Kamala Harris: National Security Nightmare

Vice President Kamala Harris owns every single foreign policy failure of the Biden-Harris administration. Her views are even more dangerous than those of President Biden. Both her congressional tenure and 2020 primary campaign suggest her leadership would be even more radical, putting American lives at risk.

Americans should be alarmed by the prospect of a Harris presidency–one that would continue to set ablaze U.S. prestige, embolden our adversaries, and give rise to new conflicts. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s acknowledgment that Harris has been “in every core decisionmaking meeting” providing “unique perspectives” is disturbing in its own right. But it also confirms the obvious: She is the co-architect of the White House’s foreign policy havoc. A Harris-led national security agenda would accelerate the Democratic failures that have brought the world into calamity after calamity.

Topline Points:

At every turn, Kamala’s Senate tenure was guided by progressive foreign policy lunacies. She perpetually obstructed the Trump Administration’s policy agenda and sought out opportunities to politicize national security ad nauseam.
As VP, she has consistently practiced appeasement – whether it’s toward anti-Semitic protesters, the Houthis, or nuclear rivals like Russia and China. That’s because she fundamentally believes that strength is provocative and weakness makes us safer.
We already know what the results of a Harris presidency would be: defense cuts, more floods of fentanyl and terrorists across our border, an arms embargo on Israel, and an end to the U.S. foreign policy ideals that have guided us to supremacy on the world stage.

Gaffes, Gaffes, Gaffes

She refused to visit the border and laughed about it. In a widely circulated interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt, Harris struggled to explain why she had yet to visit the Southern Border despite being appointed President Biden’s “border czar.” In response to Holt pointing that out, she responded “and I haven’t been to Europe,” followed with an awkward laugh. “I don’t understand the point you’re making,” she continued. The New York Times later reported that she “all but went into a bunker for about a year” after the disastrous interview out of a fear of making mistakes.
She gave a mind-numbing explanation of the war in Ukraine. In response to a question on the “Morning Hustle” radio program asking her to explain the conflict in “layman’s terms,” Harris said : “So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that’s wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for.” Her comments underscored her total disconnect from normal people and incoherence in interview settings.
She applauded a student who accused Israel of “ethnic genocide” for speaking “your truth. After speaking at George Mason University in 2021 to commemorate National Voter Registration Day, she took a question from a female student who said that Israel was conduct “ethnic genocide and displacement of people.” After nodding along, Harris responded by saying she “was glad” the student voiced her opinion and that “your truth cannot be suppressed.”
In classic Biden fashion, she confused our allies and adversaries, praising the U.S. “alliance with the Republic of North Korea.” Harris also butchered North Korea’s official name. As a parting gift, Pyongyang fired two short-range projectiles into the Sea of Japan–yet another banned missile test–just hours after her departure.
She accidentally clapped along with Puerto Ricans protesting her in Spanish. As she made her way outside a San Juan community center, Harris joined in with a music performance, completely unaware the Spanish song was a protest anthem directed at her. The song’s lyrics include the line: “We want to know, Kamala, what did you come here for?”
She delivered an incoherent word salad at the 2022 ASEAN Summit. Addressing world leaders, Harris commented that, on the climate crisis, “we will work together, and will continue to work together, to address these issues, to tackle these challenges, and to work together as we continue to work.”
She callously laughed at a question on Ukraine’s refugee crisis. VP Harris landed in controversy for bursting into laughter at a press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda. She was asked by a reporter if the U.S would take in Ukraine’s refugees. Anticipating a response from the Polish President, she broke into laughter for several seconds after awkwardly saying “a friend in need is a friend indeed.” She was slammed for appearing to make light of the refugee crisis.
After a questioner accused the United States of supporting Israel’s supposed “genocide” in Gaza, she praised him for “raising the subject” and for his “leadership.” The audience member had peddled Hamas propaganda and mischaracterized the IDF as having targeted civilians.
She laughed at a reporter who asked if she planned to visit the border. In March 2021, she was asked outside of Air Force One whether she had “plans to visit” the Southern Border with the immigration crisis unfolding. She responded by saying “not today” before laughing. Meanwhile, the White House then continued to refuse to call the situation at the border a “crisis.”
She likened CBP agents on horseback to slave owners and overseers. In a chaotic interview with “The View” in September 2021, she likened aggressive actions by CBP officers corralling Haitian migrants at the Southern Border with the “kind of behavior has been used against the Indigenous people of our country, it has been used against African Americans during times of slavery." Despite the photographer saying the pictures were being misconstrued and at no point had he seen agents whip migrants, Harris affirmed her “full” support for an investigation into the “horrible and deeply troubling” incident.
She expressed sympathy for anti-Semitic protests and illegal encampments on college campuses. While conceding that she doesn’t fully agree with all of their positions, VP Harris stated that the students opposing Israel’s war of self-defense are “showing exactly what the human emotion should be.” Later clarifying, she stated that she didn’t “mean to wholesale endorse their points,” implying that she largely agreed with their stances.
She used child actors for a cringy space-themed video. As part of a YouTube series called “Get Curious with Vice President Harris,” she released a video for World Space Week in which a group of teenagers visit the Naval Observatory and speak with the VP, who heads the National Space Council. “I just love the idea of exploring the unknown,” she said dramatically.
She outdid herself with more incomprehensible comments in Indonesia. “I feel very strongly about the importance as a general matter of engaging in U.S. policy as it relates to foreign affairs in a way that we pay attention, of course, to the immediate concerns and threats if they exist, but that we also pay attention to 10, 20, 30 years down the line and what we are developing now that will be to the benefit of our country then,” Harris said .

