James Mattis

James Mattis

Prior offices

U.S. Secretary of Defense

---

Education

Bachelor's

Central Washington University

Military

Service / branch

U.S. Marine Corps

Years of service

1969 - 2013

James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps four-star general, served as the 26th secretary of defense. He was a member of President Donald Trump's (R) administration.

On December 20, 2018, Trump announced that Mattis would retire at the end of February 2019. On December 23, 2018, Trump announced that Mattis would leave office by January 1, 2019.

Mattis is the first recently retired general to serve as secretary of defense since General George C. Marshall in the early 1950s.

Biography

Mattis was born on September 8, 1950. He entered the U.S. Marine Corps in 1969. In 1972, he graduated from Central Washington University and was commissioned as a lieutenant in the western Pacific with the Third Marine Division.

In 2007, Mattis was promoted to the rank of four-star general and became the head of the U.S. Joint Forces Command. In 2010, he replaced General David Petraeus as head of the U.S. Central Command where he focused on combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mattis retired in 2013. After retirement, Mattis became a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution specializing in military history and contemporary conflict policy.

Career

Below is an abbreviated outline of Mattis' academic, professional, and political career:

• January 20, 2017-January 1, 2019: U.S. Secretary of Defense
• 1969-2013: U.S. Marine Corps

• 2010-2013: Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
• 2007: Promoted to four-star general

• 1972: Earned B.A. in history from Central Washington University

Secretary of Defense

Resignation

Mattis announced his resignation on December 20, 2018, in a letter to Trump. Mattis wrote,

“

[W]e must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof. Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions - to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense. My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances. Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.

”

Mattis' resignation came after Trump announced his decision to remove troops from Syria.

Senate confirmation vote

On January 20, 2017, the Senate voted 98-1 to confirm Mattis as secretary of defense. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) cast the only vote against Mattis.

James Mattis confirmation vote, January 20, 2017
Party	Votes for a	Votes against d	Total votes
Democrats	45	1	46
Republicans	51	0	51
Independents	2	0	2
Total Votes	98	1	99

Senate Armed Services Committee hearing

The Senate Armed Services Committee held a confirmation hearing for Mattis on January 12, 2017. The committee approved Mattis' nomination for secretary of defense on January 18, 2017, by a vote of 26-1. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) cast the only vote against Mattis.

Nomination tracker
Candidate: James Mattis
Position: Secretary of Defense
Confirmation progress
a	Announced:	December 1, 2016
a	Hearing:	January 12, 2017
a	Committee:	Senate Armed Services Committee
a	Reported:	January 18, 2017, (26-1)
a	Confirmed:	January 20, 2017
a	Vote:	98-1

Waiver

Federal law requires defense secretaries to have been retired from active duty military service for seven years. Because Mattis retired in 2013, Congress passed legislation to pave the way for his confirmation. According to The Washington Post, "Congress has granted a similar exemption just once, when Gen. George C. Marshall was appointed to the job in 1950."

Issues

Afghanistan

See also: Federal policy on Afghanistan, 2017-2020

• On September 27, 2017, Mattis traveled to Afghanistan to meet with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. During a press conference, they discussed their South Asia strategy. Some of Mattis' comments appear below.

• On the rules of engagement: "The point I would make is that, for many years, the NATO forces have operated with one fundamental precept, and that is we are here to protect the Afghan people when we atta—while we attack the terrorists. We are up against an enemy right now that intentionally fights from among innocent people, that intentionally hides behind women and children, that intentionally tries to draw fire on the innocent. And we do everything humanly possible, whether you call them rules of engagement, you call them the traditional chivalry of the NATO forces, we do everything possible to protect the innocent on the battlefield. We're not the perfect guys, but we are the good guys. And we will continue to do everything possible. There will never be a time when we decide that the safety of the non-combatants, of the innocents on the battlefield, is something to be bartered away for some sort of military advantage. We would hope for a Taliban that would show some sort of consideration, but they have proven over years they have no consideration, no respect for the Afghan people. But we will continue to do our level best and everything humanly possible to avoid any casualties."

• On the role of U.S. troops in Afghanistan: "We are bringing in reinforcements, and those reinforcements are designed to add more advisors to your units in the field and more trainers in your military schools. In other words, the Afghan forces continue to take the lead, as they should, in the defence of their country, but we are going to give them more advantage to the NATO access and advantage from the NATO air forces overhead to make sure that no ti—at no time does the Taliban own the high ground. We will always own the high ground, and we're going to make certain those aircraft have a connection to the troops on the ground who are fighting to protect their people. I prefer not to go into the specific numbers right now. We are bringing in more Americans. There are also more coalition forces, non-Americans, who are coming in. I don't want to tell the enemy exactly what we're doing. But the whole point is to make certain that we have a compelling battlefield advantage over anything the Taliban tries to mass against your forces. We're not going to stand for that."

