United Nations Accountability and Reform: Advancing an America First Foreign Policy Through Strategic Diplomacy and Burden Sharing
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Foreign Affairs U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsBrian Mast
Gentleman yields back. Recognize myself for an opening statement. I'd just start by kicking off on one of the comments you made. Certainly one of the things President Trump accomplished with Iran was accomplishing what you directed him to do, which was use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, something you and most of your colleagues on this side of the aisle used to vote for. I want to thank you for coming here today, Ambassador Waltz.
Ambassador Bartos, thank you for being here today. I would argue that you two have what is arguably one of the most difficult jobs in government. I know it was brought up in your confirmation hearings in the Senate just how difficult the job is that you have to do. The United Nations of today, and these are the reasons why it has been gutted, and I agree with the gutting that you're working to do there, it's become a corrupt, entrenched den of snakes. That's what I would characterize it as.
You two men have been asked to show up every day, represent American values, restore sanity to an organization that has grifted off of the American taxpayer and has become a soapbox, literally, for terrorists and America's adversaries. Today's hearing is about giving the United States ambassadors to the United Nations the tools needed to implement policies of accountability at the UN, policies of reform at the UN. I believe that you have been doing everything in your power to do just that, conduct reform at the United Nations, a nearly impossible task. President Trump has been abundantly clear, we will not tolerate what has been the status quo. It is hard to imagine that when the 51 founding members signed the UN Charter in 1945, they would have foreseen the utterly useless and corrupt institution that it would become.
Today the United Nations is a sprawling bureaucracy of 193 member states, over 100,000 personnel. In 2024, the UN system received over 68 billion dollars in revenue across its various agencies, funds, and programs, and I don't think any of that bloat made it more effective. In fact, quite the opposite. The United Nations has grown increasingly bureaucratic and grown increasingly ineffective. Take a look at just one example, many have heard me speak about this before, the UN-backed multinational security support mission in Haiti.
United States of America paid over one billion dollars for 1,000 Kenyan peacekeepers to go into Haiti and take out the gangs, that's what we purchased.
They did none of that. They abysmally failed while we literally paid over 1 million dollars per Kenyan to do that job. In fact, things have gotten so bad that the Haitian government has taken matters into their own hands and hired an American to go in and do the work that the UN had failed to do at a fraction of the manpower, at a fraction of the cost, and with great success. We simply cannot ask American taxpayers to continue funding failed missions. We can no longer fund programs in the UN that support abortion, radical gender ideology, LGBTQ education, and other leftist projects that do nothing for the American people.
We can no longer give America's enemies a seat at the table. When Iran is nominated to the UN committee responsible for shaping UN priorities on human rights and counterterrorism, clearly the United Nations has a credibility problem. When Iran is selected as the vice president for the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, again the United Nations has a serious credibility problem. You can't make that up that that took place. It is like a movie.
When UNRWA, the UN's relief organization in the Middle East, puts Hamas operatives on its payroll, the United Nations has a serious credibility problem. When the United Nations institutionalizes antisemitism and disproportionate condemnation of Israel after it suffered the worst terrorist attack and genocide in history, it should be abundantly clear that the UN is rotting from the inside. The UN is in severe need of reform. We have to leverage the opportunity we have under President Trump to put America First foreign policy in action at the UN. We have an opportunity to demand that the UN deliver results that align with American foreign policy interests, not Iranian nuclear interests, not Chinese COVID interests, not Russian political obstruction, which is where they have moved to.
These reasons and countless others are why I've become the first House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman in history to vote against funding for the United Nations. If there were a vote today in the House to create or join a new organization where the United States of America would be on equal footing with Russia and the People's Republic of China, that perhaps had some good features like the World Food Programme, but also had programs like UNRWA and Haiti boondoggles and climate radicalism and UN lobbying campaigns for abortion, we would vote against it. We would not recreate it. We would not fund it. We wouldn't give them 14 dollars, we wouldn't give them 14 billion dollars.
Ambassador Waltz, Ambassador Bartos, you have been doing everything that you can to tear out the rot, to tear out the grift. I give you every credit for that. I admire the steps that you're taking for United Nations reform and I appreciate your leadership in that den of snakes. While I continue to doubt the effectiveness and the value of the United Nations as an organization, I look forward to hearing your testimony, hearing about the successes that you have had in rooting out that rot, the obstacles that you continue to face, and learning about those UN institutions and cultures where the rot is so deep you and your leadership team have yet to been able to affect it.
Now recognize, I would actually remind other members of the committee that opening statements may be submitted for the record. Again, we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this topic. The Honorable Mike Waltz, representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for the US Department of State. And the Honorable Jeff Bartos, representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for UN management and reform for US Department of State. We're honored to have you both.
Ambassador Waltz, it was honored to have you as a colleague here. This committee recognizes the importance of the issues before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us. Your full statements will be made a part of the record. I'll ask each of you to keep your remarks as short as you can. I recognize you, Ambassador Waltz, for any opening statement that you would like to make.
Michael Waltz
Well, thank you, Chairman Mast and Ranking Member Meeks and members of the committee. It's good to see you again. It's good to be back. A little different to be on this side of the of the dais, I have to admit. Mr. Chairman, colleagues, it should surprise no one that I share the view that the UN has drifted badly from its core mission.
We've all seen it. And that's from my former constituents in Florida to my UN colleagues who say the same thing every day to I think most of you this morning. My charge from President Trump is to help the UN realize its potential. We are getting the United Nations back to basics, back to maintaining the peace and maintaining security around the world. Unfortunately, the UN has tried to become all things to all people and has literally done nothing but grow for its 80-year history.
Its budget just in the last 25 years has tripled in size. And I don't think we've seen a tripling of peace break out around the world. We, as part of our reform effort, have worked with the UN, which they have to do by consensus, to cut its budget for the first time in its existence, ever. We cut it by a billion dollars over the last six months alone. And by the way, again, that requires consensus of all 190 countries to agree on every line of the budget.
Imagine if this body had to get all five if this Congress had to get 535 members to agree on a budget. But this gentleman, Ambassador Bartos and his team, had all 190 countries to agree and they should be, I think, appreciated for that. We've also eliminated 4,000 headquarters bureaucrats, cut peacekeepers by 25% around the world. And importantly, we've ended peacekeeping missions that have not lived up to their mandate, that have failed, those like UNIFIL in Lebanon. We have made it clear that UNIFIL needs to stand down and negotiations are underway with back to basics.
A healthier UN is a more useful UN, one that President Trump, who I do believe is a peace president, can use to help the United States deliver peace, share the burden, and advance an America First policy. And under President Trump, we drove a number of things and a number of successes the American people should be proud of. We drove a landmark Security Council resolution condemning Iran's attacks on its neighbors and the weaponization of the Straits of Hormuz. I hear all the time we don't have countries that agree with us, that we don't have allies that agree with us. Yet, in this instance, we set a UN record.
136 countries agreed with us that Iran's behavior is an absolute violation of international law. When President Trump proposed his 20-point Gaza peace plan, we secured a Security Council endorsement without opposition of that plan. It now anchors an international stabilization force, local Palestinian government governance, a World Bank-managed reconstruction fund funded largely by regional partners, not American taxpayers. I say again, not American taxpayers.
And for the first time in a decade, there are zero hostages in Gaza. Something that just six, seven months ago everyone thought was impossible. In Haiti, Mr. Chairman, where you mentioned under the last administration we had a billion dollars of US taxpayer dollars going to fund just a thousand Kenyan policemen, where drugs, guns, thugs threatened the United States, our southern border, Europe, West Africa, and the Caribbean. We now have a gang suppression force with an offensive mandate with international troops, Francophone troops, not US troops. And UN logistics have now cut our cost by 75%.
In Western Sahara, we're pushing peace for the first time in 50 years. And our friends and adversaries are seeing what the UN can accomplish when it gets refocused, when it does fewer things better. Look, colleagues, there's still more to do. We certainly realize that. There is more in our crosshairs for reform, slashing these ridiculous benefits programs.
I think that would be quite hard to explain to your constituents why UN bureaucrats have private schools paid for, yet our own constituents are struggling to go to their schools. A 17% pension contribution. 17%. More than anywhere else in the United States and the world that we're aware of. And we're fighting this year for a reform-minded Secretary General.
At the end of the day, we need more Americans serving in UN agencies, for our businesses and standard-setting bodies, and for ultimately a UN that again does less better for the American people. Our charge is to make the UN great again. Thank you.
Jeff Bartos
Yes, just briefly. First, Chairman Mast, thank you for your hospitality. Thank you for allowing us to be here. It's an honor to be with you, Ranking Member Meeks, and to your staff. We've had a wonderful working relationship both with the majority staff and the ranking member staff, the minority staff, throughout my time we've been at the post for about 10 months and worked very, very closely with the staff here and really appreciate the professionalism and the diligence of everyone we get a chance to work with.
If I could just set the table, last July when Ambassador Waltz, Ambassador Lacetta, and I sat for our confirmation hearings just across the way in the Senate in the Foreign Relations Committee, we were told things like, very fairly told by the way, UN and reform is an oxymoron. It's impossible. Some senators even said, good luck with that. My wife even asked me, why are you doing this job? It seems impossible.
But we hit the ground running in September. First day at work was the President's speech on the floor of the General Assembly. And we have not come up for air. We have not stopped running hard since minute one of putting our right hands up and taking the oath of office that we were all so honored to do. And this work is amazing, the work we get to do.
Ambassador Waltz and I wrote an op-ed in January, just a couple months ago, and it was entitled, Reforming the UN was Impossible Until President Trump Came Along. And that is the spirit in which we've taken all of our work here. And what we've achieved in six months with the President's vision and leadership, with the Secretary's support, vision, and leadership, and with the remarkable team we get to work with at the State Department, and of course with Ambassador Waltz's leadership as our chief of mission. As he said, we have achieved $1.1 billion in budget cuts across the regular budget and the peacekeeping budget. Not only is this historic reform, it is the first budget cut in the history of the 80-year history of the organization.
And we did that in the last six months.
4,000 civilian posts cut. Repatriating 25% of peacekeepers who were underperforming. That's diplomatic nice-speak of saying these were these were sexual abusers. These were these were troops who were engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse. And because the US drove these reforms, force commanders had the political cover, their words, not mine, they had the political cover to send home these abusers.
First time really in a long time that they've been able to do that. Culture at the UN. What have we done to address culture? Our team for for years has worked on before you as a troop-contributing country you could send equipment into theater, park it, and get reimbursed just for having it sit there. Our team, and I have a remarkable management reform team that I get to work with at the mission, they've been working on this for years, but we drove it through this spring in the contingent-owned equipment working group.
There is such a thing at the UN, who knew? We changed the way the culture of the UN, now to get reimbursed you have to put the equipment into use. It has to be used, it has to be working, it has to be effective, it has to go out on patrol. Saving 30 million a year when it's fully up and running, but more importantly the culture of the UN, no longer are you getting paid for not doing anything. And these are such important foundational changes and Chairman as you said, as Ambassador Waltz said, we have what we have reached for thus far far exceeds our grasp.
We have to go way further over the next two-plus years to achieve real meaningful durable consequential reform. That's our charge from the President. But that's what we're doing every day. And so we bring as you and I have discussed, there's so much work left to do. If I could just say also, and the Ambassador touched on this, the UN in standard-setting bodies like the ITU, like WIPO, like IMO, we are bringing US leadership to make sure that our interests are not only preserved but also our interests lead.
Because if we're not leading, our adversaries are waiting in the wings to do that. And so we are bringing that American leadership, that American innovation, that American focus to do just that. I look forward to your questions as I said it's an honor to be here and thank you for having us.
Speaker 5
Thank you Ambassador Bartos. Ranking Member Meeks, do you want to forgo your questions?
Forgo?
Yes.
Gregory Meeks
Let me start this and I want to because this committee we have not had any real oversight on this war of choice of President Trump. And and I know that Ambassador Waltz you've been the face of that at the UN. And so I just have a few questions I want to ask you in that regards. You know, the White House declared on June 19th that President Trump's ceasefire agreement with Iran, quote, ensures Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon, unquote. But the International Atomic Energy Agency, an organization in the UN system, has reported that its inspectors have been unable to access Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile or previously declared nuclear facilities for nearly a year.
So I'm going to ask you a simple question because I'm trying to figure this out since we have not had any oversight in this regards and and any hearings on it. I'm going to take advantage of this. Can the IAEA account today for all of Iran's enriched uranium and verify that Iran has not moved nuclear material or equipment to undeclared locations? Do you know, yes, yes or no?
Michael Waltz
Thank you Ranking Member and in terms of oversight I'll note that Secretary Rubio has testified before this committee this year. But in terms of the IAEA you're absolutely right, Iran is not allowing the inspectors access to the sites in contravention of its obligations to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Unfortunately that's one of the things that our technical negotiators are negotiating now. We are in constant contact with the Director General Rafael Grossi. Iran has to let those inspectors back in.
By contrast, you have the United Arab Emirates just over the Gulf with a civilian nuclear program that does allow the inspectors full access. So, Iran kicked the inspectors out, they have to let them back in.
Gregory Meeks
What confuses me is that the president will then tell the American people on June 19th that his ceasefire agreement has eliminated Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. So, why would he say that if in fact what you just said, the IAEA cannot verify and there's no one else verifying, so it has not been eliminated? But at one time the president said because of this agreement that he made that the Iran's path to nuclear weapon have been eliminated. In fact, he also said that they was completely annihilated, you know, on June 19th, etc. But it seems as though he was not telling the truth then, and now we hear something else differently then.
So, that's what I'm concerned about is, you know, what the president is talking about because it is the president that tore up the JCPOA in his first term. And I believe that you told Fox News on June 22nd that, quote, "what we never saw with Obama or the Biden administration trying to do the JCPOA 2.0 was a credible military option on the table." Now, we've spent, the DOD budget has almost tripled, and I don't see more peace that's happening there. The American people is paying for that. So, I, look, there was a pursued, you pursued the military action.
It has cost at least $37.5 billion according to P-Hegseth, and others say up to $100 billion. So, what I'm trying to find out and what I'm asking you before I move to the UN real quick, what has this war achieved on the nuclear threat that diplomacy, sanctions, inspections, and allied coordination did not?
Michael Waltz
Well, number one, going to the UN, we have snapback sanctions that are back in place. The international community has joined the United States in that maximum pressure that is in place.
There was snapback in place with the JCPOA also.
Michael Waltz
Well, that, the sanctions, no, I'm sorry, ranking member, the sanctions were lifted. They were snapped back under this administration. Number one. Number two, you're right, the Iranians cheated under JCPOA. That was exposed.
The IAEA verified that there were sites that they hid that were not discovered under that agreement and that they were growing their nuclear program. President Trump did obliterate the nuclear program last June. But now, but it is very clear the Iranians still intend to reconstitute it, they still intend to enrich, and they still have highly enriched uranium that we have to deal with through negotiation.
Gregory Meeks
The Strait of Hormuz was open, gas prices wasn't over $4, food prices were not going up. We were not spending nearly a billion dollars almost a day. He's coming back now asking the Senate and will be asking the House about 300, for $300 billion more. There's not been, he's not come to Congress. He has not talked about and talked with us on how we end this war.
Speaker 11
Secretary Rubio has been before Congress. Secretary Hegseth was there yesterday.
Gregory Meeks
And he has not answered the questions also. So, I'm taking advantage of everybody that is coming here because unfortunately there's been no oversight in this committee and you have been the face of this war at the UN, sir. I yield back.
Brian Mast
Thank you, ranking member Meeks. You may not recall the oversight of Secretary Rubio just about a month ago because you left halfway through and never came back. So, maybe you forgot about it. That might make sense. I'm going to recognize Representative... well, you must have.
Speaker 13
I did not. He did not. He has not. Have we had an... he came here, but have we had... you probably don't remember because you missed half of it. I didn't miss half of it.
I could see it in my office. You missed half of it. So, you don't know what I missed. I know what you missed. I know you weren't sitting here.
I know you have not had any hearings and oversight. I know that. I know you weren't sitting here next to the ranking member.
Brian Mast
Hey, Mike, nothing ever changes.
But this was him when he was here. Also, I would thank you for attending Monday's classified briefing. I think it might have been the first one you attended. So thank you for attending that. But Representative McCall, you're recognized.
Michael McCaul
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Ambassador Waltz, great to see you again. It's great to see a friend and a former colleague in this position. And let me just say, I think you're doing an outstanding job. Reforming the United Nations is quite a daunting task, as Ambassador Bartos mentioned, and your wife questioning your sanity in taking on the job, but I commend you for it.
Let me just... I want to follow up with Iran. You know, since 1979, a dark veil of terror has reigned over the Middle East. This, in my judgment, was a reckoning that was eventually going to happen. It was unavoidable with this regime as long as the regime is in power.