Failed Border and Immigration Czar

She thinks we should consider abolishing ICE. Asked by an MSNBC reporter about growing progressive calls for its dissolution, she responded by saying that “we have to critically re-examine its role […] We need to probably even think about starting from scratch.”
She endorsed de-criminalizing border crossings. At the first Democratic debate of the 2020 primary, Sen. Harris raised her hand along with fellow presidential hopefuls when asked whether she believed that crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime. The move was widely condemned by conservatives for incentivizing further border crossing.
She demanded an end to the Remain in Mexico policy. In a letter to Sec. Pompeo and Acting DHS Sec. Kevin McAleenan, Sen. Harris comically stated that the Migrant Protection Protocols do “nothing to protect either migrants or U.S. interests,” decried its “implications for U.S. national security,” and the risk of “fueling instability in Mexican border cities.”
She called the Trump White House’s asylum policy “deliberately cruel.” After the Trump Administration announced a new rule to improve asylum processes, Harris denounced the move as “deliberately cruel” and “inflicting unnecessary punishment on desperate people.” Completely ignoring the policy’s effectiveness, she called for resolving the “root issues” at the border–an approach she has put on full display as Vice President.
She lied about the border being secure. In September 2022, Harris insisted in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press’’ that the Southern Border was “secure,” despite migrant arrests being on pace to surpass 2 million, a record high. “The border is secure, but we also have a broken immigration system, in particular, over the last four years before we came in, and it needs to be fixed.” She followed this up with an incoherent statement: “We have a secure border, in that that is a priority for any nation, including ours and our administration.”
She failed to support Kate’s Law, which would have increased penalties for migrants illegally re-entering the United States. The 2017 legislation aimed to impose harsher sentences on individuals who repeatedly entered the country after being deported. Kate Steinle was killed by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco who had repeatedly entered the United States. Why would Kamala oppose legislation that would make it tougher for people to re-enter our country?
She has long opposed measures to restrict sanctuary cities and protect Americans. In 2018, Harris voted against legislation to withhold certain federal funds from sanctuary cities that do not comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Sanctuary city policies inevitably lead to increased illegal immigration by creating safe havens for undocumented immigrants, undermining federal efforts to enforce immigration laws.
She tried to increase migration pressures by opposing aid restrictions on Northern Triangle countries. In April 2019, Sen. Harris joined a Democratic letter that condemned the Trump Administration’s decision to freeze funding for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras for taking insufficient action to halt northern migration. In the letter, she accused President Trump of “personally undermining efforts to promote U.S. national security.” Notably, the aid was later restored after the three countries signed bilateral deals akin to safe third country agreements. Meanwhile, her approach to address “root causes” has been widely panned as ineffective.
She was blasted by Guatemalan President Giammattei during her “root causes” trip to Guatemala. Shortly after being appointed “immigration czar,” she took an international trip to Mexico and Guatemala, where the President told her that the Biden Administration is responsible for the chaos at the Southern Border. Specifically, he pointed to President Biden’s vow to ensure family reunifications and urged the White House to impose tougher sentences on human smugglers.
She was condemned for her inaction by the Border Patrol Union. On Twitter, the group wrote : “If you were given a job 2 years ago with the explicit goal of reducing illegal immigration, and then you sit around and do nothing while illegal immigration explodes to levels never seen before, you should be fired and replaced. Period.”