• On Pakistan and terrorism: "So far as Pakistan, we will watch Pakistan's choices. We will engage with Pakistan. We will continue to work in a unified way between NATO, the coalition, the Afghan government, and the other regional governments in South Asia as we try to set the conditions for a positive set of nations and team against… and teamwork against the Ta—the terrorists: Taliban, Daesh, ISIS, whoever they might be. There's an increasing collusion, there's increasing teamwork among the various terrorist bands, and I would just tell you that this simply gives more impetus to those of us who are against terrorism to work together."

• On Afghanistan's history and the strategy to restore peace: "Well, first of all, I think we have to look at the history of where this all began. And when you look back at the history, it creates a very difficult framework for Afghanistan as a country, for Afghanistan's people. When the Soviets came in with the invasion, they basically turned the society upside down. Many of the local areas that were under certain types of… of local control, which was acceptable to the Afghan government in those days, they were eviscerated. They were destroyed by the Soviet invasion. And in that social fabric being torn apart, I think an awful lot of refugees were created. Children were left without parents. Family structures were destroyed. Tribal alignments were… were basically thrown against each other. And by the time we see the Soviets leave, much of the damage had been done. You have children who are going to schools which are teaching them hatred at a young age. And then you're trying to come in now with a… with a review of this and say how could this be. Well, that is exactly why we redid our strategy, why we sat down with members of your government, taking information from them, and why we looked at this regionally to begin with, why we decided to realign our forces into almost a totally advisory role and teaching role and expand that role, so that we can turn this situation around. You know, there's a saying in the game of golf: you have to play the ball where it lies. I cannot change where the ball lies today. All I can commit to you is that we stand united with your government of national unity and with the Afghan people to restore peace in this turbulent time. And that means we're all going to have to work together across the South Asia Region, and that's the way we plan to go forward on what President Ghani defined as a win-win regional strategy. And that's our commitment here today."

• On August 20, 2017, Mattis commented on Trump’s Afghanistan strategy, saying, “I am very comfortable that the strategic process was sufficiently rigorous and did not go in with a pre-set position. The president has made a decision. As he said, he wants to be the one to announce it to the American people.”

• In a July 21, 2017, memo, Mattis criticized the Pentagon for spending $28 million on forest-patterned camouflage uniforms for Afghan soldiers in 2007 that did not match Afghanistan’s terrain. Mattis wrote, “Buying uniforms for our Afghan partners, and doing so in a way that may have wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars over a 10-year period, must not be seen as inconsequential in the grand scheme of the Department's responsibilities and budget. Cavalier or casually acquiescent decisions to spend taxpayer dollars in an ineffective and wasteful manner are not to recur.” Referring to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report, Mattis wrote, “The report is an indication of a frame of mind — an attitude that can affect any of us at the Pentagon or across the Department of Defense — showing how those of us entrusted with supporting and equipping troops on the battlefield, if we let down our guard, can lose focus on ensuring their safety and lethality against the enemy.”

• On June 13, 2017, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said to Mattis, “We want a strategy [in Afghanistan], and I don’t think that’s a hell of a lot to ask. We’re now six months into this administration. We still haven’t got a strategy for Afghanistan. It makes it hard for us to support you when we don’t have a strategy. We know what the strategy was for the last eight years: Don’t lose.” In response, Mattis said, “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now...we will correct this as soon as possible. I believe by mid-July, we’ll be able to brief you in detail. We’re putting it together now and ... there are actions being taken to make certain that we don’t pay a price for the delay. But we recognize the need for urgency, and your criticism is fair.”

• On April 24, 2017, Mattis discussed an attack by the Taliban on an Afghan army base that killed more than 140 soldiers. The attack occurred while the soldiers were unarmed inside a mosque. Mattis said, "These people have no religious foundation, they are not devout anything, and it shows why we stand with the people of this country against such heinous acts."

• On April 24, 2017, after speaking with Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani and General John Nicholson, the commander of Resolute Support and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, to assess the situation in Afghanistan, Mattis said, “2017's going to be another tough year for the valiant Afghan security forces and the international troops who have stood and will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Afghanistan against terrorism and against those who seek to undermine the legitimate United Nations-recognized government of this nation. If the Taliban wished to join the political process and work honestly for a positive future for the Afghan people, who have suffered long and hard, they need only to renounce violence and reject terrorism. It's a pretty low standard to join the political process.”

• In May 2014, Mattis criticized the Obama administration's timetable for leaving Afghanistan. According to the Army Times, "Mattis ... said announcing a lower U.S. troop number and setting a specific withdrawal date 'sends a message' to U.S. allies that it is not fully committed to the fight against the Taliban.” Mattis said, “Why does the U.S. government have to level the playing field for the enemy? We want to crush the enemy's hope to win through violence. Yet we have now given the enemy hope that if they hang on until our announced withdrawal date they can perhaps come back."

