Mike Waltz’s nomination to represent the United States at the United Nations comes at a moment when the global order is especially fragile. American leadership at the international level demands both sound judgment and diplomatic finesse. These are not qualities that define Waltz’s recent tenure in government. On the contrary, his record reveals a troubling pattern of recklessness and inexperience that calls into question his capacity to protect sensitive national interests and his fundamental fitness for a position that hinges on discretion, credibility, and the ability to navigate the world’s most complex diplomatic terrain.
In March of this year, while serving as National Security Adviser, Waltz became the center of an incident that sent shockwaves through the national security community. During a private Signal chat by senior government officials to discuss U.S. military action in Yemen, Waltz mistakenly added journalist Jeffrey Goldberg. This chat reportedly involved some of the most senior members of the administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The inclusion of a member of the press in such a sensitive communication forum was not just a breach of protocol. It was a blunder that directly undermined the security of ongoing operations and potentially placed lives at risk.
What made the episode even more damaging was the initial mistake and Waltz’s response to it. Rather than fully owning the lapse, he publicly suggested that Goldberg may have deliberately manipulated someone into adding him to the group. This unsubstantiated claim came off less like an explanation and more like a deflection, an attempt to muddy the waters around a failure of judgment that was his responsibility alone. Even in his apology, Waltz framed the mistake as an "embarrassing accident" and promised to investigate it further. Still, there has been little indication that systemic changes have been made or that he has absorbed the gravity of the breach.
At the core of this controversy is a more profound concern about Waltz’s understanding of how intelligence and diplomacy intersect. The United Nations is not a secure environment in the traditional sense. Diplomats operate amid a constant churn of sensitive information, classified briefings, and private negotiations. Many discussions are conducted through backchannels and require a deep appreciation for nuance, confidentiality, and statecraft. A careless word in a meeting, a mistakenly forwarded message, or an unvetted interaction can lead to consequences reverberating through diplomatic relationships for years. In that environment, trust in a representative's judgment is not optional. It is foundational.
Yet Waltz’s career offers little reassurance on this front. While his military service is commendable, and his time in Congress gave him a platform on defense issues, neither role prepared him for the rigors of high-level diplomacy. He has never served in a formal diplomatic post, led a negotiation at the United Nations, or been a key figure in managing alliances or mediating international crises. His experience has been rooted in domestic political warfare, not carefully cultivating coalitions or balancing global interests. One thing is making bold speeches on cable news about America's role in the world. It is quite another to sit in a room with ambassadors from adversarial nations and earn their trust while advancing American priorities without provocation or misstep.
Critics might argue that Waltz’s straightforward manner is an asset and will bring much-needed toughness to the global stage. However, the role of the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is not that of a pugilist. It is that of a strategist. The diplomat must know when to push pause and speak and when silence is the more powerful message. There is no evidence that Waltz possesses these instincts. On the contrary, the "Signalgate" scandal shows an alarming lack of discretion, which could have catastrophic consequences where even minor breaches of trust can derail critical negotiations.
Moreover, the perception of America’s diplomatic appointments matters as much as their function. The international community closely watches who the United States sends to the world’s most important multilateral institution. Sending a nominee fresh from a humiliating security scandal signals a disregard for the seriousness of the position. It sends the message that the administration values loyalty or visibility over competence and that America is willing to gamble with its credibility at the United Nations when it can only afford to do so.
It is also worth considering what message this sends internally to the ranks of the U.S. diplomatic corps. Hundreds of career diplomats and foreign service officers have spent decades mastering the skills required to represent the nation with care and competence. Overlooking them in favor of someone whose most recent contribution to U.S. foreign policy was an intelligence mishap weakens morale. It devalues expertise at a moment when both are urgently needed.
The Senate now has a choice to make. It can confirm Waltz and hope that the role's demands will shape him into the kind of leader he has not yet proven to be. It can also treat this appointment with the seriousness it deserves and reject the nomination, sending a message that national security, diplomatic experience, and judgment are non-negotiable prerequisites for representing the United States on the world stage. The country cannot afford to entrust its voice at the United Nations to someone who has not only failed to safeguard sensitive information but has yet to demonstrate the core qualities of a diplomat. The stakes are too high, and the consequences of another mistake, this time on a global platform, could be far more than embarrassing. They could be irreversible.
Add comment
Comments