Weaponized Mass Migration: A Security Risk to Europe and the United States

The subcommittee on Europe will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to examine weaponized mass migration as a security risk to Europe and the United States. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. The threat environment facing Europe is rapidly evolving. with direct implications of US interests. Our discussion today will help shape policy priorities in responding to malign actors' use of fifth generation warfare. Last December, this subcommittee conducted a hearing examining the hybrid warfare tactics employed by Russia and China against our NATO allies. This hearing builds upon that foundation, focusing on one of the most destabilizing tools in this hybrid playbook, Weaponized mass migration. To the east and south of Europe's borders, hostile actors are exploiting human movement to weaken sovereign states, strain institutions, and fracture alliance cohesion. On the surface, what appears to be a humanitarian or border management challenge is in reality, part of a broader campaign of hybrid aggression. Look no further than Russia's twenty fifteen intervention in Syria. which resulted in mass migration to Europe, or Belarus's more recent weaponization of migrants against Poland. In twenty eighteen, Polish authorities reported only three attempts by individuals to illegally cross the Belarus border into Poland. In twenty twenty five, the number was over twenty five thousand. These tactics are deliberate and effective in causing chaos for European governments and societies at large, by directing facilitating or manipulating migration flows, malign actors seek to overwhelm border authorities, provoke crises, and to degrade the overall national security of target countries. The objective of these tactics is not simply disruption, but erosion. Erosion of public confidence, erosion of state capacity, and erosion of unity among allies. Weaponized migration does not occur in a vacuum. It intersects with organized crime, human trafficking, illic- illicit finance, and Islamic extremism, creating security, blind spots that hostile actors are quick to exploit. The human cost of weaponized mass migration are significant and intentional. European citizens face growing strains in public safety and social services, while migrants are often subjected to exploitation, coercion, or potential radicalization. These human costs are intrinsic to the strategy of sowing chaos, fear, and division. When assimilation fails and parallel societies emerge, radical ideologies take root, undermining internal security and complicating town counterterrorism efforts. This directly affects US interests by weakening some of our closest allies and amplifying threats to the homeland. When migration is weaponized to de-stabilize Europe, It undermines the collective security architecture that has preserved peace for decades. While the EU and NATO increasingly weapon uh we- recognize weaponized migration as a hybrid threat, recognition alone is insufficient. Effective deterrence requires coordination and sustained commitment from both sides of the Atlantic. This committee has a responsibility to examine how adversaries exploit migration, and how these tactics intersect with other hybrid tactics, ideological extremism and organized crime. I would note that later this week, I along with many of my colleagues are planning to attend the Munich security conference, where I look forward to engaging with allies and partners on the critical security matters of the day including on the challenges of hybrid warfare. I look forward to the discussion and testimony of our witnesses, and a productive discussion on how to confront this evolving threat. The chair now recognizes the ranking member from Massachusetts, Mister Keating, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for our witnesses for being here today. In today's changing world, migration is widespread, often because of poverty, climate change, war and more. Yet more devastating is the practice of weaponized migration, the deliberate manipulation, creation, or exploitation of population flows across borders as a tool of warfare. This form of forced migration takes advantage of vulnerable populations to se- to uh come to their political ends and in the past decade, the migration of vulnerable populations in Europe has shaped our politics and our responses. For example, the European Union's Uh, practical response to this crisis demonstrates the importance of preparedness and coordination when responding to sudden uh indices uh of incidents of migration. The Russian and Belarusian's regime's deliberate use of migrants as a tool, a political instability in Poland and Finland is not only morally reprehensible, but also destabilizing. In response, The European Union, uh, and the U- European national governments have introduced a wide range of measures to manage migration flows including the EU-wide Pact on Migration and Asylum. While the Pact's proposals may not pro- provide the right match here in the United States, the European Union is working together across national politics and borders to find common European solutions to alleviate the impacts of migration. On this side of the Atlantic, I believe it's vital for the subcommittee to debate how we can best support our allies and partners in this effort. It's counter-productive to simply comment on the impacts of mass migration on our European allies while proposing overly-restricted solutions that are unsupported by data. Nor does it serve any constructive purpose to cast blame on one religion or a group of people for the impacts of a broader conflict or forced migration campaign. In fact, Uh, Popes Francis and Leo both have stressed how cooperating towards solutions, not sowing the seeds of discontent, is inconsistent with uh Christian tenets. How it's consistent. Unfortunately rather than invest in solutions which can, you know, we we can do work on together to solve these problems, the Trump administration has responded with divisive platitudes and rhetoric. For example, the administration's national security strategy raised the prospects of European civilization erasure. As an effect of migration, this rhetorical castigase uh castigation plays an us versus them uh type of challenge, uh and it's not only misplaced, but it's damaging and irresponsible. At the same time, the administration's belief that it's well-placed to advise Europe on immigration, when people there are looking at the videos and their televisions, uh, there of masked agents seizing, detaining, and shooting, and killing American citizens who are here legally. The Trump administration is also shuttering programs that ultimately make us safer at home. At the State Department, Secretary Rubio's illegal reorganization slash the Bureau of Counterterrorism's office of countering violent extremism an elimination I condemned in a September twenty twenty-five bipartisan letter which I'd like to enter in the record without objection.

Without objection.

Furthermore, the President's budget request zeroed out the funding for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. We know that when countries can be affected, uh, and the rule of law is compromised, uh, that we must, must work together in maintaining a rule of law and a trusted police force. If that happens, there'll be fewer people that choose to migrate. INL's programs did this, and the Trump administration chose to cut them. At the Department of Homeland Security, the administration zeroed out the Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention grant, which was the sole federal program dedicated to helping communities strengthen their ability to prevent and respond to acts of political violence, including terrorism. The DHS's own web site said that the program " saves lives and saves money." DHS said it would use the grant's resources to implement quote, " higher priority mission critical needs", whatever that means. Furthermore, they installed a twenty-two year old one year out of college, head of the office overseeing this grant. The twenty-two year old's predecessor was an army veteran with more than two decades of national security experience. Many Americans have strong world beliefs on how to mitigate the impacts of migration. There's not one golden solution to all these legitimate concerns. But I also believe we must recognize the administration's lack of action in the problems, even they themselves have identified, and its continued attacks on our European allies, which make cooperation with our allies going forward all the more difficult. I look forward to the questioning of the witnesses, and I yield back.

Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. We are pleased to have a distinguished Uh, first of all, Admiral Mark Montgomery. The CCTI Senior Director and Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mister Matthew Boise, a Senior Fellow at the Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute. And Miss Natalia Banalescu-Bogdan. How did I do? The Deputy Director for the International Program at the Migration Policy Institute. Uh, the chair recognizes the importance of the issues before us and is grateful to you, uh, to be here to speak with us today. Your full statements will be made part of the record, and I'll ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for member questions. I now recognize Admiral Montgomery for an opening statement. Sir.