• In February 2005, during a panel discussion in San Diego, California, Mattis said, "Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

• In 2001, Mattis was a brigadier general commanding the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, which fought the Taliban. Mattis also “commanded Task Force 58, which executed the farthest-ranging amphibious assault in Marine Corps/Navy history, which blazed a path for more U.S. forces, cut off fleeing al-Qaida and Taliban fighters, and aided in the capture of Kandahar.”

American involvement in world affairs

• During a speech in 2014, Mattis said that he supported “continued American engagement in the world.” Mattis said, “In a world awash in change, any perceptions of U.S. retrenchment bring an urgent peril because American retreat is not a chance that is welcome by thoughtful elections … In a globally connected world, we withdraw at risk of rediscovering history’s lessons, learned at a bloody cost, lessons that should not be forgotten.”

Asia-Pacific nations

See also: Federal policy on China, 2017-2020

• During a visit to Japan on February 4, 2017, Secretary of Defense James Mattis said that the U.S. would continue to honor the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, which included a provision acknowledging Japan as the administrator of the Senkaku Islands, an uninhabited group of islands in the East South China Sea with disputed sovereignty. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman responded, "Diaoyu and its affiliated islands have been Chinese territory since ancient times. These are historical facts that cannot be changed."

Iran

See also: Federal policy on Iran, 2017-2020

• During a speech on April 22, 2016, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mattis said, "The Iranian regime, in my mind, is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East. For all of ISIS and AQI’s — AQ — al-Qaeda’s mention everywhere right now, they’re an immediate threat. They’re serious. Certainly Assad’s Syria and what it’s spewing out is a very serious threat. The Palestine-Israel issue continues to bubble. But nothing, I believe, is as serious in the long-term enduring ramifications in terms of stability and prosperity and some hope for a better future for the young people out there than Iran."

Iran nuclear deal

See also: Federal policy on the Iran nuclear deal, 2017-2020

• On October 4, 2017, Mattis said that the U.S. should keep the nuclear deal with Iran. During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) asked Mattis if he thought the nuclear deal was in “our national security interest at the present time.” Mattis said, “Yes, senator, I do. ... I believe, at this point in time, absent indications to the contrary, it is something the president should consider staying with.” He added that he supported the administration's review of the nuclear deal.

• On January 12, 2017, Mattis said the following about the nuclear deal during his confirmation hearing: “I think it is an imperfect arms-control agreement. It’s not a friendship treaty. But when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”

• During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on April 22, 2016, Mattis discussed Iran as the biggest challenge for the United States in the Middle East. He specifically addressed the nuclear agreement with Iran. His comments appear below.

• On the JCPOA increasing the regional arms race: The JCPOA "was designed to increase stability and decrease proliferation to improve our global standing in the process. But the outcome is an increase in a regional arms race. Saudi Arabia just recently passed Russia as the third largest spender on military weapons in the world. Our secretary of defense was sent out – some called it the secretary of reassurance – right after the agreement was signed to the Israeli and Arab capitals in order to make certain they knew that we were willing to sell them more weapons because we recognized the increased danger, as the money that had been released by the UNSCRs and the lack of economic sanctions, that money was now going to go in maybe not to one program – at least not for a year or two, the nuclear one – but there was nothing to indicate that the money was not going to continue to flow to the other threats."

• On President Trump's inheritance of the nuclear deal: "The bottom line on the American situation, though, I think is quite clear: that the next president is going to inherit a mess. That’s probably the most diplomatic word you can use for it."

• On the future of the nuclear deal: "So on a way ahead, we’re just going to have to recognize that we have an imperfect arms control agreement. Second, that what we achieved was a nuclear pause, not a nuclear halt. We’re going to have to plan for the worst. The old military adage of hope for the best but plan for the worst comes to bear. And in light of the other three – other four threats I mentioned, and a 12-year delay of the nuclear program, each is going to have to be addressed in action and planning."

• On not being able to abandon the nuclear deal: "I think one point I want to make, though, is there’s no going back. Absent a real violation – I mean, a clear and present violation that was enough to stimulate the European to action as well – I don’t think that we can – we can take advantage of some new president’s – Republican or Democrat – and say, well, we’re not going to live up to our word on this agreement. I believe we would be alone if we did, and unilateral economic sanctions from us would not have anywhere near the impact of an allied approach to this."

