“The Smirk Before the Storm: What Mike Waltz’s Confirmation Hearing Might Reveal”
By Joyce Strong | July 8, 2025
🪖 A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE:
Next week, the Senate will hold confirmation hearings for Mike Waltz—former Green Beret, short-lived National Security Adviser, and now Trump’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
On the surface, it looks like a routine diplomatic appointment. But beneath it lies a scandal, a smirk, and the unmistakable tension of a man caught between loyalty, secrecy, and the undeniable pull of the truth.
Is Waltz still aligned with donald’s authoritarian regime—or is he, at long last, reaching a breaking point?
📜 BACKSTORY: THE FALL AND THE “FAIL-UP”
Waltz served a mere 101 days as donald’s National Security Adviser before being quietly removed in the wake of “SignalGate”—a leak involving sensitive war plans allegedly shared over an encrypted group chat that accidentally included a journalist.
That wasn’t Waltz’s only misstep. Reports say he initiated unauthorized talks with Israeli officials about striking Iran—behind donald’s back. donald, enraged but cornered by optics, removed Waltz but spun the demotion as a promotion: nominating him to a Senate-confirmed UN post.
This week’s hearing will be the first time Waltz is asked—under oath—to explain that bizarre trajectory.
🪖 MILITARY CREDIBILITY MEETS DIPLOMATIC FANTASY
Waltz is a combat veteran and former Green Beret. He wears his military discipline like armor. But diplomacy is not combat. And in his brief White House tenure, Waltz repeatedly clashed with donald’s top brass over escalation, particularly toward Yemen and Iran.
He was, by all accounts, a hawk in an authoritarian circus, pushing structured war plans inside a regime addicted to improvisation and optics.
That tension—between tactical discipline and loyalty theatrics—may be why his smirk during the recent Netanyahu dinner felt like a silent scream. He sat two seats from donald, barely containing his expression as the President bragged about peace, war, and legacy—without crediting those who actually shaped the plans.
🎯 TWENTY QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND REAL ANSWERS
If Mike Waltz wants to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the Senate—and the American people—deserve clarity. These are the questions that should be asked under oath, with no room for evasion.
1. Has the President told the truth to the American people about his foreign policy decisions?
If not, name one example.
2. What has motivated you to stay within this authoritarian administration after being fired from your national role?
Do you believe your reassignment was based on qualifications—or political optics?
3. Do you believe the President lawfully consulted Congress before initiating or planning military action in Yemen, Iran, or elsewhere?
Yes or No.
4. Why did you use encrypted messaging apps like Signal to discuss war planning?
Do you believe that complied with the Presidential Records Act?
5. Who authorized your communications with Israeli officials about a potential Iranian strike?
Was the President aware in advance?
6. After the SignalGate leak, did you voluntarily surrender your personal and government devices for forensic review?
Yes or No.
7. Do you believe the President’s personal business or financial interests have influenced foreign policy decisions during your tenure?
Yes or No. If yes, name one instance.
8. If the President ordered you to block a UN resolution condemning ethnic cleansing, would you comply—or resign?
Choose one: Comply or Resign.
9. Have you ever been asked to lie, omit, or soften intelligence conclusions for political purposes?
Yes or No. If yes, by whom?
10. Do you know of any U.S. official who has received—or been promised—a pardon related to unauthorized warfare or classified breaches?
Yes or No.
11. Did you delete any Signal messages related to military planning while serving as National Security Adviser?
Yes or No.
12. Did you report the accidental inclusion of a journalist in the Signal group to internal security, legal counsel, or the Inspector General?
Yes or No.
13. Do you believe the President respects the United Nations Charter, including its ban on wars of aggression?
Yes or No.
14. Have you received any instructions—direct or indirect—from the President’s advisors or any other staff, political operatives, or outside donors regarding how to handle UN matters?
Yes or No.
15. Would you carry out a U.S. veto that violates international humanitarian law if ordered by the White House?
Yes or No. If yes, explain your rationale.
16. Are you aware of any instance where U.S. foreign aid or humanitarian support was delayed or withheld for political leverage?
Yes or No. If yes, provide an example.
17. Can you name one of this authoritarian regime’s foreign policy decision you disagreed with—and said so internally?
What was the consequence?
18. How do you define your duty to the Constitution when it conflicts with the political or personal interests of the President?
Which comes first: the Constitution or the Commander-in-Chief?
19. What mechanisms will you use at the UN to report internal corruption or abuse—especially if it implicates U.S. allies?
20. Are you prepared to testify again if new evidence emerges about your role in SignalGate or related NSC activities?
Yes or No.
😏 THE SMIRK THAT SPOKE VOLUMES
Body language experts would have a field day with that Netanyahu dinner. Trump was puffed up, Hegseth was stone-faced, and Waltz? He smirked—once, then twice—like a man holding back either rage or ridicule.
Whether he was disgusted, amused, or both, one thing seemed clear:
He wasn’t buying what Trump was selling.
🚨 WHY THIS MATTERS
Trump’s second term has blurred the lines between loyalty and legality, between military power and political survival. Waltz, once a rising star, now sits in an ambiguous limbo: half inside the circle, half burned by it.
If there’s even a single sliver of conscience left, this hearing could be the crack that opens the dam.
🕯️ FINAL THOUGHT
Mike Waltz may still see himself as a patriot. If so, this is his moment to prove it—not just to the Senate, but to the world. If he chooses truth over loyalty, he could help expose the rot at the heart of this authoritarian regime.
And if not?
We’ll know by the smirk.
