Leader Schumer Floor Remarks On Donald Trump’s Dangerous, Erratic, And Unqualified Cabinet Nominees

Washington, D.C. – Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) today spoke on the Senate floor on Donald Trump’s extremely dangerous, erratic, and highly unqualified nominees and announced he will be voting against the nominations of John Ratcliffe, Pete Hegseth, and Russell Vought. Below are Senator Schumer’s remarks, which can also be viewed here:

Today, the Senate will hold votes on two pivotal Cabinet nominees.

First, we will vote to advance the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as CIA director.

I will respectfully vote no – not because of our political difference, which of course exists – but because I am deeply worried that Mr. Ratcliffe will be unable to stand up to people like Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, who are known to falsify intelligence. 

As CIA Director, Mr. Ratcliffe will have to make decisions based on intelligence and fact. There may be no agency more important than the CIA that has to be fact-based. Sometimes, these facts will lead to inconvenient conclusions for his superiors and the president. It’s in those cases where truth, not fiction, not ideology, must prevail, and I have my doubts that Mr. Ratcliffe will be able to hold firm.

Most troubling about Mr. Ratcliffe were the answers I got from him about Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s nominee to serve as Director of National Intelligence. If confirmed, Ms. Gabbard would oversee the CIA and our entire intelligence community, and I think she’d be colossally disruptive for American security.

If there is anyone who has not been fact-based, as you've listened to her statements over the years, it’s Tulsi Gabbard. She seems to make things up out of thin air. No one could be worse in the position of DNI than someone who doesn't believe in facts. So, I told Mr. Ratcliffe he should urge President Trump to drop her nomination if he really cares about the CIA and its integrity. He couldn’t report to somebody like Tulsi Gabbard in good conscience – she is simply too risky.

Ms. Gabbard has a history of spreading falsities, cheering America’s adversaries, and if confirmed I’m worried she’ll push false intelligence for political ends. Those are precisely the moments Mr. Ratcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says, and go to the president and speak truth to power. His answers to my questions on that were unsatisfying, so I'm voting no, because it's such an important position.

Today, the Senate will vote to advance one of the most unqualified, erratic nominees for a position we have ever seen in America.

No position in the cabinet carries the weight, the responsibility of Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is in charge of keeping us safe, and keeping the men and women in the armed forces and the civilians safe. So, you need someone who has a steady hand. You need someone who has had experience in this kind of stuff. You need someone who, when he shows up to a meeting, you're sure that he knows all the facts and is going to be able to conduct himself properly.  

If there’s any Cabinet nominee that should be universally trusted and uncontroversial, it’s the Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth is neither. He’s neither trusted nor free of controversy, and I will strongly vote no.

I want my colleagues to think about how absurd it is that this nominee has even made it to the floor. It’s a shame that that has happened. We are being asked to trust our armed forces to a man with a history of erratic behavior.

One of the kindest words to describe Mr. Hegseth is erratic, and that’s a quality you don’t want as head of DoD. He has a history of excessive drinking, of alleged domestic abuse, and zero experience leading a large organization of any kind.

The allegations that came out yesterday are even more troubling. People say, how do we know they're true? Well first, the person who did it has no strike against her. But second, it just corroborates – in an even worse way – what we've known about Mr. Hegseth in the past.

He has a clear problem of judgment, as you've seen by his statements. It’s like saying your heart surgeon has twitchy hands, but I’ll let him do surgery on me. No one would do that.

How on Earth can America entrust our safety and security to a man who has allegedly shown up to work and other events inebriated? What if he shows up to work like that during a crisis? This is dangerous.

If confirmed he’d be in charge of a workforce of over 3 million people, a budget of over $850 billion. Where does his history show he is capable of doing that? And what if his erratic behavior spills over to his job at the Pentagon, a high-pressure job ? And when people are having this behavior, usually high-pressure jobs makes them more, not less, erratic.

What mystifies me so much about Mr. Hegseth’s nomination is that there are many other conservative defense leaders that President Trump could have nominated. People I wouldn't agree with, maybe, ideologically, on some of the issues that affect Secretary of Defense, but people who would be capable of running the department. I know there are plenty of Republican senators who would instantly make a better option than Mr. Hegseth.

Is Pete Hegseth really the best that Republicans have to offer? How low has this party come in making him the nominee? I do not believe he is the best, I don't believe he is close to the best, and I will be voting with complete conviction, no.

 Given his history, confirming Mr. Hegseth is simply put a risky roll of the dice that Americans cannot afford, especially in such an important position.

With Mr. Vought’s nomination to be OMB Director, Donald Trump has made it official: Project 2025 is coming to the White House.

The man who was the chief cook and bottle washer for Project 2025, who pushed it, who endorsed it, is now nominated for one of the most powerful and sensitive positions in the government, OMB, which has a say over all government programs.

A golden age? It's sure not going to be a golden age for the American people if Mr. Vought becomes the head of OMB!

It’s one of the most important agencies in the government. They oversee every federal agency –every town, every locality, every family is going to be affected.

You want to get your drug prices lower? Mr. Vought doesn't like that, look at Project 2025.

You want to feed hungry kids? Mr. Vought doesn't like that, look at Project 2025.

You want to preserve and expand $35 insulin?  Mr. Vought doesn't like that.

You want to make the tax system fairer and not have tax cuts for the wealthy but help the middle class with tax breaks? Mr. Vought doesn't like that, he wants it to go to the wealthy.

He was in my office Tuesday. I asked him what part of Project 2025 would he disagree with, he couldn’t point to a single one. In this panoply of awful proposals, he couldn't name a single one he didn't like.

He is also a proponent of impoundment of funds. It may be unconstitutional, but it could cause real damage, as the cases would go through the courts when he’s sued for it. That means he can pick what he doesn't like and just end it, even if Congress has lawfully voted for it in a bipartisan way.

So, this man would be devastating to the families of America if he got into office. I hope my Republican colleagues will look at his record and vote against him.

Nobody can claim to be pro-worker and then vote for Russell Vought.

###