• On having a plan if Iran decided to restart its nuclear program: "I think too we’re going to have to hold at risk the nuclear program in the future, in other words make plans now of what we do if in fact they restart it and, again, go back to Congress, saying we need an oversight committee. It should have people from the Intelligence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Armed Service Committee together. And it should be something that maintains oversight of this agreement and keeps the issue high and under the oversight of the legislative branch to make certain that the executive branch is, in fact, maintaining the priority it deserves. And I think too we have to broaden and deepen our links to the anti-Iran spy agencies in the region with all of our friends, and make certain we’re all working together to keep an eye on what it’s up to. A cyber monitoring center I think could catch Iran red handed because, again, they’re not that good at it. And we can catch them when they – when they try to mess around in the cyber arena. We’ve caught them before. I think too Radio Farsi has to be dusted off and we need to go back at it. The Iranian people need to know right up front every day, we have no argument with you. Our concern is with the mullahs and this revolutionary cause that does not have your best interest in place. If you go back to Radio Free Europe and the Cold War, it was very, very effective. And it’s as if we don’t know how to take our own side in the fight on radio, TV, Twitter, Facebook, and others right now. I think in our future talks with Iran, they should be like our talks with the USSR before Gorbachev. In other words, keep our allies fully informed, recognize Iran as not a nation-state rather it’s a revolutionary cause devoted to mayhem, and also make certain that we don’t – we don’t end up with real high expectations from any talks with Iran. Just keep it a little modest there."

• On whether the decision to focus on Iran's nuclear program and nonproliferation was a mistake: "The short answer is, no, it was not a mistake. In this town, we seem to have forgotten the tremendous effort that went into nuclear nonproliferation in decades past. And to our – I’m sure it’s going to be to our regret, and especially to our children’s regret, we did not maintain that focus. So I think in the case of Iran, it was not a mistake to engage on the nuclear issue, even if we were to give it primacy. That, I think, is debatable. But even there I wouldn’t say it’s a mistake. The mistake would be to implement it in such a way that we appear to take our eye off the other balls. That’s the mistake. And that’s a choice. And that’s a choice we did not have to make. And so there’s a way to balance this in terms of creating more stability in the region. Unfortunately, we probably not have not executed in that manner yet. I mean, it’s still subject to a choice every day by our government."

• On what would happen if the nuclear deal collapsed: "I think if the deal were to collapse today, it would depend on whether or not the economic sanctions could be reinstituted in a compelling manner. The amount of effort that the State Department put in to those many years ago was extraordinary. We’re now at a point where people are clamoring to get into the Iranian market. If you were unable to reimpose the economic sanctions, then I think you would be basically on a road to perdition, because the lines of efforts inside Tehran are so contrary to the best interests of Israel and of the Arab states around it that it would lead to a collision. And how you would define the collision, whether it would be open war or a much higher level of terrorism, whether it would be economic blockades – I mean, as you know, Saudi Arabia has recently said that no ship that has made a port of call in its last three ports in Iran can carry any Saudi oil. So there are a number of things going on right now that might give us a little hint of what would be coming, but I think we’d be in uncharted territory at that point, with probably only bad things to happen."

Islamic State

See also: Federal policy on the Islamic State and terrorism, 2017-2020

• During an interview on May 28, 2017, Mattis discussed the Trump administration’s strategy to fight the self-described Islamic State (IS) terrorist group, also known as ISIS and ISIL. He said, “Our strategy right now is to accelerate the campaign against ISIS. It is a threat to all civilized nations. And the bottom line is, we are going to move in an accelerated and reinforced manner, throw them on their back foot. We have already shifted from attrition tactics, where we shove them from one position to another in Iraq and Syria, to annihilation tactics, where we surround them. Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to North Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa. We are not going to allow them to do so. We are going to stop them there and take apart the caliphate.”

• When asked what would happen after IS was defeated, Mattis replied, “Once ISIS is defeated, there is a larger effort under way to make certain that we don't just sprout a new enemy. We know ISIS is going to go down. We have had success on the battlefield. We have freed millions of people from being under their control. And not one inch of that ground that ISIS has lost has ISIS regained. It shows the effectiveness of what we are doing. However, there are larger currents, there are larger confrontations in this part of the world, and we cannot be blind to those. That is why they met in Washington under Secretary Tillerson's effort to carry out President Trump's strategy to make certain we don't just clean out this enemy and end up with a new enemy in the same area.”

• When asked what would be done under the more aggressive strategy to defeat IS, Mattis said, “We are going to shatter their sense of invincibility there in the physical caliphate. That is only one phase of this. Then we have the virtual caliphate that they use the Internet. Obviously, we are going to have to watch for other organizations growing up. We cannot go into some kind of complacency. I am from the American West. We have forest fires out there. And some of the worst forest fires in our history, the most damage were caused when we pulled the fire crews off the line too early. And so we are going to have to continue to keep the pressure on the enemy. There is no room for complacency on this.”