Chairman Self, Ranking Member Keating, and distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, thank you again for the I'm pleased at this committee's leadership, and that it continues to focus on Russia's efforts to destabilize Europe. I continue to believe that the greatest threat to Euro-Atlantic stability and international peace is Russia's illegal war in Ukraine. If Russia prevails in Ukraine, we can expect to see a barrage of the same tactics, this time directed towards America's treaty allies. But the focus of today's hearing is weaponized migration, and its role as a key component of Russia's new generation warfare campaign. My testimony will discuss weaponized migration and its impact on NATO's military readiness. New generation warfare, what the US refers to as hybrid warfare, covers an array of Russian non-kinetic activities, including covert and overt influence operations, cyber attacks, election meddling, drone operations, and weaponized migration. Russia believes we- weaponized migration puts NATO allies under duress. throwing them into a state of ca- chaos, undermining democratic institutions, and reducing their ability to devote resources to defense and security spending. Therefore, Russia is both actively exploiting the refugee crisis caused by the war in Ukraine and utilizing desperate immigrants from Syria and the Middle East, to sow societal discord and de-stabilize Europe. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused the greatest refugee crisis in Europe since World War Two. Throughout the war, Russia has targeted civilian and energy infrastructure, in part to further exasperate that migration crisis. In the first few months of the invasion, Russian forces displaced over six point five million people, overwhelming European energy and food resources, and placing countries in a state of chaos. That overall effect was staggering. Russia then compounds this effect by altering the flow of non-European migrants as well. Since the Ukrainian war began, the EU border agencies found a two hundred percent increase in non-European migrant arrivals along the EU's eastern border, and a corresponding decrease in the passage along the more traditional routes like the Mediterranean. This signals Russia's active efforts to manufacture a ma- a migration crisis in eastern Europe. Like other new generation warfare campaigns, Russia's effort to weaponize migration is done in collaboration with Putin's puppet state, Belarus. Russia and Belarus share borders with numerous European states. The Kremlin exploits these borders, encouraging and resourcing influx of migrants from the Middle East and Africa to transit through Russia and Belarus and into Eastern Europe. In the immediate ramp up to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine in February, twenty twenty two, the Lukashenko administration flew migrants to the capital city of Minsk, and then transported them via state buses to the borders of EU countries, including Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. In June, twenty twenty four, there were four hundred immigrants a day crossing the Poland-Belarus border. And Belarusian and Russian criminal gangs secure visas and transport for these immigrants sometimes coordinate with Belarusian border officials to cut fences, to allow entry into the European Union. And probably most alarmingly, last year four tunnels were discovered that were likely used to smuggle migrants from Poland into uh from Belarus. As a direct result, the situation along the border is often devolved into violence and chaos. which the Kremlin as well as European extremists used to push their agendas. In addition to the effects on societal stability, the migrant crisis has cost Poland alone an estimated thirty billion Euros over the last four years. Weaponized migration degrades NATO readiness. It forces our allies to divert military resources by creating sustained operational pressures along critical frontiers. For example, in November twenty twenty-one, Poland deployed thousand troops to its Belarusian border, pulling forces from other defensive and training missions. Lithuania and Latvia have had to do the same. So not only does the Kremlin's exploitation of the migrant crisis help Putin achieve his political objectives in Poland and the Baltics, it also places NATO and America's ability to fight with and through its allies in jeopardy. My written testimony provides numerous recommendations to address the full range of Russia's new generation warfare but to combat the weaponized I want to highlight four recommendations. First, the US and NATO should continue to raise awareness of Russian tactics, exposing and identifying how Russia weaponizes migration. Next, the United States and NATO should provide technical assistance to border states, including American surveillance and border security technology. Third, NATO should direct its existing hybrid warfare units to monitor Russia's weaponized migration efforts and take actions to disrupt those campaigns. And finally, the US should continue to put maximum pressure on Belarus including imposing more sanctions on Lukashenko's regime and specifically on companies including airlines that facilitate migrant movements. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Uh, thank you, Admiral, uh, and now recognize uh Mister Boise for an opening statement.

S uh uh Chairman Self, uh, Ranking Member Keating, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. Before joining the Hudson Institute, I served in the Foreign Service for thirty-five years and spent much time dealing with Europe and the post-Soviet space. I wrote my first article on weaponized migration at Radio Free Europe in nineteen eighty five. Then it was East German, the East German Communist regime trafficking economic migrants from developing countries, to West Berlin to earn hard currency, increased social costs and stoke tensions in West, uh Western Germany. Since then we've seen many other cases, including against the United States. Leaders have long understood, ha not understood, that our adversaries use, uh migrants and mass migration as weapons. The committee's attention to this is therefore extremely timely and very important. This is a complex issue, so I've drafted a statement for the record to stay within my allotted time. Some may ask why Americans should even care about this phenomenon at all. Don't we have enough migration related problems at home? Isn't migration a global phenomenon driven by poverty, conflict, war, et cetera? Don't EU treaties and regulations serve as pull factors that enable immigrants to claim asylum too easily? Isn't migration just another instrument of statecraft? Doesn't organized crime also play a role? Isn't migration necessary to bolster demographic decline in in rich our societies? And where is the evidence that the Kremlin is using migr uh migrants as weapons against the United States and NATO? Critic uh critics of the weaponization thesis make all these arguments, and some are worth discussing. But I will argue in the contrary, that the men who rule Russia view and use migrants as weapons, that the Kremlin has been a push factor, playing a role in magnifying or driving recent migration crises in Europe, and that this matters to the United States because it negatively affects the NATO space, for all the reasons that everyone else has said already. Strong and a and capable allies are a vital US interest, and weaponized migration makes them and us weaker. In waging hybrid war against the West, Putin has reached into the Soviet playbook, which has long treated ethnic groups as pawns to achieve political goals. He has updated the old Soviet active measures playbook into the broader hybrid war concept and uses migrants as human ammunition as one expert calls it along with disinformation cyber and all the other tools we've met. already that have already been mentioned. This uh he uses to interfere in domestic affairs, to generate leverage, leverage and to exacerbate ex transatlantic differences, and this increases uh allied uh s security vulnerabilities and thus ours. So there is a continuity uh in the use of migration as a weapon from the Soviet to the Putin eras even as its use has evolved. This should surprise no one, given Putin's KGB background and the major role the secret police and intel o uh uh uh officers play in Russia today. As the old Soviet saying goes, " Once a Chekist, always a Chekist." Now when the Russian, when Russian officials openly discuss using migration as a weapon, we should listen. In nineteen ninety seven, the ideologue Alexander Dugin wrote, " Those who are quicker to develop a model for the disintegration of other societies will be the winners in the construction of new international relations. " Kaus is a multi-purpose weapon." Former Putin advisor Vladislav Surkov wrote that creating divisions by non-military means can achieve geopolitical objectives in neighboring states, or political mili- military alliances. Major General Ad- uh uh Alexander Vladimirov wrote about using migration in a coercive matter by creating by creating the conditions for the flow and sentiment of ethnic groups in hostile states to destabilize them. And in twenty twenty three, Russian officials told senior Finnish officials, we have a tool here that works against you. None of this is new, but it bears repeating. Now the Kremlin and its allies in our proxies have played a role in all major m- uh migration crises in that Europe has faced in recent years. Whether it was the twenty fifteen bombing in Syria that drove hundreds of thousands of refugees to Turkey and to Europe, or the trafficking of of migrants to the Finnish and Norwegian borders in twenty fifteen and twenty twenty three, or support for Lukashenka. Um Or the destabilizing the Maghreb, Sahel and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, propelling millions of people to Europe. In all of these, Russia acted as either a instigator, promoter, facilitator or ally. And organized crime of course has also played a role. I have included these cases in my written statement, I'm happy to go into the dis into the discussion. To for the Kremlin, migrants are like a thermostat that can be dialed up or dialed down, putting member NATO member states under pressure, and then as desired to send short-term political messages, extract costs, seek policy changes, and over the long run accelerate weaknesses in Western societies fro uh fro and from within. So these have also had uh there's also a nexus with um uh with um the with the spread of Islamism and is a a Islamist ideology that exacerbates uh uh social tensions and undermiles undermines allies' reliability in confronting challenges facing facing the global west. This uh this nexus has altered political dynamics across the alliance. Every NATO member state now is at least one party with strong focus on uh migration, Islam and Islamism, and in almost a dozen countries it's either among the most popular or can influence policy, or can decide governing coalitions, or hold power, or as a candidate for power. Many of these parties are also more accommodating accommodating to US adversaries, and not as supportive as NATO, and contain varying degrees of anti-Americanism. And, you know, these phenomena also hinder key US foreign policy goals for example in the Middle East. In conclusion, the United States has allies in uh in um European law enforcement and intelligence agencies in politics government and elsewhere. that are doing what they can to deal with these phenomena, but they do not always have top cover from their from their political class. Some may argue that the US does not have a dog in this fight, that these are European problems, that the EU has contributed to them or made them worse. But the status quo is not working and the US cannot do nothing. These phenomena are not just irregular migration flows. They are intentional, strategic, and brazen, as they weaponize people as pawns in the Kremlin's grand uh geopolitical project. I'm I'm already over my time, so Be happy to uh go into some of the recommendations that will help that could help address these challenges in the discussion. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I look forward to your questions.

