Former vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., is facing criticism after claiming China could be the voice of ‘moral authority’ in the Israel-Iran conflict. 

During a ‘What’s Next: Conversations on the Path Forward’ event hosted by the Center for American Progress (CAP) last week, Walz responded to a question from former Biden White House advisor, Neera Tanden, about the ‘escalatory’ nature of the strikes between the two countries.

‘Now, who is the voice in the world that can negotiate some type of agreement in this? Who holds the moral authority? Who holds the ability to do that? Because we are not seen as a neutral actor, and we maybe never were,’ Walz said of the United States’ role in deescalating tensions in the Middle East. 

As the United States weighs striking Iran and war in the Middle East rages on, Danielle Pletka, a distinguished senior fellow in Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), told Fox News Digital that Walz’s comments are ‘ignorance on display.’

According to Walz, the United States once attempted ‘to be somewhat of the arbitrator’ in the Middle East, but Americans must face the reality that the ‘neutral actor’ with the ‘moral authority’ to lead negotiations in the Middle East ‘might be the Chinese.’

Walz didn’t elaborate on why China would be that world leader. 

‘It’s so staggering to me that Tim Walz was within a heartbeat of the presidency,’ Pletka said, before adding, ‘We don’t need a neutral player here,’ and urging him to ‘stick to local politics.’

Andy Keiser, senior fellow at the conservative National Security Institute and former senior advisor on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News Digital that someone should ‘remind Governor Walz that China is far from a moral authority on much of anything,’ and said China is committing ‘cultural genocide.’ 

‘The Chinese government has reportedly arbitrarily detained more than a million Muslims in reeducation camps since 2017,’ according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). ‘Most of the people who have been detained are Uyghur, a predominantly Turkic-speaking ethnic group primarily in China’s northwestern region of Xinjiang.’

In addition to the detentions, ‘Uyghurs in the region have been subjected to intense surveillance, forced labor, and involuntary sterilizations, among other rights abuses,’ according to the CFR. 

According to Human Rights Watch, President Xi Jinping has ‘detained human rights defenders, tightened control over civil society, media, and the internet, and deployed invasive mass surveillance technology’ in Xinjiang and Tibet, which the human rights watchdog likened to ‘crimes against humanity.’

‘I would strongly beg to differ that China has a moral authority on much in the world,’ Keiser said, and added, ‘I would not see them as a neutral arbiter here.’

‘Obviously, we are not going to be a neutral broker between a terrorist and a democratic state,’ Pletka said. ‘That’s just not how it works. You threatened to kill the President of the United States, but we’re then meant to think of you in a balanced way with the state of Israel, our most important ally in the Middle East?’ 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News’ Bret Baier on Monday that President Donald Trump remains a target of the Iranians. ‘They want to kill him. He’s enemy No. 1.’

‘I don’t know how anybody could have said what [Walz] said about the role that China plays. The idea that there is some neutral interlocutor in this world, that anybody is an ‘honest burger’ is nothing other than grad school silliness,’ Pletka said. 

Pletka added that ‘Of course, China can’t play that role. China is an authoritarian communist [state] that is supporting Russia in its war on Ukraine, that is threatening Taiwan, that has broken its word over Hong Kong.’

And she said, ‘This is not a playground in which you need somebody who can talk to both Bobby and Billy about why it is you don’t smack your friends.’

‘The idea that it should be reduced to something where you have an arbiter who sees the arguments on both sides, no. This is a situation where there’s a right and a wrong, and there’s a winner and a loser. That’s how it should be, by the way, because Iran has fashioned itself as an enemy, not just to the state of Israel, but to the United States.’

Nikki Haley – former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and a 2024 GOP presidential candidate, who sounded off on China’s threat to the United States on the campaign trail – was quick to criticize Walz’s viral comments last week. 

‘This is absolute insanity. Democrats think that we need the Chinese to be the negotiators between Iran’s nuclear production and Israel…God bless Tim Walz. Totally tone deaf,’ Haley posted on X. 

While lawmakers argue over their position in the command chain as President Donald Trump mulls a possible strike on Iran, one expert believes that the president is within his constitutional authority to move ahead with a bunker-busting bomb.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are embroiled in debate over where they are in the pecking order. Some argue they should have the sole authority to authorize a strike, let alone declare war, while others believe that is within Trump’s purview if he wanted to join Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran.

The predominant argument on the Hill is that the entire point of supporting Israel is to prevent the Islamic Republic from creating or acquiring a nuclear weapon.

However, a legal scholar who helped to craft the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which authorized the usage of the U.S. armed forces to engage with the entities that then-President George W. Bush believed were behind the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack in New York City, argued that there was a difference between Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war and the president’s authority to use force abroad.

‘The position we took then, I think, is the same one that Trump should take now,’ John Yoo told Fox News Digital. ‘As a legal matter, the president doesn’t need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities abroad. But as a political matter, it’s very important for the president to go to Congress and present the united front to our enemies.’

The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the White House, giving lawmakers the sole power to declare war, while the president acts as the commander in chief directing the military. Nearly two centuries later, at the height of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was born, which sought to further define those roles.

