SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH: Well, good afternoon. Thank you very much for your time.
I want to echo what the chaplain said, All Glory to God. I wake up every morning, praying for the wisdom to see what is right and good true and the courage to do it. And I know many of you do the same.
It is an absolute honor to stand in front of all of you. I’m grateful. I’m humbled. Just the two weeks that I’ve been here is a solemn reminder, and a couple of instances, a solemn reminder of the very special nature of what the department of the defense does.
And I’ve seen it in the office of OSD. I’ve seen it across so many I’ve had a chance to interact with, and so many more I want to interact with, the solemn commitment to the constitutional duty that we all have, to protect and defend the Constitution.
That one administration leaves and another administration comes in, and that can mean a lot of changes in the course of that based on elections that happened and new leaders and new executive orders and new directives and lawful orders.
But what I’ve been so incredibly impressed by, is the professionalism of the men and women throughout the ranks who recognize who we work for, which is the American people, in the defense of our nation.
So, I want to thank everybody watching, everybody here for a part of that, being a part of that transition, which I’ve certainly recognized a great deal.
I spent a lot of my career in the military, which is not as much as so many of you trying to run away from the flagpole as quick as possible.
Now it appears I am the flagpole [laughter].
I recognize and understand that distinction. But what I what I want to bring to this job and to the ethos, is a recognition of the men and women who do the dirty work all day long for us here, across the world.
Every time I speak, or every time in my previous procession, profession, I was on television, and I got the bright lights and spotlight and people are looking to me, I always step back for a second to think about the men and women that I served with.
The folks that are never going to be introduced, never going to have a microphone. Never going to be heard from. The men and women that you know that you served with who are the best of the best in our country. That’s who we serve.
I was on the phone late into the night last night, talking to families of two soldiers who had a rollover at Fort Stewart. I was on the phone with the three, the families of the three that were lost in the UH60 outside of the airport here in Washington, DC.
The costs and the consequences are very real, and you know that.
One of the things I wasn’t prepared for is, every couple of weeks, we do an orders book at OSD where we literally approve the orders that go out. It sounds like a formality but having been on the other end of those orders where those dates really mattered and what the mission was really mattered, I stare at my orders and say, where am I going and what does it mean and how long am I there?
That struck me like a thud.
Every one of those signatures affects a human being whose mission needs to be important and vital to the national interest and to our department before I sign that book. And that’s very much my commitment to you.
It’s also my job to be — as President Trump asked me, to not maintain the status quo.
We’re going to take unconventional approaches. We’re going to move fast, think outside the box, be disruptive on purpose to create a sense of urgency that I want to make sure exists inside this department. And that’s not to impugn anybody who’s been here or anybody who’s sitting here who anybody who’s watching.
I don’t have to tell you all that we live in very dangerous times in a world with ascendant powers who, if they had their way, would love to be on the rise and reject the forces and capabilities and beliefs of the West.
America is at the forefront of that.
And wearing the uniform here at the department, it’s our job to ensure we create the deterrent effect that maintains American dominance in the world.
And there’s a lot of folks, namely — and I’ve name checked it in public as well, the communist Chinese who seek through their ascension a very different view of the world. And so, we have to be urgent, and we have to be ready about what that means. And we’re going to do that.
A part of how we’re applying that is I’ve come in with three pillars that I’ve repeated before, but I want to say again of how we’re approaching this from my level.
Number one is restore the warrior ethos. Make sure that we get back to basics. Our job is to deter conflict and, if necessary, defeat and completely destroy, demoralize and defeat our enemies. That’s what we do. We do war fighting here at the Department of Defense, and we want to restore that through a laser focus on readiness, lethality and warfighting across the spectrum.
I was on with the superintendents of West Point, Annapolis in the Air Force Academy yesterday, hey, what are we doing there to drive those core principles? What are we doing here to drive those core principles from E-1 to — I guess is it O-10, I’ve never even said that. And I know this room is O-6 and below, which I was told was junior. Where I come from an O-6 ain’t junior.
So, this is a new role for me too in that perspective.
And I went out to Fort Bliss, met with — intentionally said, hey, E-7 and above and O-3 and above or O-4 and above move out. I want to hear from the folks out here on this border mission, how is it impacting you and your family? What is your mission? Are you being utilized? How does it affect — I actually think it adds to readiness and — because you’re doing a real-world mission, but how does it affect all those aspects?
