U.S. Accountability at the United Nations: Challenges and Opportunities for Reform

you're

oh it's so hot in london no i mean ten minutes is easy

alright is everyone ready

ready to go

The subcommittee on oversight intelligence will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to examine recent developments within the United Nations system, review the Trump administration's efforts to bring accountability and reform to the UN, and consider potential reforms to more effectively advance US interests. I now recognize Chairman Mass for his opening statement.

You hit me first.

Very kind of you, Chairman Mills. Thank you for having me today.

Technically you ought to rank me as a Staff Sergeant, so you should go first.

Fair enough. I'll take it, my friend. Um, Mister Mills, I do wanna formally thank you for holding today's hearing, uh, on the need for accountability and reform within the United Nations. Uh, anybody that doesn't see it as blind. I'm proud to see uh Ambassador Walz there working hard, uh, to change the climate, change what's going on there. He's a friend of both of us and proud to see his work that's going on there. I would say I would believe it would be difficult for any of the founding members who signed the initial charter, the UN charter in nineteen forty five that they would have foreseen utter uselessness and corruption uh that exists there. I I don't believe that that's what they envisioned for the organization. Uh I think there's hardly a week that goes by that we don't read some headline about the United Nations that reads like it's something out of the Babylon Bee or Hollywood, like Sacha Baron Cohen or something like that. And what was this week's headline? It was that the United Nations selected Iran to serve on the board of nuclear non-prolifer I can't even say it with a straight face. They selected Iran to serve on the board of nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Right? I mean, that's Moscow, which you can reply to this too. I mean

How did they delete her on there?

You s- Yeah, right? You guys seen the movie uh, it's a movie I'm thinking of. With uh, with Borat, with Sacha Baron Cohen.

It's called Borat? That's why Borat

No, no, no, the movie. The uh,

Oops, it's also called Borat.

The Dictator.

Oh, The Dictator.

Right? You guys seen The Dictator, right?

Yeah.

"We are almost complete with enriching weapons, great uranium for the peaceful purp-" Oh boy. " Peaceful purposes." Right? I mean, that's what this reads like. You all seen The dictator. Right? I see a lot of a lot of thumbs up back there. That's You can do Tropic Thunder next year. Yeah. By the way, this is usually Moscow it's place, Oh. like I'm still in the Hollywood scene, Yeah. it's actually really enlightening. So do you want Tom Cruise in uh, Tropic Thunder, or are you thinking who you thinking? Yeah, I can do Tom Cruise. I want a whole, I want a whole uh good movie, Yeah. You want scorched earth. yeah, yeah. Got it. I'm not gonna do Tropic Thunder today. I wanna, I wanna a whole, Les Grossman, Les Grossman. So Yes, Les Grossman, yeah. I've digressed. Plenty at this point, but seriously, uh,

Uh. I don't care, maybe some time.