• Mattis said that there was a need for a more coherent policy in the fight against IS. Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee in September 2014, he said, “The strategy which then follows must define with carefully chosen words where we intend to go in this campaign: degrading, or defeating, or destroying the Islamic State, for example, portend different end states demanding different levels of effort, and thus different strategies.” Mattis, while not calling directly for sending American ground forces to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq, criticized the Obama administration’s decision to announce publicly its commitment to not sending “boots on the ground.” Mattis said, “Whichever strategy is chosen, we should be reticent in telling our adversaries in advance any timeline that governs us or which of our capabilities we will not employ. Specifically, if this threat to our nation is determined to be as significant as I believe it is, we may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American 'boots on the ground': if a brigade of our paratroopers or a battalion landing team of our Marines could strengthen our allies at a key juncture and create havoc/humiliation for our adversaries, then we should do what is necessary with our forces that exist for that very purpose. The U.S. military is not war weary, our military draws strength from confronting our enemies when clear policy objectives are set and we are fully resourced for the fight.”

Military

See also: Federal policy on the military, 2017-2020

Budget

• On February 1, 2018, while speaking to House and Senate GOP lawmakers, Mattis said that the Trump administration would request $716 billion for defense spending for the 2019 fiscal year. He said, “I’m not subtle. I need to make the military more lethal. Some people think I’m supposed to be an equal-opportunity employer."

• After Trump criticized the costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, Mattis ordered a review of the program and a review of the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program. On January 27, 2017, Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis said in a statement, “The purpose of these reviews is to inform programmatic and budgetary decisions, recognizing the critical importance of each of these acquisition programs.” According to The Hill, the "F-35 has been labeled the most expensive acquisition program in Pentagon history, at a total of $400 billion for 2,457 planes."

• During his confirmation hearing, Mattis said in his opening remarks that one of his top priorities as secretary of defense would be “to bring business reforms to the Department of Defense by instilling budget discipline and holding our leaders accountable. I will be committed to earning the trust and confidence of the Congress – and the American people – that the Department is the best possible steward of taxpayer money.”

Civilian control

• In his opening statement at his confirmation hearing, Mattis said, “Civilian control of the military is a fundamental tenet of the American military tradition. From day one service members swear an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution; they see photos of the nation’s civilian leaders prominently displayed above their uniformed leadership; and they are imbued with the principle that our nation’s elected and appointed leaders control the use of our military. It is a hallmark of America’s military that service members take pride in our country’s adherence to that principle, and it is a hallmark espoused by every U.S. military leader I have observed. … Civilian leaders bear these responsibilities because the esprit-de-corps of our military, its can-do spirit, and its obedience to civilian leadership reduces the inclination and power of the military to criticize or oppose the policy it is ultimately ordered to implement.”

Social issues

• On March 10, 2017, Mattis released the following statement about allegations that service members and veterans shared nude photos of female service members online: "The purported actions of civilian and military personnel on social media websites, including some associated with the Marines United group and possibly others, represent egregious violations of the fundamental values we uphold at the Department of Defense. The chain of command is taking all appropriate action to investigate potential misconduct and to maintain good order and discipline throughout our armed forces. Lack of respect for the dignity and humanity of fellow members of the Department of Defense is unacceptable and harmful to the unit cohesion necessary to battlefield victory. We will not excuse or tolerate such behavior if we are to uphold our values and maintain our ability to defeat the enemy on the battlefield."

• During his confirmation hearing, when asked by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) if he intended to roll back the opening of infantry positions to women in the military, Mattis said, “I've never come into any job with an agenda, a preformed agenda of changing anything. I come in assuming the people before me deserve respect for the job they did and the decisions they've made.” When he was pressed further on the issue and asked about past statements he made opposing women serving in infantry positions, Mattis said, “I have no plan to oppose women in any aspect of our military. In 2003, I had hundreds of Marines who happened to be women serving in my 23,000-person Marine division. ... I put them right on the front lines alongside everyone else.”

• Gillibrand also asked Mattis if allowing LGBTQ individuals to serve in the military undermined U.S. military performance. Mattis said, “Frankly, senator, I've never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with. … My concern is on the readiness of the force to fight and to make certain that it is at the top of its game.”

• Mattis was critical of efforts by the Obama administration to integrate transgender soldiers in the military and to open up combat positions to women. In a book that Mattis co-edited on civilian-military relations, he wrote, “We fear that an uninformed public is permitting political leaders to impose an accretion of social conventions that are diminishing the combat power of our military.”

NATO

See also: Federal policy on NATO, 2017-2020

• During an interview on May 28, 2017, CBS News’ John Dickerson asked Mattis if he had “to convince him [Trump] of how important NATO is?” Mattis replied, “In my initial job interview with the president, he brought up his questions about NATO. And my response was that I thought that, if we didn't have NATO, that he would want to create it, because it's a defense of our values, it is a defense of democracy. He was very open to that. Obviously, he had to make a decision about whether or not he was going to nominate me to be the secretary of defense. And although I immediately showed him that my view on that was rather profoundly in support of NATO, he at that point nominated me."