Restoring the warrior ethos is critical, and I think we’ve seen that already in the recruiting numbers. I think we’ve seen an enthusiasm and excitement from young men and women who want to join the military actively because they are interested in being a part of the finest fighting force the world has to offer and not doing a lot of other things that serve oftentimes, too often, to divide or distract.
It’s about readiness, it’s about staying focused, and I think you’ve seen that from a lot of the executive orders the president has issued that we have echoed. And there can be confusion about that. But from our perspective, why do you get rid of something like DEI? Because from our perspective, it’s served a purpose of dividing the force as opposed to uniting the force.
And this is something I’ve said quite publicly, and what I want to be is transparent with this building and everyone who serves here, say the same thing in public that we say in private, which I hope you’ll find from us.
I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is Our Diversity is Our Strength.
I think our strength is our unity, our strength is our shared purpose, regardless of our background, regardless of how we grew up, regardless of our gender, regardless of our race, in this department we will treat everyone equally. We will treat everyone with fairness. We will treat everyone with respect. And we will judge you as an individual by your merit and by your commitment to the team and the mission.
That’s how it has been. That’s how it will be.
Any inference otherwise is meant to divide or create complications that otherwise should not and do not exist.
I’ve served across my career with amazing men and women from all backgrounds. They were at my congressional testimony, they’ve been in my office, they work with me and for me now. Their contributions are immense to this nation and are appreciated equally as with everybody else and that’s the approach we’re going to take. So, restore the warrior ethos.
The second one is rebuild our military.
Our defense industrial base, our acquisitions process, how we rapidly field new technologies, how we learn from conflicts around the globe, how we match what we fund to capabilities and effects. There’s a lot of programs around here that we’ve spent a lot of money on that, when you actually wargame it, don’t have the impact you want them to.
One of the benefits I have is I don’t come from — I don’t have any special interests. I don’t have a background invested in any systems or services. I’m agnostic to that.
I want — that means I’m going to take a lot of arrows, and I’m prepared to do so. That’s fine. We need the best systems in the hands of warfighters where they need it, to the COCOMs to deter and send the signals that when that fight comes, we’re ready to win and win decisively.
That includes a Pentagon audit, which to the Marines out there, y’all got it figured out and we appreciate that, lean and mean. We are going to focus heavily to ensure that at a bare minimum by the end of four years, the Pentagon passes a clean audit.
The American taxpayers deserve that. They deserve to know where their $850 billion go, how it’s spent and make sure it’s spent wisely.
It used to be that if you called for an audit, somehow you were undermining the department. I believe the exact opposite.
I believe we are accountable for every dollar we spend and every dollar of waste we find, or redundancy, is a dollar we can invest somewhere else, as President Trump has committed, directly to rebuilding our nation’s military. So, rebuilding our military is key.
And then third is reestablishing deterrence.
Unfortunately, over the last couple of years, we’ve seen events that have occurred that have created the perception — reality or perception, but I would argue more perception of American weakness, whether it’s what happened in Afghanistan by the way, which we’re going to have accountability for, deserve accountability for what occurred in Afghanistan, for what happened on October 7th, the war that was unleashed in Ukraine.
Chaos happens when the perception of American strength is not complete. And so, we aim to reestablish that deterrence, and it starts with our own southern border. It starts with the defense of our homeland.
I think in some ways this department over time has felt like that’s somebody else’s mission. We’ve spent a lot of time, decades, my generation and yours, defending other people’s borders across the world yet we’ve seen an invasion of our own.
From people all around the world who I’m sure many of them want to seek a better life. I understand that. But we also don’t know who millions of them are, what their intentions are, why they’re here — that creates a very real national security threat to the country.
Border security is national security and, as the president has told us, we’re going to get 100 percent operational control of our southern border and that will — needs to be and will be a focus of this department.
I want to tip my hat to NORTHCOM, they’ve done an amazing job in the first couple of weeks here, taking that executive order, which talked about the territorial defense of our country being core to the defense mission, and implementing it.
In some ways, using existing processes that we have, which frankly are not robust enough, but also planning and looking forward to how we transition into a more permanent effective defense, repel and seal at our southern border, so that we know exactly who’s coming in and when they come in, they’re coming in lawfully.
