logo
Can Mike Waltz put ‘America First' at the United Nations?

Can Mike Waltz put ‘America First' at the United Nations?

The Hill6 days ago
On Tuesday, Mike Waltz, President Trump's former national security adviser, faced a grilling in the Senate as he seeks his next job: U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
In his confirmation hearing, Waltz spun himself as a tough advocate for American interests. Yet he kept bumping up against the same dilemma: in spite of the robust 'America First' rhetoric, the Trump administration is taking steps that will weaken American leverage at the U.N.
The stakes are high. The U.N. remains the world's preeminent global forum, where countries gather to exchange views and set rules for the future. The central issues of our time — geopolitical competition, conflict, nuclear proliferation, global health and emerging technology — play out at the U.N. and its many agencies.
Yet the U.N. has struggled in recent years. Its Security Council has been deadlocked, with Russia using its veto to get away with an illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. China is increasingly throwing around its weight, demanding more influence in the organization and watering down the U.N.'s work on human rights. The U.N.'s bureaucracy has struggled to streamline and focus its work.
The war in Gaza has further challenged the organization. After Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel, far too many countries at the U.N. refused to condemn the atrocity — a moral failure casting a long shadow. Since then, Israel's brutal war on Gaza, including illegal obstruction of humanitarian assistance and obscene levels of civilian harm, has further poisoned the atmosphere.
Despite these challenges, decisions are still made at the U.N. every day that impact American interests at home and abroad. The organization also retains a great capacity to contain and end wars before they spread and require U.S. intervention. U.N. human rights monitors, while not perfect, help promote accountability for violations in places such as Iran, Sudan and North Korea.
Debates in U.N. technical bodies and standard-setting agencies affect many American economic sectors, such as telecommunications, biopharmaceutical research and agriculture. The U.N. is also playing a key role in establishing global rules and principles for the development and use of artificial intelligence.
While Trump complains about global freeloading, the U.N. is actually an effective burden-sharing mechanism. The U.N.'s 193 member countries pool their dues to tackle shared challenges, such as responding to humanitarian disasters. Countries come together to collectively fund and supply nearly 70,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops to help protect civilians and stabilize troubled regions.
Given the breadth of U.S. equities at stake, senators wanted to hear from Waltz a credible strategy to strengthen American leverage at the U.N. and enact needed reforms there. Every American, Republican and Democrat, agrees that the U.S., not our adversaries, should prevail in shaping outcomes at the U.N.
Waltz had a chance to explain how he would work there to promote peace and strengthen U.S. security, protect American jobs, spur innovation and advance American values, particularly human rights. But Waltz could not explain away Trump administration decisions that will make it much harder for any U.S. ambassador to stand up for American interests at the U.N.
For example, Trump has proposed that the U.S. cease paying its U.N. dues, which amount to around a quarter of the organization's budget. In addition to gutting essential U.N. functions, this would create an opening for Beijing and other countries to expand their influence at the organization through stepped-up donations.
Trump's withdrawal from U.N. bodies, such as the World Health Organization and Human Rights Council, has similarly abandoned the field to other countries, including those that do not share our values. You can't fight for American interests if you're not in the room.
Waltz's job would also be much more difficult thanks to last week's bloodbath at the State Department, where more than 1,300 national security professionals were fired without cause. The Trump administration claimed that this blow to U.S. diplomacy was about 'efficiency' and 'streamlining' — this is hogwash. These arbitrary and ill-conceived firings will unquestionably deprive our government of critical talent and expertise. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice called the mass firings ' superpower suicide,' as she imagined the champagne corks popping in Beijing and Moscow.
Ironically, Mike Waltz has been known as a 'China hawk,' someone who has long believed that the United States is in a high-stakes competition with China. In his confirmation hearing, he emphasized that countering China at the U.N. is 'absolutely is critical' — a view shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Yet, deep down, Waltz must surely realize that Trump's actions will make it harder to push back on Beijing's influence at the U.N.
Undermining U.S. alliances in East Asia through tariff threats? Firing U.S. national security experts and diplomats? Shuttering the Voice of America and other offices that communicate our messages to the world? Abruptly ending U.S.-provided life-saving humanitarian assistance? Collectively, these steps will weaken American leverage around the world — all to the benefit of China. Senators appropriately pressed Waltz to explain how these self-inflicted wounds would impact his work at the U.N. Waltz had few good answers.
It is now up to the U.S. Senate to determine whether Mike Waltz should serve in one of the most critical and high-profile diplomatic jobs. Senators will weigh many factors, including Waltz's role in ' Signalgate,' his shockingly poor decision to convene a classified discussion on an insecure messaging app. In line with standard Trump world protocol, Waltz refused to take any responsibility for the breach.
Just as critical, though, the Senate must respond to the gap between Waltz's tough rhetoric and the Trump administration's crippling of American diplomatic capacity. If Trump and Waltz truly believe in their 'America First' rhetoric, they will need to do much more to stand up for our country.
Josh Black served in the Biden White House as special assistant to the president and senior director for multilateral affairs. He previously advised U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N. Susan Rice, Samantha Power and Linda Thomas-Greenfield.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LeBlanc 'encouraged' after meeting with Lutnick, lawmakers ahead of tariff deadline
LeBlanc 'encouraged' after meeting with Lutnick, lawmakers ahead of tariff deadline