From Israel Frenemy to Israel Basher

She used to be a fair-weather ally of Israel in the Senate. In 2017, she gave an AIPAC address in which she said that “Israel should never be a partisan issue” that the bonds between the America and Israel were “unbreakable,” and that she would do “everything in [her] power to ensure broad and bipartisan support for Israel’s security and right to self-defense.” Notably, her first foreign policy vote in the Senate was criticizing the UN for a resolution condemning Israeli settlements.
She is now one of the most anti-Israel VPs in U.S. history. Just months into her tenure, Harris decried Israel for enforcing its property laws in East Jerusalem as contrary to efforts to achieve a lasting peace. She has repeatedly described Israeli settlements in the West Bank as a significant obstacle to peace–paying little attention to Palestinian intransigence–and pressured Israel to avoid actions that could compromise the viability of an elusive two-state solution.
She pushed the White House to be even “tougher” on Israel’s government, heightening concerns that she had an even more critical perspective on the war in Gaza than President Biden. The remark signaled her increased use of strong language against Israel, which was received with encouragement by anti-Israel activists and Arab advocacy groups.
Harris called for a “balanced” approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as Israel fights a war of survival against terrorists. After being confronted for her increasingly anti-Israel positions, she stated that America’s approach needed to be “balanced and just, recognizing the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. True peace can only be achieved through fairness and mutual respect.” While the United States should certainly pursue a prosperous future and human dignity for all people, her comments ignored the fact that a majority of Palestinians elected Hamas and the vast majority supported the October 7 attack and the use of violence against the Jewish people.
She voted against bipartisan legislation supporting Israel’s security, siding with the BDS movement and the far-left. The Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act sought to further Israel’s security assistance for 10 years, reauthorize defense cooperation with Jordan, strengthen and expand sanctions targeting Syria, and clarify the authority of states to divest public funds from entities supporting the anti-Semitic BDS movement. However, she voted with a minority of Democrats to oppose the appropriation of funds, signaling her willingness to pander to anti-Israel activists and misunderstanding of First Amendment protections.
She implied the IDF was violating international law. In remarks she gave in Dubai last December, she claimed that “Israel must do more to protect innocent civilians” and that “too many innocent Palestinians have been killed,” implying that Israel was in violation of international humanitarian law.
She called for an immediate ceasefire, ignoring Israel’s security imperatives. After sharply criticizing Israel’s blockade of Gaza as a “humanitarian disaster” directed at Palestinian civilians, she called for Israel to accept an immediate ceasefire “for at least the next six weeks” and stand down from its efforts to neutralize Hamas. Her comments were the White House’s most anti-Israel to date.
She lied about conditions on U.S. aid to Israel. On November 2, VP Harris stated the United States would not “create any conditions on the support that we are giving Israel to defend itself.” However, President Biden subsequently halted the shipment of some U.S. weapons to Israel after its operation in Rafah: “If they go into Rafah […] I’m not supplying the weapons.”
She warned Israel not to conduct an offensive in Rafah because she has “studied the maps.” Stating that an IDF operation there would be a “huge mistake,” she warned of potential “consequences” should Israel proceed with its military plan.
She reportedly told anti-Israel protesters she was open to discussing a full arms embargo against Israel. Before her rally in Detroit, she spoke briefly with the co-founders of the anti-Israel Uncommitted National Movement and indicated she would be willing to discuss their proposal of an arms embargo against the Jewish state before introducing them to her staff.