• On February 17, 2017, while speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Mattis said, "The United States is moving units into the Baltic states, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, under Operation Atlantic Resolve. And we joined the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada, nations leading our combined forward presence forces, as Ursula mentioned, in Poland and the Baltic states and this is a wholly defensive deployment to maintain deterrence. To confront the threats facing our alliance, we must recognize not just strategic realities, but also political realities. President Trump came into office and has thrown now his full support to NATO. He too espouses NATO's need to adapt to today's strategic situation for it to remain credible, capable and relevant. Further, as Minister van der Leyen noted last week, it is a fair demand that all who benefit from the best alliance in the world carry their proportionate share of the necessary costs to defend our freedoms and we are committed to passing those freedoms intact to the next generation. ... [T]he transatlantic bond remains our strongest bulwark against instability and violence. NATO exists to protect our way of life, to include the free exchange of ideas that characterizes this annual conference in one of the world's great cities. Here, I am confident that we will strengthen our partnerships, confronting those who chose to attack innocent people or our democratic processes and our freedoms."

• On February 15, 2017, while speaking at NATO headquarters, Mattis said, "The alliance remains a fundamental bedrock for the United States and for all the transatlantic community, bonded as we are together. As President Trump has stated, he has strong support for NATO. And NATO is in the midst of transformation. It has always been adapting to the security challenges. This is nothing new, perhaps the pace of change is certainly picked up a bit, but this is something that we can deal with. And it's absolutely appropriate, as the European minister of defense said last week, it's a fair demand that all who benefit from the best defense in the world carry their proportionate share of the necessary cost to defend freedom. And we should never forget ultimately it is freedom that we defend here at NATO. And I do have confidence that we will prove, once again, that we can react to the changing circumstances. We've done so in the past, there's every reason for confidence that we will move out purposefully together once again."

• At the event, Mattis also "accused some NATO members of ignoring threats, including from Russia," according to Reuters. Mattis said, "America cannot care more for your children's future security than you do." He also told other defense ministers that the U.S. expected them to develop a plan to pay their share of defense spending and show progress in 2017. Mattis said, "I owe it to you to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States, and to state the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms. ... America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense."

• Britain's Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said Mattis explained that "the impatience of the American taxpayer is a reality." According to Reuters, "Other defense chiefs appeared to back up Mattis' plea and he was broadly seen to be reassuring NATO of America's commitment after a contentious election campaign that put allies on edge."

• Mattis served as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) from 2007 to 2009. During a speech in 2009, he spoke about the need for NATO to strengthen its military capabilities and to modernize its processes and approaches to a “changed security landscape.” He added, “The security challenges we face today can no longer be addressed with yesterday’s answers.”

North Korea

See also: Federal policy on North Korea, 2017-2020

• On September 26, 2017, during a press conference with Indian Minister of Defence Nirmala Sitharaman, Mattis was asked about increasing tensions with North Korea. He said, "The effort to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula is one that has been diplomatically led and with an increased emphasis here as the DPRK -- as North Korea's provocations have become more pronounced. We continue to maintain the diplomatically led effort in the United Nations. You have seen unanimous United Nations Security Council resolutions passed that have increased the pressure -- economic pressure and diplomatic pressure on the North. At the same time we maintain the capability to deter North Korea's most dangerous threats, but also to back up our diplomats in a manner that keeps this as long as possible in the diplomatic realm -- this effort in the diplomatic realm. And that is our goal, to solve this diplomatically. And I believe that President Trump has been very clear on this issue."

• On September 3, 2017, after North Korea tested a hydrogen bomb built to sit on top of an intercontinental ballistic missile, Mattis said, "Our commitments among the allies are ironclad. Any threat to the United States or its territories, including [the U.S. territory of] Guam or our allies, will be met with a massive military response, a response both effective and overwhelming. ... Kim Jong Un should take heed the United Nations Security Council's unified voice. All members unanimously agreed on the threat North Korea poses, and they remain unanimous in their commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea. But as I said, we have many options to do so." It was North Korea's sixth nuclear test since 2006.

• On August 13, 2017, Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that the United States’ policy of strategic patience towards North Korea would be replaced with a policy of strategic accountability. They wrote that the Trump administration “is applying diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea to achieve the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a dismantling of the regime’s ballistic-missile programs.” They made clear that the goal of the policy was denuclearization and that the administration “has no interest in regime change or accelerated reunification of Korea.”

• They also called on China to exert economic and diplomatic pressure on North Korea, writing, “China is North Korea’s neighbor, sole treaty ally and main commercial partner. Chinese entities are, in one way or another, involved with roughly 90% of North Korean trade. This affords China an unparalleled opportunity to assert its influence with the regime. … If China wishes to play a more active role in securing regional peace and stability—from which all of us, especially China, derive such great benefit—it must make the decision to exercise its decisive diplomatic and economic leverage over North Korea.”