Uh, thank you, and I'll recognize Miss Banalescu-Bogdan uh for an opening statement. Welcome.

Chairman Self, Ranking Member Keating, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Natalia Banalescu-Bogdan, and I'm the Deputy Director of the International Programme at the Migration Policy Institute. Louder?

Yeah.

OK. Um, a non-partisan independent research institution focused on practical and effective policy options for managing immigration. The weaponization of migration is nothing new. Countries have been engineering migration flows or threatening to do so, to extract political concessions for the past seventy years, and most have achieved at least some of their goals. I welcome the opportunity today to talk about what policy options the United States has in its arsenal to protect its interest and that of its allies and effectively understand and confront this threat. So first, I need to acknowledge that the threat is real and growing. Since twenty twenty one, Belarus with Russian support has systematically orchestrated migration flows toward EU borders. Countries like Turkey and Morocco have threatened to do the same opportunistically. using migration as a crude bargaining chip, even if not a weapon. Weaponization works because it exposes the limits of what democracies can do quickly within the constraints of law and available resources. It works because it successfully exploits and fuels divisions within societies, pinpointing existing weak spots and capitalizing on anti-immigration sentiment. The potency of this weapon derives from the expectation that sudden unanticipated migration flows will foment chaos and discontent. But the main point I wanna make today is that restrictive and punitive measures on their own are insufficient. We've seen European countries respond in two main ways. So first, trying to raise the costs for those who would weaponize migration through things like sanctions and freezing assets. And the second is restricting flows through border fortifications, and in some cases, suspending asylum processing. And while these measures can be effective in the short term, they come at high cost and they don't address the root causes of migration. Countries do need the flexibility to deploy emergency measures to react to a crisis at their borders. But over the long run, punitive measures on their own are not going to be effective or sustainable. First, because they don't shift underlying dynamics. If countries are always in a reactive posture, nothing is stopping hostile actors from using weaponization over and over again, requiring ever more costly responses that divert attention from other priorities and inspire copycats. And second, emergency measures intended to be temporary can become permanent fixtures, spurring a race to the bottom as states opt out of inconvenient obligations, and undermining due process protections that define democratic societies. So, I'd like to point us to a smarter approach, which is building resilience. The paradox of weaponization is that the best strategy is often neutralization, rather than escalation. Taking the sting out of the issue reduces the strength of the weapon. Our best example of this is Europe's response to Ukrainian displacement. The EU activated its temporary protection within days of the Russian invasion in twenty twenty two, eventually granting nearly five million Ukrainians legal status and immediate access to housing, health care and labor markets. By creating orderly legal pathways and strong border monitoring for security threats, Europe effectively neutralized the potential for Russia to weaponize Ukrainian displacement as a tool of hybrid warfare. Europe is now pursuing a comprehensive overhaul through its Pact on Migration and Asylum, which takes effect later this year in July. The idea is to create a much faster, fairer asylum system and make it easier to return those whose claims are rejected. Europeans are also experimenting with doing some processing and screening before physical arrival at borders, essentially breaking with past models, and also leaning into migration diplomacy through extensive partnerships with origin and transit countries. They're also strategically expanding legal migration pathways, including work visas. The system is not perfect, and it remains to be seen how it will be implemented. But there's a recognition here that building strong, resilient immigration systems, both domestically and through international partnerships, is not just good migration policy. It's a concrete national security investment that reduces our vulnerability to manipulation by hostile actors. Thank you.

Uh, thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. Edward Montgomery. We all have used the word weaponization here. But too many people, I believe, see this as a humanitarian issue. How do the liberal democracies, given our legal processes that several of you have mentioned, how do we actually get our citizens? Because I think Abraham Lincoln said if you're and I've used this in the broader sense of liberal democracies, we need our people to be behind us. How do we get our people to understand and the and our NATO allies to understand the citizens there that this is a weapon, not a humanitarian crisis?

So first, I think part of it is that you have to explain that this is part of a campaign, right? That Russia is, there's, I, you can't look at weaponization or migration in isolation. You have to look at it as part of a campaign that is working to undermine the societies of Eastern Europe. Um, we saw it the other day in a electrical power attack on the Polish grid. We found explosive devices on Polish railways and other areas. The drone attacks that stretched from Poland to the Baltics all the way to Denmark now. This is all part of a Russian new ne- new generation warfare campaign. So first, I'd frame it as a campaign, sir. The second thing you have to do is you have to treat these as two different aspects. One is what Russia is doing and the immigrants it's the, you know, the uh immigrants that it, the migrants that it's doing it to. You need to treat, once the migrants are in your country, you have to treat them humanely. But that doesn't mean you should treat Russia humanely. Russia is conducting this and then they're using the Belarusan pawn. So you need to look at this as two different aspects. One, once a person's in your country, how you treat them reflects on how your country is. And then, you know, and what you want your country's moral morals and character to be. But allowing Russia to bring them in is not a human rights issue. Allowing Russia to drive them in, building tunnels, cutting holes in fences, you know, forcing people, you know, forcing migrants into Eastern Europe. That is the, you know, campaign, the new generation warfare campaign.

Mr. Boise, would you like to comment?