putting them in charge of non-proliferation treaty, it is literally like watching the movie, the, uh, The Dictator, it's beyond crazy. Uh, this is the same regime that has lied about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, uh, hid them from United Nations inspectors for decades and, uh, are given direct influence over the world's foremost nuclear treaty. And you have to think, uh, that when it comes to inspections, uh and also the IAEA and others, uh where do they use it for intelligence gathering? Uh you know, obviously uh anything nuclear at the highest levels of classification. And uh them being given access and tours, just beyond common sense. I I you know, like who thought of that? Who who thought of doing this beyond me? Um it's really just the tip of the iceberg. United Nations has given Iran a seat. at the table in the committee responsible for shaping UN priorities on women's rights. Who thought of that? Uh, or, uh, the human rights and counterterrorism, right? This the same regime whose idea on women's rights is enforcing physical assault or detention, uh, for women who are caught without a hijab. How does that happen? That, that is a rotten, institution. And, um, we're not just talking about years ago. The first one I mentioned was this week. Uh, this is the same regime. Their idea on human rights is slaughtering ten, twenty, thirty thousand of its own citizens, imprisoning them. None of that is hyperbole. Recent history. Same regime whose idea of counterterrorism There, think about this. Iran is on the committee for counterterrorism. And they're the, the chief operator for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, giving them targets, giving them reward for better targeting anybody that they can, but that's the UN's idea of a good idea? Put them on the council for that? You can't, you can't make this shit up. Uh, you might be able to look, overlook some of the things that the UN could actually do uh what it was chartered to do and and failed, uh you know, ending wars and holding human rights abusers accountable, maybe you could overlook some of the failures, but they continue to fail fantastically at ending wars and things like that. Peacekeepers, don't get me started on UN peacekeepers. Uh, I think I'll probably touch on that for a minute. I'll think about Haiti, right? Take a look at the UN's failed multinational security support mission in Haiti. every American should be on, be beyond pissed off about this. Uh, the United States of America, what did we do? We paid over a billion dollars for one thousand Kenyans, a billion dollars to the UN, for one thousand Kenyans to go into Haiti and take out the gangs. They did not do that. Haiti ended up in a worse position after the United States burning through a billion dollars. abysmally failed while uh so what did we pay that's uh let's just say one million dollars per kenyan that we paid to the united nations i'm pretty sure each million dollars didn't go to each kenyan that was a part of the force there that failed abysmally um and you know you look at this today uh things have gotten so bad that the haitian government has taken matters into their own hands so now the haitian government is paying for fighters to come in there who are they paying uh they're actually paying for uh eric prince s group to come in there so they're paying americans the haitian government is now paying americans whereas we paid kenyans and now in the same breath i could say we are now paying fighters from chad so haiti is paying americans we as americans are paying uh united nations to pay chad to go into haiti uh beyond crazy uh i was on the phone with the american head of this operation earlier earlier this week and um they're doing what the billion dollar kenyan program couldn't do for really pennies on the dollar. To me, if we were going to invest in that, I would say invest in the Americans that are doing it for pennies on the dollar, Eric Prince's group, but that's just me, that seems like very much common sense. Uh, I'd love to see the United Nations think about doing that. Invest in those that get the mission done and do it for pennies on the dollar. There's a suggestion. Uh, my opinion is we should not be paying for any of this to begin with, but uh, it is mind boggling that we pay the United Nations to bring in people from companies like Chad, Sri Lanka, others to do this job instead of paying, again, an American company. I'm gonna wrap this up pretty quick here. Um, US tax dollars and American tr- contributions to the international community, they have to align with United States of America national security interests, priorities, and values. We will not bankrupt ourselves on failed UN missions that never stand a chance to begin with and do not align with our values, or benefiting the American people. Under President Trump's leadership and the efforts of US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, US foreign policy has a clear principle. Get back to basics. I could not agree more, and I'll just close it with this. As I always say about foreign policy, we need to ask number one, as Americans, what does the United States of America need from a country or region? And then we'll ask after that, what does the country or region want from the United States of America? And then we'll ask number three, uh, does that country or region, uh, if, if we do, uh, what it is that they're looking for us, from us, do we get what we need? Or do we not? That could be long-term or short-term. Maybe it's cash for a weapons systems, maybe it's a strategic high ground, maybe it's peace. stability, something else, you know, it could be a hundred different things. But if the people of the United States of America are not getting what they need, like in Haiti, burn through a billion dollars of our money for abs- for a worse situation, or so many other things, then we have no business being a part of it. And for my part, I am one hundred percent fine with the United States of America stepping away from the United Nations in totality. And I conclude my remarks.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I think many on this committee would agree with many of the sentiments, especially when we talk about the hypocrisies of the United Nations, also known as useless nations. Um, at this point, the chair recognizes the ranking member from Florida, Representative Moskowitz, for an opening statement.

Uh, thank you to the the double chairman. Um, so I Look, there's many things that Chairman Maas said that uh I uh agree with, but fundamentally I don't agree with pulling out of the UN um categorically. Uh, and that's mainly because everywhere that the US wants to withdraw, has withdrawn, any place, whether it's a country with foreign aid, whether it's uh the WHO, whether it's the UN, China just comes in uh with more dollars uh and more influence. and I know the chairman shares my concern uh about China and China's growing uh, growing influence. But there's no doubt that the UN has major issues. There's also areas that the UN does well at, right? You know, obviously, you know, taking care of uh hungry children uh around the world, uh is something the UN uh uh I think does uh as well as any other organization. So let me just say, look, this is an important hearing and I appreciate the opportunity to examine value and the shortcomings of the UN system at a time when global institutions are under increased scrutiny. I uh appreciate my colleagues who have waved on, uh as well as the witnesses who are taking their time out of their day to testify. I do believe that that this hearing uh of this scope would benefit from being held at the full committee level as well, uh as it was in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Uh and given its current role and perspective, hearing directly from uh, Ambassador Mike Waltz, our colleague, former colleague from, uh, Florida who's got a tough job, is doing a, doing a good job. Uh, and so I would love obviously an opportunity if at some later juncture, uh, if he was able to come to a, a full, uh, committee hearing. Um, like I believe the United Nations and other international organizations remain important.