I commend this President for being the first President to take on this regime in Iran on its path to a nuclear bomb. Negotiating in the past hasn't worked. And I have to be honest with you, Ambassador, I'm not sanguine about the current negotiations. I understand we have to give that a chance and give peace a chance. We have to try to negotiate.
But I do think that as Reagan said, peace through strength, as Colin Powell talked about, the Powell Doctrine, either you go all in to win or you get the hell out of there. Right now, they're reconstituting their centrifuges in underground storage facilities. And their launchpads are still striking. It is my sincere hope, and it's not your responsibility, but this... That the President unleashes our Department of War on Iran.
I know that's what is happening now to take out the launchpads, to take out the IRGC, to let Mossad and Israel do its job, because I think as long as this regime's in power, we're going to continue to have this problem. And Russia providing targeting information is absolutely unacceptable from my point of view, and I think from the United States' point of view. I'm really pleased to see the White House join with Lindsey Graham as I went to Ukraine. His last wishes were his Russian sanctions bill to pass. I will be introducing that in the Congress here today.
And I want to thank the White House for its work there, because nothing will end that war sooner than passing that sanctions bill. It's a path to peace, not a path to war. My question to you is the Straits of Hormuz. We're a net gain producer. We don't really even have to rely on this.
We are doing this to the benefit of our European allies. The UN Security Council... You know, I want to ask you, where is the UN Security Council? I applaud the President as well for getting the Gulf States involved to help finance this operation, because it's in their best interest to open up these straits. I think it's a very doable thing if we unleash our military and allow them to do what they do best.
Sir, and you know the military better than I do. They're fully capable of accomplishing this mission. I know that's not the hat you wear today, but I'd like for you to comment on the overall status of the straits and what role, if any, are, you know, the Gulf States... But I think the Gulf States are stepping up.
What role, if any, is the United Nations and Security Council playing in this?
Michael Waltz
Well, thank you, and just to set the table for the answer, and I want to answer that very specifically. You're absolutely right, Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979, has killed thousands of my fellow servicemen in Iraq, in Lebanon, in the Gulf, literally all over the world, in addition to its plots here in the United States and to kill the President of the United States and members of his cabinet. Yet, Iran is in the worst place, is in the weakest place it has been through a combination of both military and diplomacy in its war against the United States. In Lebanon, you have the Lebanese government, you have the president here yesterday and today. You have Lebanon negotiating with Israel for the first time.
You have the Assad regime is gone, in probably the most hope in Syria that we've seen in a generation. You just had the Iraqi president here in Texas signing deals with American oil and gas companies. And the Iranian regime is literally cratering economically, militarily, and at war, frankly, with its own people in addition to the region. To your point on the Straits of Hormuz, Secretary Bessent just said yesterday, China, the main buyer of Iranian illegal Iranian oil, has cut its purchases by half and nobody else wants to buy it. The blockade is absolutely working.
And then on the UN, look, we've had Iran absolutely diplomatically isolated. We may not pay a lot of attention to what happens in the UN Security Council here in our media, but I can tell you around the rest of the world, they are glued to every word. It's the only forum Iran really has on the global stage, and 140 countries have sided with us and condemned their attacks on civilian shipping, the mines that they're putting in international waterways, and their violations of international law across the board. Keeping them diplomatically isolated is my job, and as the ranking member mentioned, we also have sanctions authority. The snapback sanctions that were lifted under the JCPOA are now back in place and the rest of the world has joined us in that economic isolation.
Brad Sherman
I thank Mr. McCaul for pointing out that America is self-sufficient in oil. Our oil does not go through the Strait of Hormuz. If we prohibited the export of American oil except for refine and return, then we would be paying American prices for American oil. Instead, the President has decided that we need to pay that world price to the great enrichment of American oil producers that have done nothing except sell us the same oil at the same gas stations now for a much higher price. The ranking member was correct to point out that this committee has not provided oversight for this horrendous war in Iran.
But even more timely is that we need hearings in this committee about the proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. Now, there are those who think that the Saudi position of nuclear technology is totally benign. But I've been involved in this for a long time, and I remember when the most powerful monarch in the Middle East was a good friend of America. And the Shah got his hands on important US military technology, thank God nothing nuclear. And everything the Shah had in 1978 was in the mullahs' hands in 1979.
We have no idea who is going to be running Saudi Arabia ten years from now. Mr. Waltz, the administration has decided to share certain elements of the nuclear cooperation agreement with the press, and so all I have is press reports. Have you read the agreement?
Mr. Sherman, I have seen the agreement.
Brad Sherman
Any chance we'll get to see the agreement? Could you provide it to us perhaps today, perhaps either in a classified session or an open session?
Michael Waltz
I would happily take that for the record and that's obviously to the Secretary and the President what he shares with the committee.
Brad Sherman
Well, as to the Secretary, let me point out that Senator Rubio and I in 2018 introduced the No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act, which mandated that any agreement with Saudi Arabia would have to have the affirmative approval of the United States Congress. And I miss Senator Rubio. The Secretary Rubio takes a completely different position. Now, the press reports indicate... Chairman, could I just be clear for the record?
I understood you to mean the MOU with Iran. I have not seen any proposed agreement with Saudi Arabia. I'm talking about Saudi Arabia. So you have not... Okay, so the...
No, I have not. Oh, so you've not read... Okay, well then he won't share it with you or us until some later date. He'll have to share it with us at a later date. But the press reports indicate that there'll be no... that Saudi Arabia is not agreeing to the additional protocol.
The United Arab Emirates did agree to the additional protocol. Is there any reason we should be bombing Iran because they won't agree to limit their nuclear program while telling Saudi Arabia we give them the green light and they don't even have to agree to these additional inspections?
Michael Waltz
Yes, absolutely. There's been half a dozen UN resolutions saying Iran cannot and should not have a nuclear weapon and they're the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. There's a reason we should be bombing Iran and not Saudi Arabia. It's kind of a ridiculous question.
Speaker 26
Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, reclaiming... Mr. Chairman, can you keep order? Mr. Chairman, can you keep order?
You asked him a question, he's trying to answer.
Speaker 22
It's not a real thing for members of this committee to control their five minutes of time?
Brad Sherman
I did and I got a filibuster and I stopped the filibuster. Wasting your time with me. It's also great to hear this side of the aisle celebrate oil after they... I look forward to this committee being run in accordance with committee rules and only the departure from committee rules prevents us from exposing the great hypocrisy here. Saudi Arabia is not agreeing to the additional inspections that could make sure that their program is not used for nuclear... to develop a nuclear weapon.
We have no idea who will be running Saudi Arabia 10 years from now. We are bombing Iran because they insist upon enriching and reprocessing. We are entering into an agreement with Saudi Arabia giving them the green light to reprocess and to enrich. And the only difference I see here is that Westinghouse stands to make an awful lot of money on this deal whereas the Iranians were not enriching American companies. I look forward to having a process with Congress where you'll tell us what you're doing and I hope that Senator Rubio will return to us and insist that Congress approve any agreement.
I know that someone will introduce or I predict someone will introduce a resolution of disapproval and I invite members of this committee who have worked with us to prevent nuclear weapons in the Middle East from non-democratic countries to join in that effort. I yield back.
Brian Mast
Representative yields back. Just so everybody knows, I shouldn't have to tell people this, but if you ask the witnesses a question, I'm not going to prevent them from answering you.
I would think that's common sense. Representative Smith, you're recognized.
Speaker 24
Well, Mr. Chairman, the time belongs to the member. The time is the member's to utilize their time.
Speaker 34
The witness was trying to filibuster. This is your MO. You guys ask questions. It's his determination to make sure that he controls his time.
Don't ask questions if you don't want the answer.
They can answer, you gotta give them a chance.
They don't answer. They try to filibuster.
They don't if you talk over them.
They try to filibuster.
Brian Mast
Consider yourself warned. You ask them a question, they're going to have the opportunity to answer.
Gregory Meeks
Well, we gotta apply by the rules of this committee. The members control the time. You are not going to control the time of the members on at least this side of the aisle. The members control their own time. They determine whether or not their question is being answered or not.
They determine because they only have five minutes whether they want to move on to another question. We're not going to have a situation where witnesses can filibuster and members can't ask the questions that they want to ask. That's not the rule in this committee.
Brian Mast
Let me just be clear again. You will have a situation, I want you to be, you know, make sure you understand because sometimes you leave and you don't come back. I want you to understand that if your members ask a question, the witness are going to have the opportunity to answer, whether you leave and come back, it'll be the same rule. So just so you know.
This is not high school trying to be personal with me.
Representative Smith, you're recognized.
Speaker 36
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, let me just say a very special thanks to Ambassadors Wolos and Bartos for your extraordinary leadership, your tenacity, your vision. I am so glad we have the A-team at the United Nations and you are indeed that. You know, in 2011, I would note parenthetically, even President Obama cut off funding to UNESCO, and I remember it well, because of their rampant anti-Semitism. So withholding funding to an egregiously flawed institution or agency is in the best interests of not only the United Nations, but of course, the United States of America.
So thank you for that. I do want to thank you for working and pushing so hard to reform a system that is so egregiously flawed and broken, so many of the agencies, it is in disrepair, including peacekeeping. You know, I went to Darfur and I went to Sudan several times, but in Darfur I met with the peacekeepers when they first were deployed, found out they were getting a dollar a day. Came back, talked to Condoleezza Rice, our Secretary of State, said, this is outrageous. And of course, she worked to reform that and to fix that.
In 2005, I became aware that UN peacekeepers in DR Congo were raping little children. Ambassador Swing was in charge of that mission. When I raised these issues, I was dismissed and then dissed. So I went there and I met with the people. I ran into an OIOS Mountie who was in charge of investigating.
He was a font of information. Came back here, had four hearings on it and said, how dare they? They go in there to protect and they're raping little children, 10, 12 years old, and for a meal, these kids were being exploited by UN peacekeepers. Kofi Annan, to his credit, tried to reform it. And then what did he do?
He turned around, it was, he had a zero tolerance policy and he repatriated people who were, you know, committing these crimes. And then I had another hearing because we soon found out, and the hearing was called Zero Compliance with the Zero Tolerance towards human trafficking. I say that as the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and four other anti-human trafficking laws. I take this seriously and the UN has to be on the side absolutely of protection. So thank you for what you're doing there as well.
On Nigeria, Mike, Secretary Wolos, thank you for your leadership on Nigeria. You are one of the few people I know who was deployed there to try to help protect those who are being slaughtered, including the Christians.
Yes, Muslims get killed too, if they speak out. Christians get targeted because of the infidel, and the radical Islamic belief is you deserve to die. And whether it be Boko Haram, ISIS West Africa, or the Fulani, we need to do more, and you have taken the lead on that. And you might want to speak to that if you would, because I think Nigeria is one of those cases where if the government gets serious, and I mean really serious, they can come off the CPC designation, but do so by meriting it. I yield.
Michael Waltz
Well, thank you, Representative Smith, and thank you for your long history of taking these issues on and actually getting out there on the ground to see them firsthand rather than opining from DC. And I will say, I have to give credit where credit's due. Secretary Guterres has taken on the issue in a meaningful way of not just peacekeepers, but it's often local vendors being paid by the UN who are conducting this type of abuse. On Nigeria, yes, we are taking the persecution of Christians very seriously. I have to say, I did not have Nicki Minaj on my dance card, but to have her with her global following at the UN to put a spotlight on this issue was a real honor.
And I think it's one of the things the UN can do well in terms of having that global platform and having the entire world right there in New York. And we've seen the Nigerian government move as a response to the President's attention, our attention, her attention, and others on the issue. They're cooperating with us more than they were on counterterrorism. They're cooperating in terms of their security force capacity. They still have some work to do, frankly, in terms of the Sharia law that is in place in many of these local provinces.
And make no mistake, churches are being burned, pastors are being executed, people are being arrested literally for just wearing a cross around their neck. And the Christian religion is the most persecuted religion in the world right now, and this administration and I as its representative at the UN are taking it incredibly seriously in every action that we can.
Speaker 36
I do thank you so much for that. You know, on antisemitism, almost out of time, but the UN has been accused credibly in many of its agencies of being profoundly antisemitic, including UNRWA, which is a child soldier factory where you teach a kid, a Palestinian youth, from his earliest days to hate Jews and to hate America. And I've read their documents, I've had hearings on the textbooks. So I'm out of time. So thank you for the work that you're doing in that realm as well.
Jeff Bartos
Representative Keating. Mr. Chairman, may I just a quick response to the work we're doing on combating antisemitism? May I? Very briefly. Representative Smith, thank you for the point.
The UN's really at a crossroads. Since the day we landed, but really even before that, the President came into office with a focus on this and his leadership and vision, the Secretary and everyone we work with at State has been focused on this issue. The UN's at a crossroads. It does a lot of good work in the field in the humanitarian space, really important work. And at the same time, it employs a lunatic like Francesca Albanese.
An absolute lunatic of a virulent anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-West, anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-Israel bigot. She puts on that UN uniform, and she, it's such a disservice to the brave humanitarians who are out in the field risking their lives for a total stranger. And it does such a disservice to the brand of the UN. It is the greatest self-sabotage as a businessman I've ever seen in my business career that the UN allows its brand to be soiled and spoiled by this bigot. And the UN has a decision to make with a new Secretary-General coming in.
Are they going to continue to tolerate this bigotry, this hatred of America and the West and Jews and Israel, or are they going to move in a new direction? And we are watching not only watching very closely, we have a great team that works on it every day, and we are, rest assured, sir, we are going to hold them accountable.
William Keating
Representative Keating.
Ambassador Waltz, in your opening statement, you took great pride in pointing out the hundreds of countries that sided with the US on given resolutions. And I just want to note a point of shame brought to this country when the US sided with three countries, Russia, Belarus, and North Korea, in refusing to condemn Russia's actions, illegal actions, illegal aggression against Ukraine and denied supporting their territorial integrity. Prior to being in Congress, I was a district attorney. I had my own sexual assault unit, my own sexual assault investigative unit, prosecutorial unit. I started a child advocacy to treat children that were victims of sexual assault.
And I worked with regional and federal-based task force dealing with human trafficking, particularly trafficking of children. And in Congress, I had the opportunity to travel and to hold a hearing with Ukrainian, mostly women, on the ground, risking their lives in a hot war zone, trying to bring rescue, recovery, and treatment to children that were sexually assaulted by Russian soldiers. The stories they told me were horrific. Serial rapes occurring to young children with Russian soldiers starting in the morning, continuing through the day and all night, with their parents and grandparents being forced to witness this. Terrible, terrible examples of sexual assault time and time again and war crimes with Ukraine.
Now I want to ask you, given all that, and given my experience knowing that we're going to combat this, we have to do this on an international basis and a regional basis to be successful the way I was with those task force. Why did the US withdraw from the UN on key offices, the offices for children in armed conflict, the office of sexual violence in conflict, the office of violence against children? Why would the US ever withdraw, given what I just laid out, given what Russia's doing, but given what's happening all over the world? Why would they ever withdraw for that?
Michael Waltz
Congressman, I wouldn't conflate the our evaluation of the effectiveness of a particular office of an organization versus caring about the issue. I just last week hosted with Tim Tebow and the Tebow Foundation...
Speaker 37
To your point, to your point, sir, I know about Tebow. Thank you for...
Can I answer your question? It's five seconds filibuster.
William Keating
No, you answered that. Now I'm taking your answer that you gave me and I'm asking you another question. And I wasted time doing it. Don't filibuster me. Listen.
Listen, you just said, you just said you were talking about having agencies that you didn't have control over, that were ineffective. Okay, let's talk about one that the Trump administration does have control over, that does have the ability to shape. And that's the State Department. If that's the case, why did the Trump administration, when it has control with the State Department, why did they fire 70% of the department's trafficking in persons office? And that office, as you know, closes legal gaps and deals with online exploitation, sexual exploitation of children.
The office develops protection and partnerships with foreign countries with the goal of strengthening that capacity, preventing and effectively prosecuting and convicting child traffickers. So alright, you don't want, you just want to dismiss the meager probably monies that it takes to do...
Michael Waltz
President Trump just signed this year an executive order getting after in a very serious way sex exploitation of children. I just hosted a major event at the UN around the sexual exploitation of children with INL, with the International Narcotics Law Enforcement, with the UN Office of Drugs and Control, with the Tebow Foundation.
Speaker 38
Well why isn't that effective? Why is that so effective when that country as a whole, when that's in effect control? You're subjectively choosing what's effective, what isn't.
Speaker 45
No, I'm giving you an answer. The President takes this very seriously. You just don't like the answer because it cuts against your narrative, isn't it? I'm sorry the facts don't match your narrative. I'm telling you that this administration has taken this very seriously.