And then also around-the-world prioritization. We have a lot of assets; we don’t have unlimited assets. And so, part of prioritizing is empowering our allies and partners. We need to lead the world, there’s no doubt. And President Trump has been clear about that.
America first means we’re taking care of America first. But part of America First is empowering allies and partners to be combat multipliers, to add to the capabilities that we have.
I mean that’s foreign military sales, that’s exercises, that’s defense partnerships. But it’s also reminding certain countries and certain regions of the world that America can’t be the guarantor of everything forever in a world where we have to prioritize shifting to larger threats in certain moments.
So, you’re going to see that kind of prioritization from us, which we believe will empower, invigorate, incentivize more burden sharing from allies who are beloved to us, who we support, who also need to be prepared to step up.
President Trump, led on that with NATO in his first administration. We’re going to do it again. We’re going over to Europe next week for the NATO ministerial to talk to our friends who have been and will continue to be our allies.
But we also need to encourage them to continue to step up in their defense industrial base in spending. The kind of things we need to do here at home also.
So, sort of to wrap it up, and I’ve already gone longer than I should have. It really is a back — from our perspective a back-to-basics moment.
When President Trump chose me and he said, Pete, I want you to run the Defense Department. His charge to me was return that department to its warfighting mission at its core.
Warfighting, lethality meritocracy, accountability, and readiness. The things we — the — I — the bedrock of what we all understand our basic mission to be.
You know, I was at the Sergeant Major’s Academy down at Fort Bliss just a couple of days ago talking to 500 future sergeants major. Um, they’re the standard bearers. What are the standards? I mean, and it starts with the basic stuff, right? It’s grooming standards and uniform standards and training standards, fitness standards.
All of that matters. It’s almost like the broken windows theory of policing. When you ignore the small stuff from criminals, and I’m not — I’m not saying if you violate grooming standards, you’re a criminal.
The analogy is incomplete.
But if you violate the small stuff and you allow it to happen, the big stuff, it creates a culture where big stuff you’re not held accountable for. I think the same thing exists inside our services. And making sure at every level there is standards and accountability. And that — that we live it at the highest levels as well.
Which is why we are going to, you know, look back at what happened in Afghanistan and hold people accountable. Not to be retrospective not for retribution, but to understand what went wrong and why there was no accountability for it. Those types of things are examples.
But I just appreciate the service so many of you give. I know so many people are watching. It’s the honor of a lifetime to come alongside you. No one will work harder. No one’s going to be more — attempt to be more transparent with the American people and with you.
We do want to hear your feedback. Um, and we’re going to hit the ground running. And I’m grateful to President Trump for his leadership. We’re going to rebuild the military and focus on the troops. So, I’m happy to take any questions anybody might have.
And you can ask questions. It’s okay.
I think there’s a microphone here and here. If you want to come up, sir, to the microphone.
So, everybody can hear you. There’s one right here.
Yes, sir. I’m going to grab a water.
Q: Thank you, sir. You talked about deterrence. Do you see the department becoming more aggressive, more assertive in the gray zone to further deter China and Russia?
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH: That’s a good question. I hope that it’s been noticed and it’s intentional that a lot of our outreach — my outreach early on to defense ministers has been in the Indo-Pacific, strengthening those alliances even more.
There’s gray zone activities that exist, some of which you can acknowledge, some of which you cannot. But certainly, we want to send the signals to China that that area will be and continues to be contested.
Our allies and partners, we will stand with them robustly in real time with defense capabilities. And we’re not just going to allow them to perpetually sort of de facto gobble up more of that contested space by the routines that they conduct to sort of demonstrate that all is normal in an increasingly escalating way, maybe even to mask efforts they might be undertaking.
So, we’re definitely, keeping an eye on that. We’re clear eyed about the communist Chinese, the PRC, but we’re also not attempting to initiate conflict or create conflict where it otherwise doesn’t need to exist. We’re going to stand strong with our partners.
And then President Trump, at his strategic level, is the one who’s having the conversations to sort of ensure that we don’t ever have a conflict.
We don’t want that; they don’t want that. We just have to remain strong in order to be in the best possible position.
Q: Thank you, sir.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH: Thank you.
Q: Sir, Army IG. So, I’m really happy to hear you say standards, going back to standards. That’s critically important.
