Congressmember Castro (3:06)

Let's play it what is Israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons?

Thomas Di Nano (3:10)

I can't comment on. On. On. On that specific question. You'd have to refer to the Israelis on that.

Congressmember Castro (3:16)

Does Israel have nuclear weapons?

Thomas Di Nano (3:19)

I'm not prepared to comment on that. On.

Congressmember Castro (3:25)

You're not prepared to comment on it? It's a very basic question. We are with an ally conducting a war against Iran. This war continues to escalate. Tell us something, as Congress, as the oversight body, what is Israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons?

Thomas Di Nano (3:44)

I can't comment on that specific question. I'd have to refer you to the Israelis on that.

Congressmember Castro (3:54)

Does that mean you don't know?

Thomas Di Nano (3:56)

I can't comment on that. Sir,

Congressmember Castro (3:59)

you're the main person in charge of knowing this and understanding it. Will you not give us an answer? I don't understand why this issue is so taboo when it's a basic question. And we're in a war alongside Israel against Iran, we're dealing with the potential for nuclear fallout. And you won't answer this basic question?

Thomas Di Nano (4:24)

Well, again, it would be outside of my purview as the arms control, non proliferation Under Secretary to discuss that specific question.

Congressmember Castro (4:34)

Sir, that is a dereliction of duty.

Narrator/Host (4:36)

Next, I want to show you the cross examination by Democratic Congressmember Keating, and he grills Di Nano about the Trump regime's support of Putin, whether or not they view Putin as a war criminal. Hint, hint. Di Nano basically refuses to answer the question. And he's like, all over the place with his answer. And this Congress member is like, why would you be cutting support for, like, Ukraine right now and bolstering support for Russia? Like, what are you doing right now? I want you to watch as Di Nano who exposes himself yet again and this whole Trump regime as Putin puppets right here. Watch him get crushed under cross examination. Let's play this clip.

Congressmember Keating (5:28)

You're also cutting the support we have for the general prosecutor in Ukraine that's prosecuting war crimes. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?

Thomas Di Nano (5:36)

Sir, sir, again, that's. That's well outside of my purview as the T. Under Secretary.

Congressmember Keating (5:42)

No.

Senator Shaheen (5:42)

No.

Congressmember Keating (5:43)

How about as an American.

Senator Van Holland (5:45)

No.

Congressmember Keating (5:45)

As an American person and a citizen?

Thomas Di Nano (5:48)

Yes, sir.

Congressmember Keating (5:49)

And someone cares. Is Vladimir. Is. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?

Thomas Di Nano (5:53)

I understand that I'm.

Congressmember Keating (5:54)

No. Yes or no?

Thomas Di Nano (5:54)

No, sir, I'm not gonna answer yes or no. I'm gonna.

Congressmember Keating (5:57)

No, sir, I'm not gonna answer yes or no. That's quite an answer. Yes. That's yes. Oh, yes. Now it's yes or no or yes. You can't Even ask a simple question like that, we have to know, because we have, under your agency, sir, you're cutting the question. Support for the Prosecutor General. And you know what that support has been doing? It's been preserving evidence and training. So these war crimes, including sexual assault of young girls in front of their parents and grandparents by Russian soldiers, which is tens of thousands of young people being taken from their families, maybe never to come back, and put in Russian films, definite war crimes. We are supporting that. And you're cutting that support in the guise of reorganizing for the prosecutor to preserve the evidence and to move forward on these war crimes, these horrific, heinous war crimes that Russia is committing. So what I want to ask you, sir, this is under your purview. You should be doing more.

Thomas Di Nano (6:54)

No, sir, it's not.

Congressmember Keating (6:55)

Yes, it is.

Thomas Di Nano (6:55)

By the way, not.

Narrator/Host (6:56)

You do not.

Congressmember Keating (6:57)

Funding. Prosecutor General's office is. By the way, I know everything's new to you.

Thomas Di Nano (7:02)

No, no, it's not actually new to me.

Congressmember Keating (7:04)

Right. You have funds to help train and move forward with the prosecution and help the Prosecutor General in Ukraine.

Thomas Di Nano (7:13)

If there is a specific program that you feel or that you know, that

Congressmember Keating (7:18)

funded a legal advisor in the office.