The First Lady has repatriated Ukrainian children from Russian camps. The First Lady herself is going after this issue. It has the force of law, as you know. Your administration is sitting there withdrawing from having a place at the table on these critical issues and you're sitting there putting your own spin on the religious aspect of that being the most important thing and you're hurting children. We are saving children around the world while this body is talking about what it knows not.
I yield back.
Brian Mast
Mr. Keating, would you like an extra five seconds where he was answering you earlier?
William Keating
Sir, I was answering the in part question that was there. He kept trying to filibuster. Let's not have this hearing be about filibustering. What goes around comes around.
Brian Mast
Just wanted to make sure you didn't want an extra five seconds when he tried to answer. Representative Wilson.
Joe Wilson
Thank you very much, Chairman Brian Mast. And indeed, thank both of you for being here today and I particularly appreciate Secretary Waltz, your lifelong achievements as a graduate of Virginia Military Institute and for the people of the United States, military service, public service, thank you. And Mr. Bartos, we appreciate UVA Law School too. With that in mind, I want to congratulate you on your success implementing a streamlined US mission to the United Nations. For far too long, America has foot the bill for programs that are undermining American national security.
Your success has amplified the reform so appreciated by former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Friends of freedom and democracy are to be recognized and totalitarian dictatorships promoting terrorism are exposed by you and former Ambassador Haley. Additionally, I am really concerned that to assist you, I've addressed a letter to you and Secretary Rubio requesting a review of certain UN officials who are promoting extremist and anti-Semitic ideologies. These bureaucrats have called for the arrest of President Donald Trump and Secretary Hegseth. They have minimized Hamas atrocities, dismissing murderous rapes, claiming they didn't occur.
Additionally, they have questioned democracy while visiting Tehran and praising Havana, Cuba. With that in mind, I'd like to submit the letter for the record.
Without objection.
Joe Wilson
Additionally, Mr. Ambassador, under your leadership, I appreciate your efforts to address diversion of critical aid to prevent food and other critical aid to provide that it go to those intended instead of being diverted to dictatorships. What's the status of reforms to protect programs that really are legitimate? Ambassador Waltz, or both.
Michael Waltz
Well, I'll just tell you from a broader sense that we have worked at the aid diversion program by pooling our funding, by downsizing the number of agencies that receive some of the funding. Again, that doesn't mean we don't care about the issue. It means we're trying to make it much more effective. I can tell you, Representative, how many times across Africa and the Middle East that I pulled up to a ministry in a small country, it has maybe six people in it and there's 18 UN cars outside from 18 different agencies, all well-meaning but highly, highly inefficient. So we've pulled that funding, we've forced a number of these agencies to use shared warehousing, aviation fleets, vehicle fleets, shipping mechanisms so that more cents on the dollar actually gets to people in need.
And they now have the UN organization called OCHA now has data up on a dashboard, publicly available. We are auditing that data, we are providing that kind of oversight, but the entire world can see now where that money is going and that level of transparency was not there just a year ago.
Joe Wilson
And indeed, to get the aid to the people rather than divert it to dictatorships to maintain their power. With that in mind too, President Trump has acted courageously to destroy the Iranian nuclear capability. It was Envoy Steve Witkoff who identified that Iran was bragging that they could provide 11 bombs with the capabilities they had. And it should be reminded to the American people simultaneously they're chanting death to Israel, death to America. And so it's not a hypothetical of what they might be doing.
With that in mind, Mr. Ambassador Waltz, you've said our relationship with the Gulf allies has never been stronger, which I agree with. Additionally, they've all thanked the United States and President Trump for acting before Iran could destroy the region with nuclear weapons. With that in mind, the only country that has not adjacent to Iran that has been helpful is the Republic of Georgia. The rigged elections in Georgia by the Georgian Dream party has resulted in a political party which is anti-American, pro-Iranian. What's being done to strengthen our allies and then try to reform enemies?
Speaker 41
Well, I would just add importantly to the countries that don't necessarily neighbor Iran but have been incredibly helpful, Jordan as well, which as you know was just struck and has been struck repeatedly, not just as a result of this conflict, was struck and where we lost servicemen and women under the last administration as well. I'll have to take that for the for the record, Representative Wilson, in terms of our specific actions in Georgia. There's not a large UN presence there and I don't know if Ambassador Bartos you wanted to comment.
Jeff Bartos
Representative Wilson, I just want to say thank you for your leadership on the issue of the special rapporteurs. I made reference to one lunatic, Francesca Albanese, unfortunately she's first among equals amongst the crazies, but she's not the only crazy. And your letter's really important and just to give a couple quick examples, there's a special rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures that we happen to know has received over one million dollars in foreign funding from countries like China and Russia. Rest assured, sir, that our administration is taking action and every option, sir, is on the table.
Representative Bera.
Ami Bera
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, when the UN was founded in 1945, core mission was maintain international peace and security, protect human rights, deliver humanitarian aid, promote sustainable development, and uphold international law. What we accomplished as the United States of America, creating an architecture of relative peace, stability, prosperity, and I think the UN was a component of that. The P5 was a reflection of the world what the world looked like in 1945 and the post-World War. I'm not one here who is going to deny that the UN doesn't need to be modernized.
Multiple proposals to either expand the permanent membership, include the G4, you know, bringing in Brazil, Germany, India, Japan. If we were designing a United Nations that was reflective of today's world, we would design it very differently.
An example of where I think the UN is breaking down is, you know, I'll look at the South China Sea. You know, in 2016, um, you know, a tribunal under UNCLOS rules essentially, um, delivered a unanimous, legally binding decision in the case brought by the Philippines against, um, China's nine-dash line. And they said there's no legal basis for what China's claiming here, um, and they are encroaching on the Philippines' EEZ. Obviously, that's been ignored. It's not been enforced and so forth, um, and it does create a real flashpoint that I worry about.
Um, I'd like you guys to give us an update. Internally, the UN's looking at UN80 reforms, if that's working. And then also strategically, I do want to modernize the UN. I do want to make it an effective organization that's reflective of its original core mission, um, and reflective of the 21st century, um, world. What would need to happen for us to make those reforms take place, to change the P5 membership?
Michael Waltz
Well, thank you. Just I'll give a, a very broad answer and we have our ambassador here who has the unenviable mission of actually leading, uh, that reform. Um, there, there's a number of reforms underway, uh, under this Secretary-General. One of the questions we're asking the candidates of the next Secretary-General is what would they keep, what would they discard, and what do they, uh, what do they propose themselves? But for example, set aside the, the debate on climate.
I don't think we need seven agencies that list as its primary, with its own headquarters, own executive bodies, right, that are, that are focused on that issue. Let's get it down to one, do less, uh, better. We have four, and these are the Secretary-General's proposals, not mine.
That's the bureaucracy. I do worry about the P5, um, not reflecting today's world though.
And there, I, I'll just tell you very candidly, uh, Representative Bera, there is very little consensus, uh, whether it's on Russia, China, UK, France, on the P5. There has been proposals to have more elected members. There has been proposals to give some, make them permanent but not have a veto. Uh, it's really kind of all over the map in terms of Security Council reform. And the Secretary-General's part of UN80, that's not part of it.
Um, so there's just a lot of discussion and not a lot of consensus.
And if we were to try to put some muscle into it, lean in, what's the best, because again, I, I think the UN's going to be very hard to reform in its current structure with the permanent membership of the...
I think we could make the most, personally, the most gains by what happens in the General Assembly, um, where you just have literally 80 years of accumulated mandates that then the UN bureaucracy has to try to fulfill. There's no end date, there's no cost associated, there's no deconfliction. And we actually just worked with New Zealand, who led this reform effort, to try to put some brackets and some gar-, some guidelines around what happens in the General Assembly. That also drives cost, uh, onto the UN Secretariat that they, that they struggle to, to fulfill. And it's one of the reasons they've done nothing but grow for 80 years.
And I don't know if you want to...
Jeff Bartos
Congressman, if I just may jump in, the, an example of US leadership working with the Secretariat, the Secretary-General, uh, has for 10 years tried to reform the credit system at the UN. And it's crazy. Basically the system was whatever the assessments were, what was unspent, there'd be a refund based on the assessments, not based on what people contributed.
on a pathway to insolvency regardless of anything else because these credits were just growing. We took the mantle of leadership working with lots of other countries at the most recent second resumed session of the Fifth Committee and after a decade of the Secretary-General lead, you know, pushing on this issue, we ultimately with US leadership reformed the credit system. It's for a four-year trial period, we all want to see how it works out, but that's the type of thing to Ambassador Waltz's point, this is happening in the GA and I'll say proudly in the Fifth Committee, which is completely consensus-driven. It's the most professionally challenging thing I've ever worked on in my life. It's actually crazy when you say 193 countries have to agree, but somehow it works.
Three different bites at the budget. We'll have, sir, when we come back and see you next, we'll see how the regular budget goes this fall and then into the next Secretary-General. But those types of reforms, that type of working together to common sense, but sometimes it takes, a lot of times it takes a lot of leadership just to get there and we're providing that leadership. But thank you for the question.
Scott Perry
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ambassadors, for being here. I'm going to start with Ambassador Bartos since colleague on the other side of the aisle essentially accused the United States and this administration of not caring about children. So I just want to highlight the case of or the fact that 747, there are 747 open cases including minors among the victims of sex used as currency for food and shelter by the organization itself. And just, Ambassador Bartos, if you want to take a moment to briefly address America's views on that circumstance.
Jeff Bartos
First of all, General, it's great to see you, fellow Pennsylvanian. So great to see you and thank you for the question. I would say I've had a lot of proud moments in my 10 months at post, perhaps one of the most proud moments was watching our Chief of Mission last week sitting up with Tim Tebow, with representatives from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, our own colleagues at the State Department in the INL Bureau, lead in a panel discussion on real efforts to combat transnational sex trafficking of children. Now, the statistics, the work that's being done, the Tebow Foundation, Tim and his wife, remarkable people, they devoted their now post-professional football lives to this issue. And to sit there and listen to the devotion they have to fighting this issue, to Ambassador Waltz for convening all of us, was one of the most proud moments I've had at post.
And any assertion that the Trump administration, that the State Department, or at USUN were not laser-focused on combating this issue not only in the UN, but there's a lot of, and Ambassador Waltz could go into greater detail, a lot of just shockingly make you nauseous statistics about what's happening, the flow of minors from Africa to Europe is, I didn't know about it, and it redoubles and retriples our efforts to combat this scourge.
Scott Perry
Yeah, American taxpayers don't want their dollars to be spent on trafficking of children in some official capacity. Ambassador Waltz, I wanted to ask you about the UN's Peace and Development Trust Fund. The Secretary-General himself said that the 2019 Belt and Road Forum, BRI and the 2030 Agenda are inextricably linked. The report catalogs programming between Belt and Road Initiative, UNDP, UNEP, UNICEF, UNCTAD, UNESCO, spanning Ethiopia, Serbia, Kazakhstan, and dozens of other countries. The UN didn't just stumble into this.
There's a partnership by design and it is not foreign aid, it's debt statecraft from leveraging ports, telecom backbones, critical infrastructure. For instance, Sri Lanka handed over its port on a 99-year lease after it couldn't pay, and of course it's by design. The pattern repeats itself and of course the Belt and Road Initiative countries shift their UN General Assembly voting patterns to align more closely with Beijing after the money arrives.
Now this is a voting block that's bought and paid for over time with these loans and then it involves military basing, surveillance infrastructure, all that follows the money. With that pattern in mind, what do you assess the risk to UN agencies using taxpayer dollars to pimp out developing nations to our greatest adversary and what do you think the administration is willing to demand regarding our funding for UN entities formally serving the co-programming and the co-publication activities tied to the Belt and Road Initiative?
Michael Waltz
No, thank you for the question. It's a very good question. I think it gets to the broader issue when we get asked, why do we even participate in this thing at all? Like, why are we even there? And, you know, one of my answers is, unfortunately, if we didn't invent it somebody else would.
And I don't want to see UN Beijing or UN Brussels or what have you. My second answer is there's these global standard-setting bodies, these little baby UN agencies that many people have never heard of that set the rules of the road for our industries around the world. There's a World Intellectual Property Organization. China was running to head that. Imagine China heading global IP for how we treat our patents.
We supported a pro-business Singaporean that's now the head of that agency. The International Telecommunication Union, cables, spectrum, radio, things that truly matter to our economy were running now an American for re-election to set those rules of the road. I want pilots around the world speaking English, air traffic controllers set trained to a certain standard. So these these bodies matter. We can't just walk away because then it would be 192 countries without us.
We just need to get in there and fight and win. To answer your question Representative Perry more directly, we've demanded the UN Secretariat stop using that slush fund and as part of our pooled funding model, we have much greater transparency and visibility on those aid dollars as they go out. But make no mistake, whether it is the EU and their version of safety standards or censorship on AI or whether it's the Chinese trying to set the rules of the road that's not in line with our interests, we have to get in there and fight and win. We have an example of that when the International Maritime Organization was within a week of putting a global carbon tax, a billion dollars a month on global shipping. It was absurd.
They thought it was a done deal. We got in there and fought and won to the point where our representative on the ground said the EU ambassador just called us diplomatic gangsters. So we're going to get in there and fight and win for the American people and for American industry and put America first.
Appreciate your service. Yield back.
Representative Jacobs.
Chairman, Ambassador Waltz, it's great to see you back here.
Sara Jacobs
Good to see you and appreciate you coming up to New York last year.
Yeah, absolutely. I want to ask you about the war in Iran. As you know, I represent San Diego, the largest military community in the country, so this is personal for my constituents, for me, as I know it is for you. Right now we've got about 2500 San Diego service members deployed off the coast of Iran, thousands more have received 48-hour deployment notices. I know you served multiple combat tours in Afghanistan, so you know firsthand what these service members and their families are going through.
And while they willingly make this sacrifices for our country, it's our job on both sides of this dais to make sure that those sacrifices are worth it. So I wanted to ask you a simple question. Are we better off now than we were before we launched the war in Iran?
The world and the American people are safer.
Michael Waltz
Okay, let me get let's get into some more specifics. Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open. Now the Strait of Hormuz is closed. Are Americans better off when the Strait of Hormuz is open or when the Strait of Hormuz is closed?
The American economy is largely unaffected by the Straits of Hormuz. We fortunately, I find it a little bit rich to hear this kind of clamoring for oil and gas when frankly your side of the aisle has been at war against the American fossil fuel industry for quite some time. In fact, we had an LNG export ban just under the last administration, but fortunately because of drill baby drill, because of fracking, we are largely self-sufficient in the energy space.
Sara Jacobs
Well, my constituents who are paying on average thousands of dollars more a month in costs because of this war would beg to differ that our economy is not impacted by the Strait of Hormuz being closed.
Michael Waltz
California imports much of its oil and gas unfortunately because of its own regulations.
Sara Jacobs
I want to talk about the national average of gas actually. The national average of gas before the war started was three dollars a gallon. It is now once again over four dollars a gallon. You said actually in saying that the war was getting better on June 21st on Face the Nation that it is now below four dollars and falling to show that we're making progress, but it's back up at four dollars a gallon now. So are Americans better off when they're paying three dollars a gallon nationally for gas or four dollars a gallon nationally for gas?
Michael Waltz
I think Americans are better off than not paying the highs of over five dollars under the last administration because of this administration's energy policy.
Sara Jacobs
That happened for two weeks during the Ukraine war. It's been over four dollars for more than three months just this year. Let's turn to the...
Michael Waltz
I would also, Americans are better off with Iran not having a nuclear weapon and the rest of the region exploding in a nuclear arms race. Saudi Arabia has said they will get a nuclear weapon if Iran tests there.
Sara Jacobs
I wanted to ask about the nuclear threat actually, so thank you. Before the war began, Iran had 440 kilograms of near weapons-grade uranium. We can all agree on that.
Illegally.
Sara Jacobs
Yes. Enough according to nuclear experts for up to 10 bombs. The President says Iran's nuclear program has been completely obliterated, but Ambassador you testified today that every single kilogram of that enriched uranium is still in Iran and we know that because the President is currently negotiating what to do with it and you don't negotiate the disposal of uranium you've destroyed. So the uranium is still there, but we currently have no inspectors to see the uranium or know anything about it. So are Americans better off when we knew where the uranium was and had inspectors or are they better off now when we don't?
Michael Waltz
Well, I think the premise of your question respectfully is flawed. Iran had kicked out the inspectors, was not allowing it to those sites, developing its program. And so when the President says he obliterated the program, he was talking about its enrichment capability. That was a year ago and they are working to reconstitute that capability.
Sara Jacobs
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from Bloomberg, Iran Atomic Risk Seen Higher Than Before Trump Attacks Began.