Yes, excellent question. Um, The the uh our adversaries um in the Kremlin um are utilizing this very uh sense of humanity that uh is so present in Western Europe and in Western societies uh, and you and and twisting it against us because they know that the that our sense of humanity is is is deep and wide and that we don't uh like to see these things happen. So uh the the the the the cynicism uh and the the brutality is is i is really quite extraordinary um now um The other, the other thing though is that um we are uh, you know, this is a, this is sort of a, this is our issue because it affects our interests, but we have to be able to rely um more on our European allies to do more themselves. Uh, but this, the, the, the, the, the, the hearing that you've uh organized today and, and, and, and, and, uh, it is extremely useful, but there and, and we need to be um talking about this a lot, because it's become an issue in all European societies. Um, it's it's it's obviously animating people. Um, at but the uh the political uh uh class doesn't always pay attention. Now there have been some improvements uh in in uh in in the last year or so, uh but it's taken quite some time when you look at at when this started in in seriously in twenty fifteen. It's taken quite a long time for uh the EU to g- to grapple with this problem. And so uh it's it's let this problem fester. Um uh we are are I think it it you know are at interests to raise this with our uh in dialogue with our European um uh allies, partners, friends to to to to to sensitize them to how important it is for us too. It so it's it's not just their issue, it's also our issue. And um and and and try to energize these governments to do even more. Because it um what they've been doing in terms of fortifying fortifying their borders, Uh, some of the uh, some of the changes that have been take have taken place uh, legislatively in some countries, some of the actions that have been taken um, are are are are f- some countries have have figured this out, but others have not. And we need to talk about this with our allies and friends because uh, I mean, you know, we we can't want their security more than they do, but this does affect our interests very seriously, and they need to take it seriously themselves.

Yep. Uh, Admiral Montgomery, um, We know that the migrants uh passed through the eastern frontier countries deeper into the EU and NATO. How do they give, how do they uh push back against that given the open borders within the EU for instance? And I have ten seconds.

So, I think they're gonna have to review, you know, some countries are beginning to review their Schenckin zone procedures, and I think this is long-term gonna introduce real challenges for the Schenckin zone. Um, uh, authorizations that for free passage.

Very good. And I ask unanimous consent to enter a document dated February ninth, twenty twenty six, titled " Instrumentation of Migration at the Latvian-Belarusian Border". So ordered.

Uh, sure.

Uh, I now recognize ranking member, Mister Keating, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, Admiral Montgomery, you did a great job, I think, uh, sort of, uh, separating out all the, uh, issues uh dealing with migration issue as well but uh you also touched on the ways that uh Russia is doing this. Uh and we say Russia because Belarus wouldn't be doing anything without Putin's approval uh and his commanding of of doing that. Um now you mentioned uh the fact that uh the hybrid warfare that's occurring also affects elections and disinformation surrounding that so Could you explain how sometimes these issues, whether it's uh, you know, the military uh being employed and lack of resources, whether it's uh disinformation, whether it's affecting elections. Can you see how it blends together, for instance how they use migration for more than one purpose and specifically, how do you see them using it to affect elections?

Yeah, I think that's a a great point. I I think, again, the Russians are very good at this campaign, the Soviets were excellent at it, I mean they had half of Africa thinking AIDS was a CIA project from either Fort Dietrich or a CIA lab. So, you know, we have to give them credit for this, and part of this campaign is that it abs- it's absolutely integrated and phased over time. So when do they put pressure on a country? When it's closest to its elections. So you drive migrants in, you conduct um, you wouldn't conduct a sabotage attack then, because that's clearly, you can't deny that. But you could do a cyber attack that shows that for some reason the governing uh party can't maintain power. For gun some reason the governing party can't maintain its borders. And then most recently we've seen in elections the use of TikTok and other tools, uh, of the Chinese authoritarian state used by the Russians to manipulate elections. So it's about timing, sir.

Thank you, uh. Mr. Vaneliska Bogdan, um, you were talking about uh the importance of not being reactive in posture. But the the difficulty and the challenges they have in Europe uh are the fact that they're all sovereign countries trying to come up with common solutions you know we look at our own country from state to state and we see different uh you know feelings from one state to the other but it must be extremely difficult for uh one sovereign country with its own borders trying to work with another dis- different laws and different impacts where some of the uh uh like countries like Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland are more affected. Now I've seen Poland amazingly uh uh when I was there uh absorb so many people uh and put them in the sch- children in the school system and and do uh an enormous job. Not every country has the resources or the ability to do that. So could you just talk to the difficulty that's there with so many sovereign countries all trying to work together uh, on this migration issue, all with the, they, they can be in common groups like NATO, but they can also have their own separate sovereignty.

Thank you. I think that's a, that's exactly right. Um, it, it, it has been one of the most immense challenges for the EU to create a common playbook for something as divisive as migration where different countries are affected very differ- differently some have the, um, unlucky, uh, uh, uh, you know, chances of geography. Others are magnets for onward migration because of their labor markets and, and need for workers. Um, they have very different resources. Um, and so what's been very important is, first of all, recognizing that the biggest challenge to this block is instability. And instability in one country creates instability for all, as well as for its allies. And so this has been the inspiration behind trying to stitch all of these disparate voices with competing priorities and goals into one collective union, um, with possibility for collective standards and norms and procedures. And so you, we wanna get to the point where ten thousand people arriving at a border, at the behest of a hostile state, working in tandem with bad actors, you know, who are non-state actors, et cetera. Yes, is a crisis that we have to confront, but it's not a destabilizing one. And that's the whole, uh, impetus behind the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. It is to create a set of rules so that when these things happen, we are not inventing, reinventing the wheel on the spot, and then doing it differently in ways that go against other interests that we have and create all sorts of uh chaos.

I hope

I now recognize uh the representative from South Carolina,

that

Mister Wilson.

Thank you very much Mister Chairman and Chairman, I wanna congratulate you on being selected for the Munich security conference delegation this week. Uh that's such a high honor and just grateful for your service. I'm also grateful uh for each of you appearing and Uh, and as we discussed uh immigration, my law practice was uh immigration to help uh persons um come to our country legally, uh particularly from India. And uh in fact it was incredible uh to see the success of uh Indian Americans. Uh they now uh own sixty percent of all hotels and motels in the United States. Uh the per capita income of the Indian American community, six million people, is twice that of the average American. And so we benefit from the I believe the immigration laws that we have and uh and uh our country is so fortunate, but we do have obviously a a situation uh where uh it can be uh weaponized migration and uh it is a devious tool of hybrid warfare used by world criminal Putin to destabilize and undermine the west with surges of migration from the Middle East and Africa. And indeed this is an act of war as I believe we're in a conflict and that is dictatorships with rule of gun, invading democracies with rule of law. With that in mind, no bigger case uh has been the unholy alliance between war criminal Putin, and the deranged and now deposed former dictator, Basel Assad. Over thirteen million Syrians, half of the nation's population, were forced to flee the chemical weapons and barrel bombs dropped by Russian planes. War criminal Putin, conducted mass murder in Aleppo, and Russian bases that are still there should be removed, never forgetting Aleppo. With that in mind, uh I'm grateful that we've introduced bipartisan the Horom two point O act to designate the successor organization of the Wagner group as a foreign terrorist organization. With that in mind, and chairman uh itself was uh ahead of the curve, I wanted to ask how in the world do you uh try to explain in a uh non-political way uh the dangers of weaponized uh migration, but he already asked that, so I'm gonna go to the next one. How is it that uh it can be uh effectively, Admiral, explained a deportation of illegal aliens? And and is that being done in Europe?

