National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2027
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would give the Secretary of Defense sweeping discretion to grant the highest level of security clearances to an unlimited…
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This amendment would give the Secretary of Defense sweeping discretion to grant the highest level of security clearances to an unlimited number of investment professionals without any contract, mission, or defined purpose.
Now, the theory, as we just heard, is that these investors would then conduct due diligence and steer Federal resources toward companies that can support our national defense.
In practice, this would turn our national secrets into another way for the Trump White House to monetize their jobs, putting their friends' wealth over the national interest.
Now, lest anybody accuse me of making a partisan point, let's review some recent history, tying specifically to the individuals in the Trump administration who would be making decisions about how to share our national secrets.
In the weeks leading up to President Trump's military strikes on Iran, reports found that Secretary Hegseth's broker inquired about a multimillion dollar investment in major defense companies.
Earlier this year, President Trump's own leadership PAC sent fundraising emails that offered his donors access to national security debriefings on threats, border security, and foreign adversaries.
Don Trump, Jr.'s venture capital firm has invested in more than a dozen defense tech companies. Subsequent to his investment, those companies secured $3.2 billion in direct government business and $3.1 billion in additional future contract options.
In one case, the White House directly pressured the Department of Defense to provide $620 million in financing to one of young Donald's portfolio companies.
Speaking of the children, the Trump administration recently approved $1.6 billion in Federal financing for a small U.S. company to lead a major mining project in Kazakhstan. That company is not only partially owned by Donald Trump's children, but the deal was negotiated by Secretary of Commerce Lutnick's children.
Hell, even Donald Trump's teleprompter operator is in on the action, having just made $100,000 by betting on Trump's speeches that only he had seen on prediction markets.
Of course, just this past week, Trump Media announced plans to sell early access to the President's market-moving Truth Social posts so that Trump can make money while you front-run the stock market.
To be sure, Mr. Issa's amendment does specifically say that no investor may use classified information for personal financial gain. But I would ask you: Who in the Trump White House is going to enforce that provision? Trump? Lutnick? His personal lawyer, Todd Blanche? I think we know better.
What we have here is an amendment to provide investment professionals with both the means and the motive to engage in insider trading, to help the rich get richer, and to compromise the integrity of U.S. financial markets.
The question that we have right now in this amendment is a really simple one: What do you stand for? If you stand for corruption, vote ``yes''. But if you stand for national security, for integrity, and for capitalism, vote ``no''.
That may be a character test for some in this Chamber, but it is not a remotely close call.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.