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

LeBlanc 'encouraged' after meeting with Lutnick, lawmakers ahead of tariff deadline

WASHINGTON — Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc says he's feeling "encouraged" after meeting with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and American lawmakers in Washington, D.C., ahead of next week's tariff deadline. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to slap Canada with 35 per cent tariffs if there's not a deal by Aug. 1 but the White House has said it would not include goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Canada is also being hit with Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, and will be impacted by copper tariffs that are also expected to kick in on Aug. 1. LeBlanc says Ottawa will take the time necessary to get the best deal in the interest of Canadians, indicating a new economic and security arrangement may not materialize by Trump's deadline. LeBlanc says he will return to Washington next week for additional meetings. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she's hopeful for a return to normal relations with Canada but doesn't sense there will be a deal before Trump's deadline. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Trump's settlement with Columbia could become a model for his campaign to reshape higher education
Trump's settlement with Columbia could become a model for his campaign to reshape higher education

Associated Press

time19 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Trump's settlement with Columbia could become a model for his campaign to reshape higher education

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration's milestone settlement with Columbia promises to bring stability to a university in crisis. It also delivers a crucial win to President Donald Trump in his campaign to reshape higher education. And at colleges around the country, the deal clarifies the stakes for anyone weighing whether to fight the administration's demands or concede. Columbia agreed Wednesday to pay more than $220 million to the federal government to restore federal research money that was canceled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. That decision offers a contrast to the path taken by Harvard University, which has lost billions of dollars in government funding as its legal battle escalates with no end in sight. Yet the Columbia deal also raises questions about university independence as the school submits to closer federal oversight. No sooner had Trump announced the deal than he sent a warning: Numerous other universities, he said, 'are upcoming.' The deal is the first to settle a federal investigation into allegations of campus antisemitism since Trump returned to office. It's also the first agreement with a university touching on so many elements of the president's agenda, including diversity, equity and inclusion programs and admissions to women's sports and campus protests. Columbia agreed to some provisions similar to those that Harvard rejected and called a dangerous precedent. The settlement requires the hiring of new faculty in Jewish studies and a review of academics to ensure 'balance.' Additionally, Columbia will be placed under the watch of an independent monitor and ordered to disclose hiring, admission and discipline data to be audited for compliance. In what Columbia described as a victory for university autonomy, the agreement includes a clause saying the government has no authority to dictate hiring, admissions decisions or the content of academic speech. Acting University President Claire Shipman said it was 'carefully crafted to protect the values that define us' while restoring the university's federal research funding. Where some see pragmatism, others see capitulation Some at Columbia called it the best feasible outcome. Some called it capitulation. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., a Columbia graduate whose district includes the Manhattan campus, called it a 'cowardly' agreement that won't improve the campus. Columbia has effectively waved 'the white flag of surrender in its battle at the heart of the Trump Administration's war on higher education and academic freedom,' Nadler said. Columbia had been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support, including more than $400 million in research grants canceled earlier this year. David Pozen, a law professor at Columbia, said the settlement raises legal questions about Trump's strategy of regulation by dealmaking. Instead of applying a single standard across all of higher education, Pozen said, Trump is relying on one-off deals with individual universities as a condition to regain federal funding. It mirrors his hardball approach with trade partners and prominent law firms. 'In short, the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme,' he said. Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary and former president of Harvard, called the settlement an 'excellent template' for agreements with Harvard and other universities. He said it preserves Columbia's independence while addressing antisemitism and renewing a focus on merit. 'This may be the best day higher education has had in the last year,' Summers wrote on the social media platform X. Dozens of colleges are facing federal investigations With the deal, Trump has new momentum in his expanding campaign to bring the nation's universities in line with his vision. Dozens of campuses are under federal investigation for allegations related to antisemitism, DEI and transgender athletes in women's sports. Trump has saved his strongest rebuke for elite private universities, yet his administration has also recently turned attention to big public universities including George Mason University. Among Trump's backers, the Columbia agreement is seen as a first step to counteract the liberal bias they say has permeated college campuses. Education Secretary Linda McMahon called Columbia's reforms a roadmap for universities looking to regain public trust. 'I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come,' McMahon said in a statement. The settlement follows smaller wins for the administration, including a recent deal with the University of Pennsylvania over transgender swimmer Lia Thomas. Penn agreed to modify school records held by Thomas and to apologize to female athletes 'disadvantaged' by Thomas' participation. Just days earlier, the president of the University of Virginia agreed to resign amid a Justice Department investigation over DEI policies. Dozens of university presidents have rallied behind Harvard in its fight against the Trump administration, seeing their own independence jeopardized by the government's sanctions against the Ivy League school. Harvard, the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, is often seen as a bellwether for other institutions, and some regard it as the best hope to repel the Trump administration's pressure campaign. Now even more rides on Harvard's case. Earlier this month, Trump said a deal with Harvard appeared imminent, only to lash out at the university this week following a court hearing in one of Harvard's legal battles. 'A big part of it is going to be how much Harvard gets in the future,' Trump told reporters this week. 'And they're not going to get very much.' Even before Trump took office, more universities had been pulling back on DEI and taking other steps to backtrack on what some see as a leftward political drift. Yet if the Columbia agreement becomes a model, it could force an even deeper reckoning. The agreement requires full compliance with the administration's interpretation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Trump officials have used the law to force the removal of transgender athletes from women's sports. The deal also requires regular reports to ensure Columbia does not 'promote unlawful DEI goals.' On admissions, the settlement pushes Columbia to limit the consideration of race even beyond the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action. That decision left open the possibility that universities could consider an applicant's discussion of how their race affected their life, including in college application essays. The Columbia deal appears to bar such considerations. It also requires Columbia to heighten scrutiny of international students and ask questions about their reasons for wanting to study in the United States. It orders the school to take steps to 'decrease financial independence' on international students. Columbia has one of the largest international student populations in the nation, making up about 40% of its enrollment. How much Columbia ceded in exchange may not be clear for years. There's also no guarantee that the school is fully in the clear — the agreement leaves open the possibility of future 'compliance reviews, investigations, defunding or litigation' by the government. Still, Trump commended the university for doing 'what is right.' 'I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!' he said on his social media platform. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at