• The secretaries said that the U.S. preferred diplomacy but that it would be backed by military options, including defensive preparations like the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) by South Korea’s government and joint military exercises. They added a final warning to North Korea, writing, “Any attack will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons will be met with an effective and overwhelming response. North Korea now faces a choice. Take a new path toward peace, prosperity and international acceptance, or continue further down the dead alley of belligerence, poverty and isolation. The U.S. will aspire and work for the former, and will remain vigilant against the latter.”

• On August 9, 2017, Mattis warned North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that if his country continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons it "would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people."

“

The United States and our allies have the demonstrated capabilities and unquestionable commitment to defend ourselves from an attack. Kim Jong Un should take heed of the United Nations Security Council's unified voice, and statements from governments the world over, who agree the DPRK poses a threat to global security and stability. The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people. President Trump was informed of the growing threat last December and on taking office his first orders to me emphasized the readiness of our ballistic missile defense and nuclear deterrent forces. While our State Department is making every effort to resolve this global threat through diplomatic means, it must be noted that the combined allied militaries now possess the most precise, rehearsed and robust defensive and offensive capabilities on Earth. The DPRK regime's actions will continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates.

”

• During an interview with CBS News’ John Dickerson on May 28, 2017, Mattis discussed what a conflict with North Korea could look like. He said, “A conflict in North Korea, John, would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people's lifetimes. Why do I say this? The North Korean regime has hundreds of artillery cannons and rocket launchers within range of one of the most densely populated cities on earth, which is the capital of South Korea. We are working with the international community to deal with this issue. This regime is a threat to the region, to Japan, to South Korea, and in the event of war, they would bring danger to China and to Russia as well. But the bottom line is, it would be a catastrophic war if this turns into combat, if we are not able to resolve this situation through diplomatic means.”

• While speaking in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on April 18, 2017, Mattis commented on North Korea’s April 15, 2017, failed missile test. He said, “The leader of North Korea again recklessly tried to provoke something by launching a missile.” According to PBS, Mattis used the word reckless because the North Koreans have used the word "to describe ongoing large-scale U.S. and South Korean military exercises, which the North calls a dress rehearsal for an invasion."

• On March 31, 2017, during a joint press conference with British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, Mattis spoke about North Korea's nuclear missile programs, saying it was moving "in a very reckless manner in what its conduct is portraying for the future. That's got to be stopped." Mattis added, "This is a threat of both rhetoric and growing capability and we will be working with the international community to address this."

• On February 3, 2017, Mattis reinforced the United States' plan to establish a missile defense system in South Korea within the year. He added, "North Korea continues to launch missiles, develop its nuclear weapons program, and engage in threatening rhetoric and behavior. We stand with our peace-loving Republic of Korea ally to maintain stability on the peninsula and in the region. America's commitments to defending our allies and to upholding our extended deterrence guarantees remain ironclad: Any attack on the United States, or our allies, will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons would be met with a response that would be effective and overwhelming."

Russia

See also: Federal policy on Russia, 2017-2020

• On June 13, 2017, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Mattis said, “I think a disruption of the international order is something that Russia, in a shortsighted way, thinks works to their benefit. I think it does not, but I can't speak for them. I think what you're seeing here, though, is the continued prevalence of threats, not just to our own country, not just the Western Europe democracies, but they're trying to break any kind of multilateral alliance, I think, that is a stabilizing influence in the world.” His comments were a response to a question posed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). She asked him if "reports about Russia hacking Qatar’s state news agency and planting a fake news story are true and to comment on Russia’s possible motivations," according to The Hill.

• On April 24, 2017, in response to reports that Russia was funding and arming the Taliban, Mattis said, “We’re going to have to confront Russia.” According to USA Today, “[S]upplying the Taliban with weaponry would be a violation of international law.”

• On March 31, 2017, during a joint press conference with British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, Mattis discussed Russian activity in Afghanistan and the possibility of engaging with Russia on a political or diplomatic level. Mattis said, "We have seen Russian activity vis-à-vis the Taliban. I'm not willing to say at this point if that has manifested into weapons and that sort of thing, but certainly what they're up to there in light of their other activities gives us concern." Mattis added, "Right now, Russia is choosing to be a strategic competitor. We're finding that we can only have very modest expectations at this point in areas that we can cooperate with Russia, contrary to how we were just 10 years ago [or] five years ago."

