Trump’s State Department UN nominee is promising a hard reset that could cut off money to failing UN bureaucracies and put America’s sovereignty back in the driver’s seat.
Story Snapshot
- Jeremy Carl, nominated to oversee U.S. policy toward international organizations, publicly laid out a Trump-aligned “UN plan” after his Senate hearing.
- Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jim Risch backed a reform agenda focused on shrinking UN bloat, stopping abuse, and pushing back on anti-Israel bias.
- Sen. John Curtis announced opposition, citing Carl’s past remarks and arguing they could weaken the U.S. case against anti-West narratives.
- Carl’s nomination is pending a full Senate vote, with timing and outcome not yet reported in the provided materials.
Carl’s post-hearing “UN plan” puts sovereignty and China-fronting first
Washington’s latest confirmation fight is centered on Jeremy Carl, President Trump’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. After a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on February 12, 2026, Carl released a video outlining his priorities for UN reform, including countering China’s influence, defending U.S. sovereignty, cutting U.S. funding to inefficient or politicized bodies, and confronting anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias inside UN forums. The nomination is listed as PN730-13 in the 119th Congress.
Carl’s stated approach tracks closely with the first Trump administration’s willingness to use leverage—especially funding and participation—to force accountability from international institutions. The research provided does not include a full transcript of his video, so the most precise summary comes from the description of themes repeated across the hearing context: cutting waste, defending sovereignty, and confronting hostile bias toward Israel, while warning about growing Chinese and Russian influence in multilateral bodies.
Risch frames the job as protecting taxpayers and stopping UN dysfunction
Sen. Jim Risch, the committee’s Republican chairman, used his opening statement to frame the position as a “heavy lift” tied to U.S. security and fiscal responsibility. He emphasized longstanding criticisms that parts of the UN system are too large, too inefficient, and too vulnerable to abuse. Risch also pointed to his 2020 work on aligning leadership at international organizations with U.S. interests, a theme that fits a Trump-era push to reduce automatic deference to global institutions.
Risch’s argument, as presented in the provided material, is straightforward: if U.S. taxpayers are underwriting large shares of multilateral operations, then the United States should demand measurable performance and fair treatment—especially for allies facing politicized targeting. That stance resonates with voters who watched the Biden-era foreign-policy establishment restore funding and engagement patterns without visibly fixing structural problems critics have flagged for years. The hearing record, however, does not provide line-item savings or program-by-program cut lists.
Curtis opposition shows the nomination could become a referendum on Israel messaging
Sen. John Curtis publicly announced he would oppose Carl, arguing the nominee previously expressed “anti-Israel views and insensitive remarks about the Jewish people.” The opposition stems from earlier podcast comments highlighted in the Utah-based report, including criticism that the United States may focus too much on Israel. Curtis also argued that such remarks could weaken America’s credibility when confronting anti-West narratives, a concern that can matter in UN settings where messaging battles shape votes and resolutions.
The material also reflects a key tension: critics point to Carl’s prior comments, while Carl, during the hearing and in his broader UN-focused messaging, emphasized diplomatic support for Israel and a drive to confront systemic anti-Semitism in international bodies. Based strictly on the provided sources, the dispute is less about whether UN bias exists—both sides acknowledge the UN can be hostile terrain—and more about whether Carl’s past rhetoric creates a political vulnerability that opponents could exploit during high-stakes UN fights.
What changes if Carl is confirmed: leverage, withdrawals, and a narrower UN checkbook
If confirmed, Carl would be positioned to help implement a reform agenda that may include funding reductions and possible withdrawals from non-compliant organizations—an approach associated with Trump’s earlier exits from bodies like UNESCO and the Human Rights Council, and the attempted withdrawal from the World Health Organization. The research summary says Carl’s plan includes using U.S. participation and money as leverage to curb waste and bias, while countering Chinese influence across key multilateral arenas.
Jeremy Carl just went on record in a Senate hearing straight-up saying immigration policies are replacing White Americans. Under oath and on camera. What used to get you shadowbanned is now in the mainstream conversation. #GreatReplacement pic.twitter.com/S06tKh8vqZ
— Dimitra (@realDimitraE) February 13, 2026
For Americans frustrated by years of inflation, overspending, and government unaccountability, the core policy question is whether Washington will treat multilateral spending like a blank check or like a contract with enforceable terms. The sources provided do not confirm what specific dollar amounts would be cut, which agencies would be targeted first, or what thresholds would trigger withdrawal. What is clear is that the confirmation vote will signal how aggressively Republicans intend to pursue “America First” oversight inside the UN system.
Sources:
Chairman Risch Opening Statement at Nomination Hearing (2-12-26)
Curtis to Oppose Jeremy Carl Nomination
PN730-13 — Nomination in the 119th Congress
