#security council

The U.S. will use its veto power against a Palestinian bid to be recognized as a member state of the United Nations during a vote at the Security Council expected to take place Thursday evening. Vedant Patel, principal deputy spokesperson for the State Department, described as premature an effort by the Palestinian Authority (PA) to gain member status at the U.N. He said there was not unanimity among the Security Council’s 15 members that the Palestinian Authority had met the criteria for membership, with unresolved questions over the governance of the Gaza Strip, where Israel is in a war to defeat and eliminate the controlling power, Hamas. “And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution,” Patel said.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 26, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Mar 27, 2025

Monday’s astounding story that the most senior members of President Donald Trump’s administration planned military strikes on Yemen over an unsecure commercial messaging app, on which they had included national security reporter and editor in chief of The Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg, has escalated over the past two days.

On Monday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth looked directly at a reporter’s camera and said: “Nobody was texting war plans.” Throughout the day Tuesday, the administration doubled down on this assertion, apparently convinced that Goldberg would not release the information they knew he had. They tried to spin the story by attacking Goldberg, suggesting he had somehow hacked into the conversation, although the app itself tracked that National Security Advisor Michael Waltz had added him.

Various administration figures, including Trump, insisted that the chat contained nothing classified. At a scheduled hearing yesterday before the Senate Intelligence Committee on worldwide threats, during which senators took the opportunity to dig into the Signal scandal, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said: “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group.” Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Ratcliffe agreed: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.” In the afternoon, Trump told reporters: “The attack was totally successful. It was, I guess, from what I understand, took place during. And it wasn’t classified information. So this was not classified.”

After Gabbard said she would defer to the secretary of defense and the National Security Council about what information should have been classified, Senator Angus King (I-ME) seemed taken aback. “You’re the head of the intelligence community. You’re supposed to know about classifications,” he pointed out. He continued, “So your testimony very clearly today is that nothing was in that set of texts that were classified.... If that’s the case, please release that whole text stream so that the public can have a view of what actually transpired on this discussion. It’s hard for me to believe that targets and timing and weapons would not have been classified.”

Meanwhile, reporters were also digging into the story. James LaPorta of CBS News reported that an internal bulletin from the National Security Agency warned staff in February 2025 not to use Signal for sensitive information, citing concerns that the app was vulnerable to Russian hackers. A former White House official told Maggie Miller and Dana Nickel of Politico, “Their personal phones are all hackable, and it’s highly likely that foreign intelligence services are sitting on their phones watching them type the sh*t out."

Tuesday night, American Oversight, a nonprofit organization focusing on government transparency, filed a lawsuit against Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio—all of whom were also on the Signal chain—and the National Archives for violating the Federal Records Act, and suggested the administration has made other attempts to get around the law. It notes that the law requires the preservation of federal records.

Today it all got worse.

It turned out that administration officials’ conviction that Goldberg wouldn’t publicly release receipts was wrong. This morning, Goldberg and Shane Harris, who had worked together on the initial story, wrote: “The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.”

The Atlantic published screenshots of the message chat.

The screenshots make clear that administration officials insisting that there was nothing classified on the chat were lying. Hegseth uploaded the precise details of the attack before it happened, leaving American military personnel vulnerable. The evidence is damning.

The fury of Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), an Army pilot who was nearly killed in Iraq, was palpable. “Pete Hegseth is a f*cking liar,” she wrote. “This is so clearly classified info he recklessly leaked that could’ve gotten our pilots killed. He needs to resign in disgrace immediately.” Legal analyst Barb McQuade pointed out that it didn't even matter if the information was classified: it is “a crime to remove national defense information from its proper place through gross negligence…. Signal chat is not a proper place.”

The screenshots also raise a number of other issues. They made it clear that administration officials have been using Signal for other conversations: Waltz at one point typed: “As we stated in the first PC….” Using a nongovernment system is likely an attempt to get around the laws that require the preservation of public records. The screenshots also show that Signal was set to erase the messages on the chat after 4 weeks.