Without objection.
Sara Jacobs
This administration has just asked Congress for 87 billion more dollars to pay for this war. Thank you. Mr. Ambassador, we are obviously not better off. We've lost at least 18 American service members with at least 427 wounded. Before the war the strait was open, now it's closed.
Before the war the national average of gas was under three dollars a gallon, now it's four. The nuclear risk from Iran is higher now than it was before. And Americans have already paid 37.5 billion dollars for this war according to Secretary Hegseth's testimony yesterday. Last year you personally added a reporter to the signature chain where this administration was texting about war plans and at the time many of us were concerned that your administration's incompetence would get people killed. Well now we've lost at least 18 US service members because of your administration's incompetence.
And you should all be ashamed. It's very clear that Americans are not better off. Potentially the only people better off are the Ayatollah and his cronies. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Michael Waltz
Chairman, may I respond to... may I respond to that? We have a lot of talk of filibuster here, and that's quite the filibuster. In response, Lebanon is in a better place and in peace negotiations. The Assad regime is gone. Syria is on the best path we've had in my lifetime.
Iraq is now visiting the United States and in the best path in my lifetime. And thankfully, the President... we finally have a President that is doing something about Iran killing Americans for 47 years. Iran is absolutely trying to hold the world's economy hostage in violation of international law. This did not start this year, last year.
Mr. Ambassador, I can concede...
It started in 1979, and we finally have somebody to do something.
Michael Waltz
Point of order, whose time is this? Mr. Ambassador, I can concede that some things are better off, but none of them are because we bombed Iran at the behest of Bibi Netanyahu.
Mr. Burchett, you're recognized.
Tim Burchett
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, you graduated from VMI, you're special forces, you're decorated, you love your mama, you got some beautiful babies. We got show ponies up here and we got workhorses, brother. You are a workhorse, and I'm proud to know you and I consider you a friend. And we came to Congress together, so I really appreciate you and your incredible service to our great nation.
So, to the Burchett household, you're a pretty big deal. And now I'm not even going to go for the jugular, I've said all this nice things and I'm going to come after you. I just want to ask you some simple questions. What does the United Nations provide that America could not achieve through direct diplomacy or alliances or other international organizations?
Michael Waltz
Two things, just to answer you very... well, three, to answer you very directly. We need one place in the world, especially with a President who puts peace and diplomacy first, backed by military strength, but puts diplomacy first. I want one place in the world where everyone can come and talk. We don't always agree, but I can tell you as a soldier, as a veteran, if we're using words and not bullets, that's a good thing. I don't want to see UN Beijing, UN Brussels, or UN anywhere else.
I want it right here in the United States of America. The second thing, burden sharing is a key part of an America First foreign policy. I don't want to see US troops in places like Gaza or Haiti. We now have UN troops there, but in order... for all their flaws, but better than American troops in my book. And in order for them to do that, they need a stamp of international law, which by treaty is agreed upon by the UN.
And then finally, I talked about the standard setting. We have to get in there and fight and win for our industries. We have these global regulatory bodies that set the rules of the road for everything that crosses a border. And it's been astounding to me how absent we've been in those fights, but no more. We're in there fighting and winning for the American people.
Speaker 59
I'm sure the Latin folks had a saying for it, but East Tennessee they say you're either at the table or on the menu. So I suspect you're an at-the-table kind of guy. I'm still not a fan of the UN. But they consistently... they've been promoting these crazy liberal policies like abortion and gender identity. How do those things align with promoting global peace and security?
Michael Waltz
And 11,000 delegates showed up. They don't. That's why we regularly vote against them. Case in point, we just had a Commission on the Status of Women.
And rather than dealing with countries who still have rape laws where you have to have multiple witnesses for a woman to bring a case, instead of dealing with countries that have abusive and ridiculous domestic violence laws, instead of dealing with countries that have genital mutilation laws still on the books or those types of things, instead they're going on about this gender and other kinds of nonsense. It's not only a waste of time and money, it's a huge missed opportunity for women who are struggling under these types of oppressive circumstances around the world. And as a veteran of Afghanistan, I've seen the worst of the worst.
Speaker 50
Why do we continue providing funding to the United Nations peacekeeping initiatives when they are almost always a colossal failure?
Michael Waltz
Well, I'll hand the mic over to our reform ambassador, but I'll tell you we're trying two different things, at least in our time under President Trump's leadership. The Gang Suppression Force has an offensive mandate unlike everything that's been tried before, so they can go after the likes of Barbecue and Isso and others that are recruiting child soldiers and terrorizing the Haitian people. We now have the International Stability Force under the Board of Peace with a heavy American hand on that rather than surrendering that force over to the UN bureaucracy. And I'll defer to Ambassador Bartos for additional reforms.
Jeff Bartos
Thank you, Congressman. Very briefly, what we've managed to achieve, we just finished the peacekeeping negotiations for the budget for the 26-27 year. And through Ambassador Lacetta, our colleague and her great team in the political section, they negotiated a major streamlining of the mission in South Sudan, which led to an almost 90 million dollar reduction in that budget on a going-forward basis. We've sunset, with Ambassador Waltz's leadership and the Secretary's leadership, we've sunset UNIFIL. And so on December 31st of 2026, UNIFIL will sunset and then it will be wound down in the first part of 2027.
So we are taking a real hard look at every single budget at the level of, sir, the granularity where we're looking at it. We're even looking now going forward at the calories per day per troop to try to get the UN's metrics to align with US Army and Navy, Air Force, Marines' metrics. That simple change, that simple change will save, we estimate, almost 40 million dollars a year just getting it in line with US standards. So we're taking a look at every single part of peacekeeping. Last thing I'll say is there is a mission in the Central African Republic that I visited earlier this year that is on the pathway to stabilizing that country and they had successful elections.
So keep an eye on that one, but you're right, sir, too often failed.
Speaker 69
Thank you, sir. You're a credit, both y'all are a credit to what you do. And it still scares the hell out of me when I see those blue helmets show up in newsreels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Representative Titus.
Dina Titus
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I am astounded that at a time when our soldiers are dying in the field and our bases are being bombed throughout the region as we fight a war of choice, that you have called the President a peace president. I can't even believe that. Apparently the Nobel Committee didn't agree with that assessment either, but anyway, that gives us some idea of where you're coming from, apparently. I want to ask you just about the cuts and how they're affecting our relations with our allies.
Now, some of our partners and allies agree that they need reforms at the UN for operational efficiencies, but they don't support this kind of doze-like approach to just blanket cuts and withholding of funds to the regular budget or the peacekeeping budgets. In fact, they've communicated this to the administration and said that the impact of these cuts are undermining is undermining their own contributions to the UN and it's struggling now, as we've heard, just to keep the lights on.
And in doing that, the US is isolating itself from our once like-minded allies and partners. We've taken extreme positions on several, uh, issues recently. I'd just name a couple of them. On February the 24th, 2025, which was the third anniversary of Russia's invasion, the US voted against a Ukraine-sponsored General Assembly resolution. Just said advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.
It reaffirmed Ukraine's territorial integrity and called for Russian withdrawal. We, we didn't, we voted against that. We broke with Ukraine and our NATO allies.
Michael Waltz
That's incorrect, Representative. Your staff has given you bad information. We abstained from that resolution.
Dina Titus
Well, I'll, I'll double check that, but the people we were in line with there were Russia, North Korea, and Belarus. I don't think that's incorrect. Uh, how about this one? March 2026, the US was one of just three nations to vote against a resolution that, uh, was against the transatlantic slave trade, saying that, uh, slavery did not violate contemporary international law. Is that correct?
Michael Waltz
We, uh, a key provision of an international slavery reparations fund. I would not put a single dollar of your taxpayer money, uh, from your constituents into that fund.
Michael Waltz
It, it proposes international, an international reparations fund and even for, uh, African Americans, uh, who are fighting for reparations, should it pay for the entire world? How far does slavery go back? Who has participated in slavery? It was a wide-open money grab on behalf of a number of these countries.
Dina Titus
I'm taking my time back. All right, how about this one? You voted, we voted against 38 resolutions in the General Assembly Human Rights Committee alone in 2025. That included, and we've heard some reference to this, uh, combating exploitation and discrimination against children, a resolution on children's access to nutritious food, a second World Summit for Social Development that we opposed 180 to 3, with just Argentina and Israel on our side. Do you consider that us working with our allies?
And tell me, since you're so strong on some of these issues and feel so, uh, determined that they are a good idea, how, how is this helpful? How is this incompetent and extremist foreign policy that you support, you carry out, you're championing, isn't that driving a wedge between us and our allies and doesn't that fracture the foundations of US diplomatic partnerships? And is that a good thing for our national security?
Jeff Bartos
Uh, Congresswoman, just on the point about the General Assembly and the resolutions you're referencing, it costs $28,000 per hour to run the GA. They run the same resolutions year in, year out. They're performative, almost all of them, and it is a colossal waste of the time and resources of the UN. That is how these things cost. The, the Security Council costs $15,000 per hour.
We are looking at all that and pushing the UN to get back to basics so it is actually promoting international peace and security and all of its core missions and not doing this performative year in and year out.
Dina Titus
Well, I, I appreciate that, Ambassador. Thank you. I'll take my time back. I appreciate your assessment. I, as I understand it, you had no prior government service, no diplomatic experience, and nothing really to recommend you to serve in this role because you're a real estate lawyer.
So I, thank you for that assessment, but I'm not sure how accurate it is.
Jeff Bartos
Well, in fairness, Congresswoman, the US, I, I have led the efforts of the United States to build consensus on all of these budget resolutions, which is helping the UN. I led the efforts, my team and I led the efforts to help the UN save itself, save itself from itself on the credit system. So you can say that all you want, but...
Point of order.
Let the witness respond.
Speaker 64
So whose time is he using? He's responding to a question. If again, it seems like you don't want questions answered. No, I just want a point of order that the gentlelady have yield back her time, and so I want to know whose time he's now using. The clock was still going, as you saw, or maybe you didn't see, but the clock was still going.
The time does not belong to the witnesses, the time belongs to members of Congress, if I can be so bold. Clock was still going and, again, if you don't want... Mr. Chairman, isn't it... Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady yielded back her time. You've made it abundantly clear you don't want answers to questions.
But when the gentlelady yielded back her time, I just wanted... my question was whose time was being utilized. One time when you were the chairman, you took my time away because you didn't like my questioning, Mr. Chairman, respectfully. Other chairman, former ranking member, respectfully. Representative Kim, you are recognized. I've always gave you leave.
Focus on today, please. Always. Representative Kim, you are recognized.
Young Kim
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. And Ambassadors Waltz and Bartos, I want to thank you for joining us today and testifying, answering questions. I do want to start by commending the administration and your efforts to deliver more than one billion dollars in UN budget savings in just six months recently. I call that real progress on behalf of the American taxpayers that demonstrates what strong principled leadership can achieve at the UN.
So with that, I want to ask Ambassador Bartos, can you walk us through the strategy that you used to build that coalition and support from other member states for those savings? And what was the most effective ways that you were able to overcome opposition? Was it targeted engagement? Was it burden-sharing arguments or something else? I want to hear from you how you did it.
Jeff Bartos
Thank you for the question. It turns out that applying common sense business principles to an organization that is failing in its fundamental purposes and is hurtling every year closer and closer to insolvency through its own ineffectiveness, not through who pays or doesn't pay, but its own failure to meet its mission. Applying common sense business principles and good old-fashioned roll up your sleeves, go meet with other representatives, go meet with other ambassadors, go meet with the experts who do this work in day out. Look, I'm blessed to have an outstanding team of professionals who work, spent their whole careers on UN reform. But what wasn't there before we got to post was the leadership.
The Trump administration has brought the leadership that so many reform advocates have been yearning for for their entire careers. And I hear this from across the UN. The President's vision and leadership, the Secretary's support vision and leadership, Ambassador Waltz's charge to make it happen, get this organization back to basics, make it hit and then exceed its fundamental purpose has been our driving mission since day one. And it is good old-fashioned work with everybody, build consensus, build relationships, honor your word, do what you say you're going to do. And so it turns out it's actually not that hard to reform an organization when you bring that common sense leadership.
Young Kim
Bringing that common sense leadership at the UN, and we need more of those here on the Hill as well, if I may say so. It's no secret that US adversaries like Iran, Russia, and China, they seek to advance their interest through the UN. And we saw how Iran's terrorist proxy Hamas infiltrated UNRWA. This is a fatally flawed organization. Investigations uncover that over a hundred UNRWA staffers participated in the October 7th massacre, and Hamas terrorists were disguised as UNRWA school principals and teachers.
Ambassador Waltz, can you talk to us what steps you are pursuing within the UN system to permanently dismantle UNRWA and ensure that humanitarian assistance to Palestinians across the Middle East is delivered through alternative mechanisms that are not tied to refugee status?
Michael Waltz
Well, thank you for the question. And as you know, Secretary Rubio has labeled UNRWA a virtual arm of Hamas. The USAID Inspector General has identified over 100 employees that actively participated in the October 7th massacre. We have ended US funding to UNRWA as of effective last year. We've also, just as an aside in the broader fight against antisemitism, withdrawn from the so-called Human Rights Council that has the likes of Francesca Albanese, who is now under sanction, and UNESCO, which I will remind everyone the Obama administration also withheld funding from.
In terms of additional actions, I want to make it clear that we're focused on UNRWA Gaza. UNRWA also has activities in Jordan that the, that our Jordanian partners and allies find incredibly useful, activities in Syria and Lebanon. But we are focused on UNRWA. About 70% of what they do is education. Sadly, it is shown again and again to be radicalizing the next generation of Palestinians, talking about eliminating the state of Israel completely.
There's no two-state solution coming out of Hamas and coming out of these schools. They're talking one state, which is eliminating Israel. We're looking, the bottom line is we are looking to transfer that function to the newly established National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which was established under the Board of Peace by UN resolution. We've got a lot of help from Morocco, a lot of help from UAE on the curriculum. And then the other piece is the humanitarian pieces need to be handled by other organizations that have not been compromised and radicalized.
Young Kim
I want to quickly touch on your role and your leadership because in regards to dealing with China, because they are significantly expanding its pressure there, both financial contributions and institutional influence at the UN. So can you talk to us about how the administration is working with like-minded countries to expand Taiwan's meaningful participation in the international organizations?
Michael Waltz
Well, we have repeatedly pushed back on the PRC's interpretation of its role and Taiwan's role at the UN. So part of that is just constantly level-setting of what the UN resolution that established the seat for China actually did. And we are, I know we're out of time, but we are fighting for Taiwan's meaningful participation in UN bodies across the board as a matter of US policy.
Representative Lieu.
Ted Lieu
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the witnesses for being here today. My questions will be for Ambassador Waltz. American service members are in the Middle East risking their lives in the war with Iran. How many US troops have been wounded in the Iran war?
Michael Waltz
My understanding from the Defense Department's latest numbers is over 100, but about 70% or 90% of those have immediately returned to duty.
Ted Lieu
Okay. That number is wrong. According to Defense Casualty Analysis System, 482 American troops have been wounded. Now, it's not surprising to me that you did not know the answer to that. The reason you are here today and in your position is because you were fired by the president from your former position as National Security Advisor.
You disclosed classified information that harmed American pilots and put them at risk.
Speaker 74
President has never said a negative word about me. Not a single negative word about me. That's your spin, I guess, for your next campaign commercial, I don't know.
Ted Lieu
How many American troops have been killed in the Iran war?
In these ongoing operations, 18. Okay. Now, President Trump has repeatedly stated that Iran's military was obliterated. On March 16th, President Trump stated that Iran's military was, quote, literally obliterated, end quote. How is it possible that 482 American troops have been wounded and 18 service members killed by an Iranian military that's been purportedly obliterated?
Michael Waltz
The Iranian Navy, Air Force, air defense system, and industrial capacity have been massively damaged, if not completely ineffective. But this is a state that is trying to reconstitute, this is a state, a regime that is obsessed with a nuclear weapon, and it's a regime that still maintains some missile and drone capability that it's firing on all of its neighbors, including our bases. I think that's a pretty common sense evaluation, but if I need to explain it to you further, I can.
Ted Lieu
You need to explain to the American people how an Iranian military that's been purportedly obliterated killed 18 US service members and wounded 482 service members. Let me finish my question. And has struck multiple US facilities in the Middle East repeatedly. So I'm going to show you a video from Jordan, and this is an Iranian strike, and if we could play the video, that'd be great. Thank you.
I would hope the Republican-controlled Foreign Affairs Committee would know how to use audio next time, but we did see the video, and it showed multiple missiles hitting this base in Jordan. Let me tell you what happened. It was disclosed later that two US troops died in that strike from a purportedly obliterated Iranian military. And this is what Donald Trump said. He said that the Iranians, quote, did slip something through in Jordan, and if we had other operators, it would not have happened.