I’m involved in senior official investigations for headquarters DA. By and large, our military leadership is doing the right thing. I’m proud to say that as an Army IG.
What can we do with the service across the board to better the standards across the whole formation?
So, we have some examples of improprieties and things that have metastasized over the last decade. How do we get at those kinds of things? What is the department doing to look at those kinds of cancers that are within our ranks?
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH: It’s a good question.
First of all, I think in some cases there’s simplification that needs to be had at least from my perspective. And by that I mean — and that goes back to kind of our initial charge, which is culture. The intentional crafting of culture. That there are a lot of reasons why we could look at each other and create differences or caveats or special categories that I think create unnecessary differences and ripples that lead to conflation points that lead to accusations or disagreements or inability to enforce standards.
I just wrote a book called The War on Warriors, which was used for me and against me in my hearing [laughter].
But in writing that book, for six months, I was on the phone, off the record, with active-duty service members with — at all ranks, right — junior enlisted, senior officers, NCOs, warrant officers, all services, all ranks, because I wanted to get a sense of what their feeling was.
And I wrote this down and it’s true, a lot of commanders were expressing they felt like they were walking on eggshells inside their own formations. And this is company commanders, battalion commanders, brigade commanders.
Sorry, sometimes I only use army speak for formations, I’m learning the rest in real time, but you know what I mean as far as formations.
Because the standards have become opaque and loose, or there’s such an emphasis on differences that treating someone one way is offensive to somebody else as opposed to treating somebody this way and is offensive to somebody else.
By simplifying that and saying you are an individual who’s put it on the uniform of our nation, who’s sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, and you will be treated by your capabilities, your commitment to the mission, how — your work ethic and what you deliver. You.
That’s it. It has nothing to do with your race or your ethnicity or your gender or your sexual orientation.
That’s not how we’re reviewing the environment for your consideration.
When you’re looking at all these other categories as sort of a tapestry, it creates a serious amount of complications. I think by simplifying and focusing on standards, I think a lot of that — I don’t want to say washes away because you still have plenty of complications and you still have problems. Everyone needs to be treated equally, those things to be recognized, sexual harassment, not tolerated.
All of those things remain true, which have been true and need to be enforced at the highest levels, but hopefully by some level of uniform simplification that can be addressed.
Yes.
Q: Great, thanks for taking the time to come and speak with us.
Recognizing the president’s intent to streamline the federal workforce, I was hoping you could provide a little bit of your process and your thinking of what that means for the department, where there will be identified areas to be cut or streamlined? And if you have a sense of also the timeline?
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH: Sure, thank you for the question. It is — the way I look at it or I’ve thought about it is from the flagpole to the front lines. There are thousands of additional — and I’m not saying that just because we’re here in the Pentagon, but there are thousands of additional Pentagon positions, headquarters positions, other positions that have been created over the last 20 years that don’t necessarily translate to battlefield success.
Additional staff, additional layers of bureaucracy, additional flag officer positions, that we are — we would be remiss if we did not review. We also live in a budget constrained environment and that’s politics that I thankfully don’t have to worry about anymore.
I have my opinions, but that’s not my job. My job is a ready force.
We will have to live inside the constraints of the past. I mean, I just — we were down at Fort Bliss recently and the unit there, the armored Cav unit there relayed that they’ve had to cut an FTX, a series of training exercises coming up because of budget constraints.
Well, when you’re living off of continuing resolutions and caps, and then you have contingency operations and things that change, suddenly you have shortfalls and now unit training falls by the wayside.
From my perspective, that’s — I mean, that’s completely unacceptable.
What are we spending elsewhere that can be targeted efficiently? And it’s not just the fraud, waste and abuse stuff, it’s systems, it’s hierarchies, it’s layers that we can review, reduce, recommend those reductions. That then allows us to ensure that training and readiness in the frontline units and the COCOMs is even increased.
I want more of that.
So, it’s interesting. Former Secretary Rumsfeld gave a speech on September 10th, 2001, that was about acquisitions and reform and Pentagon bureaucracy that — overtaken by events the next day, September 11th, 2001 — was quickly forgotten and really never addressed.
I feel like I could give about 85 percent of the same speech today, that Secretary Rumsfeld gave on September 10th, because a lot of those processes have become even more systemic in taking root here that cause delays, redundancies, and bureaucratic red tape.
