Key Takeaways
- •The hearing established bipartisan consensus that Russia and Belarus weaponize migration to destabilize Europe, posing a significant security risk to NATO allies and U.S. interests.
- •Witness Banulescu-Bogdan argued that building resilient immigration systems and creating orderly legal pathways, like Europe's response to Ukrainian displacement, can neutralize weaponized migration.
- •Rep. Self (R-TX-3) pressed Admiral Montgomery on how liberal democracies can help citizens understand weaponized migration is a campaign, not just a humanitarian crisis.
- •While agreeing on Russia's weaponization, Republicans expressed broader concerns about mass migration eroding Western values, contrasting with Democrats' focus on specific Russian tactics and cooperation.
- •Witnesses recommended the U.S. and NATO increase awareness, provide technical border assistance, monitor Russian campaigns, and impose more sanctions on Belarus to counter weaponized migration.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Hearing Analysis
Overview
On February 10, 2026, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe convened a hearing titled "Weaponized Mass Migration: A Security Risk to Europe and the United States." Chaired by Rep. Keith Self (R-TX-3), the hearing examined how Russia and Belarus utilize "hybrid warfare" tactics—specifically the orchestration of migrant flows—to destabilize NATO allies, strain European social institutions, and fracture transatlantic unity. The subcommittee sought to evaluate the security implications of these tactics and discuss policy responses ahead of the upcoming Munich Security Conference.
Key Testimony
The hearing featured testimony from three experts: Rear Admiral (Ret.) Mark Montgomery of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Matthew Boyse of the Hudson Institute, and Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan of the Migration Policy Institute. The witnesses generally agreed that Russia, often acting through its proxy Belarus, has transformed migration into a "fifth-generation warfare" tool. Admiral Montgomery detailed how Russia’s "New Generation Warfare" campaign uses non-kinetic activities like cyberattacks and weaponized migration to force NATO allies to divert military resources. He noted that Poland was forced to deploy 15,000 troops to its border with Belarus in 2021, pulling forces away from critical training and defensive missions. Montgomery also highlighted the discovery of tunnels used to smuggle migrants and the role of Belarusian state-run transport in facilitating these crossings.
Mr. Boyse provided historical context, tracing these tactics back to the Soviet era and East Germany’s use of migrants to stoke tensions in West Germany during the 1980s. He described migrants as a "thermostat" that the Kremlin can dial up or down to extract political concessions or exacerbate internal divisions within Western societies. Boyse argued that the Kremlin’s involvement spans multiple crises, from the 2015 Syrian refugee influx to recent pressures on the Finnish and Norwegian borders. He emphasized that this strategy exploits the humanitarian values of democratic societies to create "chaos as a multipurpose weapon."
Ms. Banulescu-Bogdan offered a different perspective, focusing on "neutralization" and "resilience." While acknowledging the reality of the threat, she argued that restrictive measures alone are insufficient. She pointed to the European Union’s response to Ukrainian displacement as a success story, where the rapid granting of legal status and access to labor markets neutralized Russia’s ability to use those refugees as a tool of destabilization. She discussed the EU’s new Pact on Migration and Asylum, scheduled for implementation in July 2026, which aims to create a faster, fairer system for processing claims and returning those who do not qualify.
Overview
Policy proposals discussed during the hearing included the "HARM 2.0 Act," which would designate successor organizations of the Wagner Group as foreign terrorist organizations. Admiral Montgomery recommended providing technical assistance and American surveillance technology to frontline border states, increasing sanctions on Belarusian airlines that facilitate migrant transport, and directing NATO’s hybrid warfare units to specifically monitor migration campaigns. Rep. Young Kim (R-CA-40) and others questioned the efficacy of the EU’s legal frameworks, with witnesses suggesting that while the new EU Pact is a step forward, it often represents a "lowest common denominator" approach due to the difficulty of reaching consensus among sovereign member states.
The hearing revealed a sharp partisan divide regarding the broader context of migration. Republican members, including Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH-8) and Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL-6), focused on the "civilization erasure" and social strife caused by mass migration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries. Rep. Fine cited crime statistics from Sweden and France to argue that non-integrated populations cause inherent instability that Russia merely exploits. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL-13) emphasized the right of sovereign nations to defend their borders without being labeled as "extremist."
Organizations & Entities
In contrast, Ranking Member William Keating (D-MA-9) and Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA-21) criticized the Trump administration’s rhetoric and budget cuts. Rep. Keating entered a bipartisan letter into the record condemning the reorganization of the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism and the elimination of the Office of Countering Violent Extremism. He also criticized the zeroing out of funding for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) and the Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant program at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Democrats argued that these programs are essential for maintaining the rule of law abroad, which reduces the impetus for migration.
Policy Proposals
Notable exchanges occurred when Rep. Fine questioned whether Russia viewed Islam as compatible with its own society, to which Mr. Boyse responded that Russia is happy to see extremists move West to destabilize NATO. Admiral Montgomery made a clear distinction between "weaponized migration" (state-sponsored) and "general migration" (driven by economic or environmental factors), cautioning that while the former must be countered as an act of war, the latter requires different policy tools.
Overview
The hearing concluded with a forward-looking discussion on the Baltic states. Admiral Montgomery warned that if Russia prevails in Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltics—specifically the Suwalki Gap—would be the next targets for hybrid and conventional aggression. Chairman Self emphasized that the subcommittee’s findings would inform discussions with allies at the Munich Security Conference, stressing that "recognition alone is insufficient" and that a coordinated transatlantic strategy is required to deter Russia’s evolving hybrid playbook. No specific legislative deadlines were set, but the subcommittee indicated it would continue to monitor the implementation of the EU’s migration pact and the security of NATO’s eastern frontier.
Transcript
[Gavel sounds.] 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 U.S. 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 2015 intervention in Syria, which resulted in mass migration into Europe, or Belarus's more recent weaponization of migrants against Poland. In 2018, Polish authorities reported only three attempts by individuals to illegally cross the Belarus border into Poland. In 2025, the number was over 25,000. 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, illicit finance, and Islamic extremism, creating security blind spots that hostile actors are quick to exploit. The human cost of weaponized mass migration is 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 counterterrorism efforts. This directly affects U.S. interests by weakening some of our closest allies and amplifying threats to the homeland. When migration is weaponized to destabilize Europe, it undermines the collective security architecture that has preserved peace for decades. While the EU and NATO increasingly 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, Mr. Keating, for an opening statement.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Not ready to subscribe?
Get a free daily digest with hearing summaries ranked by relevance.
Already have an account? Log in
