Speaker 1: Begin with the breaking news on Capitol Hill tonight. A wild finish to a wild first week. Yeah, it's the first week of Donald Trump's second term. His pick for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just got confirmed by the skin of his teeth. Republicans had to pull in Vice President J.D. Vance for that tie-breaking vote. This after Senator Mitch McConnell seconded President Trump by voting mm-mm.

Speaker 2: The Vice President votes in the affirmative and the nomination is confirmed.

Speaker 1: That vote was historic. It's just the second time in history that a Vice President had needed to cast a 51-50 tie-breaking vote to confirm a Cabinet nominee. Vance joking on X Tonight saying, I thought I was done voting in the Senate. When McConnell joined Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski in giving the old thumbs down, he refused to reveal how he would vote until he reached the Senate floor. But now he is not holding back. In a searing statement released just a few moments ago, he wrote this, the United States faces coordinated aggression from adversaries bent on shattering the order underpinning American security and prosperity. In public comments and testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hegseth did not reckon with this reality. Now, Hegseth had faced serious questions over allegations of sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and also financial mismanagement of veterans' charities. He denies all of that happened. And the man he will soon report to is very pleased with tonight's outcome.

Speaker 3: We just heard that we have a great Secretary of Defense. We're very happy about that, and we appreciate everybody's vote. Are you disappointed that McConnell voted no? I didn't even know that. No, I don't know that. I just heard that we won. Winning is what matters, right?

Speaker 1: Talking more about this breaking news with Scott Jennings, senior political commentator and former advisor to Senator Mitch McConnell, and Amicia Cross, also here, a Democratic strategist and former Obama campaign advisor. Good to see both of you. I'll begin with you, Mr. Kentucky, because Senator Mitch McConnell voted no and said in a statement that effective management of the military is a daily test with staggering consequences. And, quote, Mr. Hegseth has failed as yet to demonstrate that he would pass this test. Pretty scathing assessment. What is the broader message he might be sending to President Trump tonight? Excuse me.

Speaker 4: Well, look, I think he's saying that he just didn't think Pete Hegseth was qualified for the job. I mean, I read the entire statement, which also wrapped up by saying he looked forward to working with Pete Hegseth together to strengthen the United States military, take care of our troops, and fight our adversaries around the world. So I don't view this as a standoffish vote necessarily. He clearly is gonna work with Pete Hegseth because he is the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which means he'll be right in the middle of all the policy funding decisions that go into the Pentagon. And I also think it doesn't really portend anything else. I think he's likely to vote for virtually all the other nominees, maybe a couple of other exceptions, and he's already voted for several to date. So, you know, I think for McConnell here at the end of his career, I think he's hyper-focused on national security matters, and he had an opinion about this, and, you know, he's like every other senator. He gets one vote. I happen to think Hegseth was an interesting choice and thought he deserved a confirmation, which he ultimately did get, thanks to the tiebreaker. So I wish him great success. I do agree with Mitch McConnell that this is a time of great consequence, and I also think that the Pentagon hasn't been all that well-run for the last four years. We do need change.

Speaker 1: You know, he did say on that very point that a change agent was not gonna be enough to persuade him. He wanted something more substantive to sink into, but he also told our colleagues of telling our own Manami Raju that he is telling his colleagues that he is unshackled. And so this idea of him being towards the end of his Senate career, he seems to be all out of concern for how he might be viewed by, say, the president of the United States and trying to stick in the loyalty line. What might this mean for Tulsi Gabbard or RFK Jr. or Kash Patel? Or is this unique in your mind?

Speaker 4: Well, I think anybody who's in the national security space is gonna get real scrutiny from McConnell, and they should get scrutiny from all the senators. I still think, and I've said this for many weeks, I still think Tulsi Gabbard has work to do to get confirmed. RFK is interesting. I mean, both he and Gabbard are Democrats. I guess Gabbard switched parties, but they're, you know, career Democrats. And so they may get some Democrat votes, which of course could change the math on the Senate floor. But I still think Gabbard has some work to do to get confirmed. And obviously she hasn't come up for any votes yet, but will in the near future. RFK is an interesting guy. I mean, he's a Kennedy and he's a Democrat, and he's a pro-choice Democrat at that. So my assumption is he may have a fighting chance at getting Democrat votes, which would mitigate some of these Republican no votes.

Speaker 1: We will see. From the Hill, though, Ameesha, to what this might mean at the Pentagon, I mean, Vice President J.D. Vance had to cast a tie-breaking vote for Hegseth. This was a razor-thin, obviously, margin. Could that possibly undermine his authority at the Pentagon where his qualifications were already challenged during his confirmation hearings?

Speaker 5: Absolutely. And I definitely think that it will, because, I mean, we've already seen letters from veterans. We've already seen letters from service organizations that are oriented with several military servicemen across all of the armed services that were, quite frankly, very, they found his nomination to be problematic. They found his history to not be one that would benefit this role. They also found that the command that he would be in charge of, quite frankly, one that he was not up to task for. And I think that those people are not going to be dissuaded by the fact that a tie-breaking vote happened today. What we do know about P. Hegseth is that from a Republican Party that keeps talking about merit day in and day out, this is a guy who does not fulfill any of the tenets of this role, or of those who have previously held this role in high esteem, specifically those who were Republican nominees. I think that there were better options available, but at this point, they have who they have, and he's going to have to live up to the muster. He's going to have to figure out how to manage a personnel, the size that he is going to be tasked with. He is going to have to manage how to move different products from various places across the globe. He is going to have to manage to understand the backgrounds, the cultures, the specificities of the areas in which we are in conflict regions. Those are things that he has shown throughout those hearings that he, quite frankly, did not have any length of understanding of. So he's going to either have to learn it really quickly, or he's going to have to figure it out on the spot. Either way, that's who they choose.

Speaker 1: Ameesha, I wonder if Democrats... Can I, can I, can I? One second. I want you to respond, but I want to ask Ameesha another question. Do you think that Democrats did an effective job of trying to bring that out? They focused a great deal on the misconduct allegations, alcohol abuse allegations. Given all that you said, why couldn't they make the case that they felt he was truly not fit for this role?

Speaker 5: Well, I think Democrats had a missed opportunity in actually going after his lack of qualifications. Instead, they chose to go down the route of the, you know, the allegations that came from ex-wives and his personal background in terms of infidelity. Those are things that might matter to a certain group, but at the end of the day, the things that should matter the most, quite frankly, are those that are the fitness for the job based on the fact that he does not meet basic qualifications. Those are very real things. But Democrats voted how Democrats should have voted in this instance. And I think that, you know, laying this entire thing at the feet of Democrats is problematic because Republicans made this decision. They chose someone who is still suited for the role. Scott?

Speaker 4: Yeah, well, Ameesha doesn't seem to be aware that Pete Hexeth served for 20 years in the United States military, Iraq, Afghanistan, two bronze stars, an Ivy League graduate. I mean, he has dedicated most of his life to serving the United States military. He is fully aware of where we are engaged around the world because he himself was there. And Ernie, and Ernie, and Ernie, and Ernie. I can't hear you.

Speaker 6: Hold on, hold on.

Speaker 1: Wait, wait, I can't hear you both. Hold on. I want to go back to you, Ameesha. I want to hear what you have to say.

Speaker 4: Yeah, I know. That's because she won't stop interrupting me.

Speaker 1: Well, hold, well, excuse me. I'll let you finish, please, Scott. Then I'll go back to Ameesha. It's awfully hard when we're remote. Go ahead, Scott.

Speaker 4: Yeah, good. So again, he has served overseas in hotspots where he was decorated for doing so. I think he's quite aware of what our servicemen and women are facing in hotspots around the world because he himself lived it. He's also quite aware of what they face when they get back home because he has also lived it. And the one thing he is not, and I will grant you this, he is not a DC insider. He is not a career bureaucrat. He is not the expected Washington choice. But Donald Trump was also not the expected or desired Washington choice. And I don't think he was elected to make all the desired Washington choices. I think he was desired. I think he was elected because people want a shakeup in Washington, DC, particularly at the Pentagon, which has been, I think, tragically run for the last four years with embarrassment after embarrassment. So I say, let's give a guy who served this country who has great credentials and great qualifications a chance to succeed here. Let's give this man a chance to succeed. I hope he does. We should all hope he does. Our national security is on the line.

Speaker 1: Amisha, I know we have very little time. Please respond.

Speaker 5: No, I agree with him. I do hope that the man succeeds. I think that at the end of the day, our national security is on the line and we know that there are several unfortunate actors across the globe who want to test that day in and day out. With that being said, I still stand on this man is quite frankly not qualified. I have family members in my own family and in my own lineage who have served two decades plus in the United States Armed Forces. That does not mean that you should automatically be Secretary of Defense. This is a guy who became Secretary of Defense largely because Donald Trump liked his culture war narrative on Fox News every weekend. That is not a qualifier to lead the nation's strongest military.

Speaker 1: We will see how it all goes. Scott Jennings, Amisha Cross, thank you both for joining me tonight.