That’s — we’re looking at the headquarters level. We’re looking at the highest levels.
I said this in my hearing as well. We won World War II with seven four-star generals. Today we have 44. Do all of those directly contribute to warfighting success? Maybe they do, I don’t know, but it’s worth reviewing to make sure they do.
So, we’re looking at all options. What we’re not going to be is hasty about it because we’re in the business of national security. And something that may not look like it’s contributing may be incredibly important to the effort and so whatever we do is going to be done carefully.
Q. Thank you.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH: Yes, sir.
Q: Good morning, sir. Based on what you said about maintaining American dominance in the world, our adversaries, especially Chinese and Russians, they have a 20-year strategy, a 30-year strategy and they look that far ahead. How do we change our approach to maintain US dominance abroad? That strategy is more than five years, more than 10 years. And also ensuring that our resources are prioritized and allocated to maintaining our US dominance in decades, sir, not in years.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH: You tell me [laughter]. It sounds like you need to come work for me — or maybe you already do and thank you [laughter].
I’m figuring it out. I found out where the bathroom was.
That, sir, indeed is the key question. Autocracies have an advantage, not just because of the top-down nature in which they organize.
I mean they have disadvantages for obvious reasons. But because they have the convenience of planning without political — you know, the pesky people problem of voting and ballots, they can plan 15, 20 years and then drive that plan without consequence to their own population, which does have strategic advantages, no doubt.
I actually think that system loses in the long haul because of its inherent weaknesses. But that militarily has advantages.
I think you’re going to see a defense strategy coming out of our office that tries to look that far down the line, tries to make disruptive changes to how we acquire and rapidly field and look at systems that are not about congressional districts or budget line items for FY26 or FY27.
But try to look toward what strategically we’re going to need five, ten years down the line looking ahead at what the emerging threats are, and what a shifting in the balance of power would mean.
I mean, when — we’re in a different world than we were at the end of the Cold War. We’re now at a near peer or peer environment, which changes a lot of the dynamics of how we need to plan specifically to maintain American strength around the world.
Because it is not hyperbole to say without America, the rest of the world acknowledges there’s nowhere else to look as far as actual leadership and capabilities in the defense space.
It’s us or us.
And then our robust allies and partners who we incentivize to come alongside us. And that’s how you create a Western force capable of ensuring not just our country and our hemisphere, but the world remains free to trade, travel, all the things that we share.
So, our — I think we have to be willing to look further than any time this president would be in office or I would be in office and set the department up to do that. Knowing that at any time, two years from now or four years from now, the American people can make a different choice and that can lead to different views of that.
But we’re trying to take an America First strategic perspective at how we maintain our dominance.
And I think you see some things already changing in that — our southern border, the focus on making sure we have control over the Panama Canal and making sure that there’s not a scenario in an emergency where our ships couldn’t transit because you have foreign ownership on either side.
Those are sort of America First views that we’re willing to look into that look further into the future than just that should there be a contingency, while looking to the Indo-Pacific and realizing the aspirations of the CCP, which are real and could drive a decision point vis-a-vis something like Taiwan.
So, you’re right, we are trying to think that way, with how we — because dollars drive a lot of those decisions. And so, the budget — as much as I thought this was a job about strategy and people, it’s a job about budgets. And what you fund is what you — is a reflection of what your priority is.
And so, we’re spending a lot of time looking at that. But thank you. That’s the key question, sir. Yes, sir.
One more. All right. Yes, sir.
Q: Hi, sir, thank you for your time today. My question is more about the families of the military and the civilians that support the family of the Department of Defense. So often the frequency of moves, the unsettled nature of what we do impacts the families. I’m looking for your comments on how we plan to continue to take care of those.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH: Oh, my goodness. You’re 100 percent right.
By the way, we’re in a reconciliation process right now, which is a unique funding situation, not just looking at budget cycles.
As a former O-4 who spent most of his time as an O-2 and an O-3, I spent most of my time with E-4s and E-5s and E-6s and have heard robustly the frustrations they and their families have, which is a massive readiness and retention issue and a morale issue.
So, as we’ve driven budgets, I have said to the team, that needs to be — I don’t — funding one more multi-billion-dollar system is not as important as funding the families and the capabilities of our human systems that make it all happen.