Thomas Di Nano (7:21)

I don't know about any specific.

Congressmember Keating (7:23)

Well, then you should know about it. With all due respect, I've got eight seconds. Do your homework. Come back here. Representative Barnes, I yield back.

Narrator/Host (7:31)

Shifting gears for a moment from the House of Representatives to the United States Senate. Let me show you Democratic Senator Van Holland's cross examination of Undersecretary of State D. Nano. Watch Di Nano squirm, as Aaron Rupert puts it, in response to a series of questions about his involvement in the transfer of US Bombs to the Netanyahu government. Let's play this clip.

Thomas Di Nano (7:58)

The administration's emergency declaration. If there's ever a circumstance that's an emergency, this would be it. Mr. Dinamic, let me just ask you whether it was an emergency. I asked whether you comply with that policy. If you let me finish, I'm happy to answer your question, sir. That being said, I sat before the committee during my confirmation process and committed to working with the committee to follow the law. The law does allow for the emergency exemption. That's why we used it.

Senator Shaheen (8:39)

I'm not asking you about.

Thomas Di Nano (8:41)

I understand that, but I think the context is important, sir.

Senator Shaheen (8:44)

I know, because I submitted a question for the record, and you said you would comply with CAT policy. So now I'm asking you whether you were involved in reviewing the transfer of 20,000 bombs to the Netanyahu government. With respect to compliance with the CAT

Thomas Di Nano (8:56)

policy, any foreign military sale that we do would fall underneath the conventional arms transfer.

Senator Shaheen (9:08)

Did you personally review that assessment?

Thomas Di Nano (9:14)

Again, Senator, the emergency declaration.

Senator Shaheen (9:18)

No, not the emergency declaration. Did you review the assessment regarding whether or not that transfer of 20,000 bombs complied with the CAT policy?

Thomas Di Nano (9:27)

Everything that we do complies with the law.

Senator Shaheen (9:31)

Did you personally, or were you personally involved in that review?

Thomas Di Nano (9:35)

I was involved with the. With the transfer, and anything that we would do would be consistent with our CAT policy, which is compliant with the law.

Senator Shaheen (9:46)

So I'm going to take it as a no that you did not personally review whether or not that transfer complied with CAT policy.

Thomas Di Nano (9:53)

I just.

Senator Shaheen (9:53)

Did you personally review that?

Thomas Di Nano (9:55)

You can. You can take it any way you want.

Senator Shaheen (9:56)

Well, did you.

Thomas Di Nano (9:58)

I've already told you, I was involved with the policy. I oversee the political military bureau.

Senator Shaheen (10:04)

Did you personally review.

Thomas Di Nano (10:06)

I review hundreds of arms sales. I signed hundreds of them. The emergency declaration, again, it was consistent with the law. And most importantly, I think it's important for the committee that we lay out. We're not trying to establish a new norm that will continue to, on a case by case basis, look at emergencies, if they exist, just like the Biden administration did in 2023. I'll finish the same. Use the same authority. No, no, sir, let me finish my comment, but I'm not asking you about the. I know, but I mean, I'm trying to address your concern. No, you're actually. Yes, sir, I am.

Senator Shaheen (10:39)

Were you. Are you concerned that Israeli Defense Minister Katz said, with respect to Lebanon, that they were going to use the, quote, Rafah model in Gaza? Does that concern you?

Thomas Di Nano (10:50)

I have not. I'm not familiar with that comment.

Senator Shaheen (10:53)

Right.

Senator Shaheen (10:53)

It's a matter of public record. Could you take a look at it and get back?

Thomas Di Nano (10:56)

I would happily.

Senator Shaheen (10:56)

Let me know if that concerns you.

Thomas Di Nano (10:57)

Yes, sir. I'm happy. Now.

Narrator/Host (10:59)

This was a particularly shocking, dystopian, scary moment during the Senate hearing where they were grilling Di Nanno. You have Democratic Senator Rosen cross examining Di Nano on Donald Trump's desire to. To start back up nuclear testing in the United States. These big nuclear craters, whether it's in Nevada or New Mexico or Idaho or throughout the country, that Trump wants to drop bombs or do underground nuclear testing in the United States. How utterly deranged. But I want you to watch, because this guy, Di Nano, doesn't deny that we are going to be doing nuclear tests in the United States. Think about the environmental impact on that. Think about all of the efforts that we've been through as a country to try to stop that. Here, play this clip.