He then went on to say, when you let other people do your job, with the United States, we let other people do a job, and sometimes it doesn't work out so well. So let me ask you this question. Do we still have American troops stationed in Jordan right now?
Michael Waltz
Doesn't surprise me that you're referring to Al Jazeera in terms of your video. I'm here as the UN ambassador, but I'm happy to refer you to Pete Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth's testimony yesterday. Of course we still have troops there.
Speaker 62
And in your opening statement, you bragged about doing a Security Council resolution on Iran. So yes, Iran is in your job responsibility. Focus on it, and focus on the troops that were wounded and killed. Do not be so callous with the safety and lives of American troops. So I'm going to ask you again, are US troops currently stationed in Jordan?
Speaker 77
I've buried troops. I was at Dover. I've buried troops. I was at Dover. Demoralized to be here.
Go back to your district. Try to get re-elected.
Ted Lieu
Are US troops currently stationed in Jordan? Are US troops currently stationed in Jordan? I will. You should try. November is coming for you and this administration.
Are US troops stationed in Jordan? It's not even a trick question. Are they?
Speaker 62
And if Donald Trump doesn't trust the Jordanians to protect US troops, do you trust them? Who are we going to have protect US troops? They are exposed right now in the Middle East, repeatedly being exposed to Iranian missiles and missile strikes and drones.
I think you hear this from him on the left. When they died under the Biden administration.
Speaker 62
Shame on you for not even knowing basic facts. You are the US ambassador and you don't even know how many US troops were wounded in the Iran war. You got that wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself. You don't know basic facts.
You should resign. You don't even care about the number of US troops that were wounded. You did not know how many US troops were wounded. You gave false information to Congress. You should be ashamed of yourself for not even knowing how many US troops were wounded in the Iranian war.
Speaker 57
The gentleman's words should be taken down. You should not use such derogatory language for the distinguished ambassador. Seriously, I know you're upset, but you've dishonored yourself.
Speaker 58
Nothing in the last administration, zero politics and the worst of it. He lied to Congress, gave a flat-out false number, minimizing the number of US troops wounded in Iran. That's what he did in his first answer to my question.
Speaker 53
It should be recognized that the ambassador is a 27-year veteran of the military. Thank you. Mr. Smith, do you have a point of order? Mr. Smith, do you have a point of order?
Speaker 51
I would ask that, you know, disagree all you want, but do it civilly, and that was not civil. No point of order. Representative Self is recognized.
Keith Self
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, I yield my time to you as you may consume for anything that you would like to comment on that past exchange. And it is my time, and either you or I will be speaking. Mr. Ambassador.
Michael Waltz
Yeah, I'll just, I would just thank you for your time, Representative. The Iranian regime has been killing Americans for administration after administration after administration. We finally have a president that has said enough is enough. I don't think that nonsense merits additional response.
Speaker 56
Okay, very good. First of all, I want to just verify one thing with you. Should we decide that we do not want to meet what dues, assessments, whatever, we would keep the most important thing in the UN for us, which is our seat on the, our permanent seat on the Security Council. Is that correct?
Speaker 55
If we choose not to meet our dues or assessments for the UN, we would lose our voice in the General Assembly, but we would keep the most important thing, which is the seat on the permanent veto.
Michael Waltz
That is correct. And importantly, the UN Security Council, the resolutions that come out of there are binding in international law. What comes out of the General Assembly is not binding.
Speaker 60
Correct. I want to turn to peacekeepers. As you mentioned in your testimony, there were 90,000 at the height of peacekeeping. You mentioned the sexual abuse which happens often with those forces. I wanted to talk about measures of success.
And my example is UNIFIL in Lebanon was a total failure. So what measures of success are you trying to get the UN to use in their peacekeeping forces?
Michael Waltz
To your point on UNIFIL, it's an important one. Its mandate was to prevent non-armed actors from arming and operating south of the Litani River in southern Lebanon. I think we've seen the exact opposite for the last 20 years from Hezbollah at the cost of half a billion dollars a year for that peacekeeping force of 11,000 international troops. And the administration has put a policy in place that UNIFIL will not continue. What we have tried to do with the, every year typically these peacekeeping forces are renewed, and we have made it very clear to the rest of the Security Council that they cannot just continue.
For example, DRC Congo, that force at the cost of a billion dollars a year has been there for 30 years. And I don't think we've seen it result in peace. So we are tying the renewal of these peacekeeping forces to an actual peace process, to a political process, and whether that's in DRC Congo or Western Sahara or Libya or other locations, they need to work themselves out of a job and not become a cash cow for the troop-contributing nations and not become an excuse for the actors on the ground to not have to make the compromises they need to make to achieve peace.
Speaker 54
Yeah, Mr. Ambassador, I would just recommend you come up with measures of success for each of them. I mean, concrete measures of success.
Michael Waltz
Thank you. We just had a report for the gang suppression force in Haiti with actual measures of success. It is as we're a few months into the job, we're trying to unyear, you know, undo 80 years of not always great performance and behavior.
Speaker 60
Yeah, one of the most egregious examples of institutional bias in the UN was a special committee to investigate Israeli human rights practices, SHIRP. And I will tell you they failed to mention not a single word about the atrocities in their 10,000 plus word report, 21 pages. I believe that you have had some successes in turning the vote in the SHIRP vote. Can you share that with us?
Jeff Bartos
Congressman, we'll take that one for the record in terms of looking at that vote. On the more broadly with respect to UN, the Commission of Inquiry, the special rapporteurs, the Human Rights Council, which of course we've withdrawn from and other measures, as I mentioned before, the UN is at this decision point and it has to decide whether it wants to get back to its basics and foundational peace and security or whether it wants to just be a machine to have General Assembly resolutions, 183 against Israel over the last so many years versus 70 against the rest of the world. It's a shocking, it's a hotbed or as the chairman said, a snakepit of anti-Americanism, anti-West, anti-Judeo-Christian values, anti-Israel, anti-Jew. It is, they have to decide and we have an election coming up, it's going to decide the future of this organization with the next Secretary General.
Speaker 60
Okay, well I know you've got plenty of examples, but that report which was literally weeks after the October 7th attack and in which their report did not mention a single atrocity might be a good one to use in your working on SHIRP. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Representative Jackson.
Jonathan Jackson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks. Ambassador Waltz, on March 25th, 2026, the United States was one of only three nations to vote against a United Nations General Assembly resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans the gravest crime against humanity. The resolution passed by the world 123 to 3 with 52 abstentions. For many Americans and for people of African ancestry and descent around the world, that vote raised serious questions about our nation's moral leadership.
I would ask you, Mr. Waltz, why did the United States vote no as did our few and so few allies with us?
Michael Waltz
I think there were, there were two issues that we had with the resolution and of course the issue of slavery both here in the United States and around the world was abhorrent and should be condemned. But the issue with the language of that resolution was that it advocated for international reparations fund, something that the administration is not in favor of and further despite... Okay, let me follow up on a second question if you don't mind. We tried, but despite our efforts, they could not put a real bracket around what was slavery.
Jonathan Jackson
Okay, I've received that. Let me ask you a second question. Do you personally recognize the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity? And if so, what specific language in the resolution would you prefer to have in the proposal for you to join?
Michael Waltz
I'll have to go, I can go back and we're happy to come talk to you about the language that we proposed. I'll have to take that for the record. But I do know more broadly we tried to put some brackets around what was slavery. Does it go back to the times of Egyptians?
Is it, was it, does it affect African nations that participated in the transatlantic slave trade? We couldn't get a good definition for it.
Speaker 79
I ask you, let me finish my question. I thank you so much, Ambassador. Many African leaders have raised questions about the restrictions during the World Cup. It was a great time and a time that we should have been very joyous. It was the 48 nations that participated.
But something came to light during that period is that there were 12 African nations that have total bans on travel to the United States. Also embarrassingly so, I would say, for the grandmother of Cape Verdean-Angolan country of 500,000 people, he couldn't get his grandmother in here. I don't know what threat she meant to the United States or to a person that works in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But fans were denied the opportunity to be here. There are 14 other countries that have partial bans, such as Zambia, having to pay five, 10, 15,000 dollars for a visa.
So effectively, that's 26 nations that are banned in the African continent from coming to the United States. Almost half of Africans are banned from entering the United States of America, roughly 700 million people. Do you agree with this policy or would you like to see it changed?
Michael Waltz
The only restrictions that I dealt with from the UN context are around the Ebola issue and which did affect DRC. I just spoke to the DRC foreign minister this week about those. In terms of the visa bond issue, if that's what you're referring to, I would have to refer you to DHS in terms of those restrictions. I mean, I thought the World Cup was a fantastic success. We spoke to the Algerians, to the Moroccans, to DRC.
Speaker 79
I would just highlight half of a continent has been excluded. This came to light during that period. And as we look to our growth and future and relationships with African nations, that they can't come here. I've heard of major foundations and other people that cannot bring employees over here. Companies that have investments in Africa that want to do job retreats cannot get their employees to come over here.
So it's excluding us from a nation. Let me ask you with Cuba. Would you say we are at war with Cuba in your definition?
Speaker 86
And I only highlight that because we have a naval blockade around an island nation.
We do not have a naval blockade. That is Cuban propaganda.
Speaker 84
And so goods and fuel can get to the island nation? Can fuel get to the United States? Can fuel go to the...
Michael Waltz
That is absolute propaganda. We contributed over half a billion dollars in goods, in goods from the United States to the Cuban regime. A blockade would be a ring of Navy ships that are stopping anything from going in. That is literally Cuban propaganda. There is no blockade on Cuba.
Speaker 83
There are humanitarian waivers that the administration has put in place.
Jonathan Jackson
So the answer is no. I would appreciate if you just simply were to answer the question. Last question regarding the Middle East. Who is your primary point of contact? Do you deal specifically with Secretary Rubio or do you take advice from Mr. Jared Kushner and Mr. Witkoff?
Who's your primary point of contact for Middle East negotiations?
Are they on the same par?
I'm not sure your...
Jonathan Jackson
I mean, are they equal in stature? One person is in the administration, two people are super volunteers. I just want to know for a point of structure.
Speaker 87
Well, I think our Secretary of State has been Senate-confirmed in accordance with our Constitution and Senate rules.
James Baird
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to our witnesses. And it's appreciative to have a colleague that's doing the job you're doing, Mr. Waltz. You know, the UN is filled with inadequacies in its personnel management and its implementation of programs and oversight or accountability of UN agencies. While originally established to maintain peace and security as we develop friendly relations, worldwide cooperation in economic and humanitarian issues, the organization has now forged its own policy that frequently contradicts the policies of the United States.
And one example of this is UNRWA employing proven Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip. At least 10 employees of the agency were identified to also have partaken in the heinous acts of October the 7th. Another example of this is when the UN Interim Forces in Lebanon personnel shot down an Israel surveillance drone that was conducting a mission against Hezbollah terrorists. So President Trump and the United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz have taken a step in the right direction to ensure that the UN acts in the interest of our member countries instead of formulating its own policies that serve well its contributions and its balance sheet. So how can the US effectively conduct oversight within UN agencies to ensure terrorists and human rights violators aren't retained for employment?
Michael Waltz
That's a very kindly stated question, Representative Baird. I appreciate your service as well, but not an easy answer. We are trying to get oversight and effectiveness and frankly better leadership from many of these UN missions across the board. In the case of UNRWA, as Secretary Rubio has said, it has served as a virtual arm of Hamas. It is radicalizing the next generation of Palestinians.
It is literally aiding and abetting a terrorist organization as it brutalizes the Palestinian people of Gaza. In fact, many of them just tried to rise up against Hamas and according to the UN's own report, Hamas went on a knee-capping campaign to prevent those protests. So I'll just turn it over to Ambassador Bartos in terms of additional actions.
Jeff Bartos
Thank you, Representative. Great question, important question. Broaden out just for a second. In the aftermath of the atrocities of October 7th, many UN organizations, as one of your colleagues just referenced before, were silent. Silent.
UN Women couldn't speak. The organization UN Women refused for months to even acknowledge the sexual violence, the rape, the mutilations against Israeli women on that awful day. So for the UN to lecture about these things is offensive, should be offensive to every American. UNRWA, as the Secretary has boldly and very clearly said, and it's an honor to serve under his leadership, he has boldly and clearly said UNRWA will have no future in Gaza. No future.
I had the honor to deliver remarks on behalf of the United States a couple weeks ago at a pledging conference for UNRWA and I said on behalf of the United States, doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity. And I looked around that room and said, you all keep contributing, expecting a different result. And every year, same speeches against Israel, same failure to condemn Hamas, same sort of platitudes that you give. In fact, I said, you give the same speeches every year, you don't even just change the date. What was interesting about this year, and again, credit to President Trump, Secretary Rubio, Ambassador Waltz, what was different this year is that the acting director of UNRWA actually agreed with a couple of the points we raised.
I almost fell over in my chair. He agreed with some of the points, didn't agree with everything. Are we making progress? Glacially, we're making progress against this important issue, but we are making progress. I think stay tuned, sir, and be happy to come down here and brief your team or anyone here who's interested on some of the work we're doing not only to reform these UN agencies and organizations, but also to take a different look, a different look at how we serve the humanitarian needs in Gaza without the UN continuing to employ terrorists.
James Baird
Well, I appreciate your comments and you know, the fact that you made any kind of progress, I think is admirable for the work you're doing and the Ambassador's doing.
And so I think I'm out of time, but I appreciate, appreciate your comments. I yield back.
Representative Ocheskey.
Greg Casar
Thank you, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Meeks, and to our witnesses for being here today. Ambassador Walls, I want to start by thanking you for your years of public service. As the father of a 10-year-old daughter and a former public school teacher, I appreciate your work in Congress, especially supporting children and especially women and girls. But I have to start with a topic that I've discussed with many of your colleagues across the administration during these hearings, and I do so because it is so foundational to the work that we do here. And that is my very serious concern with the clear conflicts of interest and the massive corruption coming out of this administration.
So I want to ask you from your personal perspective, your own values, do you think it's wrong for elected officials and their families to profit from positions of power?
Greg Casar
Your personal values, yes, sir. I'm pleased to hear that. So I guess the question then is how do you square that circle working for a president who just last year made 20,000 stock trades, including companies who benefit from markets that he is actively manipulating, whether that's through announcing ceasefires, reversing course and allowing chip exports, or simply promoting these firms on his social media? How can you say it's wrong but be silent as the president's sons benefit from mining deals paid for by US taxpayers? As one of America's top diplomats, as a former member of Congress, does that not conflict with your values, sir?
Greg Casar
I support a full ban. I think it's wrong for any member to trade. But that wasn't the question though, sir.
I hope to see that bill pass.
Speaker 105
Sure, I'm on the discharge petition number one, number two, and a full ban, not the joke that my colleagues are trying to put forward.
Michael Waltz
The president, members of his cabinet, have all complied with the Office of Government Ethics, as have I, as have myself. We have ethics rules in place. We have an agency that oversees ethics. We all subject ourselves to the Senate and to this office and receive that clearance before we come for confirmation.
Michael Waltz
They're in accordance with transparency and in accordance with the rules of the Congress. We publicly put our finances out there every year in our financial disclosure.
Greg Casar
So you're comfortable with the president buying stocks in companies like energy before he announces a ceasefire?
Michael Waltz
I think the president is complying with the ethics rules as they sit on the books.
Michael Waltz
Do I think that they should be changed? I'll leave that, I'll leave that to this august body. I'm trying to change the United Nations, which makes this look like an appetizer.
Greg Casar
Well, I think it makes your job harder because these conflicts of interest, the president's insistence on outsourcing high-stakes diplomacy to family members and business associates, impacts our standing in the world in a profoundly negative way. They impact your ability to effectively do your job as one of our country's top diplomats.
Michael Waltz
Can I just answer your question? I have regularly deal with Secretary Rubio, with the president.
You answered the question, it's okay.
Michael Waltz
I have never seen them, ever heard them mention anything at all where they would gain personally from any of their policy decisions. They have the interests of this country first and foremost.
Greg Casar
Ambassador, you don't have to ask. People don't often announce I am corrupt, but we can see it plainly when the president has put billions of dollars in his pockets and the pockets of his associates, of his children, of his friends, of Mr. Witkoff, of Mr. Kushner. If you can't see it, sir, that's on you. But the truth is, whether you can look past it and you're choosing to look past it, which is fine, but the world is watching and it is in fact, it is impacting our national interest.
So regardless, you're in this role, Ambassador, and I, that's fine. So I want to go back to the first topic I mentioned, one I think we actually agree on, because we clearly disagree on this one. I think the corruption the President is executing is morally wrong. It's, it should be legally, it's legally reprehensible, and I think he should be out of office. But UNICEF has been one of the government's strongest and most transparent partners.