Mister Boskowitz, can I just add something?

Absolutely.

We are, uh, planning to do, just so you know, likely a up to, uh, UN General Assembly, just so you know.

Oh, OK, perfect.

Yeah.

That's fantastic. Uh, I, I, I'd - I'd prefer Mike's wife, quite frankly, but if we can get Mike that's fine. OK. Um, so, look, I - I - I think the UN, uh, United Nations and other international organizations remain an important platform for advancing US interests, and supporting our allies, and coordinating humanitarian efforts, and addressing global challenges that no country can tackle alone, from conflict mediation to public health to nutrition assistance, there's no substitute, um, uh, for sustained American leadership in multilateral institutions. Uh, but support of UN does not mean that we just ignore the problems. It's that our commitment to these institutions requires to be honest of where they're falling short and push for meaningful reform and long-standing bipartisanship. Uh, and the criticism that uh Chairman Mass gave I think is completely valid, the idea that uh China would have a spot on the Human Rights Council when uh, you know, they are are, you know, have the Uighurs in almost basically concentration camps in China. No one sees that on their algorithm on TikTok, right? It's it's everything we do, it's everything Israel does, but you're not seeing anything about China, uh, what they've done to the Uighurs in your algorithms. Um, uh, obviously the fact that, uh, Iran, not just with the, uh, non-proliferation that the chairman brought up, but also, uh, they were appointed chair in twenty twenty three to the UN Human Rights Council, forum on science, technology and human rights. Uh, and so, yeah, when we see decisions like that it's not just like one has to wonder, obviously there is something systematically rotten uh within the organization, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it. Um again because I think abandoning the UN just speeds China's progress there. I mean, when I went to the UN a couple years ago they were detailing to me how China has, you know, couple thousand interns all over the organization and those interns get paid by China, and then those interns eventually wind up taking jobs within the organization where in america we don't pay our interns right and as a result they intern there and then they mostly leave and so the un is hiring more and more chinese employees that the ccp put there uh and that's why you know we're we're not fighting the same battle uh that that that china is fighting it's why if you look at the votes on you know when you get out of like you know the the councils but you look at the regular votes of just un members i mean china controls more votes than we control now, based on you know their road and bridge initiative and other initiatives of spending money in Latin America and in Africa, and other places, you know they went around and spent a ton of money in all these small countries and picked up a ton of votes um at uh at the UN. Uh additionally one of the most serious concerns uh is the um you know the amount of anti-semitism uh that exists at UN bodies and agencies, um having nothing to do with you know, uh, their feelings on Israel. We've seen this rhetoric, um, from, uh, Francesca Albanese, uh, several times. Mol- many members have, uh, on a bipartisan basis put letters together on the unlimited amounts of anti-semitism that have come from her, uh, and yet the UN still refuses, uh, to, to deal with her. And we see the double, triple, quadruple standard, uh, obviously when it comes to, uh, the war, uh, between Israel and Hamas. And we don't see that from the UN on the war between Russia and Ukraine. We don't see that from the UN on what's happened in the Sudan. We don't see that from the UN on what's going on uh with Iran. Where was the UN when thirty thousand plus people were killed in Iran for protesting? And and and so all of these things are are true. I just again don't believe that means we abandon the institution. We recognize its problems and we have to figure out how to fix it. Leaving it only speeds this situation up even faster. uh and allows China uh to control uh the organization. So, you know, I think we need to think carefully on how we respond to these problems. We have to argue to - to - and - and diseng- and - and the answer is not just to disengage or, you know, or - or withholding funds that could then rep- be replaced by - by Chinese dollars. Uh, you know, stepping back from participation or withdrawing from individual bodies, um, you know, is something we've talked about, and I understand uh obviously uh the uh the frustration um you know among the bodies of the un uh that we have not uh that we have disengaged that uh with our are focused on is addressing children in armed conflict sexual violence and conflict uh and violence against children i know that everyone in this room can agree that protecting children in conflict zones and ensuring that they have the tools to grow are worthy goals in fact uh first lady melania trump recently presided over a un security council meeting uh and rightfully highlighted these needs just two weeks ago after we pulled out of related entities. And so that again highlights that there are still things that uh are important at the UN and are working. Um and so look, when the United States again pulls back from these international organizations, uh we do not necessarily drag the rest of the world with us. We leave a void uh that we're seeing that that China fills. And so uh you know I could I could go on um over my my five minutes. I appreciate the the Chairman's uh indulgence in in letting me talk and i look forward to asking questions uh for the witnesses so thank you so much