Is that for me, sir?

Yes.

Yeah, um, well first I do wanna say I fully support the Harm Two point O Act. I absolutely it's the right way to counter Russian next generation warfare. And uh, you know, obviously we had to work it since Pragosian's accidental air accident. Um, you know, so that that's good. The uh, listen, I I think that uh what we have to do at this point again is treat allow the countries to block the illegal the w- try to block the weaponized migration in. Once it's in, you have to treat you have to treat the peop- you know, the migrants that come in humanely. There's there's international law about that. But um in terms of web- the weaponization of migration, It's absolutely appropriate for Poland to build a wall, to build a first a a fence and now to build a wall between themselves and Belarus. It's appropriate for them to search for tunnels. It's appropriate for them uh to hold Belarus accountable for what they're doing. So I I fully understand that. The problem you have is once you have a migrants inside your country, you're governed by the laws of your country and you should treat them accordingly. I think the vast uh I think the vast majority of these countries are also governed by EU that were mentioned are governed by European Union uh law as well, and they have to adhere to those.

And indeed. Thank you so much. And uh I wanna congratulate the uh Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. You make a a phenomenal difference uh promoting democracy around the world. And then uh unfortunately we already have the Hudson Institute. And with that, Mister Boyce, um the uh situation uh with the uh Putin puppet of Lukashenko, uh wha- what uh is the status of uh the relationships that we can have or not have with the uh dictatorship in Minsk.

That we the United States can have with him or not, yes, that that is one of those things that was uh tantalizing questions. Well uh w- during Trump one when I was at the State Department um there was a a a reach, an outreach to him uh to to try to re- set that relationship um but after the of those uh, of stolen elections in uh in twenty twenty and that which which then prompted some of the uh the response from the EU um it became it became increasingly difficult uh to have any kind of a relationship with him at all especially um given the I mean the nature of his regime plus the way he's he allows himself to be used so brazenly by by Putin as well as how he uh deals with his neighbors so it's it's you know it it's not exactly um going to be easy to establish some sort of a relationship with with with him, uh and with his regime. Um, ho however, uh there are uh there are sometimes ways in which uh I mean he the the the the the um uh the the fact that he released a a number of political prisoners uh a few months ago, it was one of those uh gestures that he obviously made to try to um to try to reset the relationship with the United States. Uh I think we have to um but here again, weaponizing people, using his poli- using political prisoners who shouldn't have been in prison in the first place, as as as as hostages and to dangle them in front of the United States and say, see, we can we can release you um if you wanna take another relationship. This is this is unbelievable cynicism.

And hey, I wanna thank you for recognizing the great election because I can't wait for Chairman Self to meet the legal president of Belarus Svetlana Liliyeva who will be present in Munich. Thank you. I yield back.

Uh, thank you, and now rec- uh, recognize the representative from California, Mister Costa. for five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think uh this subcommittee hearing on weaponization and mass migration is a real security issue, not only for Europe but for the United States. Um and I I get a sense of bipartisan uh agreement, at least it seems like it, uh about the potential impact of this. Uh listening to your testimonies uh I'm gonna say something that my colleagues here have heard me say before, but that modern day Russia, uh I believe today is uh, is a syndicate masquerading as a country. And they've got a mob boss. And it's called Putin. And we know what mob boss is too. And to bring this, this weaponization and migration to his other uh, um, levels of the arsenal that he holds, uh, we are seeing the the devastation. Five million, six million Ukrainian people uh were were forced to migrate uh right after their invasion. Europe, did did they do the responsible thing, Adamo Montgomery?

I believe Europe did do the responsible thing in accepting the uh, you know, six point five million people, I think some were displaced inside Ukraine, the vast majority. As you said, almost five million went into Europe and Europe did the right thing, bringing them in, housing them. and then supporting Ukraine along with the United States in opposing the illegal invasion.

Right. And, and what about the amount of children that's been estimated to be uh kidnapped uh from Ukraine uh and forced into Russia? Um uh Miss Borgen, uh what's the number you're using?

I don't have that number right now, but I'd be happy to.

Well the Ukrainian press tell me twenty seven thousand, but they estimate it's really over fifty thousand. Is is you think that's in the ballpark? Admiral?

I do. I think the number I use routinely is twenty five thousand, but I think it's probably two months old. Um, and that's the known. I think what you're saying with fifty thousand is the presumed with the children that are being moved out of occupied areas without any kind of overhead injury.

And in some cases forcing these children to fight against their people in their own country?

We are seeing that the older children, teenagers, after being in Russian camps are then tr- manipulated into joining the military.

Are there any programs that the State Department or Department of Homeland Security, uh, has worked with our our allies in Europe and Ukraine, uh, to, uh, stymie these efforts by Russia and and Belarus?

I only see non-profit work, you know, Speaker Johnson's wife, others have really led the effort to push back against the uh illegal, the identifying the children and trying to get the uh the uh Russian government to acknowledge them and return them.

But then, doesn't this point to the the larger crisis, that is that we must stop Putin and Russia? I mean, this was always about good versus evil. And uh please tell me uh uh, all three of you wish to comment. If we allow Putin to succeed in Ukraine, what do you see as the next uh likely uh occurrences to take place?

Uh, I'll go first and I'll say, look, if he succeeds in Ukraine, I think Moldova is a toast. And then, and then the real concern for that would be a very, that'll be a short appetizer for him. And then he'll begin to look at a NATO treaty ally. And I worry about the Baltic States more than Poland. uh worry about the Suvlakhi gap uh to to Kaliningrad and then uh and then he'll eventually at that point subsume Belarus into a broader Russia. So from my point of view, we have to stop Putin in Ukraine if we're gonna stabilize the Eastern European uh front against Russian authoritarianism.

What are the other two witnesses care to comment?

Um, that very good question. I if if Russia if if Putin uh i- ends this uh war or or if this war ends on, basically on Putin's terms, this is going to be very negative for European security. And it's not just the Suvalki gap, it's not just the Baltic States. It's the Black Sea, which is a, which is a, which which is already tilting in in Russia's favor when you look at how much of that uh space now,

Let's let's make no mistake about it.

but it's

This is an imperialistic Russia that has clear goals and aims. Is that not the case?

It is, it is the case. And um, uh, you know, while many people, well everybody wishes the war to end, It is um, it the question is on what terms will it end? Uh, well the the the usual Western response is uh, " all ends of war are good",

Yeah, before my time runs out, could you please carry a comment?

but which is

Just to quickly say that alongside deterrence, um, we also have to think about defanging some of these tactics. And one of the ways to do that is vest very seriously in integration and in stable systems in destination countries so that again we don't give hostile actors what they want, which is total chaos and destabilization.