Do you agree that UNICEF's field presence and cross-sector capacity make it a natural partner of choice for the US?
Michael Waltz
UNICEF is led by an American. It does, it could always do things better. It often, both their mission at times is duplicative of others, like World Food Programme, like UNHCR, and other organizations. But we are working with them through our pooled funding model to streamline their mission.
Greg Casar
Okay. There's, there's the organization's yet to receive its fiscal 20 core resources, even though we've appropriated funds. I'll follow up there with a few written questions. But I'll just end and say we have to, to be better. Any one issue of corruption this President has perpetrated would have ended prior presidencies.
And I just hope that you and your colleagues can speak up and find the courage to push back against what's happening here. And with that, I yield back.
Representative Biggs.
Andy Biggs
Thank you, Chairman Mast, and thank you to our witnesses for your testimonies here today. China is the largest troop contributor to the UN peacekeeping missions among the five permanent Security Council members and the second largest funder of the UN overall. Chinese peacekeeping deployments are concentrated in strategically sensitive regions, including areas along Belt and Road corridors, near ports, mineral resources, and existing or potential basing locations. These are long-standing concerns about whether Beijing is using its peacekeeper designation as cover to advance military and intelligence objectives in regions where the US has strategic interest. So, Ambassador Waltz, my question to you is, how would you characterize the military objectives behind China's peacekeeping deployments?
And are these genuine contributions to UN missions, or are they a vehicle for broader PLA strategic positioning?
Michael Waltz
Thank you for the question, and it's, it's frankly a very good question. China does contribute to these peacekeeping missions. They are often better equipped than many of the other countries. They come with what they've, they've promised to come with. That said, I don't think for a second that they don't serve a dual purpose as eyes and ears on the ground for, for the Chinese Communist Party.
Do we have evidence of PLA-linked intelligence collection, reconnaissance, or military liaison building occurring under the cover of Chinese peacekeeping operations?
Andy Biggs
Representative, I'd be happy to come back and see you in a different setting and, and talk about what we know and don't know.
Thank you. I appreciate that. So separate from the diplomatic or, or funding-based countermeasures, what is the Trump administration doing to monitor or counter the military dimension of China's peacekeeping footprint?
Michael Waltz
Again, Congressman, I'd rather, Congresswoman, excuse me, I, I think it would be better if we talked about that in, in a different setting. However, as Representative Bartos just mentioned, one of the places that they have a substantial presence was in South Sudan. And we just worked through the Security Council to seriously streamline and downsize that mission. We did not find it to be as effective as it should be. The mandate was far too broad, and we refocused it on helping the South Sudanese government try to, you know, get security and stability to a, to a much more manageable place.
Andy Biggs
Okay, I'm going to try one more. So in your assessment, does China's military posture within the UN peacekeeping missions pose a direct threat to US force posture, basing access, or military partnerships in the regions where Chinese peacekeepers operate?
Michael Waltz
We are keeping a very close eye on all of those dimensions. I will say in fairness to our colleagues, our Chinese colleagues on the Security Council, their contributions often are helpful. But again, they can serve a dual purpose and we are very wide-eyed to that issue.
Andy Biggs
Well, I look forward to continuing this conversation in a different setting.
Speaker 93
I'm happy to come back and talk to you about it. And very good questions, thank you.
Again, thank y'all for being here today.
Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Castro.
Joaquin Castro
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ambassadors, for being here today. And welcome back, Ambassador Waltz. I think we served on the Intelligence Committee together. The United Nations has been central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since General Assembly Resolution 181 in 1947, the partition resolution that called for two states and underpinned Israel's own founding and international recognition.
Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1397, and 1515, the latter two adopted with US support under a Republican administration, built the framework: two states, two peoples, each with the right to self-determination within secure and recognized borders. So there aren't just Israelis in this story and there aren't just Palestinians, there are two peoples and both have the same right to determine their own future. You drafted Resolution 2803, adopted last November. This is the ceasefire and of course Board of Peace resolution. According to reports, France, a permanent member and one of our oldest allies, asked that it reference the two-state solution and the return of a reformed Palestinian Authority to Gaza.
And so did the other members of the Council. The final text that you negotiated, although however never once uses the phrase two-state solution, and at adoption, France, Algeria, Pakistan, Guyana, and Sierra Leone criticized that omission on the record. And so I wanted to ask you, Ambassador Waltz, was that omission deliberate, not mentioning the two-state solution? Did the United States refuse to include the two-state solution in its own resolution?
Michael Waltz
Representative Castro, I'll come back to you and sit down with you if I'm incorrect in this, but out of memory, the Resolution 2803 adopted wholesale as an annex President Trump's 20-point peace plan, which the President of France was there at Sharm el-Sheikh and celebrated. And in that, for the first time ever, we had both no annexation in terms of directive to the State of Israel and a pathway to a two-state solution with appropriate reforms. Those are both in there now as international law.
Joaquin Castro
So just to be clear, just for the record, it's the policy of the Trump administration to support a two-state solution, is that correct?
Michael Waltz
With appropriate reforms. That was a United Nations resolution that adopted the President's 20-point peace plan.
Joaquin Castro
Right, but because you had a big hand in negotiating it, I want to know, I'm asking what's the Trump administration's policy, right? So the Palestinian Authority has said yes to this two-state solution. However, Prime Minister Netanyahu has told his cabinet that he's quote firmly against a Palestinian state, reformed Palestinian Authority or not. So what specific pressure is the United States applying on the government of Israel to accept the outcome that our own resolution envisions?
Michael Waltz
Well, the resolution, as you know, is very focused on Gaza and putting in place the funding, the international stability force, and the new Palestinian governance mechanism to pull that away from Hamas and put that back under civilian Palestinian control.
Joaquin Castro
I guess, and you know, no, fair enough. And I think, but I'm trying to, but I guess what I'm saying that, you know, we've known that we have two sides here for a long time, and you have a Prime Minister who's a long-standing Prime Minister, may win election again, who has said very firmly, and others in his cabinet have said very firmly, that they're against a two-state solution. So what are we doing to guide them, guide Israel in this case, towards that two-state solution? Because on the other hand, on the other side, we have designated groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, we've sanctioned them, we've designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, we've sanctioned Iran. And so what's the guidance on the other side when over the years, of course, we have provided military support, foreign military financing, billions of dollars.
We now may, at least in the NDAA, there's a provision to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Israel and perhaps develop weapons together, for example. So without exercising any leverage, without the US exercising any leverage on Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, what makes you think, ambassador, or why would we think that he's going to change his tune about a two-state solution? I mean, he's flatly said he's against it. What's going to change that?
Jeff Bartos
Congressman, I think it's important to point out in the negotiations on 2803, working with the Palestinian Observer Mission at the UN and all of our Gulf Arab partners and friends, it was everybody came together, including the Israelis, on that 20-point peace plan, which as the ambassador said, concludes... I'm running out of time, so I'd like to reclaim my time for a sec. But includes a path with appropriate reforms to what you're just saying.
Joaquin Castro
If one side is staunchly against a two-state solution, the Israelis have said, their Prime Minister has said he's against it, what leverage is the United States going to use to change that? To me, it seems like giving them more and more and more is not going to change their behavior. At some point, this becomes, it makes the two-state solution, quite honestly, illusory, and it turns this whole thing into a self-delusion. So what are we doing?
Michael Waltz
I think at this point, Congressman, we are very focused on those reforms and the security of the Israeli state, whether it's from Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, or Iran, to then get to a place where we can have those conversations.
Representative Fine.
Randy Fine
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's really exciting to see two friends, mentors, and my predecessor here, and on behalf of the people of the 6th Congressional District of Florida, thanks for all the work that you did. Six years, I'm trying to fill very large shoes, so I'm doing my best. But thank you both for being here. I start with the premise that I'm not convinced that the UN is sort of fundamentally, permanently broken and, you know, should go away. I often have said, from the river to the sea, let's make Manhattan UN-free.
So I come from that, but I know that you all are working incredibly hard to deal with the hand that we have been dealt. And so I want to start with UNRWA. The USAID Inspector General found that seven employees actually participated in the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7th. They found 14 employees were Hamas-affiliated, including an UNRWA school principal who commanded a Hamas battalion on October 7th, as I'm sure that you know that. How do we make sure that there aren't terrorists that are working for the United Nations?
Michael Waltz
Well, I think when it, when it comes to UNRWA Gaza, the organization just has to go. And that's Secretary Rubio's made that clear. I think we've made that clear across the board. Actually, the vast majority of what it does is education. We are working with many of our partners, namely Morocco, namely UAE, to reform that curriculum that radicalizes the next generation of Palestinians, that teaches them that there is no two-state solution, that there's only one-state solution and that's Hamas.
So handing that over, those functions over, and we've had these conversations, whether it's the Palestinian Authority or the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, they have to take over their own educational functions. That's an inherent part of being a governing institution. And the humanitarian functions that it, um, that it conducts, we need a much better vetting process. And we're, those conversations are ongoing with how to vet those individuals. But at the end of the day, Hamas rules at the end of an AK-47.
Hamas will disarm. The President's made that clear. It's going to happen the easy way or the hard way. Let's pray they make a more peaceful choice and do it the easy way.
Randy Fine
Okay. So we've talked about UNRWA. But now as you move up into the UN itself, I think one of the most concerning developments of the UN is rampant unabashed antisemitism by high-level employees at the UN. This isn't just UNRWA. Um, I guess I shouldn't be surprised given they're okay with Hamas terrorists being on staff.
But nowhere's the antisemitism at the UN been more blatant than Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied, quote-unquote, Palestinian territories. She used her position to advance extremist and inflammatory claims against Israel. She's falsely accused Israel of genocide and promoted false narratives under the guise of her role. Um, Ambassador Bartos, what reforms have you been putting in place to fight antisemitism at the UN itself and to prevent antisemites, antisemites like Albanese from being placed in these kinds of prominent positions?
Jeff Bartos
It's a great question. Thank you. And it's good to see you, Congressman. The, as I said, as I've never tired of saying, the UN is at a crossroads. And on the one, in one direction is this vital humanitarian work that we see out in the field with people risking their lives to do that work.
And the UN should be commended for that. And there are successes and failures within peacekeeping and we've talked about that today too. But right there, in the other direction is this bewildering despicable bias that has been around for 60-plus years, that has really, if you think about it, infrastructure that has been built within the UN system. And former Ambassador, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke about this brilliantly and beautifully in his 1975 speech calling out Zionism is racism resolution, which was of course a Soviet-era, Soviet-driven process. So the UN comes to this over many decades of picking on the one Jewish state as a way to get to the West and America.
Right, it's anti-Americanism, anti-West, anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel. It really is all of that. We have a whole team dedicated, of course with the Secretary's push and leadership on this, on these issues, we have a whole team dedicated to rooting out antisemitism throughout the UN system. So the Commission of Inquiry, UNRWA as you mentioned, this lunatic Albanese who the UN allows to put on their uniform. But I think it all comes back to in the here and now, it comes back to making sure that we select the right next Secretary-General who will have the leadership, the moral clarity, and the courage to tackle this.
It is a, it's an existential issue for the organization about whether it wants to be a hotbed of hatred for the one Jewish state and for the West, or whether it wants to get back to basics, its core founding mission of international peace and security, humanitarian aid. And that's a big decision for the UN. We're trying to guide them in the right direction. It is not always easy, as you know. Um, but the work is really important and we, we get at it every day.
Michael Waltz
And I would just add, Representative Fine, that the administration has defunded these inherently anti-Semitic organizations.
We are trying to shift this culture, but meanwhile not a single dollar of taxpayer, US taxpayer dollars should go to these organizations like UNRWA, like the so-called Human Rights Council, UNESCO and others.
Randy Fine
Well, I'm not sure anybody can fix it, but if anyone can, I think it's the two of you. So, thanks, keep up the good work and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Representative McBride.
Sarah McBride
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and to you and the ranking member for holding this committee hearing. Thank you both so much, both of you ambassadors, for joining us, for making it down to the bottom of the dais. We are well over four years into a war Vladimir Putin started by invading Ukraine. And during the course of the 2024 election, the president promised at least 53 times to end the war on or before day one. On January 20th, 2025, as the sun set and the president pardoned more than a thousand January 6th insurrectionists, when the sun set, the president failed to deliver on his promise that he would end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Ambassador Waltz, why did the president fail to deliver on his promise to end the war?
Michael Waltz
The president is doing everything he can to end the war. To date, neither Vladimir Putin with Russia or President Zelenskyy has seen fit to enter into the final deal. However, the president has put significant pressure, this administration, by sanctioning Lukoil, by sanctioning Rosneft, and is doing everything he can to stop the killing.
Sarah McBride
So I guess we're in agreement 538 days into the administration that the president has not delivered on his promise that he made at least 53 times during the course of the campaign to end the war on day one.
Michael Waltz
The president has found, despite incredible efforts from him and his team, it to be a very frustrating effort.
Sarah McBride
Well, maybe he shouldn't have made those grandiose promises. Speaking of the pressure that is being brought to bear, on February 24th, a month after the president failed to deliver on that promise, US representatives at the United Nations voted no on a resolution advancing a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in Ukraine. Earlier today, Representative Titus brought up this vote and you incorrectly stated that the US abstained from voting on the February 2025 resolution. That's not true. The US voted no alongside Russia, Belarus, and North Korea.
Really, really great company. Would you like to correct the record that the US indeed voted no?
Michael Waltz
I understood and perhaps I misunderstood her to be talking about a General Assembly resolution just this past summer where the United States abstained.
Sarah McBride
My understanding, the words that she specifically used called, was referring to the February 2025 resolution, which the US did indeed vote no on. Then on February 18th, 2026, over a year after President Trump failed to deliver on his promise to end the war on day one, US representation at the UN under your leadership refused to vote on a resolution expressing support for lasting peace in Ukraine. Ambassador, I'm curious why the United States is scared to call out and stand up to Vladimir Putin at the United Nations.
Michael Waltz
The United States under this administration has put more pressure on Russia to come to the table. Their economy is reflective of that and this administration sanctioned their top two oil producers and the dark fleet, not the last administration.
Speaker 89
Well, they're now getting more money because of the Strait of Hormuz, but that's neither here nor there.
Why did the United States vote no and refuse to vote to denounce Vladimir Putin's illegal war in Ukraine?
Michael Waltz
I'll have to come back to the record. That prior vote was obviously before my time, so I'll have to look at the wording in the resolution. Like legislation, which many of you know, there can be specific phrases that we find objectionable or that cross our red lines. The title says one thing and the actual legislation or resolution says another.
Sarah McBride
Apparently the only other countries that objected to any of the specific language in that resolution, at least in February 2025, were Belarus, North Korea, and Russia. So not very good company.
Michael Waltz
My memory is we were shifting to a more neutral mediator position as we try to end this war, unlike the ill-defined victory so-called of the last administration.
Sarah McBride
A strategy that did not work, has not worked, and if... It's worked a lot better than the last administration's. Well, I don't think that that's true. They're at least in the room talking, which is the art of diplomacy. Wow, there was a photo op in Alaska that the President gave Vladimir Putin, and I think these votes, lack thereof votes, no votes, only send a message to Vladimir Putin that we are not there.
But I want to say while you're treating Vladimir Putin with kid gloves, you are insulting American allies, including our long-standing ally Denmark, whose soldiers fought and died alongside US soldiers. Have you gotten any positive feedback from your colleagues at the United Nations about the President's desire to seize Greenland?
Michael Waltz
As one of the soldiers who fought alongside Danish soldiers in Southern Afghanistan, they're a fantastic ally. At the same time, they were paying very little to zero attention to the Arctic, and they now are. And we are in meaningful negotiations to secure our northern border, which is a huge charge of the President.
Speaker 88
I'll take that as a no, you haven't gotten any positive feedback. Thank you, I yield back.
Speaker 91
I've actually given a lot of positive feedback to the ongoing negotiations to answer your question.
Sure. Sure.
Representative Gallagher.
Mike Gallagher
Yes, thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. And Mr. Ambassador, let me apologize on behalf of California for the disrespect and dumbfounding ignorance of my colleagues. The gentlelady mentioned that the Ayatollah was better off before the war. Maybe she missed the memo that Ayatollah Khomeini is dead, and he is definitely not better off than before this war. And maybe if they had their way, he would still be alive.
If he would still be alive directing attacks against our allies and also against our American soldiers. If they had their way, they would be much further along in their nuclear program instead of being decimated in their nuclear program, as is the case today. And I do think it's interesting to hear the other side, Democrats, especially from California, talking about high gas prices. As of today, the average gas price in California is five dollars and fifty cents a gallon. On the East Coast, in a state like North Carolina, it's three dollars and seventy cents.