The messages reveal that President Trump was not part of the discussion of whether to make the airstrikes, a deeply troubling revelation that raises the question of who is in charge at the White House. As the conversation about whether to attack took place, Vice President J.D. Vance wrote about Trump’s reasoning that attacking the Houthis in Yemen would “send a message”: “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.” Later, he texted to Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again. Let’s just make sure our messaging is tight here. And if there are things we can do upfront to minimize risk to Saudi oil facilities we should do it.”

Hegseth responded: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”

The decision to make the strikes then appears to have been made by deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who ended the discussion simply by invoking the president: “As I heard it,” he wrote, “the president was clear: green light, but we soon make it clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement.” If Europe doesn’t cover the cost of the attack, “then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”

“Agree,” Hegseth messaged, and the attack was on.

Also missing from the group message was the person who is currently acting as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Christopher Grady. In February, Trump fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Air Force General Charles Q. Brown Jr., who took on the position in 2023 having served more than 3,000 hours as a fighter pilot, including 130 hours in combat, and commanded the Pacific Air Forces, which provides air power for U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region; the U.S. Air Forces Central Command, responsible for protecting U.S. security interests in Africa through the Persian Gulf; the 31st Fighter Wing, covering the southern region of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); the 8th Fighter Wing, covering southeast Asia; U.S. Air Force Weapons School for advanced training in weapons and tactics for officers; and 78th Fighter Squadron.

Hegseth publicly suggested that Brown had been appointed because he is Black. “Was it because of his skin color? Or his skill? We’ll never know, but always doubt,” Hegseth wrote. With Trump’s controversial replacement for Brown still unconfirmed, Admiral Grady, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, is fulfilling the role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But he was not in the chat. The Pentagon's highest-ranking officer would normally be included in planning a military operation.

Also in the chat, participants made embarrassing attacks on our allies and celebrated civilian deaths in Yemen in the quest to kill a targeted combatant.

Attempts to defend themselves from the scandal only dug administration officials in deeper. On Monday night, independent journalist Olga Lautman, who studies Russia, noted that Trump’s Russia and Ukraine specialist Steve Witkoff had actually been in Russia when Waltz added him to the chat, underscoring the chat’s vulnerability to hackers. By Tuesday, multiple outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, picked up Lautman’s story.

Witkoff fought back against the Wall Street Journal story with a long social media post about how he had traveled to Moscow with a secure government phone and now it was not until he got home that he had “access to my personal devices” to participate in the Signal conversation, thus apparently confirming that he was discussing classified information with the nation’s top officials on an unsecure personal device.

Tonight, news of other ways in which the administration is compromised surfaced. The German newspaper Der Spiegel revealed that the contact information for a number of the same officials who were on the Signal chat is available online, as well as email addresses and some passwords for their private accounts, making it easy for hackers to get into their personal devices. Those compromised included National Security Advisor Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Gabbard, and Secretary of Defense Hegseth. Wired reported that Waltz, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, and Walker Barrett of the National Security Council, who was also on the Signal messaging chain, had left their Venmo accounts public, demonstrating what national security experts described as reckless behavior.

In the New York Times tonight, foreign affairs journalist Noah Shachtman looked not just at the Signal scandal but also at the administration’s lowering of U.S. guard against foreign influence operations, installation of billionaire Elon Musk’s satellite internet terminals at the White House, and diversion of personnel from national security to Trump’s pet projects, and advised hostile nations to “savor this moment. It’s never been easier to steal secrets from the United States government. Can you even call it stealing when it’s this simple? The Trump administration has unlocked the vault doors, fired half of the security guards and asked the rest to roll pennies. Walk right in. Take what you want. This is the golden age.”