Correct. My time's expired, Mr. Chairman, but I think the critical point in this whole subcommittee hearing is to know your enemy and to know their tactics. And in this case it's quite clear between good versus evil and what Putin's uh our enemy, and we know this is This mass uh migration, weaponizing, mass migration is one of their tactics. Correct? We all have agreement on that? Thank you very much. More to be continued.

I now recognize the representative from Ohio, Mister Davidson.

Chairman Self, thank you for organizing this hearing today, and I'm encouraged by the bis- bipartisan moral clarity on weaponized migration, as long as it applies to Russia. I hope it becomes contagious because the Russians aren't the only body to weaponize migration. Um, Europe's security and prosperity is in fact threatened by mass migration. The national security strategy released last November asserts that quote " Europe's economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilization erasure." End quote. In addition to the activities of the EU and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, This includes migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife and loss of national identities and self-confidence. It goes on to say that if, quote, " present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in twenty years." This reminds me of Vice President Vance's speech at last year's Munich conference about the shared values of the United States and Europe and how these values are increasingly eroding. Uh, if Europe continues to be transformed by importing massive numbers of people who do not share Western values, or even seek to assimilate into Western civilization, our relationship with Europe will be damaged. It's not just Russia and Belarus that are to blame for this mass migration, but as Mister Bois notes in his opening statement, the EU and its member states are also to blame. In fact, Russia just had to exploit a trend that was already well underway. in the EU. As Mister Bois also noted, Brussels has used migration and asylum issues to discipline member states for not accepting large flows of migrants. In twenty twenty four, the European Court of Justice fined Hungary two hundred million Euros for violating EU asylum laws. By April of twenty twenty five, Hungary has been assessed over five hundred million Euros in penalties for not submitting to Brussels, instead of asserting their position that Hungary is first and foremost for Hungarians. Mass migration has destabilizing effects, and governments and voters in Europe are right to recognize that, and I'm glad our committee is recognizing it, and as I said, encourage that we've got bipartisan recognition of those consequences, as long as it applies to Russia. So we're right to speak up about this issue because it deeply affects our European allies and European politicians certainly do not hesitate to offer their opinions about migration here in the United States. So, Mr. Boyce, thank you for being here today. You suggested that the United States should strongly support those NATO member states that have taken robust steps to defend themselves against weaponized mass migration what are some specific measures that you have in mind?

Thank you, uh, sir. Um, so, um, we need to have a more of a dialogue with, uh, with our European uh, friends and allies on this issue. Um, it's, they consider it of course a domestic issue, um, but it, and of course it is. But, uh, we, we need to be, um, clear with them that it also does affect us. It, it affects them primarily, but it also does affect us. And we would like to see, I think, uh, uh, more robust measures on, on, on, on the part of our allies and friends, because we want their societies to be strong. They're, we, we need them as allies. We want them as allies. They are vital to the uh to the to to our security, and they need to take these issues uh sometimes more seriously than they have. It's taken an awful long time, uh I'm afraid, for some of these um uh for the issues uh for some of the uh uh legislative and other changes to enter into into force and some of them are still not entered into force some European member uh NATO member states have actually d done quite a lot. Uh the Danes for example have been have been very solid on this. Uh Germany is doing more and more. Um, and if we've seen some statements lately from um uh from um uh George Maloney, uh and this uh we've seen s- uh similar steps on our on uh on the part of our Central Europeans uh friends and allies, some of whom have actually gotten a lot of credit, a lot of criticism for being robust on their borders. And that was I thought always unfair because they are trying to simply preserve their uh the integrity of their borders and uh we're not interested in large numbers of people who don't share their values um, and who, or in fact who have very, very, very different uh ideas about how to organize society in, in large numbers in their country. And, and, and, and I, I'm afraid that that actually was uh, was, was uh, was unfortunate on the part of the Europeans. So um, the, the dialogue part is, and uh, may, may even require some blunt language. Um, uh, because not always uh, uh, sometimes the polite approach doesn't always work.

Yeah, that's correct. Thank you for that. And perhaps Congress can, can uh, apply some of those tools to to motivate the their attention to this matter, as someone has uh become fond of saying. Um, but you know Admiral, you know the Navy uh, you know dominates the seas, the United States Navy asserts our power all over the world, and I think of countries like Ireland. You know, Ir- where is, Ireland has designated several African nations to be quote " safe countries of origin", meaning asylum applicants from these countries receive accelerated application services. I mean, you know, the whole point of uh credible asylum claims is that you got a safe third country. And I, if I had a graphic here, I'd show the sea route from Africa to Ireland. How is Ireland a safe third country for an African nation?

Well, that is a tough uh immigration route, and if you've seen this quality of the ships that that get you to across the Mediterranean about the last thing I'd do is head to the Straits of Gibraltar. Uh, so as a maritime guy, I would say that's a tough route. Um, in terms of how they determine what's a you know, how they treat a migrant when they land there, that's a, an, you know, a piece for Irish law and how we treat Ireland's, immigrants in the United States should reflect that.

Yeah, I hope that Ireland uh keeps Ireland for uh Irish people first, but uh, a- as you say, it's their country, they're sovereign, uh, but even when they do, they're up against a European Union that increasingly doesn't share our values. And as NATO has essentially become the European defense force, I'd like to see us uh emphasize that and make sure they do give attention to these matters. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.

Uh, thank you, I now recognize the representative from California, Miss Kim.

Thank you, Chairman Self and Ranking Member Keating. Thank you for holding this hearing and I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. Uh, Mister Montgomery and Mister Boies, in August two thousand twenty one, the Lukashenko regime in Belarus deliberately funneled migrants to the borders of Poland, Lithuania and Latvia in retaliation. for EU sanctions, which is widely viewed as one of the clearest examples of weaponized migration in recent history. So can you talk about how the Bavarian gov- Belarusian government operationalized migration flows in two thousand twenty-one and how effective were the European Union and NATO responses at the time?

So that's a very good question, uh, ma'am. Um, the, um, the Belarusians were uh saw this they they opened travel agencies, they opened they they flew direct flights from um from a number of different countries uh straight to Minsk um and then uh transported their um some these these the the passengers to the border. They sometimes accommodated them, they provided them with wire cutters in some instances, um this this just doesn't doesn't just happen um so it it's quite clear that this is a was in in retaliation to the sanctions as you said uh to that the eu um uh imposed upon his regime after the flawed elections of of twenty twenty uh it's however it's continuing and can as and as as um as mark was talking about in terms of the you know tunnels don't just get built underneath uh uh uh underneath uh uh fences or walls um just sort of like by you know like that um they're obviously aided and abetted by the regime and so the the fingerprints of the regime on on this on these flows of people in in very very direct and and obvious ways. Uh and and this uh this should uh uh this should be much more widely known in my view.

I would only add, ma'am, that the uh in fact the Latvian government complained this morning uh about further uh Belarusian bad behavior, cutting holes in fences, building tunnels, bussing migrants to the uh uh recently arrived uh uh, migrants to the border, they're clearly practicing weaponized migration, and they're doing it at the behest of the puppet master,

Yeah.

uh, Putin and Russia.