That's a function of policy. In California, there's been a war on oil and gas, there's been crazy policies, Green New Deal mandates that have led to that highest gas price. And I want to thank you for the administration to help stop the International Maritime Organization from imposing what would have been the world's first global carbon tax on shipping, which would have raised all of our costs. And so going on that vein, what are you doing at the UN and in your role to help stop these kind of California policies from going global and raising all of our costs of energy through the roof?
Michael Waltz
Yeah, thank you. I mean, talk about taxation without representation. This was the first attempt by an international body to levy fines, which would have amounted to a tax on all global shipping, I guess in some ill-fated effort to push these massive tankers towards EVs, I don't know. And by the way, we've asked directly who would then manage the upwards of twelve to fifteen billion dollars that would have raised, passed on to consumers and then put into a UN slush fund, and the answer was unclear.
It's also an argument, though, of why we need to get into these organizations in a meaningful way. We can't just walk away because if we do, our adversaries and in some cases our partners who don't share our industry's interest and want to advantage their industries will pass global regulations that massively disadvantage the American people and our businesses. We stopped it in that case. We are blocking, fighting, and tackling. For example, I just worked with Secretary of Agriculture Rollins on some regulations in the Food and Agricultural Organization that serves as a global FDA, for lack of a better term, that would have advantaged European farmers, excuse me, and disadvantaged American farmers.
So rest assured, we have a team that's in there in all of these organizations fighting for us.
Mike Gallagher
Thank you for that work, it's much appreciated. And it brings me to my next question, which is roughly 12% of global trade passes through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. And we currently, the Iran-backed Houthis are threatening to blockade this critical waterway again. If successful, this would force ships onto longer and more expensive routes around Africa, which would undoubtedly disrupt our global trade. There has been a resolution 2826 that simply extends the Secretary General's reporting mandate on Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.
Is the United Nations capable of organizing a more meaningful international response to keep this vital waterway open?
Michael Waltz
I think you're, well, you're certainly speaking to a broader issue here that no state, no terrorist organization can choke off international waterways that are vital for commerce. The Iranian regime right now is acting as the Somali pirates with drones and cruise missiles of back years ago where we did gather an international coalition and took that problem on. Thankfully, the President, the Defense Department right now as we speak is massively destroying and degrading Iran's ability to choke off that waterway, which 146 nations have agreed with us is in violation of international law.
Speaker 91
Yeah, and thank you for that. And again, I mean, I think if my colleagues had their way with their diplomacy of enablement, we'd be in a much worse position from that standpoint as well. So I thank you for your leadership and for coming here and testifying today despite some blatant hypocrisy from the other side. But I appreciate your efforts and appreciate the administration and what it's doing.
Michael Waltz
Congressman, it is incredibly rich to see one side of the aisle now suddenly in love with oil and gas that may have sought to degrade our own domestic capability. But thank you for your leadership in a very tough place. I don't know if being a member in California is tougher or easier than it is in the United Nations.
Mike Gallagher
Well, I'm here to bring the voice of the forgotten Californians to this body, so thank you.
Representative Pocan.
Mark Pocan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for being with us. Without going into detail, just naming names, what three countries are the greatest adversaries to the United States?
Michael Waltz
From a broader sense, I would refer, well, I would refer actually to our national security, national defense strategy.
I have not.
Speaker 102
You have not, okay. Did you get a chance to read the report that came out this week from the State Department on Cuba, 95 pages?
Michael Waltz
I have not read the entire report, but as a native Floridian, I'm familiar with the antics and adversarial nature of the Cuban regime.
Mark Pocan
Gotcha, but you haven't read the report.
Gotcha. Can you explain to me on July 7th there was a vote in the UN to continue debate about the US blockade of Cuba and we opposed that and we kind of had an embarrassing defeat 136 to 9 with 30 abstentions. But given what this report said, why are we afraid to have that debate if there's so much information we want to share with the world about Cuba? Why did we not extend that debate?
Michael Waltz
That's a mischaracterization. What we opposed was Cubans or or others for that matter abusing the General Assembly to have the same debate over and over again.
Mark Pocan
It just seems if we had such damning information that this report claims to have, that that would be a great venue to have that. I guess my question is it's been over 65 years that we have had essentially this blockade, this embargo on Cuba. And have we moved closer to a democracy, steer them towards human rights? Has as the other ambassador said, you know, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Has that 65 years brought us to where we want to be?
Michael Waltz
Oh no, I I have not read it word for word but I am very familiar as a native Floridian.
Mark Pocan
I did too. I read it. I've highlighted it. I felt like you know what, I put on the Kinks and the Who because everything's about the 60s and 70s in here and then there's a giant jump to today.
Michael Waltz
Then you would know they don't have a blockade. A blockade is a ring of ships. A blockade is what we have right now in Iran.
Mark Pocan
No, this is a blockade of fuel, of medicine, of food, of supplies. Even in war we allow medical supplies to go through. We don't allow medical supplies to go through to Cuba. So my question is do you think that we've had a noticeable change?
Speaker 111
They trade with the entire world. The difference is they can't pay for it. They can't pay for it because of the corruption of the communist regime.
Mark Pocan
Okay, can I just ask my question please? Because I respect you were in this role and so I'm just asking do you think we've had a measurable difference in 65 years of the policy we've had?
Michael Waltz
I think we have much of which is in statute have had a meaningful effect on not allowing the Cuban regime to expand its revolution, its communism and its anti-American anti-left revolution as it calls it across the Western Hemisphere and across and into the United States.
Mark Pocan
Okay, so Secretary Rubio just a few hours ago said the goal is to have a Cuba where people of Cuba can experience prosperity, safety, security and a better life moving forward. I just got back from there 10 days ago. I've been there 30 years ago. I was there three and a half years ago on an official delegation and I was there with a nonprofit most recently. And what I've seen is a crushing of the Cuban people and it's not a Cuban regime.
Let me finish please. Give me the respect I've given you please because the rest of this drives me crazy. You know, we're not allowing medical supplies. So we've doubled the infant mortality rate because of our actions. We're the ones blocking that.
It's not the Cuban government. That's us. We're blocking fuel which means while I was there 42 hours of no energy, we had an hour and a half. Surgeons literally finish surgery sometimes with their cell phone lights, right? That's because of us.
Do you think that what what your goal is we're running completely counter to that? And and I just don't understand that.
Michael Waltz
May I answer your question? Yeah, please. But I would like 30 seconds. During your visit did you visit the private island from the Castro regime? Did you visit their private jet which seems to have fuel to go back and forth?
Mark Pocan
Well considering you've never been to Cuba I'm not going to take your advice on where to go. I know, but but considering I mean you've never been there. I'm not going to tell you how to groom your hair because I can't give good advice on that. I don't think I need your advice at Cuba. Are we going to have a military action against Cuba?
It seems like that's what this report is setting up.
Michael Waltz
I am not going to take options off the table for the President of the United States but I would hope that you would not allow your visits to be used for Cuban regime propaganda that has oppressed and massacred people.
Mark Pocan
Yeah, you know, I tell you, I wish I understand but I would strongly urge you Marco Rubio who has never been to Cuba, so many others who have strong opinions.
His entire family is from Cuba and fled... They left before the revolution, that is decades ago, that's a ridiculous answer. It's Cuban Americans who have fled the regime for being oppressed and... To be fair, that is a ridiculous answer. It's worth going there if you're going to have such strong opinions, I think you might look at it a little differently.
I yield back.
Representative Moylan.
James Moylan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ambassador Watts and Bartos, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate that. Ambassador Watts, July 5th, 2026, the UN supported the launch of the Global Network of Centers for Exchange and Cooperation on AI Capacity Building, as the AI risk pushing the world towards even greater inequities. So what do you believe is the US role should be, their US role closing the artificial intelligence gap to face this regarding connectivity, infrastructure, and energy access?
Michael Waltz
I think we have to be incredibly careful and I've been in touch with a number of leaders of our private sector, our Office of Science and Technology Policy, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Treasury on efforts within the UN towards AI governance that are not in line with our values and that would hinder our entrepreneurial spirit and our innovation. I've also in touch with them as we kind of gather the framework or understand the framework we want here federally in the United States to understand that and how we should propagate that outward to the rest of the world. I like to talk about AI freedom. Countries from say the EU and other places like to talk about AI governance and that's a very slippery slope.
Speaker 108
Appreciate that, I agree with you. Another question for you, sir, on your confirmation hearing on July, you stated it was absolutely critical for the United States to counter China at the United Nations. So China continues to lead four out of fifteen specialized UN agencies, including organizations with mandates for facilitating cooperation on technology, agriculture and food security, even aviation safety and development. So Ambassador, what do you believe the United States response to China's position on this multilateralism should be?
Michael Waltz
Thank you, I mean I just give you a few examples. One I gave earlier, the World Intellectual Property Organization, we supported actively a pro-business Singaporean. In the International Telecommunications Union, we are running and this is from the prior administration, so it was a bipartisan effort here to support an American to run that that's in charge of undersea cables, spectrum, space, a number of critical standard-setting bodies. Not only at the senior levels, it's important that we recruit and support Americans at every level to staff these bodies. And I can come back to you with figures, but I think it's a little bit misunderstood.
The United States has the largest number of our nationals across the UN system. It's actually followed by France, the UK and Germany before we get to China. It's something that actually China complains about, that it doesn't have greater representation. So we are active in making sure that us and like-minded countries are effectively represented around the system.
Excellent, we're taken care, go ahead sir.
James Moylan
If I may sir, we are still underrepresented though. The Ambassador is absolutely right in his in the number of nationals that work there, but we the United States are still underrepresented relative to our contributions to the UN and it's something that we are we're very much in the ear of UN leadership often as are as are the Chinese.
So how do you envision maintaining the US leadership on wildlife trade while balancing sustainability in the community interests that depend on healthy marine ecosystem?
Michael Waltz
Well, I mean, this is where, even though we're not a signatory, we abide by its conventions and the UN Law of the Sea that establishes standards for nautical waters and particularly for EEZs. And one of the things that we're working with both the small island states in the Pacific, but also in South Central America, are violations of their EEZs often by illicit fishing, most often by large Chinese fishing fleets. Not only there, but then the protection in terms from a conservation standpoint, we support international organizations that set those standards around the world and a number of key nonprofits.
Jeff Bartos
I would just say, sir, that when our allies have a choice, and other countries have a choice in certain, whether it's the Africa group or whether it's other nations that we work with, whether they have a choice to have US leadership or other important powers' leadership, they're yearning for US leadership. And when we can, when we do step in there and provide leadership, it's, we have meaningful impacts across the system. There's a lot to fix. There's a lot to fix, but with Ambassador Waltz's leadership and with the team's focus, we are present as many places as we can be.
Speaker 124
I appreciate the hard work you both do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Bell.
Royce Bell
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ambassador Waltz, UN peacekeeping operations funding is a principal source of support for the new gang suppression force mission in Haiti, which will be critical to driving back the control of violent gangs in the country that are wreaking havoc on communities in our own hemisphere and worrying millions of Haitian Americans as they watch Haiti suffer. In fact, just the other day, you even said Haiti is only a few hundred miles from Florida, what happens there does not stay there. According to a 2024 Government Accountability Office report, approximately 73% of firearms recovered in the Caribbean between 2018 and 2022 originated in the United States. Additionally, the UN Security Council also adopted an arms embargo on Haiti in 2022 to prevent weapons from reaching these gangs.
So let me ask you this. First, what are you doing to ensure we are not violating the Security Council arms embargo, and how does the administration justify defunding the United Nations, including slashing its peacekeeping operational budget, while simultaneously expecting it to take on a greater role in supporting the UN-authorized gang suppression force?
Michael Waltz
We are mission by mission evaluating the effectiveness of these peacekeeping operations. As I mentioned earlier, some have been around for 30 to 40 years at the cost of a billion dollars a year and have not worked themselves out of a job, have not put peace in place. As it pertains to the gang suppression force, that's actually a hybrid funding model. The UN budget is supporting basically the logistics, and we have a separate trust fund, the Haiti Trust Fund, that a standing group of partners is contributing to.
And we have effective oversight over both of those funds, and we are supporting both of those funds. And again, we will evaluate as that mandate comes up for renewal whether they are meeting the metrics and whether they are actually suppressing the gangs. I can tell you, having just visited there, the gang suppression force just conducted its first clearing operation and was fairly effective. Long way to go. That's coupled with training the Haitian National Police and standing up the Haitian army once again to take these paramilitary gangs on.
And of course, we have the embargo in place. I visited the Dominican Republic, where a lot of these arms are smuggled, and we are coordinating with their foreign ministry and their law enforcement, both the foreign ministry and INL, to better interdict illegal arms that are flowing into the gangs.
Royce Bell
Ambassador Waltz, when you served in Congress, you were a staunch supporter of our Kurdish allies. In fact, you frequently emphasized the importance of standing with the Kurdish forces that fought alongside the US against ISIS. Recently, President Trump has called President Erdogan a very good ally, end of quote. And a good ally to me is an interesting way of describing a leader who simultaneously placates Putin and other dictators, degrades democracy and human rights in Turkey, and harbors and supports terrorist regimes. On top of that, Erdogan has a long record of targeting Kurdish political and military groups.
In the early days of this unauthorized war with Iran, reports indicated that Erdogan personally prevented Iranian Kurdish fighters from taking part in President Trump's proposed operation. Erdogan himself has publicly celebrated preventing that Kurdish operation. Do you also agree that President Erdogan is a very good ally, even though he harbors Hamas, supports terrorist regimes, and has actively gone against Trump and his unauthorized war?
Michael Waltz
Well, you mentioned my time in Congress. I was co-chair of the Kurdish Caucus. That's primarily focused on the Iraqi Kurds. And so when my statement that they have stood with us was the Peshmerga, and that has been going back to the early nineties. Obviously, Turkey, led by Erdogan, is a NATO ally.
We just had the NATO summit there. In fact, years ago, Turkey shot down Russian fighters as they were penetrating their airspace from their incursion into Syria. It is sometimes a difficult relationship. We are taking action against Hamas charities, Hamas-funded charities that are funneling goods into Gaza that are based in Turkey. We are actively looking and working with the Turkish government on how to shut that funding source down.
Thank you. I yield back.
Maria Salazar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for putting this together. I cannot explain to you, I thank you very much for, I mean, I'm delighted to be in front of you. We don't have words. You know, I represent the city of Miami, and there are no words of gratitude that we can express on behalf of the constituents of millions of Cuban Americans who saw your testimony the other day at the United Nations. And we thank you very much because now more countries, more countries than ever are voting with the United States against the Cuban regime.
And not only that, but the fact that the Trump administration has been able to convince companies like Sherritt from Canada or Meliá from Spain to leave and stop being an accomplice of making the Cuban labor force a bunch of slaves. So once again, thank you, thank you, thank you on behalf of the people that I represent, the Venezuelans, the Nicaraguans, people that just want to see freedom and feel the freedom that we have in the United States.
So thank you, Mike, for being here with us. Now, um, can you tell us what else is happening, what other countries are thinking about changing their vote and being with us? And thanks again.
Michael Waltz
Well, yeah, thank you for that. And as you know, the Cuban regime has used the United Nations for far too long for its propaganda. To see other countries repeating that propaganda about a blockade as though there is a a US Navy fleet around Cuba stopping things from coming and going to heck. I we just listened to Representative Poken here repeating that propaganda after his visit, um, where apparently he didn't visit the political prisoners. He didn't celebrate July 11th where they rose up to try to to throw off this yoke of oppression.
Nor did he see the Castro family private jet that apparently has enough fuel or the Castro family private island.
Mr. Chairman, I know he's speaking for me, but I'm still here.
You're not recognized.
Mark Pocan
And I did, I have talked to folks. I just want since he's speaking for me from this room, I'd like to respond.
No, no worries, Mr. Chairman.
Michael Waltz
So I'll point up here instead of over to to the place where you are sitting. The Cuban foreign minister was so upset about having his corruption called out, he broke his earpiece banging it on the table. They're not used to people pushing back on their ongoing years of propaganda and using, you know, the, um, I guess the logic of why do we still maintain pressure on this regime? I guess we should lift the pressure on North Korea as well and other countries around the world that want to see us.
Or Iran.
Michael Waltz
For that matter. But I will tell you, on a positive note, if the Abraham Accords were the story of the first Trump administration, what is happening in the Western Hemisphere, I believe, is the story of the second Trump administration. Argentina had already come our way. But now to see Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, the inauguration that we're about to have in Colombia on August 7th, Honduras, El Salvador, to be down in the Dominican Republic where they're talking about alternative space launch sites and the ongoing economic growth there. And of course, we have a horrific situation in Haiti.