Is Trump in the Epstein files? Before Bondi's reported alert, here is where he appeared
Is Trump in the Epstein files? Before Bondi's reported alert, here is where he appeared

USA Today

time20 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Is Trump in the Epstein files? Before Bondi's reported alert, here is where he appeared

Fallout over Jeffrey Epstein has been propelled by reports that Attorney General Pam Bondi told President Donald Trump in May that he was mentioned in the criminal case files. The Wall Street Journal and CNN reported on July 23 that anonymous sources said Bondi told Trump his name appeared multiple times, along with other figures, in the government's files on the late financier indicted on sex trafficking charges. (Being named in the files does not mean he engaged in criminal activity, and a White House official denied wrongdoing, USA TODAY previously reported.) Bondi's Justice Department on July 7 released a memo saying no further disclosure of the documents was needed after teasing a "truckload" of Epstein files in March. In a rare moment of discord among Trump's supporters, many Republicans have pushed for more transparency around the files. 'The fact is that the president kicked him out of his club for being a creep," White House Communications Director Steven Cheung previously said. "This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about." But criminal investigations into Epstein spanned nearly 15 years, and Trump had already appeared in some evidence that has been made public. Here is what to know: See the list: Which MAGA supporters is Trump calling 'weaklings' over Epstein files? Is Donald Trump's name in the Epstein files? Trump had already appeared in legal documents concerning Epstein's crimes, but never in a way that implicates him. In the 1990s, Trump rode on aircraft owned by Epstein, according to flight logs released in two lawsuits. But that was 30-plus years ago. In Palm Beach County state attorney documents, an image of a message pad communication seized in a Palm Beach police search appeared, but there is nothing more than Trump's name and a phone number. Florida court has rejected the administration's call to unseal documents A federal judge in Florida on July 23 denied the Department of Justice's move to unseal grand jury transcripts from a federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein as part of the first criminal case against him. U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, formerly a circuit court judge in Palm Beach County, said in a memo on July 23 that her "hands were tied" and that the DOJ hadn't shown sufficient evidence to release transcripts related to a federal investigation of Epstein in the 2000s. The material sought in Rosenberg's court involved a 2006-08 federal investigation of Epstein that never resulted in an indictment. Part of the infamous "deal of the century," in which Epstein pleaded guilty to two state-court, prostitution-related charges, said that if Epstein followed the agreement that the federal charges would be dropped. Two other requests for related grand jury testimony are still pending in a Manhattan federal court. When was Epstein caught and first charged? A police investigation into Epstein began in March 2005 after a woman from the Palm Beach area in Florida said her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been molested by a wealthy man. In July 2006, Epstein was indicted by a state grand jury on a felony charge of soliciting prostitution, which did not address the 14-year-old victim's age. He was arrested and spent one night in Palm Beach County jail, released the next day on $3,000 bond. Epstein signed a non-prosecution agreement that was called the "deal of the century." He pleaded guilty in 2008 to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor for prostitution. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, where he was allowed work leave privileges six days a week/12 hours a day over the 13 months he served. When he was released from jail, he spent a year on house arrest but was allowed to travel anywhere so long as he returned in 24 hours. What was Epstein convicted of? Epstein never sat for trial, but he pleaded guilty to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor for prostitution in 2008 in Florida. He was also a registered sex offender. He died in 2019, before he could be tried for sex trafficking charges in New York. He was found hanged in a Manhattan jail cell, and the medical examiner ruled it a suicide. Trump himself has cast doubt on Epstein's death. Contributing: Joey Garrison and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store