So, I want that to be — and I applaud the previous administration’s increase in E-1 to E-4 pay. That stuff is really important. We need to do more of that. That trickles to the family and how they’re cared for.
And then yeah, we have to look at all aspects of how we interact with families from childcare to DOD schools. And the president signed an EO talking about choice in schools. Military families should have choice — if it’s great on post or on base, great. If not, do they have a robust opportunity to seek education or childcare for their kids elsewhere? That matters a lot.
Making sure BAH matches. All of these things are important.
And my wife’s going to be traveling with me to — we’re going to the NATO ministerial to — we’re not going to the Munich Security Conference. We’re instead going to Poland to see the troops out there and we’re going to Germany to see EUCOM and AFRICOM.
I would much rather talk to troops than go to cocktail parties. That’s my job.
And we’re going to meet with military families. She’s going to meet with husbands, wives and spouses on that trip. Go see schools go, go see faith groups, childcare centers to get a real pulse of what that is and then make sure we’re funding it.
So, I want you to know that’s something that matters a lot to us. I appreciate the question.
So, we have one more — oh, go ahead. Let’s do one more. Ricky told me I couldn’t, but why not?
Q: Good morning, sir. I appreciate you taking the time. I’m from OSD CAPE. And my question follows up on your point about the acquisition process. We’re in a day right now that we have a lot of dangerous powers that are rising and we’re trying to figure out what to focus on in the acquisition process.
And us as civilians, we want to be there to support the warfighters and get them the capabilities that they need fielded in the fastest time possible, but with the appropriate amount of testing and making sure everything works when it gets to the battlefield.
So, I guess my real question for you is what’s your focus when it comes to the acquisition process and reforms and the trade-off between faster capabilities that are probably smaller and could be fielded quicker versus these larger scale capabilities that we really need for that deterrent effect?
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH: In a perfect world, I would say both, right?
I mean, first of all listening to the COCOMs, listening to the people on the pointy end of the spear, watching what’s happening in real time on the battlefield, take Ukraine as an example.
A lot of people — we’re learning a lot about what low-cost systems UAVs can do to high-cost systems that we have invested a great deal in. And the question is do you keep investing in those or not going forward.
Listening to the services also making balances — and it’s not necessarily choosing between services but recognizing capabilities of services vis-a-vis prospective upcoming fights. And then I think we have a unique opportunity to tap into industry, Silicon Valley, other — I mean, obviously we’ve got massive organizations that have helped create big platforms that are incredibly important for deterrence.
We also have some really fast-moving newer contractors that are willing to work, that have already put a lot of money into R&D that want to help us rapidly field these new systems that we’re going to need for fights in the future.
So, funding even more robustly, and I don’t want to name check anything and say that’s the only route, but things like DIU and others where you can experimentally rapidly field new technologies and then find a way to make sure they’re funded so that they can be scaled and tested even in real time out with COCOMs, as opposed to an 18-month testing process to kind of move things, merge things together so they’re happening more quickly.
And we’re hearing a lot of that from commanders in the field who are saying, hey skip this, this, this and that process. Let us figure out how it works and then we can scale it once we know it does or does not.
But I also want — I want to underscore that a lot of these major platforms — and that was a wonderful part of doing the advise-and-consent process in the US Senate.
Yes, there are senators that are invested in certain platforms or systems from their home state or their district.
But when you actually dig underneath it, they understand the strategic deterrence effect of these big systems we spend a lot of money on, oftentimes too much money, over budget and too long. And that’s something we are definitely going to address for reasons of urgency and for reasons of taxpayer — respect for taxpayers.
But we need and want those systems because without them we don’t have the umbrella that allows us to do so many other things. So, we’re looking at both, but we’re trying to get outside the box and be disruptive on both, recognizing we won’t be able to do everything in every way. But thank you for the question.
I just want to thank everybody for your time. I appreciate what you do.
We’ll let you get back to work. I know — I mean, again, I can’t even fathom the size and scope of this building and what everybody does. I know that — I know what I don’t know.
But we’re trying to hire the best and brightest to come alongside all of you in the work that you’re already doing. And I’m just honored to be a small part of it.
So, thank you very much [applause].
STAFF: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s town hall. Thank you for joining us. Please remain in place for the departure of the official party.