Um, did the EU's legal humanitarian and asylum frameworks constrain its ability to respond quickly and decisively to uh, Belarus' actions? I don't wanna be

I, I'll give the first, I'll just say, for, from the military point of view, when you asked about NATO and the EU, I'd say NA- that NATO did not constrain them. But what it did was it put pressure on NATO and reduced our readiness to do other things. Units were pulled from training exercises, redeployed against the uh the the planning of the countries. So this had a s- this had a significant and remains a significant impact on NATO readiness, despite these states being the ones that we like, the ones that spend four point five percent of their defen- of their GDP on defense. You know, and I'm here talking here about Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. They're also being required to spend money on in responding to this. So from that point of view, I think that they uh, you know, they they've been hampered significantly by Belarusian activity.

You know, how likely is it that Russia or other adversaries will replicate the Belarus pla- uh playbook against uh NATO's eastern or southern flanks in the future possibly with Ukraine or North Africa? Mister Boies, do you wanna

Well, uh, they the they d have of course as you know have have weaponized it against Norway and Finland, although the Norwegians and the Finns have been relatively successful now in sort of closing that down I worry mostly about the southern flank. I worry about what's happening in the Maghreb, uh the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa where uh the the very very large q- uh numbers of of migrat of migrat people are being uh basically propelled northward through destabilizing behavior uh well sort of through through efforts by either the Wagner Wagner group or when it's been renamed in the meantime but um through various uh um uh sort of so uh Russian actors who are destabilizing these these areas and and sending uh sending large I mean hundreds of thousands of people northward that are then caught in very very sort through you know with militia through Libya or other uh other channels who then have to make the or end up making the the dangerous journey across the uh the Mediterranean And and and when they make it um have um have managed to get uh get North uh you know, uh get Northward.

I wan- I wanna ask one more question here,

So Yeah.

so uh sorry for stopping you,

Yeah.

but the EU recently adopted a new Pact on Migration and Asylum to share the responsibility for processing. From a policy standpoint, does this pact provide a sufficient uh flexibility for front-line states to respond to state sponsored surges? Or does it primarily address traditional migration flaws?

Uh I I think it's a a step in the right direction, but I think a lot of these uh efforts are lowest common denominator because of the difficulty of reaching um robust steps that are shared across the, across the entire uh uh EU. And so they're usually less than um than would be desired, even though they're uh improvements over what is, yeah over the over the past.

Mm-hmm. Chairman, I am running out of time, but I would like to submit for the record a New York Times report titled, How Biden Ignored uh Warnings and Lost Americans' Faith in Immigration uh for the record.

Without without objection.

OK, thank you.

I now rec- uh recognize the representative from Florida, Mister Fein, for five minutes.

Well thank thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. I think this is a very important subject, um, because it reveals an important truth about mass migration. It's a disruptor. If it was good, no one would mind. Um, our adversaries pay attention to who we let in, and they watch what these visitors do when they get to our countries. Russia has seen mass Muslim migration into the West, and they know what it's doing. It's causing chaos. That's why Russia's weaponizing Muslim immigration against the West, because they know that it causes tensions among the native populations. Um, they see what they're doing, and the statistics are unbelievable. In France, sixty percent of the prison population. In the UK, it's eighteen percent of the prison population, three times the percentage of the population. Sweden, sixty-three percent of convicted rapists have an immigrant background. Most of those are of Muslim background. Um, in Switzerland, thirty-three percent of prisoners, they're five percent of the population. Um. They're conquering rather than integrating, and they are engaged in crime. So when you're a native of that country, you're gonna be outraged, and we see backlash against their governments. I've got a few basic questions for the three of you. Does Russia believe that Islam is compatible in their own country? Do they want these people coming in to their own nation, yes or no? You can miss, miss, uh, I'm sorry, I can't pronounce your last name. You can start.

I can't, uh,

Hmm?

I can't speak to

OK. That's fine.

them.

You don't know. Mister Boies, do, does Russia want these people in their country?

Um, Russia has a lot of Muslims, uh, uh, who who are just who've been incorporated into this into the Soviet space, and the Russian empire of the Soviet space, as w- as well, uh, and continue to live there. I think that they have, um, they they don't like the extremists, they actually

But they're not seeking this mass migration into their own country.

They're they're they they're happy to have them, um,

Go somewhere else.

move on. uh,

OK.

uh, to the west and destabilize Western Europe,

All right. So, why, why do you think then they're weaponizing it?

or, uh, as a whole.

Why do you think that they believe that it is an effective weapon? You can go ahead, Mr. Beuys.

Because it is an effective weapon.

OK, go ahead, Mr. Montgomery.

It is an effective weapon. We've, d- yeah, as we've discussed earlier, I think that they've used this and you can go back all the way, as Mr. Beuys mentioned, to the East Germans using, uh, weaponized migration in the, in the nineteen eighties. So they've seen the impact of this, they've seen the effect of it. This is part of a broad campaign of undermining the societies of their adversaries, in NATO and the European Union. So they know it's effective, they've used it. It's one of five or six tools in their next, in their new generation warfare campaign. And we should be very concerned about it, as we should be about critical infrastructure attacks, cyber attacks, and the others.

So, so Spain, I'll stay with you, uh, Mister Montgomery. So Spain has just announced that basically everyone who's come into their country, however they've gotten there, they're going to make um, citizens I guess, and then let, give them papers, and then they can then go, um, wherever they want. Does that mean in effect that Spain is assisting with this, with this migration as a strategy, um, to, to undermine our societies?

So, what the migration to Spain was not a weaponized migration, the migration to Spain was a, a fleeing uh migration. So it's different, but in this, these are choices Spain makes if they wanna, uh you've, you've given a pretty good discussion. why most European countries might now have some regrets. Um, the Span- we'll have to see what happens with Spain on this decision. But I would be careful and I would, we've been very careful in talking about what's weaponized migration. That's when Russians do this to undermine our allies. And we need to counter that very directly. The broad migration from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere is a different a different discussion and one for which each country can take their own path and the United States will certainly take its.

So there's. There's two kinds of de-stabilizing migration. There's the weaponized, where they're pushing these people in, but then there's they're just coming. And so, so for example, in France, where you see that the French government felt the need to cancel New Year celebrations because of the rise of mainstream Islam, is that, was that because of weaponized migration or is that because of the they're just coming and they're showing up?

Well, for press reports I'd say that was a a response to general migration,

Okay. So, I, you know, I would conclude by saying this, we have a big enough problem with the non-weaponized migration, we need to be very cautious of of weaponized migration, because my view is that Europe has largely fallen. When you have debates in Parliament in the UK about not allowing cousin marriage as a form of Islamophobia, we have fallen and we have forgotten who we are. So this is an issue we need to deal with. I appreciate you all being here. to deal with it and I appreciate the chairman for having the hearing on the subject today, and I yield back.

I now recognize the representative from Florida, Miss Luna,

Thank you, chairman.

for five minutes.