An Iran Appeaser Through and Through

She vehemently opposed the Soleimani strike, falsely arguing it would touch off a regional conflict. “I am deeply concerned by the potential consequences of the president’s order and apparent lack of coherent strategy moving forward,” Harris said at the time. “The public deserves transparency and has a right to understand the rationale for this action that has further enflamed tensions and further destabilized the region.”
She was one of the Senate’s most ardent backers of the JCPOA–an agreement which flooded the Iranian regime with cash while seting the conditions for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. In response to the Trump Administration’s withdrawal, she stated : “Today’s decision to violate the Iran nuclear deal jeopardizes our national security and isolates us from our closest allies […] It is certainly the best existing tool we have to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East.”
During her primary run against Biden, she expressed full support for a return to the Obama appeasement playbook. “Based on where things stand now, I would plan to rejoin the JCPOA so long as Iran also returned to verifiable compliance.” She also pushed the “longer and stronger deal” fable, saying she would “seek negotiations with Iran to extend and supplement some of the nuclear deal’s existing provisions.”
To the cheers of the Houthis and Tehran, she tried to stop Saudi Arabia from fighting the Houthis, which have been attacking American ships for months. In June 2019, VP Harris voted to block long-planned arms sales to Riyadh, ignoring concerns about alienating a close U.S. partner and the spread of violent extremist organizations. She also joined Sen. Sanders’ joint resolution to end U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia’s war against the Houthis in Yemen, including the provision of intelligence, arms, and ammunition to KSA and UAE fighters. Although President Trump vetoed the measure, it signaled her willingness to turn a blind eye to Houthi aggression and Iran-backed terrorism.
She tried to take away the President’s ability to protect Americans against Iran—which is now attacking U.S. troops. Kamala supported efforts to kill the 2002 AUMF, ignoring concerns the move would weaken U.S. counter-terrorism efforts and limit options to respond to Iranian proxy attacks in Iraq. Although the Biden White House later claimed that “the United States has no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis” and that “repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current military operations,” it then used the 2002 AUMF once again in January 2024 to hit Iranian proxies.
She helped introduce the misguided No War Against Iran Act, which sought to deny the Pentagon of any funds for “unauthorized use of military force” against Iran in response to the Soleimani strike. “Trump’s actions have further enflamed tensions and destabilized the region,” she said. “It is essential that Congress take its constitutional responsibility seriously and work to de-escalate the situation.”
She parroted falsehoods about Iran’s compliance. “President Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from an agreement that was verifiably preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – against the warnings of our closest allies, and without any plan for what comes next – was beyond reckless.” She later said that “Iran remains in compliance with the deal. In the absence of an Iranian violation, it is reckless to break this agreement.”
She falsely accused the Trump Administration of trying to score “political points” by withdrawing from the JCPOA and even seeking war. “Instead of establishing a comprehensive, strategic national security policy, this Administration is far too focused on scoring political points,” she said. “Either the Trump Administration is angling for another disastrous war in the Middle East, or it has spent two years saberrattling with no endgame.”
She co-sponsored measures to prevent America from striking Iranian terrorists. Claiming that the Soleimani strike “put more American lives at risk and could lead to a new war in the Middle East,” she co -sponsored several measures to limit military action against Iran. She also co -sponsored a resolution calling on President Trump to “de-escalate tensions with Iran” rather than defend America’s interests.
Her top aide planned a tour of Iran for the New York Times, ignoring State Department travel advisories and advice from national security professionals. Around 2018, VP Harris’ national security advisor Phil Gordon was listed as a tour guide for “Times Journeys” trips to Iran–a voyage that security professionals have firmly counseled against due to the threats of hostage-taking by Tehran. The revelation underscored a shocking lapse of judgment for an aide that had held senior White House posts.
Phil Gordon, her most senior foreign policy adviser, also has concerning ties to an Iranian government-backed influence operation. Gordon collaborated closely with Ariane Tabatabai, a Tehran-linked former DOD employee, who was a member of the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s ‘Iran Experts Initiative’. Together, they have inaccurately written that the Soleimani strike led to “mounting” costs and needlessly antagonized the regime and advocated for economic sanctions relief against Tehran. Senator Cotton astutely noted that, in Gordon’s opinion pieces, “each prediction was as wrong as it was biased in favor of Tehran.”

