporting them and speaking to their families and their loved ones is not part of a mission to hurt the president or any president?
Pete Hegseth (25:56):
It's all a part. And the president and I are going to go honor the troops at Dover, as we should. And no one's hiding from that and we're going to stand there, and I'm going to stand there and I'm going to salute these incredible American heroes. It stiffens our resolve. And my simple point is that often the press is trying to look for the bad stories, as opposed to the incredible professionalism and courage of what our troops can accomplish. No other country can do what our guys do and it's humbling to be able to have a chance to lead them.
Major Garrett (26:23):
Mr. Secretary, it's been a pleasure.
Pete Hegseth (26:24):
Thank you very much, Major.
Major Garrett (26:25):
Thank you.
Pete Hegseth (26:25):
Appreciate it. Thank you.
Major Garrett (26:27):
Thank you.