In a series of tense Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings this week, Jeremy Carl—President Donald Trump’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations—defended his controversial assertions that white Americans are currently the victims of a “cultural genocide.”
The statements, which originated in Carl’s 2024 book The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart and subsequent essays in The American Mind, have become the flashpoint of a fierce national debate over the definition of genocide, the legacy of the Civil Rights Act, and the future of American identity.
The Nominee and the Claim
Jeremy Carl, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, has long been a vocal critic of modern diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. However, it is his use of the term “cultural genocide”—traditionally reserved for the systematic destruction of a group’s traditions, languages, and heritage—that has drawn the most intense scrutiny.
During testimony on February 12, 2026, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) pressed Carl on his rhetoric. Carl maintained that the systematic dismantling of American historical monuments, the “re-writing” of school curricula like the 1619 Project, and the institutionalization of what he terms “anti-white racism” constitute a concerted effort to erase European-American heritage from the public square.
“A culture is not just a collection of individuals,” Carl stated during the hearing. “It is a shared history, a set of heroes, and a common language. When you see the active destruction of statues of the Founding Fathers and the legal penalization of the majority population in hiring and education, you are seeing the hallmarks of a cultural erasure.”
Academic and Legal Definitions of “Cultural Genocide”
The controversy hinges largely on the definition of terms. Under international law, specifically the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide is defined by acts committed with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” While the original drafters considered “cultural genocide,” the final treaty focused primarily on physical and biological destruction.
Comparing Frameworks
To understand the gravity of the debate, it is necessary to look at how the term is applied in different contexts:
| Context | Standard Application | Carl’s Application |
| Indigenous Studies | Forced removal of children to boarding schools; banning of native languages. | Systematic removal of Western history and monuments from the public sphere. |
| International Law | Destruction of religious sites and cultural heritage during armed conflict. | Institutional “de-centering” of white European perspectives in academia and media. |
| Modern Rhetoric | Usually refers to the loss of distinct minority traditions due to forced assimilation. | Describes the “Great Replacement” theory and the decline of white political and cultural influence. |
Arguments from the Nominee’s Supporters
Carl’s defenders, including many within the Claremont Institute and several Republican senators, argue that he is simply giving a name to a phenomenon that many Americans feel but are too intimidated to voice.
His supporters point to:
- The “Great Replacement” Concept: Carl has argued that immigration policies are being used as a political strategy to dilute the voting power and cultural influence of the traditional American majority.
- The Civil Rights Act: Carl has described the modern application of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as an “anti-white weapon,” arguing that it has evolved from a tool of non-discrimination into a mandate for “anti-white” quotas.
- Institutional Capture: Proponents of Carl’s view argue that every major American institution—from the military to the church—has adopted a “racialist ideology” that views the white majority as inherently oppressive.
Criticism and Public Outcry
The reaction from civil rights organizations and Democratic lawmakers has been swift and unsparing. A coalition of legacy organizations, including the NAACP and the National Urban League, sent a joint letter to the Senate urging the rejection of his nomination.
Critics argue that Carl’s use of “genocide” is not only factually incorrect but dangerous. They contend that:
- False Equivalency: Equating the removal of Confederate statues or the implementation of DEI programs with “genocide” trivializes the historical suffering of groups that have faced actual systematic liquidation.
- Incitement: Opponents point to Carl’s past social media posts—some of which he attempted to delete—where he used “win or die” rhetoric and suggested that multiracial societies often end in “brutal and bloody” conflict.
- Diplomatic Risk: Given that the role he is nominated for involves overseeing U.S. engagement with the United Nations, critics argue that someone who disparages international human rights standards cannot credibly represent the U.S. abroad.
“Mr. Carl’s portrayal of immigrants and communities of color as threats to the nation’s future is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” the National Urban League wrote in their statement.
The Path to Confirmation
The Senate remains deeply divided. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has labeled Carl’s views “vile,” specifically citing Carl’s past comments regarding the “Jewish Question” and the Holocaust as disqualifying.
Carl, for his part, has defended his record by framing himself as a “truth-teller” in an age of political correctness. He argues that his book, The Unprotected Class, provides “essential intellectual ammunition” for those who feel marginalized by modern social shifts.
Conclusion
As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepares to vote, the “Jeremy Carl statement” has evolved beyond a simple nomination battle. It has become a proxy for the broader “Culture War” in America, questioning whether the nation is moving toward a more equitable multiracial future or, as Carl claims, toward the systematic erasure of its founding demographic’s identity.
Regardless of the outcome of the confirmation, Carl’s framing of “cultural genocide” has successfully moved from the fringes of online discourse into the halls of the U.S. Capitol, ensuring that the debate over “anti-white racism” will remain a central theme in the 2026 political landscape.
Would you like me to analyze the specific legal arguments Carl makes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
