“This Is Outrageous”: Elizabeth Warren Unloads on Trump’s Pentagon Nominee

The 2020 candidate raised concerns about the Defense nominee’s ethics.

Secretary of the Army Mark Esper testifies in front of the Senate Armed Services panel during his confirmation hearing to lead the Pentagon.Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tore into Mark Esper, President Donald Trump’s choice to lead the Pentagon, during a series of heated questions at Esper’s confirmation hearing Tuesday morning.

Esper was a top lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon from 2010 until Trump nominated him as Army secretary in 2017 and he pledge to recuse himself from issues involving Raytheon for two years. Warren, a Democratic presidential candidate, has been calling for Esper to extend that pledge beyond November 2019, when it is set to expire. Patrick Shanahan, who preceded Esper as acting Pentagon chief before departing last month amid reports of violent turmoil within his family, had been an executive at Boeing before entering government and agreed to permanently recuse himself from issues involving his former employer. “You are not willing to make the same commitment?” Warren asked Esper. “Is that right?” 

“I can’t explain why he made that commitment,” Esper said. “He was fulfilling a different role than I am.”

Esper graduated from West Point as a classmate of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and served for more than two decades in the Army. After leaving active duty, he worked for three years as chief of staff at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and advised then-Sen. Chuck Hagel. The Senate confirmed him as secretary of the Army in November 2017. Only six lawmakers, including Warren, voted against him. 

On Tuesday, Esper refused to budge on Warren’s other requests, which would block him from rejoining Raytheon until at least four years after leaving the government, and would stop him from acquiring a waiver before his recusal period expires that would allow him to intervene in Raytheon-related matters. The exchange prompted an intervention from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who tried to cut off Warren and said she had exceeded her time limit. “This is outrageous,” Warren said.

Esper defended himself stridently. “I’ve stepped down from jobs that paid me well, more than what I was working anywhere else,” he said. “I think the presumption is that anybody that comes from the business or the corporate world is corrupt.” 

During her presidential campaign, Warren has released a raft of policy proposals, including plans to decrease the Pentagon’s carbon footprint and tighten ethics requirements for Defense Department officials. Using her perch as a member of the Armed Services panel, she urged the Pentagon’s independent watchdog to investigate Shanahan over allegations that he improperly favored Boeing in internal discussions. Though Shanahan was cleared of wrongdoing, the move sharpened Warren’s bona fides as an enemy of the defense industry. Earlier in her Senate career, Warren faced allegations of maintaining cozy ties with defense firms located in Massachusetts, including Raytheon. 

Outside of his exchange with Warren, Esper faced few obstacles as lawmakers from both sides of the aisle generally refrained from challenging him harshly. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who sharply criticized former acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan at a Senate hearing in March, began Esper’s hearing by praising him as a person of “sound character and moral courage.”

“Most of us were very discouraged by the resignation of Secretary Mattis and what we’ve hoped for is a successor who can show the same level of candor and principle,” Kaine said. “I believe that Dr. Esper has those traits.”

Senators frequently returned to the example set by Mattis, the retired Marine Corps general who stepped down as Pentagon chief in December over disagreements with Trump’s treatment of allies and decision to withdraw American troops from Syria. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) asked Esper explicitly, “Would you be a secretary of Defense with views more aligned with Secretary Mattis or more aligned with President Trump?”

“I don’t know where to pick between the two, but clearly I shared Secretary Mattis’ views and I expressed that publicly,” Esper replied. 

Warren will likely not be able to prevent Esper’s march toward confirmation, but she can delay the process by blocking the Senate’s ability to confirm him by unanimous consent this week. Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who became the Defense Department’s latest acting leader this week, will remain in charge in the meantime. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate