Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., testifies during a confirmation hearing to be the next secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on March 18. President Trump nominated Mullin to replace Kristi Noem as DHS Secretary.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The confirmation hearing for Sen. Markwayne Mullin, President Trump’s outspoken pick to replace Kristi Noem as the head of DHS, grew heated Wednesday, especially during a grilling by one of Mullin’s fellow Republican lawmakers.
Mullin faced intense questioning about political violence, some of his prior combative remarks and his vision for the sprawling agency.
President Trump selected the Oklahoma Republican for the job earlier this month after removing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem from the role. Trump’s post announcing Mullin’s nomination suggested his missive from the White House was largely in line with Noem’s approach.
“Markwayne will work tirelessly to Keep our Border Secure, Stop Migrant Crime, Murderers, and other Criminals from illegally entering our Country, End the Scourge of Illegal Drugs and, MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN,” Trump wrote.
The swap in leadership comes after a tumultuous few months at DHS. An immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota resulted in protests and the deaths of two U.S. citizens. The agency is currently shut down as Democrats push for changes to how immigration officers operate.
Mullin’s nomination would need to be approved by the committee before being voted on by the entire Senate. The Senate could hold a final vote to approve his confirmation as soon as next week.
Here are the top five moments from the hearing:
1. Questions about Mullin’s temperament
Mullin’s confirmation hearing to lead the Homeland Security Department kicked off with a criticism of his conduct by fellow Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the head of the committee that would approve his nomination.
“Its imperative now more than ever that the leaders in our country disavow violence and lead by example,” Paul said, then describing an attack that left him with six broken ribs.
Paul angrily charged that Mullin “went on to brag that you’d already told me to my face that you completely understood and approved of the assault. Well, that’s a lie. You got a chance today,” Paul said. “And while you’re at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and Border Patrol agents.”
Mullin said that he could set their differences aside if Paul agreed to.
“Let me earn your respect. Let me earn the job. I won’t fail you. I won’t back down from a challenge. And I also admit when I’m wrong,” Mullin said.
Paul also played a compilation of clips where Mullin threatened to fight Sean O’Brien, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union, and appeared to endorse caning and physical violence.
O’Brien, who was sitting in the audience in support of Mullin, has since made amends with the Oklahoma senator.
Sean O’Brien (R), General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, looks on as Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., nominee to be Secretary of Homeland Security, testifies during a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs confirmation hearing on March 18.
Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images
“If anyone is willing to stand their butt up to protect America, it’s Markwayne Mullin,” O’Brien said in a statement prior to the hearing.
In a moment of bipartisan scrutiny, Paul and Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., also both raised concerns about Mullin’s foreign travel. They questioned Mullin about where he had traveled to where he “smelled” war — as he put it — and why those were not disclosed on federal reports. The issue was set to be further discussed behind closed doors as some lawmakers asked for a confidential briefing.
2. Mullin wants to restore trust in the agency
One of the biggest sources of bipartisan criticism of Noem was her quick labeling of Alex Pretti — the 37-year-old U.S. citizen shot and killed by Customs and Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis in January — as an action of “domestic terrorism.”
Mullin was also asked about comments he made about Pretti after the incident. At the time, he called Pretti a “deranged individual that came in to cause max damage.”
“Those words probably should have been retracted, I shouldn’t have said that,” Mullin said on Wednesday, vowing to refrain from responding with similar quick-take statements if confirmed. “There’s sometimes going to [be a] mistake, and I’ll own it. That one, I went out there too fast. I was responding immediately without the facts.”
Mullin was also asked about his justification of the shooting of Renee Macklin Good, another U.S. citizen who was shot and killed by an ICE officer in Minneapolis in January.
Mullin has said officers “are red-blooded American patriots doing a tough job to keep our nation safe” and accused Good of using her car as a weapon. On Wednesday, he doubled down on those claims.
“It’s very clear that an officer had to make a split decision in that case, whereas the car was running towards him and did strike him at that point, that car becomes a lethal weapon,” Mullin told Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
Mullin told senators that his goal in the next six months is to make sure the agency “is not in the lead story every single day.”
“My goal is for people to understand we’re out there. We’re protecting them, and we’re working with them,” he said.
3. Mullin aims to highlight bipartisanship
Mullin made an effort to underscore his goal of working across party lines. To illustrate that point, he brought Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey, who sat behind Mullin, near O’Brien.
Gottheimer and Mullin, whose close friendship dates back to Mullin’s time in the House, joined a centrist political group called “no labels.“
“Josh and I were raised different, just like everybody on this dais is raised different than me … but we all believe in that flag right there behind you,” Mullin said. “And as long as you love that flag as much as I do, and you’re willing to die for that flag like I am, we can work together.”
He also received words of support from Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.
“It’s about letting it go and moving on,” Fetterman said regarding Mullin’s past outbursts. “I committed to come here with an open mind, and I’m going to continue to do that, and it’s not going to be about ‘got you moments’ for me, it’s about just saying my experience with you has been consistent kindness and professionalism.”
Still, support for the nominee largely tended to follow party lines.
4. DHS shutdown continues as Democrats demand changes in enforcement
Republicans used the hearing as an opportunity to criticize the shutdown, now in its fourth week, and blame Democrats
Currently, over 100,000 employees are furloughed or working without pay, including those who have nothing to do with immigration, such as workers in the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
“We’re playing with fire,” Mullin said in his opening statement. “I hope we can work together and get them funded. So when I walk in, if I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed, if I walk in as secretary that these guys are ready to go to work day one.”
Democrats have attempted and failed several times to pass a standalone measure to fund other parts of DHS, with the exception of immigration enforcement agencies.
5. Mullin voiced support for FEMA and reservations about election results
Mullin said he believed the Federal Emergency Management Agency needed to be restructured — and not eliminated.
He added that he was committed to nominating a permanent administrator for the agency.
But Mullin also deflected questions regarding who won the 2020 election and whether he would place DHS uniformed officers at polling locations throughout the midterms. (Among other things, DHS focuses on election security, including providing grants to states.)
“The only reason why my officers would be there is if there was a specific threat for them to be there, not for intimidation,” Mullin said.
