Mike Waltz to face grilling over Signal chat at Senate hearing for UN role
The former Republican congressman is set to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his confirmation hearing, with Trump looking to fill his remaining Cabinet position after months of delay, including the withdrawal of the previous nominee.
The hearing will provide senators with the first opportunity to grill Waltz over revelations in March that he added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a private text chain on an unclassified messaging app that was used to discuss planning for strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen.
Waltz took responsibility even as criticism mounted against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who shared the sensitive plans in the chat that included several other high-level national security officials. Hegseth shared the same information in another Signal chat that included family, but Trump has made clear Hegseth has his support.
Waltz was removed as national security adviser in May — replaced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio — and nominated for the U.N. role.
Trump praised Waltz in the announcement, saying, 'From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation's Interests first.'
The United Nations is facing major changes
If confirmed, Waltz would be coming to the U.N. at a moment of great change. The world body is reeling from Trump's decision to slash foreign assistance — affecting its humanitarian aid agencies — and it anticipates U.S. funding cuts to the U.N. annual budget.
Under an 'America First' foreign policy realignment, the White House has asserted that 'some of the U.N.'s agencies and bodies have drifted' from their founding mission and 'act contrary to the interests of the United States while attacking our allies and propagating anti-Semitism.'
With America being the largest United Nations donor, cutting U.S. funding to the U.N. budget would greatly impair operations.
Facing financial instability, the U.N. has spent months shedding jobs and consolidating projects while beginning to tackle long-delayed reforms. The U.N. is also facing growing frustration over what critics describe as a lack of efficiency and power in delivering on its mandate to end conflict and prevent wars.
John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. who was also national security adviser during Trump's first term, was critical of the current state of the U.N.
'It's probably in the worst shape it's been in since it was founded,' Bolton, now an outspoken Trump critic, recently told The Associated Press.
Waltz has been meeting with senators
Waltz spent the last several weeks meeting with Democrats and Republicans on the Foreign Affairs committee.
Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth said Monday that she and Waltz discussed a wide range of issues, including whether the Trump administration would use the U.N. to strengthen alliances and combat Chinese influence.
'I asked him questions about 'Signalgate,' but I also talked to him about how we are going to sway other nations within the United Nations to our side, in light of how much influence the PRC is having on other nations,' the Illinois senator said, using an acronym for the People's Republic of China.
Even with Democratic opposition, Waltz only needs a majority in the 53-47 Senate, which Republicans control.
'He'll be fine. Mike won't have any issues,' said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla. 'I mean, the Democrats are gonna do their thing. Whatever. Mike's used to taking incoming fire.'
It is unclear how Waltz would approach the job. Trump's first nominee, Rep. Elise Stefanik, had built a track record in Congress of criticizing the U.N. She vowed during her confirmation hearing in January to combat what she called antisemitism at the world body and lead a review of U.S. funding.
She was expected to be confirmed, but Trump abruptly withdrew her nomination in March, citing risks to the GOP's historically slim House majority.
At the time, the loss of a mere handful of seats could have swung the House majority to Democrats and derailed their recently successful efforts to enact Trump's sweeping agenda.
Waltz is still on the White House payroll
Waltz, whose Florida House seat was filled during a special election earlier this year, has spent the last few months on the White House payroll despite being removed as national security adviser. The latest list of White House salaries, current as of July 1, includes Waltz earning an annual salary of $195,200.
A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss personnel matters, said Waltz stayed on to 'ensure a smooth and successful transition given the extreme importance of the role of NSA.'
Waltz was the first Green Beret elected to the House and easily won reelection for a fourth term in November before Trump asked him to join the administration.
