Follow us on social

Stefanik UN pick: Win for hardliners aiming to frontload Trump WH

Stefanik UN pick: Win for hardliners aiming to frontload Trump WH

She previously worked at neocon think tanks including one co-founded by Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan

Analysis | Washington Politics

President-elect Trump has named New York GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik as his choice for ambassador to the United Nations.

The nomination is one of the first major appointments Trump has made since winning the election last week. Stefanik has been a staunch Trump loyalist going back to his first term in office, and she has been one of the most vocal supporters of the war in Gaza over the last year.

Different factions in the Republican Party have been competing over the direction of Trump’s foreign policy, and the choice of Stefanik appears to be a clear win for hardline hawks. Putting Stefanik at the UN seems to be Trump’s signal to the world that he doesn’t necessarily care how isolated the U.S. and Israel have become because of the wars in Gaza and Lebanon.

First elected in 2014, Rep. Stefanik, 40, has been considered a rising star in the Republican Party. Before being elected to Congress, she worked at the hardline Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, and she worked at the extremely hawkish Foreign Policy Initiative that was co-founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan.

Then she gained national notice when she defended Trump during his first impeachment, after which she became one of his most reliable supporters. Trump’s decision to send her to the UN is clearly a reward for her years of loyalty. Stefanik has no background in international relations or diplomacy that would prepare her for representing the United States at the international body, but then the point of sending her is probably to pick fights with other states rather than trying to resolve them.

Republican presidents have appointed hostile ambassadors to the United Nations before. Reagan gave the job to Jeane Kirkpatrick, George W. Bush chose John Bolton (but had to settle for making him a recess appointment), and Trump appointed Nikki Haley in his first term. If confirmed, Stefanik would likely follow her Republican predecessors in their dislike for the institution.

Unlike Haley, however, Stefanik is not going to try running her own parallel foreign policy from New York. Stefanik will face few hurdles in being confirmed by the Senate. Republicans will control the chamber, and she is unlikely to face the sort of organized opposition that Bolton faced almost twenty years ago.

As a member of Congress, Stefanik has been a harsh critic of the United Nations, smearing the institution as antisemitic whenever it has afforded Palestinians an opportunity to express their grievances or to bring pressure to bear against Israel in the General Assembly. She has denounced the Biden administration for its supposed failure to combat antisemitism at the UN.

Stefanik was a leader of the campaign to smear antiwar college campus protesters as antisemitic, and she played a role in pressuring the presidents of Ivy League universities to crack down on the protests at their schools. She has also supported the cutoff of funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the agency that is essential to providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Stefanik has distinguished herself as one of the most extremely anti-Palestinian members of Congress.

Like Trump, Stefanik has been an opponent of the nuclear deal with Iran from its inception. She recently joined her Republican leadership colleagues in calling for a “return to a maximum pressure campaign against Iran.” She repeated the call for maximum pressure again this week. Ambassadors to the U.N. typically have little influence in shaping policy, but the choice of Stefanik is consistent with reporting that Trump plans to pursue a more aggressive Iran policy in the new term.

The Stefanik nomination puts a damper on the news that Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley won’t be part of the new administration. Trump may not be bringing back all of his old appointees, but he continues to surround himself with hardliners. To the extent that personnel is policy, that bodes ill for the new administration’s foreign policy.


File:President Trump Signs Stefanik Initiatives into Law at Fort ...
Analysis | Washington Politics
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.