Gregory Meeks Warns The Trump Admin Is ‘Abandoning’ Centering Human Rights In Foreign Policy

Forbes Breaking News

During Wednesday’s House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) questioned State Department Officials about human rights and democracy protection in U.S. foreign policy.

Transcript

00:00Recognize Ranking Member Meeks.

00:04And I actually don't disagree with almost anything

00:07that Mr. McCall has said.

00:10You know, in fact, that's a big concern of mine

00:13because what we've seen before us is not reform.

00:19It's abandoning decades of bipartisan support

00:22for centering human rights and democracy

00:25in our foreign policy.

00:26Without consultation, without engagement,

00:29and without any regard for Congress's constitutional role

00:33as a co-equal branch of government.

00:36To this day, Secretary Rubio refuses to follow the law

00:40and consult with Congress.

00:42And we have no reason to believe that will change.

00:46In the weeks ahead, we fully expect him to endorse

00:48the next chapter of Project 2025,

00:50which will closing hundreds of critical offices

00:53and potentially dozens of overseas posts,

00:56gutting the department's workforce,

00:57and slashing the budget.

00:59All of which will leave America weaker and more isolated.

01:03In fact, China and Russia will continue to celebrate

01:06as they've done so almost every day since January 20th.

01:11And you know, what Mr. McCall said,

01:13I have a long track record

01:15working with any administration

01:17that wants to strengthen our national security

01:20and works in good faith towards that end.

01:22But obviously, this is not business as usual.

01:26Donald Trump has taken a wrecking ball

01:28to our foreign policy,

01:30treated our allies as adversaries

01:33and our adversaries as allies,

01:35threatening to invade some of those allies,

01:38and launched a trade war that is hurting our economy

01:41and our constituents.

01:43So I would love more than anything

01:45to have a good faith effort

01:46to reauthorize the State Department.

01:49And I would welcome discussion to that end.

01:52But you know what?

01:52The State Department officials came to brief staff

01:56earlier this week,

01:57only after their,

01:58but it was after their reorganization

02:00had been set into motion.

02:03and programs were cut

02:08and after the firing notices

02:11were started going out,

02:13that's not consultation.

02:15That's, to me, insulting.

02:17And while I want to thank the chairman

02:20and my majority colleagues

02:21for arranging that belated briefing,

02:25Secretary Rubio's messengers

02:26could not even answer basic questions

02:28like what offices should be closed

02:31or how they arrived

02:33at a 15% domestic staffing reduction.

02:36So I think that there should be more consultations.

02:40Let me just ask you these questions.

02:42You can answer yes or no.

02:44Do you believe Congress

02:45must be meaningfully consulted

02:46on major state reorganization

02:48or changes to USAID,

02:50including ending the vast majority

02:52of congressionally appropriated foreign assistance?

02:55Yes or no?

02:56Yes.

02:57Yes, sir.

02:58Yes.

02:59And another yes or no.

03:01Do you believe

03:02that sweeping changes like this,

03:04especially on items mandated in law,

03:07should be done,

03:08should it be done by an executive order

03:10or should you have to come to Congress?

03:13There are legal issues here, Congressman,

03:16that I am not competent to get into.

03:18But again, I'll go with my first answer.

03:21When appropriate

03:22and when it's under law,

03:24Congress must be consulted.

03:28Mr. Hal?

03:28Yes, if you want a sustainable decision,

03:32I think it requires legislation

03:33and consultation with Congress.

03:36I believe it absolutely requires

03:38consultation with Congress

03:39and a clear-cut connection

03:43between the ends and the means,

03:46which I am not seeing in this plan.

03:48And also, on top of all that,

03:49Secretary Rubio's cuts are already underway.

03:52And the White House is reportedly readying

03:54a rescission of more than $9 billion

03:57from the state

03:58and foreign operations budget.

04:01Would the practical impact of these cuts

04:04on our ability to advance U.S. interests

04:06globally be significant

04:07or would they be detrimental?

04:09I'd have to see what the specifics are, Congressman.

04:18I agree with Jim's answer.

04:19I'd want to see the details.

04:21I do believe that an organization

04:22the size of the State Department

04:23could definitely use some serious reform.

04:28I come out differently on this

04:30based on what I've seen so far

04:32in press reporting,

04:33a 50% cut in states' operational budget

04:36combined with the 80%-plus cut

04:40in foreign assistance from USAID.