Yoo agreed that the Constitution was clear that Congress has the sole authority to declare war, which effectively changes the legal status of the country. However, he countered that ‘the framers did not think that language meant that the President and Congress are like the two weapons officers on a nuclear sub and have to turn the keys at the same time to use force.’

‘The founders were very practical men, and they knew that Congress is slow to act, that Congress is a large body that deliberates, but it’s the president who acts swiftly and decisively in defense of the nation,’ he said.

Adding fuel to the debate in Washington are a pair of resolutions in the Senate from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and the House, from Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that would require debate and a vote before any force is used against Iran. The measures are designed to put a check on Trump’s power and reaffirm Congress’ constitutional authority.

Yoo said that the resolutions appeared to be forms of ‘political opportunism’ and noted that when former President Joe Biden wanted to send aid to Ukraine, when former President Barack Obama engaged abroad or when Trump authorized a drone strike to kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, there was no resolution demanding Congress have a say.

‘People on the Hill are conflating what’s constitutionally necessary with what’s politically expedient,’ Yoo said. ‘Two very different things.’

Congress’ real power over war, he said, was the power of the purse, meaning lawmakers’ ability to decide whether to fund the Pentagon and military in their appropriations process. Republicans are currently working to ram Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ through Congress and onto his desk by Independence Day.

Included in the colossal bill is roughly $150 billion in funding for the Defense Department.

‘If Congress really doesn’t want us to, doesn’t want Trump to, get deeper involved in the Israel-Iran war,’ Yoo said. ‘All they got to do is not fund the military.’

‘The ironic thing is, you have people who are voting to give extra tens of billions of dollars to the Defense Department, who are then turning around and complaining that they don’t have the ability to vote on war,’ he said. ‘Every time they vote for funding, they’re voting to make war possible.’

President Donald Trump has reported to the West Wing’s Situation Room multiple times in recent days as the conflict in Iran comes to a rolling boil and the U.S. considers launching its own attacks on the Islamic Republic over mounting concerns it could produce a nuclear weapon in a short span of time. 

‘Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this that Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate,’ Trump told reporters Wednesday on the U.S. potentially striking Iran as it continues trading deadly strikes with Israel. ‘And I said, why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn’t you go? I said to people, why didn’t you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country. It’s very sad to watch this.’

Fox News Digital spoke to previous presidential administration officials — Fox News host and former Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who served under the first Trump administration, and former National Security Advisor under the first Trump administration John Bolton, who also served as ambassador to the U.N. under President George W. Bush’s administration. They both conveyed the serious and historic tone the room and its meetings typically hold. 

The Situation Room is a high-tech 5,000-square-foot complex in the West Wing of the White House that includes multiple conference rooms. President John F. Kennedy commissioned the complex in 1961 following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba that same year, according to the National Archives. The complex was built in order to provide future presidents a dedicated area for crisis management, and was revamped in 2006 and renovated again in 2023. 

‘I often would sit there and think about the Osama bin Laden raid,’ McEnany told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Thursday morning. ‘This is where we saw our heroic Special Forces take out Osama bin Laden during the Obama administration. And I think we’re at another point where similar decisions are being made, and even bigger decisions that may change the course of history are happening right now in that room.’

Trump again held a meeting in the Situation Room Thursday morning, when he received an intelligence briefing with national security advisers, which followed a Situation Room meeting on Wednesday afternoon, another meeting on Tuesday afternoon with national security advisers and a Monday evening meeting upon his abrupt return from the G7 summit in Canada this week. 

Top national security officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, are among officials who have joined Trump in the meetings as the administration weighs the spiraling conflict. 

Bolton explained to Fox Digital in a Thursday morning phone interview that two types of top-level meetings are held in the Situation Room. 

The first is known as a ‘principals meeting,’ he said, which includes Cabinet secretaries, such as the secretary of state and secretary of defense, and is chaired by the national security advisor — a role currently filled by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

‘The principals committee usually meets to try and get everything sorted out so that they know what decisions the president is going to be confronted with,’ Bolton said. ‘They try and make sure all the information is pulled together so we can make an informed decision, set out the options they see, what the pros and cons are, and then have (the president) briefed.’ 

The second type of Situation Room meeting at the top level are official National Security Council meetings, which the president chairs. 

‘He chairs a full NSC meeting, and people review the information, update the situation, and the president can go back and forth with the advisors about asking questions, probing about the analysis, asking for more detail on something, kind of picking and choosing among the options, or suggesting new options,’ said Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security advisor between April 2018 and September 2019. 

‘And out of that could well come decisions,’ he added. 

McEnany served as the first Trump administration’s top spokeswoman at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Coronavirus Task Force operated out of the Situation Room as COVID-19 swept across the nation. 

‘A lot of critical decisions were made during the pandemic,’ she said. ‘It’s a humbling encounter. Every time you go in, you leave your phone at the door. You go in, I think it’s like 5,000 square feet, you’re sitting there, there’s clocks up from every country around the world, the different time zones. And you’re just sitting there as critical decisions are made. And, in my case, it was regarding the pandemic, and there’s back and forth, there’s deliberation, and these decisions are made with the president there, obviously.’ 