___
Associated Press writers Seung Min Kim and Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump reshaped the Supreme Court. Now emergency appeals are helping him reshape the government
WASHINGTON (AP) — Six months into his second term, President Donald Trump has gotten almost everything he has wanted from the Supreme Court that he reshaped during his first. The justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump, have cleared the way for stripping legal protections from more than 1 million immigrants, firing thousands of federal employees, ousting transgender members of the military, removing the heads of independent government agencies and more. The legal victories are noteworthy on their own, but how the president is achieving them is remarkable. Administration lawyers are harnessing emergency appeals, which were used sparingly under previous presidencies, to fast-track cases to the Supreme Court, where decisions are often handed down with no explanation. Trump's use of the emergency docket reflects his aggressive approach to governing in his second term, with fewer voices of caution within his administration and the Republican Party. He regularly seeks any possible leverage to advance his agenda, regardless of past practices or tradition. The result is a series of green lights from the nation's highest court without any clarity on how the law should be interpreted in the future. The latest example came Monday, when the court allowed the Trump administration to move forward on a key campaign promise to unwind the Education Department and lay off nearly 1,400 workers. No rationale given by the majority The six conservative justices did not provide a reason for their vote, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent on behalf of the court's three liberals. 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,' Sotomayor wrote. In an earlier case allowing migrants to be sent to countries other than their own with little or no chance to object, Sotomayor complained that 'the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.' David Warrington, the White House's top lawyer and Trump's former personal attorney, said the president's team works 'around the clock to advance his agenda.' Senior administration officials who declined to be identified while discussing legal strategy said the White House is relying on the emergency docket because political opponents have been so aggressive in seeking temporary restraining orders from lower-ranking judges to halt proposals. Skye Perryman, who leads the Democracy Forward nonprofit that has repeatedly sued the administration, said emergency appeals have been pursued 'prematurely and inappropriately.' 'There is a concern that this Supreme Court is not checking this administration's power grab in the way the American people expect them to and the constitution would mandate,' she said. Trump repeatedly turns to justices for help Almost since Trump took office, the court's emergency docket has been packed with appeals from his administration. For a while, the justices were being asked to weigh in almost once a week as Trump pushed to lift lower court orders slowing his ambitious conservative agenda. The rulings on the court's shadow, or emergency docket, have come in some of the more than 300 lawsuits that have challenged parts of Trump's second-term agenda. Administration officials have harshly criticized lower-court judges who they see as getting in Trump's way. Top policy adviser Stephen Miller has spoken of 'judicial tyranny.' Trump himself called for impeaching U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, which prompted a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. Boasberg has found that members of the administration may be liable for contempt after ignoring his order to turn around planes deporting people under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The administration initially resisted court orders to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador. Yet the Supreme Court has not seemed especially skeptical of the administration's actions, critics have said. 'District judges have recognized this is not normal. What the administration is trying to do is not normal and it has to be stopped,' Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan said on the 'Original Jurisdiction' podcast. 'The Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry and for what, I am not clear.' Final decisions are yet to come The high court has not issued final decisions in any of the cases, which are continuing in lower courts. It's possible, if not likely, that the court eventually will hear appeals in some of these cases and issue final rulings. But by then, even if the court finds a policy illegal, it may be too late, said Alicia Bannon, director of the Judiciary Program at New York University law school's Brennan Center for Justice. 'In a lot of these cases, you can't unring the bell,' Bannon said. Pointing to the Education Department order, she said, 'Once those firings have moved forward, once that department has been effectively obliterated, you can't just, you know, press a button and bring us back to the status quo.' The liberal justices also have pointed to what they see as the damage their colleagues are doing to lower-court judges. 'Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this Court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote last month in her dissent from a decision limiting judges' authority to issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The decision to scale back nationwide injunctions came in the administration's emergency appeal of orders blocking Trump's effort to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion said nothing about whether the birthright citizenship policy violates the Constitution. The issue could soon return to the high court; judges are evaluating whether their earlier orders need to be changed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
US appeals court upholds West Virginia restriction on abortion pill sales