thank you to the ranking member at this time i'll recognize myself for my opening statements good afternoon and welcome today's hearing is entitled un accountability at the united nations challenge and opportunities for reform on behalf of the house committee of foreign affairs subcommittee on oversight and intelligence i welcome our witnesses we are grateful to have you with us and look forward to your testimony and the american people have learned anything from President Trump, it is that we should not tolerate the status quo if it does not make America safer, stronger, more prosperous, and promote our values. That is why we are having this conversation today. Over eighty years ago, in the aftermath of World War Two, the United States championed the establishment of the United Nations for the primary purpose of promoting global peace and security. At a time when the world was still recovering from the most destructive war in history, the UN's founders sought to prevent such a war from ever happening again. Today, the United Nations bureaucracy has a hundred and ninety-three member states with over one hundred thousand personnel and a total budget of three point seven billion dollars a year, becoming a bloated and ineffective organization. Peacekeeping missions and humanitarian programs have continued for decades as conflicts have yet to resolve. Authoritarian tyrants have gone on to abuse human rights with only UN reports and strongly worded letters. to stop them from their attempts. When we talk about the idea of preventing funding to certain things like peacekeeping, I wanna remind everyone the examples of what President Trump has done as a peacemaker. Armenia and Azerbaijan, Cambodia and Thailand, Rwanda and the DRC, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia, Serbia and Kosovo, the Abram Accords, Gaza and the Board of Peace. These are just examples of what President Trump has done without the need of additional peacekeeping funding. We have a serious problem when UN members' states invoke international law to condemn dem- democratic nations, particularly the United States and Israel, for their self-defense while simultaneously shielding authoritarian human rights abusers like Nicholas Maduro and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, from accountability. When Iran is nominated to the UN Economic and Social Council's Committee on Program and Coordination, a committee which is responsible for shaping UN priorities on human rights and counterterrorism, we have a serious problem. And earlier this week, Iran, as the chairman had pointed out, was nominated to serve as Vice President on the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference. Hypocrisy. And absolutely laughable. We have a serious problem when anti-semitism in the UN is something that has been widely condemned and never again, reappears in international forums that give disproportionate amount of attention to Israel while others around the world's most severe human rights abusers, remain ignored, including, as pointed out, the estimated one million Uighur that the Chinese Communist Party forced into concentration camps. We also cannot forget that the UN has not only been a forum for hypocrisy, and EU efforts to push abortion and radical gender ideology, It also employed Hamas terrorists who killed an estimated twelve hundred innocent people on October seventh. If the International Peace Organization, the United States championed, is not holding human rights abusers accountable, then the UN risks doing the opposite, ultimately illegitimizing uh legitimizing them. The American people are justified to question why their taxpayer dollars should continue to support institutions that employ terrorists and that fall short of the founding principles. While the UN has great potential, the UN needs serious reform. We must ensure that all taxpayer dollars sent to the UN are not supporting US adversaries leftists and woke pet projects or actual terrorists themselves. We must ensure that the US contributes contributions advance US interests and establish long-term results. And we must consider reforms not only to top-line budget items, but to how the UN operates as a whole and an organization to include. how it conducts employee vetting, as well as its internal investigations and criminal activity. The United States has an opportunity to leverage US funding to reform the UN system, and see a new found excellence in international organizations. We look forward to discussing these opportunities with you, and with that, I will open it up for the opening statements of our witnesses. We'll start with you, Mister Schaffer.