Senator Shaheen (11:58)

Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, for today's hearing. And thank you, Mr. Danano, for joining us today. I want to go and talk about Nevada a little bit because the Nevada National Security Site, the nnss, was ground zero for the vast majority of the United States explosive nuclear testing from 1951 to 1992, during which there were 100 atmospheric tests and 828 underground tests conducted. Many Nevadans and downwind communities suffered from these exposures. They're still waiting for justice and compensation today. The NNSS plays a critical role in certifying the reliability, safety and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. But without, without, I'm going to emphasize that I could say it 100 times without the need for explosive testing. So you can imagine my surprise when President Trump and others, such as Assistant Secretary Yoff, suggested that the US should resume explosive nuclear testing. So, Mr. Di Nanno, what is the State's Department's position on explosive nuclear testing? And if President Trump were to order a nuclear test, how do you expect Russia or China to respond? What about other countries with nuclear weapons? And how would we manage the inevitable damage that this is going to cause to your efforts to pursue multilateral arms control and risk reduction measures?

Thomas Di Nano (13:31)

Sorry. Thank you, Senator. Let me start by saying the President has laid out a view that I elaborated on and Assistant Secretary Yaw elaborated upon where the President instructed the War Department and the Energy Department to test on an equal basis to that with our adversaries. The backdrop of that is important to understand that both the Russians and the Chinese are testing at yield.

Senator Shaheen (14:09)

And I can tell you that in our U1A tunnel and the radiographic things that we have there and the new kinds of technology we have, we have adequately without explosive testing ensured the capabilities of our nuclear stockpile.

Thomas Di Nano (14:28)

So thank you, Senator. Look, a couple points to make. Number one, we're still assessing. We've made no decision specifically on how or what any testing program would look like. So that's pre decisional. If the administration comes to that decision, I'm sure would happy to come back and talk to you.

Senator Shaheen (14:49)

You better come back and talk to me because the people of Nevada and the people of Utah and the people all around, do you think what happens in Nevada with an explosive test stays in Nevada? Yes, ma', am, because it sure doesn't.

Thomas Di Nano (15:03)

I think you're referring to any potential atmospheric testing.

Senator Shaheen (15:08)

I'm just talking. They cratered the ground in Nevada. And let me tell you there's groundwater. It doesn't go away.

Thomas Di Nano (15:15)

Let me answer your concern if I could. I have not been in any discussions where atmosphering, open atmospheric testing has been under consideration. The testing, any testing is under consideration. Again, it is currently pre decisional, but the president has laid out. And I think it's important to understand that the United States.

Senator Shaheen (15:41)

Well, it's important to understand that he better come talk to us in Nevada if he is planning to do that.

Thomas Di Nano (15:45)

Yes, ma'. Am.

Senator Shaheen (15:46)

Because the people of Nevada have a stake in that. The people of Utah have a stake in that. And I will look everybody, Idaho, right above us. Texas, the wind, everything goes around this country.

Thomas Di Nano (15:58)

Trust me, I understand that, ma', am, and I appreciate your concern.

Senator Shaheen (16:01)

I'll move on to something else.

Thomas Di Nano (16:02)

Hold on. I want to address that. I think it's important. You're talking about the wind. There is no discussion that I've been a part of that any atmospheric testing would take place. Again, the Chinese and Russian programs are underground. They are at yields that I can't talk too much about in this open hearing. But for example, the Chinese underground testing program would be in the hundreds of tons of. No discussions that again, I've been part of. Would in any way talk about winds or downrange. That is, I've heard nothing to that effect.

Senator Shaheen (16:49)

Well, you would understand my.

Thomas Di Nano (16:50)

Of course I would.

Senator Shaheen (16:51)

My concern.

Thomas Di Nano (16:52)

Yes, ma'.

Narrator/Host (16:53)

Am.

Senator Shaheen (16:53)

About the need for a visual besides a ground cratering in. And we have made millions of billions of dollars of investments in radiographic and other technology using math, using physics, using science to be sure that we ensure the integrity of our nuclear arsenal. We have been very specific in that. And I'm glad to take you down there if you haven't been to see what they're doing and how they're doing it before you enter into more of these discussions.