A Proud Defense Cutter

Harris has openly advocated for defunding the U.S. military. The smoking gun: “I unequivocally agree with the goal of reducing the defense budget and redirecting funding,” she said in July 2020.
She backed radical proposals to kneecap the NDAA. After Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed a 10 percent cut to the national defense budget, she noted the following: “I applaud Senator Sanders and am grateful for all the work that he’s done on this amendment.” Expressing her hope to back similar measures in the future, she stated that she remained “supportive of the effort and am hopeful that with the benefit of additional time, future efforts will […] earn my enthusiastic support.” Thankfully, the controversial amendment failed.
She repeatedly voted against the Pentagon budget and paying our troops. Then-Sen. Harris voted against the FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) after complaining they didn’t align with her radical policy agenda. For example, in 2020 she stated that she “could not vote for a bill that provides backdoor funding for Trump’s border wall […] and I could not back this bill after Republicans refused to include our amendments to demilitarize police departments.”
She tried to block key national security nominees, opposing the confirmation of Mike Pompeo, Mark Esper, and Gina Haspel. Despite them all being well-qualified nominees, she cited concerns over their prior stances in objecting to their nomination. She was only one of eight Democrats to vote against Sec. Esper.

Soft on China, Our ‘Diplomatic Partner’

She has embraced a failed theory of the case on China. “Under my administration, we will cooperate with China on global issues like climate change,” she said as a 2020 primary candidate. She has consistently opposed actions that could be perceived as escalatory by Beijing and advocated for conciliation. In a 2021 visit to Hanoi, she affirmed that “difficult conversations often must be had with the people that you otherwise may have a partnership with,” an indication that facing the CCP’s abuses would be the exception and not the rule in her dealings with China.
She said the CCP spy balloon would not impact diplomacy with China, despite Beijing’s blatant efforts to conduct espionage on U.S. soil and violation of our territorial sovereignty. Instead, she emphasized that the Biden Administration sought “competition but not conflict or confrontation ,” a stance also shared with Xi Jinping at the APEC summit in November of 2022.
She lambasted Americans calling COVID-19 the “China Virus” as xenophobic while largely ignoring the CCP’s role in its origins. Then-Sen. Harris joined Sanders, Warren, and other Democrats in a letter to various agencies expressing alarm about “stigmatizing language” fueling the “dangerous and hateful spread of anti-Asian sentiment.” However, she has refused to specifically call out China for stonewalling investigations into the origins of COVID-19.

Ally of “The Republic of North Korea”

She drew a red line against North Korea having nuclear weapons–then backed down. “We can’t accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state,” she said during her primary campaign. “But it’s clear that simply demanding complete denuclearization is a recipe for failure; we must work closely with our allies to contain and reverse the short-term threats posed by Pyongyang as we work toward that longterm goal.” However, the Biden Administration has advanced no substantive strategy for addressing North Korea’s nuclear program.
She tried to restrict U.S. freedom of action against North Korea. Cosponsoring Sen. Murphy’s Preventing Preemptive War in North Korea Act, she pushed legislation to prohibit funds from being used without express congressional authorization for kinetic military operations in North Korea. The measure, if successful, would have further eroded the commander-in-chief’s ability to respond decisively to protect U.S. national security interests on the Korean peninsula.

The Afghanistan Withdrawal Lackey

She praised Biden for his “extraordinary amount of courage” after calling for the Afghanistan withdrawal, showing her strategic complicity in the move. She was also the last person in the room when Biden made the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
Harris fully favored the Biden Afghanistan withdrawal approach, as evidenced by her statements during her primary campaign. “As I have said many times, this war in Afghanistan must come to an end […] I’ll do everything in my power to achieve a political solution.”

A Nuclear Capitulator

She opposed common-sense nuclear security measures. Indicating her support for unilateral nuclear disarmament, she said “I cannot support the [Trump] Administration’s request for new, unchecked powers to develop and administer a lowyield nuclear weapons program.” VP Harris went on to say that such weapons development would “make us less safe by increasing the likelihood of a nuclear escalation,” invoking the “explosive power” of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Her position signaled a willingness to deprive the U.S. of a proportionate response to a Russian attack using a tactical nuclear weapon.
She argued that increasing nuclear deterrence is “dangerous.” Harris urged the Senate Armed Services Committee to ban the deployment of a low-yield nuclear warhead for a submarine-launched ballistic missile, arguing it would endanger our submarines, increase the prospects of nuclear escalation. Her belief that enhancing America’s nuclear deterrent was “dangerous” and “costly” revealed just how distorted her nuclear worldview is: She views deterrence as provocative and weakness as safer.
She sought to deny funding for intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Claiming that the collapse of the INF Treaty would spark an arms race in the European or Asian theaters, Sen. Harris proposed a measure to deny funding for new U.S. missiles. She claimed that an American nuclear buildup would only “contribute to a renewed arms race.”
She helped introduce legislation to force American compliance with the INF Treaty after clear evidence that Russia was in breach of its terms. The Preserving Arms Control Treaties (PACT) Act of 2019, which she worked on with Sen. Van Hollen, prohibited the use of funds for actions to violate the INF Treaty during the six-month withdrawal period in 2019. Doing so would have set U.S. nuclear capabilities back by forcing America to unilaterally abide by a defunct treaty which Russia routinely ignored–and which Washington had long sought to improve via diplomacy.