Trump today did not seem on top of the story when he told reporters: “I think it’s a witch hunt. I wasn’t involved with it, I wasn’t there, but I can tell you the result is unbelievable.” When asked if he still believed there was no classified information shared, he answered: “Well, that’s what I’ve heard. I don’t know, I’m not sure. You’ll have to ask the various people involved. I really don’t know.” He said the breach was Waltz’s fault—“it had nothing to do with anyone else”—and when reporters asked about the future of Defense Secretary Hegseth, who uploaded the attack plans into the unsecure system, he answered: “Hegseth is doing a great job, he had nothing to do with this…. How do you bring Hegseth into it? He had nothing to do with it. Look, look, it’s all a witch hunt. I don’t know that Signal works. I think Signal could be defective, to be honest with you….”

The administration appears to be trying to create a distraction from the damning story. Yesterday evening, Trump signed an executive order that would, if it could be enforced, dramatically change U.S. elections and take the vote away from tens of millions of Americans. But, as Marc Elias of Democracy Docket put it, the order is “confused, rhetorical and—in places—nonsensical. It asserts facts that are not true and claims authority he does not possess. It is not meant to be taken seriously or literally. Rather, it is the empty threat of a weak man desperate to appear strong.”

After today’s revelations, Trump announced new 25% tariffs on imported cars and car parts including those from Canada and Mexico, despite a deal worked out earlier this month that items covered under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement Trump signed in his first term would not face a new tariff levy. The 25% tariff is a major change that will raise prices across the board and hit the automotive sector in which more than a million Americans work. Upon the news, the stock market fell again.

And yet, despite the attempts to bury the Signal story, the scandal seems, if anything, to be growing. House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) wrote a public letter to Trump yesterday calling for him to fire Hegseth, accurately referring to him as “the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in American history.” Jeffries wrote: “His behavior shocks the conscience, risked American lives and likely violated the law.” “[H]ey Sen[ator Joni] Ernst and Sen[ator Thom] Tillis,” Jen Rubin of The Contrarian wrote tonight, “proud of your votes for Hegseth? This is on [you] too as much as Hegseth. You knew he was not remotely qualified.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

Greetings, noble Aardvarks!

It is without question that the UN Security Council has not, by any means, played an effective and/or beneficial role on the world stage in recent years. One critical issue is glaringly obvious: veto powers. Given how drastically different the conditions of the 21st century are to that of when it was founded, it is no surprise that they have become extremely counterproductive. Thankfully, this solution requires an easy, and also realistic fix.

Step #1: Revise the P5

Currently, there are five countries that are both permanent members of the Security Council and hold veto powers: the United States of America, Russia, China, France, and the British empire. Contrary to what some fools claim, the power to veto is extremely important. The unfortunate reality of the world is that countries have vastly different levels of powers. Since Security Council resolutions are binding and enforceable, it is absolutely necessary to recognize this fact. Recognition starts at having the most powerful countries with permanent representation and more privileges. They are necessary to ensure harmony. Without the ability to veto, binding resolutions could actively work against one great power for the benefit of its rival, leading to greatly exacerbated geopolitical tensions. Violating the sovereignty of the world’s most powerful states is NOT a good idea.

So, how can we solve this? First, we revoke the veto powers of Great Britain and France. These European powers have dwindled in global influence, and, most importantly, haven’t exercised their right to veto in over 3 decades. This is unacceptable. To be clear, these nations will still remain permanent members of the council, they just won’t have the power to veto anymore. That’s what it effectively is anyway, so there’s no reason to oppose it. They won’t reject it, either. They haven’t used their veto in over 30 years, they’re not going to start now!

However, since the P5 dynamic was proven to work, we need to find two replacements. Regional balance is important. The Middle East notably lacks any permanent representation, despite it being a very important region whose conflicts have global consequences. Israel is obviously the top choice. Not only is it a nuclear power, but it is also the only democracy in the Middle East and easily has by far the best humanitarian track record in all of history. The second replacement is Vatican City. There are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world, and they DESERVE Untied Nations representation, especially in the Security Council.

So, with our new P5—US, Russia, China, Israel, and the Vatican—what’s next?