Uh, Chairman Mills. Ranking Member Moskowitz, uh, distinguished members of the subcommittee on oversight intelligence, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I appreciate the subcommittee's focus on how the United States can best leverage its extraordinary financial and political influence to advance reforms in the United Nations systems to serve US interests. The US is by far the most important financial contributor to the UN system. Over the ten fiscal years from twenty fifteen to twenty twenty four, The United States provided approximately one hundred and forty-seven billion dollars to international organizations with more than three quarters of that going to the UN and its affiliated bodies. In twenty twenty four alone, the US accounted for over thirty percent of government contributions to the UN system more than fourteen billion dollars. This is equivalent to the combined contributions of one hundred and eighty-three other nations. It was more than the combined contributions of Germany, the UK, China, and Japan. respectively the second, third, fourth, and fifth largest contributors to the UN, uh behind the United States. This level of support provides the US with leverage that, when combined with our Security Council veto and bilateral influence is unmatched by any other member state. Yet too often that leverage is underutilized or applied inconsistently. The key challenge is not a lack of US influence, but in its application. The Trump administration has demonstrated that firm use of US leverage can yield results. Financial pressure has driven a a historic reduction in the UN regular budget, eliminated thousands of UN staff positions, and improved oversight. It has been critical in driving member state engagement with the Secretary General's UN eighty reform effort. It will remain essential um to rally support for eliminating unnecessary mandates and uh to consolidate and eliminate duplicative entities. The administration's willingness to use its Security Council veto and condition funding has strengthened US negotiating power over peacekeeping operations. It has lowered costs and precipitated a closer scrutiny of long-standing operations. Due to US efforts, the failed operation in Lebanon is due to close in December, and the renewal of the operation in Western Sahara now specifically supports a realistic political resolution for the territory. More broadly, the President's decision to review US participation in international organizations was both necessary and overdue. America should not fund or remain a member of organizations that operate contrary to US interests undermine our sovereignty or fail to perform their core missions. The willingness of the president to suspend funding created a unique leverage to press for reform. But withdrawal and withholding are tools. To secure successful outcomes, pressure must be paired with specific demands and incentives. The review process has been slow and uneven thus far, unfortunately. Months of delay, combined with limited public of uh explanation of decisions have left both US agencies and major recipient organizations in limbo. That uncertainty weakens American influence and makes reform harder, not easier. When an when an organization is worth supporting, the US should say so explicitly and articulate why that support advances US interests. Equally important, when the United States withdraws or cuts funding, those decisions should be accompanied by a clear rationale explaining what failed and what reforms will be required to restore U. S. support. Sticks must be paired with carrots. When reforms are adopted, they must be rewarded. Paying arrears in exchange for concrete reforms reinforces U. S. credibility and leverage. It shows the United States is negotiating in good faith. Looking forward, Congress has a critical role to play. Legislation tying funding to specific reforms on budgeting, transparency, staff conduct, and oversight have historically been critical drivers of change. Recent appropriations language, such as the requirement for the administration to negotiate agreements with UN organizations to facilitate oversight access by US Inspectors General, builds on that successful tradition. In conclusion, the United States should be selective, clear, and strategic in its engagement with international organizations. They are not all the same, and being a member of the United Nations does not require US participation in all UN system organizations or entities. We should prioritize, you know, organizations that advance US interests, withdraw from those that do not, and use our financial leverage to demand re- measurable reforms. If applied with consistency and transparency, American leadership backed by financial leverage can reshape the UN system in ways that are that better serve both the US taxpayer and US national interest. Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions.

Uh, thank you, Mister Schaffer, and now uh I recognize uh Mister Kontorovich for your opening statement, please.