Weak on Russia

She advocated for giving Russia a free five-year New START extension in the Senate. The provision she pushed called for extending the treaty from February 2021 to February 2026, “unless Russia is in material breach of the treaty or another arms control agreement with equal or more comprehensive limits and verification provisions supersedes it.” The Biden Administration’s subsequent decision to extend New START by five years was widely panned as an unforced error and a gift for Moscow that further emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine.
She falsely argued existing sanctions would deter Putin’s invasion of Ukraine just two days before he attacked Donetsk and Luhansk. On February 20, 2022, Harris said at the Munich Security Conference she believed that the existing sanctions would deter Putin from attacking Ukraine. “We strongly believe” that “the deterrent effect of these sanctions is still a meaningful one,” she argued. However, her statement squarely contradicted the White House’s declassification of intelligence, which signaled that Putin had already made up his mind to invade. The comments came after the Biden-Harris Administration withheld military aid, refused to sanction Nord Stream 2, and signaled that a “minor incursion” would face limited blowback.

A Free Pass for Havana

She backed pro-regime Cuba policies of Sen. Leahy, a top Castro ally. Harris expressed support for ending the longstanding trade embargo despite the government’s continued repression and co-sponsored measures that enrich the regime’s security apparatus and oppression, such as legislation to promote U.S. tourism dollars to the island’s government.

Forcing Left-Wing Values

She backed legislation to create a woke bureaucracy at the State Department. Sen. Markey’s “International Human Rights Defense Act,” which she cosponsored, would have forced the creation of a permanent “Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Peoples,” an unnecessary post that duplicates existing responsibilities, undercuts the mandate of ambassadors and career diplomats, and politicizes U.S. foreign policy with controversial social values. More importantly, the Biden-Harris White House has ignored the need to fill the higher priority posts for a Special Representative or envoy for North Korea, Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, or Iran while still filling unnecessary roles like the Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice and a Chief DEI Officer.
She berated Sec. Pompeo for advancing traditional human rights. In response to the State Department’s efforts to stand up the Commission on Unalienable Rights and reaffirm long-standing interpretations of human rights, Sen. Harris joined Democrats in condemning the body as “absurd” and accusing the Trump Administration of taking “a wrecking ball to America’s global leadership.” Her comments underscored her tendency to co-opt the U.S. human rights agenda to push progressive re-definitions and controversial social values.

A Climate Alarmist

She portrayed the Trump withdrawal from the Paris Agreement as an apocalyptic decision. Using alarmist rhetoric, she stated that the future of the nation’s youth “is at stake” and that the Trump Administration was endangering “the health of our planet and our fellow Americans.” Notably, her comments failed to address key concerns with the Paris Agreement: Even under highly favorable assumptions and with strict enforcement and immediate implementation, the agreement was projected to reduce global temperatures in 2100 by a mere 0.17 degrees Celsius. Meanwhile, the Paris accord would have cost the United States trillions in lost GDP and millions of jobs while China and India had no intention of cooperating on emissions reduction.
She opposed the USMCA in the name of climate change. Siding with just nine progressive Senators over a massive majority of 89 Senators, Harris voted against the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Despite its provisions to address labor and environmental enforcement – included at the behest of Democrats on Capitol Hill – she argued that USMCA’s environmental rules were “insufficient” and that “USMCA fails to meet the crisis of this moment,” climate change.
She introduced NSC legislation in 2017 that was subsequently ignored by her own White House. In early 2017, Sen. Harris pushed a bill to prohibit the President from designating NSC members or attendees that were not subject to Senate confirmation or did not receive congressional approval. However, her own White House has completely disregarded that effort, including Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry and others who would have been excluded had her effort succeeded.