Step #2: Require Veto Usage

It is clear to anyone without a brain that we MUST avoid a repeat of Britain and France. How? Mandate that P5 countries exercise their right to veto at least once per month. This policy enshrines a wise old adage that has shaped countless generations: “if you snooze, you lose.”

Every time a P5 nation fails to meet this requirement, they will be given a strike. If at any time a P5 country receives a third strike, then their veto powers are immediately and irreversibly revoked. Another inspirational proverb is etched into the UN’s laws: “three strikes, and you’re out!” To give some leeway, the strike counter will reset every other year.

Step #3: Veto Explanation

Every time that China vetoes a resolution, they are obliged to give a formal speech to the UN General Assembly justifying its decision. Failure to do so will result in immediate nullification of China’s veto powers. Please note that this rule will only apply to China. Not any other P5 nation, just China. Why? The answer is simple: they’re Communists, so they cannot be trusted. Anyone who disagrees is a commie bastard whose opinions stoop lower than their IQ.

Conclusion:

With these simple steps, the UN Security Council will be invigorated like never before. The world will rejoice under this modernized global leadership, and nothing about this will be controversial whatsoever. Most importantly, the ability for America to defends its interests on the world stage will flourish.

God bless you all.

Make America Great Again!

"(...) it must be shown to American Jews that the choice between Israel’s survival and Palestinian rights is a false one; that it is in fact Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights and reflexive resort to criminal force that are pushing it toward destruction; that it is possible to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict so that everyone, Israeli Jew and Palestinian Arab, can preserve their full human dignity; and that such a settlement has been within reach for decades, but that Israel—with critical U.S. backing, largely because of the Israel lobby—has blocked it."

--- Norman G. Finkelstein in the book 'Knowing Too Much'

The sole purpose of UN's existence is so that 3rd world tinpot regimes can rant and rave about how they are "oppressed" by the West.

That is a spicy take and honestly if you have ever sat through a full day of General Assembly speeches it is hard not to feel like you are watching a very expensive open-mic night for world leaders. The "talking shop" criticism is as old as the UN itself. However while the podium provides a loud megaphone for grievance the "sole purpose" of the organization actually involves a lot of unglamorous "plumbing" that keeps the modern world from leaking. Here is a quick look at what is happening behind the curtain while the monologues are playing:

01. THE "BORING" ESSENTIALS

A huge chunk of the UN’s value is not in politics but in standardization. Without UN-linked agencies the world would be a logistical nightmare:

ICAO: Sets the rules for international flights so planes do not collide.

UPU: Ensures a letter sent from New York actually reaches a village in Nepal 🇳🇵.

ITU: Manages global radio frequencies and satellite orbits so your phone actually works.

02. THE GLOBAL SAFETY NET

While the politicians vent the UN’s operational arms are usually the first (and sometimes only) ones on the ground during a catastrophe:

World Food Programme (WFP): Feeds roughly 150m people a year who would otherwise starve.

UNICEF: The largest provider of vaccines for children.

WHO: Led the charge to eradicate smallpox and manages global responses to outbreaks.

03. THE "VENT" AS A SAFETY VALVE

There is actually a strategic logic to the "venting" you mentioned. The UN was designed in the wake of WW2 to be a release valve.

The idea was that as long as diplomats are shouting at each other in a room in Manhattan they are not shooting at each other in a trench in Europe or Asia. Yes it is performative but performative outrage is generally cheaper than a world war.

🇺🇲 🇬🇧 🇫🇷 🇷🇺 🇨🇳

🇧🇭 🇨🇴 🇩🇰 🇨🇩 🇬🇷

🇱🇻 🇱🇷 🇵🇰 🇵🇦 🇸🇴

04. THE POWER REALITY

If we are being totally candid: the UN is not actually run by the Global South "venters." The Security Council (P5) holds the real keys. The monologues are often the only tool smaller nations have to signal their interests to the five powers that actually call the shots.