She continued that during the pandemic, the task force would spend hours in the Situation Room on a daily basis as the team fielded an onslaught of updates from across the country. Trump frequently received the top lines from the meetings and joined the Situation Room during key decisions amid the spread of the virus. 

‘When he was in there, absolutely, there’s a deference,’ she said, referring to how the tone of the room would change upon Trump’s arrival. ‘Yet, you had key officials who spoke up, who were not afraid to give their point of view to him. But I think there’s a recognition he’s the commander in chief.’

Press secretaries typically do not attend high-profile National Security Council meetings in the Situation Room, but have security clearances and can call into the room if needed, and are given updates from senior officials. 

McEnany added that press secretaries wouldn’t typically want to be in the room for high-stakes talks because ‘you don’t want your head filled with these sensitive deliberations of classified information’ when speaking with the media.

Bolton explained that for an issue such as Iran, the Situation Room meetings are likely restrictive and include top national security officials, such as the secretary of defense, director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

‘Sometimes it includes many more people, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commerce Secretary, things like that,’ he said. ‘But in with this kind of decision, it could be very restrictive, so maybe just – well, there is no national security advisor – but, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, maybe the attorney general.’

Trump’s first national security advisor under the second administration, Mike Waltz, was removed from the role and nominated as the next U.S. ambassador to the UN in May, with Rubio taking on the additional role. The White House has also slashed NSC staffing since Trump took office, including after Rubio took the helm. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt held a press conference on Thursday — the first since Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran June 12 — and said the next two weeks will be a critical time period as U.S. officials map out next steps. 

‘I have a message directly from the president, and I quote: ‘Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future. I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.’ That’s a quote directly from the president,’ she said Thursday. 

Israel launched pre-emptive strikes on Iran June 12 after months of attempted and stalled nuclear negotiations and subsequent heightened concern that Iran was advancing its nuclear program. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared soon afterward that the strikes were necessary to ‘roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival.’

He added that if Israel had not acted, ‘Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time.’ 

Dubbed ‘Operation Rising Lion,’ the strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and killed a handful of senior Iranian military leaders.

Trump repeatedly has urged Iran to make a deal on its nuclear program, but the country pulled out of ongoing talks with the U.S. scheduled for Sunday in Oman. 

‘Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign,’ Trump posted to Truth Social Monday evening, when he abruptly left an ongoing G7 summit in Canada to better focus on the Israel–Iran conflict. ‘What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!’ 

Leavitt added during Thursday’s briefing that Trump is the ‘peacemaker-in-chief,’ while noting that he is also not one to shy from flexing America’s strength. 

‘The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution to the problems in the global conflicts in this world. Again, he is a peacemaker in chief. He is the peace-through-strength president. And so, if there’s a chance for diplomacy, the president’s always going to grab it. But he’s not afraid to use strength as well,’ she said. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for additional comment on the high-level talks but did not immediately receive a reply. 

As President Donald Trump weighs joining Israel’s war to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the world’s chief nuclear official tells Fox News that he sees no evidence Iran’s leaders are racing to build a nuclear bomb.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi said, ‘We have confirmed that Iran does have, even now, enough material for several warheads.

‘But this should not be equated with a nuclear weapon,’ Grossi continued, adding, ‘We do not have at this point, if you ask me, at this time, any tangible proof that there is a program, or a plan, to fabricate, to manufacture a nuclear weapon.’

Inspectors from Grossi’s agency, which is the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, are tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities. The IAEA has not been able to carry out inspections since Israel began attacking sites earlier this month but has been making extensive use of satellite imagery.

When asked by Fox News whether Iran’s nuclear program had been set back dramatically by Israel’s attacks to date, Grossi said, ‘No, I wouldn’t say so.

‘I think there have been a number of important military attacks and impacts,’ he said. ‘But it is very clear, and everybody agrees on this, that not everything has been taken out.’

He also argued that military action alone would not be enough to undo what Iran has learned in several decades of nuclear research.

‘One thing is the physical damage,’ Grossi said. ‘But then there is the knowledge factor, and the fact that it is very difficult to roll back the knowledge that a country has acquired.’

Iran has blamed Israel for the killings of multiple Iranian nuclear scientists over many years, including several in recent days. The IAEA censured Iran on June 12, just hours before Israel launched its wave of attacks, for failing to comply with commitments meant to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon.

However, despite the IAEA reprimand, and the current fighting, Grossi insists a diplomatic solution remains a viable option.

‘I believe that there is a way to take this danger — or this concern — out of the table in a negotiated way.

‘I’ve been in conversations, very good conversations, with [President Trump’s envoy] Steve Witkoff and with the Iranians as well,’ Grossi said.

‘I believe there are ways in which we can make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. I think this is ultimately what Israel wants and what the United States has declared.

‘We are the international corps of inspectors, and we know what you would need to check in order to prevent this from happening.

‘We believe that the opportunity should be seized, as President Trump said, but of course the space for that is narrowing.’