• On February 16, 2017, after meeting with defense ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Mattis said, "There is very little doubt that they [Russia] have either interfered or attempted to interfere in a number of elections in democracies." He added that Russia must “live by international law just like we expect all mature nations on this planet to do. ... [The U.S. and Russia] are not in a position right now to collaborate on a military level, but our political leaders will engage and try to find common ground or a way forward where Russia, living up to its commitments, will return to a partnership of sorts here with NATO.”

• During his confirmation hearing on January 12, 2017, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Mattis how he thought the U.S. should respond to Russian military activity. Mattis said, “Since Yalta, we have a long list of times that we've tried to engage positively with Russia. We have a relatively short list of successes in that regard. And right now, I think the most important thing is that we recognize the reality of what we are dealing with Mr. Putin and that we recognize that he is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance, and we take the steps, the integrated steps, the diplomatic, economic, military and the Alliance steps in working with our allies to defend ourselves where we must.”

• In a speech at the Heritage Foundation in May 2015, Mattis described Russia as a state seeking “security through instability” and was opposed to having democratic nations along its borders. He called Russian military involvement in Crimea and Ukraine an act of war. He added, “[Y]ou can call it whatever you want, but it is war. They may do it in a way that makes it deniable … Putin goes to bed at night knowing he can break all the rules, and the West will try to follow the rules.” In the same speech, he said that Putin was trying break NATO apart.

Syria

See also: Federal policy on Syria, 2017-2020

• On April 21, 2017, Mattis said that Syria still had chemical weapons. “There can be no doubt in the international community’s mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its agreement and its statement that it had removed them all. I can say authoritatively they have retained some, it’s a violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and it’s going to have to be taken up diplomatically and they would be ill advised to try to use any again, we made that very clear with our strike,” he said.

• On April 11, 2017, after reviewing the intelligence on the Syrian regime’s April 4, 2017, chemical attack on Syrian civilians, Mattis said, "[T]here is no doubt the Syrian regime is responsible for the decision to attack and for the attack itself." He then said that the Trump administration's decision to respond to the attack militarily showed that "the United States will not passively stand by while Assad blithely ignores international law and employs chemical weapons he had declared destroyed." He added, "Our military policy in Syria has not changed. Our priority remains the defeat of ISIS. ISIS represents a clear and present danger, an immediate threat to Europe and ultimately, a threat to the United States homeland."

• Mattis said that he supported helping Syrian rebels fight against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Mattis said Assad's fall from power would be “the biggest strategic setback for Iran in 25 years” and “would cause a great deal of concern and discontent in Tehran.” Mattis also warned that if the U.S. became more involved in Syria, it would be a “very very serious war.” In a speech, he said, “This war needs to be ended as rapidly as possible, that’s the bottom line. But if the Americans go in… it’s going to be a full-throated, very very serious war. And anyone who says it’s easy, that we can do a no-fly zone and it will be cheap, I discount that at the outset.”

Terrorism

• On September 26, 2017, during a press conference with Indian Minister of Defence Nirmala Sitharaman, Mattis discussed how the U.S. planned to work with India to combat terrorism. He said, "Well, on the role of India in counterterrorism, India has suffered grievous losses. The United States has suffered losses to terrorism. Many nations around the world have suffered losses to terrorism. And I believe one aspect of this that is universally shared by all responsible nations in the world is that there can be no safe havens, anywhere, for terrorists. We intend to work closely with India, collaborating with India and like-minded nations. And in the Indo-Pacific region, obviously India's one of the leaders that we intend to align with as we eradicate this, as I mentioned in my -- in my prepared remarks. But I think also that as we look at -- at terrorism and what is going on in the world today, we see an increasing number of nations that are willing to put their -- their troops in the field, to put their police departments working together. And we just see a -- overall a stronger level of collaboration in this regard. And I believe in the long run that we are going to put terrorism on its back foot, but it's going to be a lot of work and it's going to require a high degree of teamwork by all nations. And I think that that is -- that's coming into focus."

Torture

• On November 23, 2016, after meeting with Mattis, Trump said that the general helped him gain a new perspective on waterboarding. Trump said, "General Mattis is a strong, highly dignified man. I met with him at length and I asked him that question. I said, 'What do you think of waterboarding?' He said -- I was surprised -- he said, 'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.' ... I'm not saying it changed my mind. Look, we have people that are chopping off heads and drowning people in steel cages and we're not allowed to waterboard. But I'll tell you what, I was impressed by that answer."

Personal

Note: Please contact us if the personal information below requires an update.
Mattis is not married, and he does not have any children.

See also

• Donald Trump potential high-level administration appointments
• U.S. Department of Defense
• Federal policy on Iran, 2017-2020
• Federal policy on the Iran nuclear deal, 2017-2020
• Federal policy on the Islamic State and terrorism, 2017-2020
• Federal policy on Russia, 2017-2020

External links

• U.S. Department of Defense

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by Ashton Carter	U.S. Secretary of Defense 2017-2019	Succeeded by -