Thomas Di Nano (17:19)

Yes, ma'. Am. I'd happily go there. I know what they do there. And again, I think it's extremely important to understand that the Russian and Chinese systems, the Russians and Chinese are testing at yield that creates an intolerable disadvantage for the United States by not testing. And again, I've heard no discussion of any sort of atmospheric testing whatsoever.

Senator Shaheen (17:44)

Well, I tend to disagree with you, but I yield. Thank you.

Rocket Money Advertiser (17:48)

Hey, quick question. Have you ever looked at your bank statement and thought, what am I even paying for right now? I had that moment not too long ago. Random subscriptions, duplicate charges, stuff I completely forgot about. It adds up fast. That's when I started using rocket money. And honestly, it's been a huge game changer. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. What I love is how easy it makes everything. It tracks all your subscriptions in one place and if you see something you don't want, you can cancel it right in the app with just a few taps. No more hunting through websites or dealing with customer service. It also automatically categorizes your spending so you could actually see where your money is going each month. That's been huge for me. Just having that visibility helped me cut back in areas I did not even realize I was overspending. And you could set budgets, get alerts for big transactions, and basically stay on top of your finances without constantly stressing about it. Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join@RocketMoney.com Midas Touch that's RocketMoney.com MidasTouch RocketMoney.com Midas Touch M E I D A S T O U C H One

Narrator/Host (19:05)

thing hovering over this hearing that I think is important and I've reported on it here, it's not getting enough attention, is the expiration of what was called new start, the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which was a bilateral nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia signed in 2010 under, guess who, former President Obama. It entered full force in effect in 2011, which limited each side to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, submarine launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers, along with verification methods like data exchange and on site expansion inspections rather. So the treaty had a built in 10 year duration with one possible five year extension. The five year extension was invoked, but this last February, February 5, 2026, it just expired and Donald Trump professed that he would be engaging in more nuclear testing here and that we would resume a nuclear arms race. So that's what's been hovering in the background. And this guy, Di Nano, is the guy implementing Donald Trump's policy. So next person I'll show you is Senator Shaheen. And Senator Shaheen cross examines Dinano on are we actually getting our European allies the weapons that we're promising them? Like are they actually receiving the weapons? And you'll see Dino does not answer the question. He's like, well this is why we're so nimble under the Trump Department. You know, the State Department in record time is able to have it's like dude, just answer the question are our European allies, who I don't even know if they're our allies anymore. I don't think they are. After all of the crap Donald Trump put them through. I don't know how they. They don't see the United States as a friend. You know, they see the United States as a bigger threat than China or Russia. Many European countries do. It's one of the reasons we here at the Midas Touch network are trying to build the international pro democracy community, I think is one of the most important things that we can be doing. But in Europe, they're out there continuously basically saying, you know, we're not getting the weapons that we were promised at all. Like, we're just not getting them. So here's what Senator Shaheen said. Play this clip.

Congressmember Meeks (21:37)

We really pushed our European allies to

Senator Shaheen (21:42)

step up on their own defense and

Congressmember Meeks (21:44)

on Ukraine, and they have. Right now they spend more than we do supporting Ukraine and they're spending that money on American weapons. Are we in a position where we can actually deliver the weapons that they're buying from us?

Thomas Di Nano (21:59)

Thanks for the question, Senator. I think it's an important one and I think really shows why the reorganization of the State Department and putting all of the bureaus that do international security together makes sense. Because I think in relation to our political military bureau and the work that we're doing to modernize our defense industrial base, we have released two executive orders. We worked very closely with the War Department, as part of the most recent executive order, had announced that it wanted an executive council to stand up between the Commerce Department, the State Department and War Department. And that council. That meeting took place within a month. That's unheard of bureaucratic speed, I can tell you

Senator Shaheen (22:50)

that doesn't make me feel better.