Thank you, and I uh hold the same sentiments as my colleague, don't marry your cousin. Uh, thank you, chairman, for hosting this hearing today. Strong borders are the foundation for a sovereign country. When you have uncontrolled migration, every system absorbs absorbs the damage. Schools, hospitals, policing, housing, budgets, and the social fabric itself. Citizens watch their communities change overnight, they are told to accept it, and they are scolded for noticing it and calling it out. These people are not racist, nor are they far right, as many people tried to frame them. The truth is that unchecked mass migration has been weaponized. Miss Bogdan, your testimony describes weaponized mass migration as a security risk, and you argue the best strategy is to neutralize and prep- and preparation rather than escalation. You also warned that the patchwork of go-it-along crisis measures should not become the norm. Would you agree, yes or no, that the member states of the European Union are also sovereign independent nations?

Yes.

Do you agree that a independent nation has the right to defend its borders and set up entry policy consistent with its own national interests?

Yes, every country should set the conditions for who enters.

So I guess the question is, why are we ignoring the fact that these are independent nations with the right to defend their borders, and the fact that they have been completely let down by EU policy, and in fact punished if they sought to address the problem in the view of their own national interests. That is completely absurd to me, and the same people, and these same people that advocate for exactly what I'm talking about are labeled as Nazis and racists for wanting stronger border policy and state sovereignty. Miss Bogdan, do you believe that it's true that European citizens and politicians advocate for strong borders are Nazis? Yes or no?

I would not phrase it that way.

So you do not agree that if you want strong border policy, you are a Nazi.

I think all European societies want to uh defend their borders and protect their laws.

Admiral Montgomery, do you believe that if you want strong borders or state sovereignty, that you are a Nazi?

I don't believe advocating for strong borders or having safe um a safe community makes you a Nazi.

Admiral, you say that Russia uses information operations and weaponized migration as a part of hybrid warfare to de-stabilize NATO partners and fracture European unity uh unity but I want to separate two things alleged Russian propaganda versus real world crime and disorder that governments have refused to confront. You reference Russia fake stories about migrant crime in Germany to enrage populations but isn't it true that if we really don't have to make up these stories um Mister Chairman I would actually like to submit several articles for the record. As Germany welcomes migrants, sexual attacks in Cologne point to a new reality. This is the New York Times.

Mm.

They don't think the New York Times is Russian propaganda. We have World Germany, New Year's Eve, twenty fifteen in Cologne, the night that traumatized thousands of women and shook Germany. We also have Freiburg gang rapists who spend years in prison. Ten of eleven men accused of gang rape of a woman in the southern city of Freiburg in twenty eighteen have been sentenced to jail term. These case Uh, this, uh, the case was seized upon by anti-immigration populace as most men are refugees. I don't think that's made up. And court hands life sentence to Iraqi over teenage rape murder. So I guess, Admiral, this one's for you. This isn't Russia propaganda. These are real world examples of consequences of unchuff migration. Would you agree?

Yeah, I agree there are, both things are true. That there are, those are all true, I'll stipulate those are all true stories.

Yes, um

And I'll also stipulate that Russia creates information operations, uh, and intentionally tells lies on all sorts of issues, including immigrant girls.

I'm I'm not advocating for Russia, I'm just saying do you think that these are Russia propaganda?

No, I'm, likely not. I mean, I trust uh most of those.

I would hope that New York Times is not issuing Russia propaganda. Um, nonetheless, weaponized migration succeeds when the des- uh does uh when the destination system cannot say no. The answer is not accommodation, but sovereignty, enforcement, and consequences. And without them, sovereign states are set up to fail. Thank you guys for being here today.

Uh, thank you. Um, the ranking member and I have agreed we will do, I think the two of us will do three minutes on a second round. I recognize myself for three minutes. Uh, Admiral, as a military planner, I, I was taught to look forward. So let's take an example because I want to hear from you, uh the the Baltics. We've heard the issues here, the Swalke gap, the Kaliningrad uh militarization, uh the fact that the three of them feel like they are out on the frontier, the eastern frontier by themselves because of their geographic position. What would you say to the United States, NATO and the EU to prepare them now for post-Ukraine Russian hybrid war.

The first thing is I'd say we need to be present. You know, we, NATO, and and to the degree the United States is ap- you know, applies a certain percentage of the force of NATO, need to be present in the Baltic States. That serves as a natural deterrent. Second, we need to actually identify the war fighting capabilities necessary. We need to make sure that three point five percent that all of NATO, except of course Spain, is is spending uh by twenty thirty five, is focused on the right war fighting capabilities that counter uh, Russia and our about some national need not associated with NATO. And then third, we need to make sure that one point five percent on non-defense related spending is really spent on clear NATO critical infrastructure needs, not the the road we were gonna pave, you know, from London, uh, to the north already. You know, they they'd spend on other things. If the, if NATO does those things, they'll be in a, in a position to deter Russia and if necessary, defeat Russia. But the Baltic States are our treaty allies, as you know, sir. They give, they give their all on every nodal exercise. They got to four percent faster than, faster than us. And they're gonna get to five percent faster than any of our allies and partners except for Israel. Uh, so they're true partners. They're true believers. And we need to have the forces forward to ensure that Russia is deterred.

Thank you, and I yield back. I recognize the ranking member.

Thank you, Admiral Montgomery, the People migrating from Russia and Belarus, they're not Russians and Belarusians. What country specifically, I can think of two prominent ones, but what countries are they coming from?

So I think it's Afghan- it's Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea, Libya. I think those are the majority of the countries they're coming from.

And what marks those countries? I mean, it's not a religious issue that what marks the people that are they're bringing here by planes and and bringing bringing to Russia and the borders and bringing them over the border. What marks them in this?

They're environmentally depressed countries. I mean,

Right.

uh economically depressed countries, and so I think a lot of this is a desire to leave a a

So not religion.

No, this is not a religious issue. It's a economic and family well-being issue.

And and those people coming over uh are desperate. They don't know where they're going probably.

I uh they certainly don't know where they're going when they go to Belarus.

And and uh it's just not divisiveness uh that Russia's trying to uh deal with with NATO countries uh from Europe. They also want to create division with uh European NATO countries and the US. Don't you believe with some of these actions?

Oh, one hundred percent. This is about uh th- this is about undermining the trust and credibility in the alliance. This is why they work so hard on Hungary, it's why they work so closely with Turkey.

That's why we had discussions before, uh, about the importance of cooperating and being on the same page to the extent we can. We might have different ways of approaching this, but we should be supportive and cooperative with each other. So in those terms, I'd just like to just, in my uh moments here, uh, with a quote from uh the first American Pope, uh, Pope Leo. Uh, recently he just said within the last two months, perhaps we should be a, a little less fearful and look for ways to promote authentic dialogue and respect. I know that in practice this has not always been the case. I know that fears still persist in Europe. These fears are often fueled by people opposed to immigration, who seek to exclude those who come from another country, uh, another religion, or another eth- eth- ethnic background. In light of this, he called for working together to make possible dialogue and friendship, including friendship between Muslims and Christians. I yield back.

Uh, thank you, and I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony. This has been a, a very valuable hearing, and the members for their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses. We will ask you to respond to these in writing. Uh pursuant to committee rules, all members may have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to the length limitations. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.