Uh, thank you, Representative uh Baad, Ranking Member Moskowitz, honorable members of the subcommittee. Uh, appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about how to reform the United Nations. We all agree some reform is needed, but how to do it? Congress has been discussing the UN's lack of accountability and need for reform for decades, yet Turtle Bay's budget increases almost ineluctably, and it continues to expand its sphere of operations and ambitions. We need to adopt new tools to force UN reform or scale down our involvement in a lasting way. Let's be honest, This is not easy because the UN is designed for maximum non-accountability. As a supranational institution with nearly two hundred member states the monitoring and agency problems inherent in government are amplified. It's run by a treaty from nineteen forty five that can't be amended without the consent of all states. So most UN reform efforts have focused on cutting or withholding funds. This is an important tool which we must certainly use, but it's not enough. History shows that the UN often relapses and drops reforms when a less determined administration comes into office, reforms get abandoned. So the remainder of my testimony will explain three discrete methods to lock in change short of quitting. This means looking not just where problems are, but where the pressure points are. My focus is not necessarily on the UN's biggest failings, but rather areas where there is both need for reform and the ability for the United States to force it in a unilateral and durable way, thus pushing back on the accretive inertial processes by which the UN blob expands. These three strategies, in brief, using the Security Council veto to pare back peacekeeping, exiting individual specialized agencies, as well as treaties giving the ICJ jurisdiction, and finally reasserting Congress's role and authority over decisions to join UN organizations. Let's start by discussing peacekeeping missions. most bloated, politicized, and ineffective UN entities from UNRWA to the Human Rights Council, cannot be cancelled by the United States. Peacekeeping missions are the exception, because they require typically annual reauthorization from the Security Council, which means the United States can veto that reauthorization. Once vetoed, a peacekeeping mission cannot be resurrected without a new affirmative Security Council vote. Some peacekeeping missions have played valuable roles, but like many UN entities, They continue to exist long after any real need for them has ended. Indeed, the UN derives influence and patronage opportunities from these missions whose blue helmets make the organization seem like a real power. So Trump uh the Trump administration has already begun to sunset UNIFIL. That's a powerful important example to end this year, but it's not over until it's over. Uh some other examples where of missions that can be re-evaluated, UNDOF in the Golan Heights is supposed to supervise a demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria. but it runs away whenever the shooting starts. Changes on the ground after the Syrian civil war make this DMZ irrelevant, and the organization has never been able to prevent conflict. Other missions are perpetually plagued by scandal and abuse of the kind no American taxpayer should be forced to subsidize. MONUSCA in the Democratic Republic of Congo, MONUSCA in the Central African Republic have for years between them accounted for the vast majority almost all of sex abuse claims against UN peacekeepers, there's something fundamentally broken and unfixable in those missions. We can use the veto of these missions not just to scale down the scope of UN peacekeeping but also as a pressure point to leverage change over other UN uh agencies. Now the United we second, exiting specialized agencies. The United Nations is not just one organization, it's a web of entities. Most of them we cannot quit without quitting the United Nations. Some have individual treaties and individual uh uh membership, which we can begin to re-examine. However, like little used on-line subscriptions, a member America's membership in such organizations proceeds unexamined through inertia. Take the international organization on migration, which has proposed a global carbon tax. Ambassador Walz and the Trump administration managed to stop that this year, last year, but ultimately to keep America out of this system, we're gonna have to take America potentially out of the uh organization. Uh the International Organization for Migration, one point seven billion dollars a year, sponsors the Global Compact for Migration, which the US has described as not compatible with US sovereignty. Uh now finally, once we leave these and other organizations, we need to make sure that re-entry is not just a revolving door. Now when the US joined the World Health Organization, uh UNESCO and other of these organizations, Congress had to affirmatively vote to approve membership. But when the US has re-entered UNESCO three times now, no separate congressional authorization was forthcoming. That's a mistake. Congress should have to approve re-entry. It's not a season ticket or a lifetime pass. Authorization of membership should be a one-time use. Otherwise, these agencies become like a dreary version of the Hotel California, where you can check out any time but never leave. Thank you, I look forward to your question.

Thank you, Mister Kucherovich, and I now recognize Mister Jairanari for an opening statement.