04:42I think this has devastating consequences

04:45with respect to our own security

04:48and prosperity

04:49and our ability to project leadership.

04:51I would just note that the PRC

04:54is already filling that gap.

04:55That's my next question.

04:56And we are seeing China

04:57increase its diplomatic spending.

04:59I've seen by over 8% for 2025,

05:02over 6% last year.

05:04And so, again, to what end

05:07are we retreating from the field

05:11when our greatest geopolitical challenger

05:15is doubling down?

05:18Okay.

05:19Now, just to have an answer

05:22with the two of you

05:23about what was just mentioned

05:26about our ability to compete with China,

05:29significant or detrimental?

05:31I'll draw on an article

05:37in The Economist from March.

05:40And The Economist,

05:41as I think you all know,

05:42is a very internationalist,

05:43globalist, engagement-oriented platform.

05:47The death of foreign aid.

05:49It says that three-quarters

05:50of all foreign aid

05:51is in development, economic,

05:53political assistance.

05:55And it basically says

05:56there is very little evidence

05:57that this produces any results

06:00and goes on to say

06:02the idea that aid buys soft power

06:04is unconvincing, too.

06:06Now, anything in print

06:07can be challenged,

06:08but I would have to say

06:09my own experience on the ground,

06:11beyond humanitarian assistance,

06:13which is critical,

06:14beyond security assistance,

06:16equally critical,

06:17all of the things we're doing

06:18to try to change societies,

06:21whether to compete with the Chinese

06:22or push back on the Russians.

06:25I haven't seen a whole lot of success,

06:27and I've been responsible

06:28for some of the largest ones,

06:30Congressman.

06:32I'll just draw one chapter

06:34of my experience

06:35in Pakistan as ambassador there.

06:38I inherited, you know,

06:39the Kerry Lugar-Berman aid pipeline,

06:43which, frankly, in hindsight,

06:45I think, was an experiment

06:46that proved to not have really succeeded

06:48in achieving foreign policy goals.

06:50There are some good things

06:51that were done with it,

06:52but for the most part,

06:52the Pakistanis didn't want the assistance.

06:55They blocked a lot of it,

06:56and I don't think

06:57that if you had

06:57an objective measurement

06:59that it really changed

07:00either the growth

07:02of violent extremism

07:03in that part of the world

07:04or the cooperation

07:05of the Pakistani authorities

07:06to U.S. policy.

07:08In contrast,

07:09the Chinese were spending

07:10$50 to $60 billion

07:11in Belt and Road Initiative programs

07:14in Pakistan at the same time.

07:16They got a lot of credit for it,

07:18but over time,

07:19it turned out,

07:20as people discovered,

07:21these were not grants like ours.

07:23They were loans,

07:24and the business plans

07:26didn't make any sense.

07:28There's a lot of favoritism

07:29and corruption in it,

07:31and now they have a debt overhang

07:32that they can't deal with.

07:34So the Chinese approach also soured.

07:36So I'm not sure that I want to,

07:39while not ignoring the fact

07:41that resources matter,

07:42that the amount of money

07:43we're spending

07:43versus what the Chinese are spending

07:45in any given country

07:46may be a starting point

07:48for a conversation.

07:49I don't know

07:49that it necessarily reflects

07:50an outcome

07:51of a way to measure

07:53exactly the best way

07:54the United States

07:55can influence behavior,

07:56because aid

07:57does not change policies.

07:58It can enable a partner

08:00who already is in agreement

08:01with us

08:02to do the things we want,

08:03but dangling aid

08:04isn't going to make somebody

08:05do things

08:06that they don't otherwise

08:07feels in their national interest.

08:10I appreciate those answers.

08:12We now recognize...

08:12Could I...

08:13Is there time to...

08:14Is there time to...

08:15Is there time to...

08:16Is there time to...

08:17Is there time to...

08:18Is there time to...

08:19Is there time to...

08:20Is there time to...

08:21Is there time to...

08:22Is there time to...

08:23Is there time to...

08:24Is there time to...

08:25Is there time to...

08:26Is there time to...

08:27Is there time to...

08:28Is there time to...

08:29Is there time to...

08:30Is there time to...

08:31Is there time to...

08:32Is there time to...

08:33Is there time to...

08:34Is there time to...

08:35Is there time to...

08:36Is there time to...

08:37Is there time to...

08:38Is there time to...

08:39Is there time to...

08:40Is there time to...

08:41Is there time to...

Category

Transcript

Recommended