Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah announced Thursday that he will vote against Jeremy Carl, President Trump's nominee for assistant secretary of state for international organizations — a move that could kill the nomination before it ever reaches the full Senate. With Democratic opposition assured on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Curtis's defection may be the deciding vote.
Curtis cited Carl's "anti-Israel views and insensitive remarks about the Jewish people" as disqualifying, then issued his verdict in a statement:
"I do not believe that Jeremy Carl is the right person to represent our nation's best interests in international forums."
He did not respond to the Daily Caller's request for further comment.
Carl's confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday was, by all accounts, hostile terrain. Democrats arrived loaded. Curtis, the lone Republican to break ranks, joined them in grilling the nominee — though from a different angle.
According to the Daily Caller, Curtis pressed Carl on his criticisms of Israel, including a prior statement that "the US spends too much time and energy on Israel — often to the detriment of our own national interests." That line, whatever its merits as a policy argument, became the weapon Curtis used to justify his opposition.
Democrats, meanwhile, focused on Carl's statements about race and Jewish identity. Ranking member Jeanne Shaheen confronted Carl with remarks he reportedly made on a 2024 podcast — that "Jews have often loved to play the victim" and that "the Holocaust dominates so much of modern Jewish history." Shaheen also flagged Carl's prolific output since being nominated:
"This is a pattern. It's hard to understand how we can trust you if you can't even restrain yourself during the period in which you've been nominated."
Carl had tweeted more than 850 times and appeared on five podcasts since his nomination, per Shaheen's count. When pressed on it, Carl offered a candid if politically unwise response:
"I can't just totally put away my day job."
He acknowledged the "importance of restraint" and expressed regret for "minimizing the effect of the Holocaust," adding that he wasn't going to "sit here and defend" those remarks. On his prior references to "anti-White discrimination" and the "erasure of white culture," Carl said he was "echoing" Trump in arguing that "unity rather than diversity is a strength." He also said "mass immigration" erases "common American culture" and "weakens us."
Carl, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute who served as deputy assistant secretary at the Interior Department during Trump's first term, came into the hearing with significant liabilities already public. A CNN KFILE report from September found he had deleted thousands of social media posts, including commentary on race, statements that "peaceful coexistence" with Democrats is impossible, and multiple posts about the "Great Replacement."
Democrats on the committee treated this as confirmation of their priors. Sen. Chris Murphy called Carl a "legit white nationalist" on social media after the hearing:
"Trump nominated a legit white nationalist to a top post at the State Department. I asked him some basic questions about his belief in the 'erasure of white culture'. Watch this embarrassing, fumbling answer. Like he has never before been asked to explain his views."
That's predictable from Murphy. Democrats were always going to oppose this nominee. The question was never whether the left would object — it was whether any Republican would hand them the margin to win.
That's the core of this story. Democratic opposition was assured from the moment Carl's name surfaced. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had already voiced his opposition. The committee math only works against Carl if a Republican defects.
Curtis defected.
If confirmed, Carl would lead the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, directing U.S. policy at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions — overseeing more than 100 diplomats stationed abroad. It's a role that requires someone willing to challenge the institutional assumptions of the international order, which is precisely why the nomination mattered and precisely why it drew fire.
Carl's comments about the Holocaust and Jewish identity gave his opponents real ammunition. Those remarks were genuinely problematic, and Carl himself acknowledged as much under oath. But Curtis's stated objections went beyond that. He zeroed in on Carl's Israel criticisms — a policy disagreement dressed up as a character concern. Questioning whether the United States overinvests diplomatic energy in any single country is a legitimate, debatable position. Treating it as automatically disqualifying narrows the range of acceptable thought on foreign policy to a sliver.
With Curtis opposed and every Democrat expected to vote no, Carl's path through the committee narrows to the vanishing point. The administration could attempt to advance the nomination by other procedural means, but the signal from Curtis is clear: this particular nominee doesn't have the votes.
The broader lesson is familiar. A Republican president nominates someone to challenge the multilateral establishment. The establishment objects. Democrats pile on. And a single Republican — unwilling to weather the discomfort — provides the kill shot.
Democrats didn't defeat this nomination. John Curtis did.