CHARLESTON, (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a lower court's decision to restrict abortion pill sales in West Virginia. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, affirmed a ruling by a U.S. district judge in 2023 despite federal regulators' approval of the abortion pill as a safe and effective medication. Most Republican-controlled states have enacted or adopted abortion bans of some kind, including restricting abortion pills by default, since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that provided nationwide access to abortion. All have been challenged in court. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Chambers had ruled that the near-total abortion ban signed by then-Republican Gov. Jim Justice in September 2022 took precedence over approvals from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 'For us to once again federalize the issue of abortion without a clear directive from Congress, right on the heels of Dobbs, would leave us one small step short of defiance,' 4th Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the court. 'One can of course agree or disagree with the Dobbs decision. But that is not the point,' Wilkinson said. 'At a time when the rule of law is under blunt assault, disregarding the Supreme Court is not an option.' West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, who took office in January, had defended challenges to the abortion law when he served as attorney general. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. 'Big win out of the 4th Circuit today,' Morrisey said in a statement. GenBioPro Inc., the country's only manufacturer of a generic version of the abortion pill mifepristone, had argued that the state cannot block access to a FDA-approved drug. Chambers had dismissed the majority of GenBioPro's challenges, finding there is 'no disputing that health, medicine, and medical licensure are traditional areas of state authority.' Appeals judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin concurred and dissented in part Tuesday, calling it a 'troubling opinion.' 'Put plainly, this law erects barriers to life-saving healthcare for countless West Virginians in ways not envisioned by Congress,' Benjamin wrote. Not at issue in the appeal was a challenge by GenBioPro concerning a separate West Virginia law that stopped providers from prescribing mifepristone by telehealth. Chambers had allowed that challenge to proceed. The U.S. Supreme Court last year unanimously preserved access to mifepristone, which is used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The Paramount comics, Colbert and Stewart, are sharp critics of the '60 Minutes' deal
NEW YORK (AP) — This isn't a joke. They've made that clear. CBS 'Late Show' host Stephen Colbert condemned parent company Paramount Global's settlement of President Donald Trump's lawsuit over a '60 Minutes' story as a 'big fat bribe' during his first show back from a vacation. Colbert followed 'The Daily Show' host Jon Stewart's attack of the deal one week earlier. Stewart works for Comedy Central, also owned by Paramount, making the two comics the most visible internal critics of the $16 million settlement that was announced on July 1. Colbert's 'bribe' reference was to the pending sale of Paramount to Skydance Media, which needs Trump administration approval. Critics of the deal that ended Trump's lawsuit over the newsmagazine's editing of its interview last fall with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris suggested it was primarily to clear a hurdle to that sale. 'I am offended,' Colbert said in his monologue Monday night. 'I don't know if anything — anything — will repair my trust in this company. But, just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help.' He said the technical name in legal circles for the deal was 'big fat bribe.' Jon Stewart terms it 'shameful' Stewart began discussing the 'shameful settlement' on his show a week earlier when he was 'interrupted' by a fake Arby's ad on the screen. 'That's why it was so wrong,' he said upon his 'return.' He discussed the deal in greater detail with the show's guest, retired '60 Minutes' correspondent Steve Kroft, making his views clear through a series of leading questions. 'I would assume internally, this is devastating to the people who work in a place that pride themselves on contextual, good journalism?' Stewart asked. 'Devastating is a good word,' Kroft replied. A handful of media reports in the past two weeks have speculated that Skydance boss David Ellison might try to curry favor with Trump by eliminating the comics' jobs if the sale is approved. A representative for Ellison did not immediately return a message for comment on Tuesday. It would be easier to get rid of Stewart, since he works one night a week at a network that no longer produces much original content. Colbert is the ratings leader in late-night broadcast television, however, and is a relentless Trump critic. The antipathy is mutual. Trump called Colbert 'a complete and total loser' in a Truth Social post last fall, suggesting CBS was wasting its money on him. 'HE IS VERY BORING,' Trump wrote. Colbert slips in a quip Colbert alluded to reports about his job security in his monologue, pointing to the mustache he grew during his vacation. 'OK, OK, but how are they going to put pressure on Stephen Colbert, if they can't find him?' he joked. Colbert and Stewart both earned Emmy nominations this week for outstanding talk series. Together with ABC's Jimmy Kimmel, all three nominees are tough on Trump. CBS News journalists have largely been quiet publicly since the settlement's announcement. Two top executives, CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon and '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens, both quit or were forced out prior to the settlement for making their dissatisfaction about the idea known internally. Reporting about the settlement on the day it was announced, 'CBS Evening News' anchor John Dickerson said viewers would have to decide on their own what it meant to them. 'Can you hold power to account after paying it millions?' Dickerson asked. 'Can an audience trust you when it thinks you've traded away that trust? The audience will decide that. Our job is to show up to honor what we witness on behalf of the people.' ___ David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and