I hope this new hybrid model will work to save the Haitian people from the from the devastation of the gangs. But there is a positive trajectory that's going on. And of course, I know you'll want to talk about Venezuela.
Maria Salazar
And Nicaragua. Let me just because of my time is running away and I would love to talk to you for the next 30 minutes. Daniel Ortega said yesterday that clearly and openly that he was not planning on conducting any more free and fair elections in Nicaragua. He said it openly that he is going to become another dictator. What can we do to the to the Nicaraguans?
We also have hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans in District 27 in Miami, all over the United States that love the system. So what can we do so they can have a free country as well?
Michael Waltz
Well, what they're what they're no longer getting is is free energy and oil from Russia. And like Cuba, they're no longer getting the hundred thousand hundreds of thousands of barrel of free oil from Venezuela. That's the story of the blackouts in Cuba, and I think it's going to be the story of Nicaragua as well. They no longer have their sugar daddy Maduro, who's now in jail, thank God, outside of the UN building right right there in New York.
Maria Salazar
What can we do to force Ortega to change his position and feel the pressure from the United States like Cuba and Nicaragua have felt?
Michael Waltz
I would, I know we're running out of time. I'd hopefully I will come back to you and sit down with you in terms of the actions the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department, and the State Department will be taking and us here at the UN to take on yet another communist dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere.
Maria Salazar
Good. Venezuela, finally, if I have two more minutes, Venezuela, we know that.
Maria Salazar
You can have about five seconds. Thank you. Venezuela, Secretary Rubio said that the transition was going to start early August sometime this year. What can you share with us about that? We want free and fair elections in Venezuela.
Michael Waltz
We are providing life-saving aid, as you know, in response to the earthquake. We are clearing out the Cubans, Russians, Chinese, Iranians out of... out of Iran. They are work... I mean, excuse me, out of Venezuela. They are working with us and taking on the gangs, and the Secretary has announced the beginning of the transition, which is moving the country in the right direction compared to where we were just a few months ago. This is an immense and positive trajectory.
Maria Salazar
Great. Thank you, and I will take you up on sitting down. Thank you again. Thank you. I yield back.
You're recognized.
Speaker 113
Thank you, Chair. Ambassador Watts, thank you for testifying today. Welcome back to the committee. Since the start of the Trump administration's war of choice in Iran, tragically 18 American service members have been killed, hundreds more have been wounded, tens of billions of dollars have been spent. More is coming.
The administration is asking for significantly more resources to fight this war of choice. Back in America, gas prices are on the rise again. The Iran war has cost the average American household an extra $1,000 out of their pocket just since the start of the conflict in February, as families are paying more and more for basics like groceries. Ambassador, in March you went on CNN to tell the American people that the war in Iran was, quote, "a dominant victory the likes of which haven't been seen in modern military history." Just last month, you doubled down on your claims that Iran's military was, quote, "devastated," unquote, and its nuclear program was, quote, "destroyed," unquote, in an interview on June 21st on Face the Nation.
I believe the American people see it very differently. Trump's military venture has accomplished little. Iran still possesses missiles and drones necessary to hit American bases a thousand miles away. You testified earlier today that when the President said he had, quote, "obliterated," unquote, Iran's nuclear program, he was talking about enrichment capability. But intelligence shows that that activity continues unabated at the Pickaxe Mountain underground complex with enough room to accommodate several nuclear-related facilities.
Experts have said that fully eliminating Iran's nuclear program would require, quote, "much more forceful intervention," unquote, including US troops on the ground, something of course nobody in America would accept. Ambassador Watts, I think a similar question may have been asked earlier in the hearing, but I would like to ask it directly with you. Do you stand by those previous statements that the United States has achieved, quote, "dominant victory," unquote, in this war?
Michael Waltz
The context of those statements were from a military standpoint, which was the question asked of me. And with its navy destroyed, air force destroyed, air defenses destroyed, with dominant air superiority over Iran and its leadership seriously degraded, and its industrial base seriously degraded, then yes, I stand by that statement. And from a broader standpoint, I stand by the statement that I made again today. Iran has never been in a weaker point since it started attacking the United States since 1979. Between Lebanon, Syria, the Houthis, Iraq, its proxies are, and Hamas for that matter, are seriously degraded.
Its currency has tanked. Its foreign reserves have never been lower. No one is buying its oil. China has cut its oil purchases in half, according to Secretary Bessent. So we are negotiating from a position of strength, and the President continues to try diplomacy.
Iran has made it clear that it's not interested in serious diplomacy as it attacks civilian shipping in the middle of negotiations.
Speaker 112
Ambassador, I might suggest that that rosy outlook is not agreed with by the vast, vast majority of our fellow Americans. I would suggest that is a significant minority opinion in the United States of America. In fact, it's very clear that the United States has not achieved a quote dominant victory in this war. The American people unquestionably are worse off, burning through taxpayer resources. Middle East is in turmoil right now.
Our ally Kuwait is now rationing electricity after Iran hit its power grid. American ally troops are exposed to Iranian missiles and drones, tragically like we just saw in Jordan a few days ago. Let me turn to Taiwan. Ambassador Watts, I admire the position that you took on Taiwan while you were here in Congress with us. You've been a major proponent of our relationship with Taiwan, from working to modernize US military foreign sales process while you were in Congress to working to advance Taiwan's standing at the UN.
However, following his trip to Beijing in May, President Trump disclosed that he and Xi had quote talked the whole night unquote about Taiwan during their meeting in Beijing and was pausing a major arms package for Taipei, calling it quote a very good negotiating chip unquote. Ambassador, you insisted in an interview with Fox News immediately following the President's trip that US policy on Taiwan is quote gonna be status quo going forward. You can't possibly be suggesting that using arms sales to Taiwan as a bargaining chip with China is the status quo, are you?
Michael Waltz
What I referred to is there, as the President said, there's no change in policy. Strategic ambiguity remains, and it is worth noting to be clear that President Trump this term has authorized more arms sales to Taiwan than the entire Biden administration just last year.
Speaker 112
And you and I know there's strong bipartisan support for that, authorizing it and getting those weapons in the hands of the Taiwan so that they can defend themselves.
Michael Waltz
But you and I both know there's a multi-billion dollar backlog from industry to actually get those arms off the production line, and President Trump is working, as is Secretary Hegseth, to reindustrialize and pull those supply chains back home, reindustrialize America, and expand our defense industrial base.
Speaker 112
Thank you very much, Ambassador Watts. I have further questions, but I think I'm out of time, so I will yield back and submit those in writing. Thank you.
Michael Lawler
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, good to see you. I'm sure you saw what Zohran Mamdani was up to this week. Instead of working to lower costs for New Yorkers, Zohran spent the week trying to figure out how to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And after days of using his taxpayer-funded lawyers to examine this nonsense, he released a scripted video filled with propaganda, sharing what we knew from the start, which is that he doesn't have the legal authority to arrest a democratically elected Prime Minister.
Ambassador, can you confirm for all of us that Mr. Mamdani does not have the authority to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu?
Michael Waltz
Number, yes I can, Congressman, and it is, you know, as probably one of the only Floridians actually moving the other direction into New York now, well, I'll just leave, I'll leave that commentary aside. To answer your question directly, the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which underpins the International Criminal Court, which is a corrupt organization who just had to fire its head prosecutor for sexual abuse and assault after he chased or is chasing after the Prime Minister Netanyahu with prosecution. Number one, we're not a party. We don't have authority of the ICC. There is head of state immunity, and under the UN Headquarters Agreement, heads of state are allowed to come and go to the UN General Assembly.
But the bigger picture is, why isn't he so adamant about the thugs that come in and out from Iran or from North Korea or from others as he is about Prime Minister Netanyahu?
Speaker 122
Not only that, he was opposed to the arrest and capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, who was twice indicted by our own court system. The Southern District of New York twice indicted him, and Zoran called for his release. Meanwhile, he wants to arrest a duly elected prime minister of an ally based on the International Criminal Court, of which we are not party to. It's truly remarkable.
Michael Waltz
And it's also remarkable that one of his key cabinet officials is reaching out to quote-unquote like-minded governments and trying to meet with the Iran regime in the midst of an ongoing conflict.
Michael Lawler
I'd expect nothing less from an anti-Semite. This is the fundamental problem. Look, you understand full well the challenges that you deal with every day at the United Nations. But sadly, we have a mayor of New York City who believes it's his responsibility to uphold international law. But meanwhile, this is the same person who wants to release dangerous criminals back out onto the streets in New York City, who refuses to cooperate with ICE to turn over violent criminals for deportation to federal authorities, who believes in sanctuary jurisdictions because, well, we don't want to hold people accountable for breaking our laws here in the United States.
But somehow we're going to enforce the laws of the ICC that we are not party to, a corrupt, anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-Israeli entity, all because of politics.
Michael Waltz
Which by the way, and I'll defer to Ambassador Bartos, which by the way has ongoing investigations against American soldiers from Afghanistan.
Jeff Bartos
Yeah, Congressman, thank you for your leadership on so many issues, including UNRWA. On the eve of Tisha B'Av, the saddest day in the Jewish calendar, which will start at sunset tonight and go for 25 hours and fasting and everything else, it's fundamentally offensive that the mayor is spending any of his time on this issue. And the ambassador's absolutely right, Ambassador Waltz is absolutely right. The ICC has been weaponized by globalists to seek with one mission, and that is to take down Western democracies like the United States and to try to imprison our leaders and our soldiers. And it's the Trump administration.
It's worth noting that the Clinton administration and every administration since did not join the Rome Statute. But it's only the Trump administration, with the leadership of the president and Secretary Rubio with his tour de force of remarks last week, that pointed out this and said we're going to dismantle this corrupt court, if necessary, brick by brick.
Michael Lawler
Well, speaking of dismantle, we also need to dismantle UNRWA. And I have legislation with Josh Gottheimer to do that, and I would encourage the administration to support it and to push Congress to pass it.
Jeff Bartos
We've read it, and it's terrific, and thank you for putting that forward, and look forward to working with you and your team on these important issues.
Thank you.
Brian Mast
Last and least, I'm going to take my own five minutes to ask questions. I want to talk about the sexual exploitation that's alleged within the United Nations. Can you just begin by giving me an overlay of what you know about it? What silos has this been identified in? I've heard most prevalently, of course, UN peacekeepers, but can you identify other silos that this has been an allegation?
Jeff Bartos
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. Every one of us in our confirmation hearings were asked about this issue. Democrat, Republican, didn't matter from which side of the aisle, everybody's concerned about this issue. And it's something we talk about whenever we meet with senior officials within the United Nations. And so we are aware.
We look at, I mean, I have it right here, the trends, the trend lines, and then broken down by whether it's industry or whether it's peacekeepers or whether it's civilians.
Jeff Bartos
Yeah, sure. Yes, sir. In 2025, a total of 520 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse were recorded across the United Nations system. It's important to note these are allegations. There are, we believe, there are many more that are not reported or not alleged for all sorts of reasons.
Fear coming forward, the fact that family can't feed itself if someone is using food as a weapon to exploit.
Brian Mast
Any charges? Is there even an entity within the UN to charge because it's all these different countries?
Jeff Bartos
You got to the heart of the issue. Nations will protect their own. Too many nations will protect their own and the process of the OIOS investigation and others working within the UN system to refer those to host country, sorry, to host countries, to countries, you know, their nationals have been accused, and then the process of that is abysmal.
Brian Mast
Are you aware of any situation where it's gone beyond an allegation to somebody has been criminally prosecuted somewhere for this?
Jeff Bartos
I'm not aware of any. If memory serves, it's less than five that I'm aware in and I've asked these questions since I got there.
Speaker 119
You're saying in UN history, you're to your knowledge it's less than five?
Jeff Bartos
I'm not looking, no. And they don't have statistics here about going from from investigation to charging to trial and then conviction.
Brian Mast
What are the numbers that I read, I can't exactly attest to its authenticity. It said over 100 sexual abuse allegations, 65 births that were given. This was a stat for last year. Are you familiar with that stat at all?
Jeff Bartos
I'm familiar that it's a it's a the fact that innocent people are are exploited like this and then fathers don't just run away or or go away and are not responsible is it's a stain on the organization and it's
Brian Mast
To your knowledge has the UN done any paternity tests with those allegations that resulted in births of children?
Jeff Bartos
I'm aware that there's a unit that solely exists to look at paternity and and trying to find to to make the father responsible for the child, but to my knowledge sir
Speaker 120
Or responsible for their criminal activity, their rape, their their sexual abuse.
Your point is well taken. Yes, sir.
Brian Mast
Please get back to me with that. The ICC, ICJ has not no jurisdiction over this. They have not been a part of bringing anything against something like that.
No. To your knowledge.
Brian Mast
Do you know as the United Nations paid out any settlements to your knowledge for sexual abuse?
Not to my knowledge.
Not to my knowledge.
Brian Mast
Is there anything that I've asked not asked about the sexual abuse allegations that have gone on within the United Nations that again many have heard about for years that you think I probably should have asked this because this would be information that we should know or anybody would want to know?
Jeff Bartos
Yeah, if one sir, Mr. Chairman, why did it take so long for administrations to be shining a light on this or to to shine a light on this issue and and to hold the UN accountable? It's I mean sitting in Central African country in February with the force commander who said to me quote thank you for withholding payment.
Now, we don't get told that very often. Thank you for withholding payment because it allowed me to repatriate poorly performing, as I said in my opening, poorly performing, which means abusive troops in many cases. It allowed me to repatriate those troops, send them back. I had the political cover to do it. We don't often have the cover.
In fact, what he said is we never have the cover to send them back.
Brian Mast
In the remaining time, what could you see as a proposition as our representatives there within the United Nations to actually create consequences and penalties so that this is an issue that is addressed, so that individuals would be imprisoned or castrated or, you know, whatever would be the appropriate...?
Jeff Bartos
Yes, sir. The common sense solution, and Ambassador Waltz, I know you may want to have something, the common sense solution would be simply you lose your ability to be a troop-contributing country if you're not going to adequately, not forget adequately, if you're not going to make it the highest priority to try and get and hold accountable those who commit exploitation and abuse of innocent people living in these very war-torn and tough areas.
Speaker 127
Thank you for your testimony. We'll go to closing statements. Do you have any closing statement you wish to offer?
I do not, Chairman. Thank you.
Brian Mast
For my closing statement, I'd simply offer you my five minutes of closing time to say is there anything that you'd like to say, respond to from your time here today?
Michael Waltz
Well, we've just heard, I think, a lot of rhetoric about whether President Trump was a president of peace and that whether we work or don't work well with our allies. I can tell you when we talk to Azerbaijan and Armenia, they believe he's a president of peace as they have the free flow of goods for the first time in thirty years. It is imperfect, the border situation in Thailand, Cambodia. It's imperfect, but moving forward between Pakistan and India, DRC Congo, the President is putting political frameworks, peace deals in place. The UN should be doing a lot of that.
The next Secretary-General should be leading those efforts. We are trying hybrid models in terms of Board of Peace or the gang suppression force to overcome a lot of the shortcomings of the UN to try to bring stability in efforts around the world. But I find it laughable when critics talk about President Trump as not engaged around the world. He is truly trying to solve some of these problems, even forgotten conflicts like the Polisario in Western Sahara. He has charged us to go out and find a solution.
It's not easy. The UN is a part of that, and our charge isn't to walk away, but is to clean this organization up so that it can then take care of some of these issues in a much more meaningful and effective way. And I guess I would just conclude, Mr. Chairman, with thank you for holding this. We are taking a hard look, and we welcome the committee's oversight and expertise on outputs. You know, all too often government, and in particular multinational organizations, focus on dollars going in and people going in.
We're looking at effectiveness going out, whether that's in the humanitarian space, the development space, or the peacekeeping space, because ultimately we owe that to our constituents that are paying twenty-five percent of this bill. I do think this is an organization that can be effective. That's where the President is. His charge to us: help make it great again, help it realize its potential. And it's an honor to have this team working in that regard.
And every time we pull up in a chair behind a placard that says United States of America on the world stage, every time as a former soldier we are using words and not bullets, and every time we actually conclude a deal, not always easy and not always easy to implement, that we conclude a peace agreement or a step in that direction representing the United States of America, it's an honor.
Brian Mast
Well, thank you both for your testimony. I would thank you for your service at the United Nations, tough service there. And I would let you both know that we've also sent requests for leadership within the United Nations to come before Congress and testify as well. We'd love to have them answer some of these same questions like the ones I just posed to you. Members of the committee may have some additional questions for you as witnesses.
We'll ask that you respond to those in writing. And pursuant to committee rules, all members may have five legislative days to submit statements, extraneous materials, questions for the record, subject to length limitations. And without objection, this committee stands adjourned.