Thank you, uh, Representative Baird and uh, Ranking Member Moskowitz, honorable members. Um, the UN Charter envisions a system for cooperation between sovereign states, but the UN increasingly operates and is described as a system for global governance. A complex web of agreements imposes common policy targets on all countries, and allows UN bureaucrats to interfere in domestic policy debates. UN reforms must address this UN overreach on controversial social ish policies, including abortion on demand, gender ideology, the sexualization of children, DEI, and censorship, just to name a few. These policies are having a real effect on our national laws, and international law. Consider UN gender policy. They have infected all international and domestic programs for women with gender ideology before woke gender programs were ever debated in the US, they were mainstreamed across the UN system. Over seventy percent of UN mandates have a gender perspective. A six hundred million dollar UN agency is exclusively dedicated to lobbying for gender ideology everywhere in the world. UN gender policies have seeped into US policy at all levels. Federal legislation includes gender without ever defining the term. Gender integration has been codified in US foreign aid, in US foreign aid law. Proposed congressional bills stigmatize and prosecute opponents of gender ideology as international criminals. Executive orders tie US foreign policy to UN gender agreements. Some states and municipalities adopt UN gender policies as their own and directly report to the UN on their progress. Democrat aligned groups plan their policies based on UN policy. If this can happen in the US, imagine what is happening in countries that don't have a tradition of self-government or a functioning fiscal system. The UN employs over a hundred and thirty thousand bureaucrats, trained, hired, and promoted through gender and DEI practices. That's fifty thousand more than the US State Department, and it doesn't include the vast network of government-funded NGOs that work hand-in-hand with the UN bureaucracy. Unlike politicians, they think in ten, twenty, and thirty year terms. They don't respect any limits to their power, and they say that UN treaties are living instruments. They opportunistically wait for a favorable moment to push their agenda everywhere. Who controls this vast bureaucracy? Not Congress. Not the President. Not the American people. Even though UN bodies act in the name of the entire UN membership, it is whoever pays for UN programs that gets to decide what goes into them. Over the last twenty-five years, voluntary contributions have grown to seventy percent of the entire UN budget. This is the real UN budget. I have an image. in my written testimony, I was hoping it would come up, but it doesn't. If it can come up, if it shows up you'll see it, it shows a a an exponential grope, gro- growth of the voluntary UN budget. So, UN budget cuts are laudable, but they don't affect UN policy or voluntary contributions from other countries, only US voluntary contributions. There you see, there's the the graph that helpfully shows the exponential transformation of the UN system. So now that Over fifty billion dollars of the UN budget are uh voluntary contributions, and they're not affected by the recent budget cuts, um other than the portion from the United States. The European uh Union and Anglophone countries jointly provide sixty percent of UN voluntary contributions, nearly forty percent from the European Union alone. And there's a a pie chart as well that uh should come up next. There you go. That shows That's sort of a a a little bit of a map of the geopolitical map of influence at the United Nations. Unsurprisingly, looking at this chart, UN policy promotes EU priorities above all. In this perspective, the biggest obstacle to UN reform is the European Union. I witnessed several proposals for real UN reform from the Trump administration in recent months, including efforts to define gender as referring only to men and women. to end UN promotion of abortion on demand, and to rule out sex-rejecting procedures for children in UN programs. These are included in my written testimony. The EU proactively opposed all of these reforms. They postured it as a, as a US rival, undercut US positions, and stalled UN debates rather than entertain US proposals in any way. This agenda is radical. The EU promotes global censorship. AI regulation to control political debates everywhere, including this free speech of Americans. It is also promoting a treaty to make opposition to gender ideology a crime against humanity. UN reform requires more US engagement at the UN, not less. This includes leveraging all the resources of the State Department, bilateral assistance, and creating new strategic coalitions. Budget cuts should not be pursued just for their own sake, but also to achieve policy change. As we celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth birthday of our nation, we should remind all the other nations of the world that we are the longest standing self-governing republic in the world. Over time, everyone will recognize the US as the most benign and reliable of all the ge- geopolitical actors vying for their friendship. Many already know it to be true. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Uh, this time we'd like to recognize, and I apologize if I say this wrong, Mister Giannarini, oh I'm sorry, uh excuse me, um Mister Yo. I now recognize, oh we're done with the, okay. Um, I will move now to Mister Yo for your opening statements.

