Mike Waltz walks into the U.N. with combat energy, not diplomat energy. He’s a former Green Beret who talks about the world as a place full of predators and vacuums, and he thinks America’s job is to make sure the predators never get the vacuum. He’s not shy about calling adversaries adversaries, and he’s openly skeptical of the idea that the U.N. Security Council is going to morally persuade regimes that function by brute force.
Waltz frames American leadership as a deterrent project: you show up, you draw lines, you back allies who fight, and you refuse to bankroll governments that are playing both sides. He talks a lot about “peace through strength,” and means it literally — he thinks that when the U.S. projects weakness or indecision, bad actors immediately fill that space with violence, proxy wars, hostage diplomacy, terror finance, and influence ops.
At the U.N., that turns into a confrontational style. Waltz is comfortable calling out Russia, Iran, and the PRC in open session and accusing them of destabilizing regions while running information campaigns to blame the United States for the fallout. He pushes to define those governments not as “partners we disagree with,” but as strategic threats whose statecraft is built on coercion.
Domestically, he sells this as “stop apologizing for America.” Waltz argues that the U.S. keeps getting lectured by regimes that jail dissidents, arm terror groups, or massacre civilians — and that taking those lectures seriously is insanity. His line is that moral equivalence between the U.S. and its adversaries is not diplomacy; it’s surrender dressed up as nuance.
Critics say Waltz’s posture risks isolating the U.S. inside multilateral bodies where you usually need quiet coalition work, not public combat. His supporters say the opposite: the last thing the U.N. needs is more polite statements while authoritarian states rewrite the rules in plain sight.
Mainstream Conservative
Priorities / Agenda
- Aggressive defense of U.S. allies: Waltz wants to make it crystal that if you’re aligned with the U.S. against terrorist groups or revisionist states, America has your back — loudly.
- Name and shame: He favors publicly calling out states that arm proxies, enable terror finance, or violate sanctions, instead of letting those fights stay in closed-door language edits.
- Stop funding enemies: Waltz argues the U.S. should not be writing checks, directly or indirectly, to governments that are also enabling anti-U.S. militias or covert influence ops.
- Human rights through strength: He links human rights to deterrence: you don’t protect civilians by pleading with dictators; you protect them by convincing the dictator he’ll pay a price.
- Push back on “moral equivalence”: Waltz rejects what he calls diplomatic symmetry between democracies and authoritarian states. He calls that “narrative warfare,” not fairness.
Controversies
- “Peace through strength” posture: Critics say Waltz is so hawkish he risks escalation in places that don’t need it. He says backing down invites worse.
- Multilateral friction: Traditional diplomats worry his style alienates swing countries the U.S. needs for sanctions votes and peacekeeping mandates.
- U.N. as battlefield: Waltz treats the U.N. like an arena for ideological combat, not consensus drafting. Some allies think that’s useful; others think it’s reckless.
- Public confrontation of partners: He’s comfortable blasting “friendly” governments if he thinks they’re playing games on terror finance or tech transfer. Critics say that can blow up quiet cooperation.
- America-first framing: Supporters call it moral clarity. Detractors call it U.S. exceptionalism with no diplomatic subtlety.
Senate Confirmation Vote
Votes For
- Republicans: 47
- Democrats: 0
- Independents: 0
Votes Against
- Republicans: 0
- Democrats: 43
- Independents: 2