Fantastic. Uh, thank you very much Chairman Mills, Ranking Member Moskowitz, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. I would just note at the outset that um, Iran was selected as one of the thirty-four vice chairs of the nonproliferation conference by non-aligned countries, not by the United Nations, no senior UN official, no new unofficial had anything to do with that. And, uh, I would urge you to direct your anger towards their embassies in Washington and in New York for their pushing of this issue. Uh, I would also note that the, uh, multilateral security, uh, force in Haiti was not run by the United Nations. Uh, this is a case where going it alone pr- presents great challenges. Um, I've been working on UN reform issues for three decades, including helping to negotiate the Helms-Biden UN reform package in the nineteen nineties. Over the past, uh, eighteen months, I have seen historic cost and personnel cuts at the U at the UN. The UN Secretary General was asked to do this and he delivered. Ambassador Mike Walts and his team deserve great credit for highlighting the need for cuts in this fiscal environment, while also touting the clear benefits of US engagement. In order for continued progress on reform, with important work streams and mandates of consolidation pending, the US must be fully engaged and the UN must have resources. Fortunately, this Congress provided near full UN funding in its recently completed FY twenty-six appropriations bill. Ultimately, the existence or absence of US leadership and funding in the months ahead will determine whether we just complete a half UN reform marathon or the full twenty six point two miles. For perspective, the Helms-Biden package in the nineteen nineties is sometimes cited as the right model for progress link US dues to UN reforms indeed if used judiciously, US financial leverage can encourage UN member states and senior officials to make tough choices and trade-offs. But there's one important difference to keep in mind. Helms-Biden was negotiated after decades of the US paying its UN regular budget dues in full. Back then, our negotiating partners knew the US was good for the money. However, in twenty twenty five, the US permanently eliminated nearly a year's worth of UN regular budget funds for the first time in American history and has only sent a small down payment of the full UN funding that Congress just appropriated in twenty twenty six. The US currently owes more than two billion dollars to the UN's regular budget. As a result, the secretary general has warned of an impending financial collapse. In short, U. S. success in advancing further U. N. reform, the full marathon, is dependent upon restarting the flow of U. S. funding in line with congressional appropriations. U. N. member states, our negotiating partners, need to trust that when they agree to reforms, the U. S. will uphold its end of the bargain and pay what it owes. At the moment, that confidence is not there. So let's recap events. Just a few months ago, the General Assembly with strong support from the Trump administration, adopted a budget with the largest reduction ever, both in dollar and percentage terms. This was driven by four key cost saving measures. First, the elimination of twenty nine hundred staff posts, representing a nearly twenty percent reduction in staffing at UN headquarters in New York. Two, offshoring administrative functions, three, pooling HR, procurement and finance services, and four, cuts to travel. US Ambassador for Management and Reform, Jeff Bartos, commended the UN for these steps. But the UN is not stopping there. There are active negotiations happening about advancing other aspects of reform, again called UN eighty, with major opportunities to further reduce the budget and increase efficiency and effectiveness. But the secretary general is limited in terms of what he can do uh unilaterally. Many of the reforms currently being hashed out will ultimately require approval by UN member states. to ensure progress on our reform-related priorities, the US will have to be at the table making constructive proposals, bringing our allies on side, and assembling a broad-based coalition. And certainly, we have seen before how best to advance this type of reform and mobilize these types of coalitions. As a reminder, UN reform has been happening without the threat of withholding UN dues. In the past ten years, through constructive engagement, the UN and its member states agreed to changes that Reduced the peacekeeping budget by thirty five percent over a decade. Cut thousands in personnel. Re-imagine partnerships with regional groups like the African Union. Revitalize the resident coordinator system. And we work closely with the UN on having more countries provide more troops, burden sharing at its best. Burden sharing overall is manifestly in our interest. These peacekeeping operations help stabilize volatile areas of the world without putting US troops in harm's way. Plus, we get UN programs that identify and contain deadly diseases before they reach US shores. In addition, we get humanitarian aid that often saves, includes goods from American farmers, saves the lives of tens of millions of people. And we get global cooperation to address fentanyl trafficking. And for all of this, if you add up total US financial contributions to the UN, it's less than the yearly budget of Rhode Island. Ultimately, these investments are in our interests. Now, Should the US UN keep reforming to meet current demands? Absolutely. To keep the u- momentum going, the US make must make good on its financial commitments, deliver what Congress generously appropriated, and ensure that American interests can continue to be advanced in the years ahead. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, uh, Mr. Yeo. I now recognize myself for five minutes for my questioning. There we go. I wanna talk about UNRRA and Hamas for a moment. The US eight office of the inspector general has been at the forefront of holding UNRRA accountable for their employees' involvement on October seventh. Among those US eight OIG, referred for suspension and disbarment, was an UNRRA school principal that commanded a Hamas battalion on October seventh. How can the United States continue to hold the UN accountable for terrorism and criminal activity, when it's committed by their UN employees. Um, I'll go to any of the gentlemen who would like to address this. Mister Schaffer?

Uh, one hundred percent. UNRWA is a corrupt organization, has been captured by elements of Hamas, other terrorist groups. Unfortunately, they've been infiltrated the organization. They have been represented among the staff. They have helped conceal the placement of arms, uh, headquarters, uh, communications equipment. uh other facilities under UNRWA headquarters, under facilities uh schools, hospitals, et cetera. It's an absolute outrage. Uh the United States is right to cut funding from UNRWA. We should be working to try and end the organization. Uh not only is it corrupted by the presence of terrorists within their uh within the organization, uh but it's also vastly inefficient. Uh if you take a look at for instance the other refugee organization inside the UN system, uh the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. That organization covers a hundred and twenty million refugees around the world. UNRWA covers um about six million in terms of um the number of Palestinians that would be under its jurisdiction. Um but the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees handles their um responsibilities at about forty dollars per refugee. UNRWA handles it at about eight hundred dollars per refugee. UNRWA is expected to not only provide assistance for refugees in temporary circumstances but for generations upon generations of Palestinians. They provide schooling, they provide food, they provide shelter, they provide health care, they provide other services. These are services that should be provided by a government which the Palestinians claim to be. This is uh frankly n- n- discouraging the Palestinians from ac- from fulfilling the responsibilities of a government and allows them to instead