Thomas Di Nano (22:52)

Not a very high bar. The commitment to modernizing our defense industrial base couldn't be stronger. I heard it loud and clear during my confirmation process. The State Department role here is to make sure that our regulatory approach doesn't constrain our allies and partners, that the demand signal from every part of the government, from this committee, from my leadership, was to move faster and to provide more capability. I think our recent America first arms transfer strategy is a really good iteration on that for our partners and allies around the world. And it might not always require our most exquisite platform, might not require an F35, might not require a Patriot system, but there are other systems that are certainly good enough that complement existing U.S. posture in the region and that can send a demand signal to industry to stand up other capabilities. So again, The State Department piece of this is to open up the aperture, take on a little more risk and move faster. That really is dwarfed by the reforms they're making in the War Department. Under Secretary Duffy and his team are making drastic reforms. We work very closely with them. I'm on a call with them weekly driving change, driving integration. It is a priority for us. Again, I think it's not going to happen overnight and it's not going to be easy or painless. I think we need to work together, the administration and the Congress. There may be some legislative relief we may need along the way here. But is absolute national security imperative not only for the security of the United States, but as well as our partners and allies? And I think this is what you're seeing play out.

Narrator/Host (24:52)

And here you have, I think It's Republican Senator McCormick. McCormick, he grills Dinano on the Russian space weapons that are out there and what we're doing to combat it. Let's play this clip.

Thomas Di Nano (25:05)

According to also according to the Director of National Intelligence 2026 Annual Threat Assessment, Russia is developing anti satellite nuclear weapons, which the intelligence community describes as the single greatest single threat to the world's space architecture. So Under Secretary, how should the United States respond to the expanding threat of outer space weapons? Challenges by peer and near peer adversaries and which arms control approaches, along with risk reduction measures, offer the most promise given the expiration of the new START Treaty? Thanks for the question, Senator. Again, very important question specifically to the Russian outer space system. I don't want to come into too much detail here in an open forum, but what I can say is that any deployment of that system would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty. So sort of directly focused on the arms control piece of it. The Russian exotic systems are getting crazy even for the Russians. So I think the President's approach again in the ranking numbers earlier question about other bilateral as well as other multilateral ways to get at the problem. The answer is yes. That's obviously a system that diplomatically we would aggressively pressure the Russians and I'm sure it'll come up in our P5 engagement, which is imminent. So again, I don't want to talk too much more about the Russian capability in open forum, but certainly the exotic systems, the underwater system, the Poseidon, the Burevestnik, which is their nuclear powered cruise missile, these are all systems that fall outside of New Start to your point that we need to have a direct conversation with the Russians and I'm sure we will.

Narrator/Host (27:03)

And finally back in the House of Representative this was Congressmember Meeks cross examination. We'll play it for you right here.

Congressmember Meeks (27:09)

It is a truly amazing fact that the advances made in the science of nuclear weapons over the last 25 years allow the NNSA labs to now know and understand more about the function and performance of nuclear weapons than they did in the days of testing. The NNSA complex is old. Much of it dates back to the Manhattan Project and the early days of the Cold War and it needs to be replaced or refurbished. Fourth, we should never forget that ultimately it is people who sustain our deterrent. Military and civilians at DOD and NNSA work to maintain the continuum of deterrence, beginning with threat prevention and non proliferation. They need support and we need to ensure that the entire nuclear enterprise always has the best and the brightest. And fifth, our allies and partners also rely on the US Nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantor of their security against nuclear attack, however remote the possibility. As much as they want the US deterrent to be safe, secure and reliable, they do not want a new arms race and a return to the days of mutual assured destruction. As of September 2017, the US has 3,822 warheads in its stockpile, more than enough with another 2,000 plus warheads awaiting dismantlement. This is down from the mid-60s peak of 31,255 warheads. We surely don't want a return to those days and increase the risk of nuclear war rather than reduce it. In conclusion, in my prepared testimony, I referenced a 2010 op ed by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and Jake Garn, a former Republican Senator from Utah supporting New Start. In that piece they cautioned against seeking a silver bullet that solves all problems. New Start was under consideration at the time that they wrote the op ed and was being criticized for not covering the full range of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In many respects that is what the Trump administration is doing. Again, with respect to extending New Start, criticizing it for what it isn't and was never intended to be, a silver bullet treaty. The treaty should be extended and time provided to take the next step towards stability. Thank you for holding this hearing on a very important topic that isn't discussed enough and I look forward to your questions.

Congressmember Keating (29:49)

Thank you Ms. Creed and Mr. McEwin.

Senator Van Holland (29:52)

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kizzlingecker, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the importance of arms control agreements with Russia. I agree with much of what was said, if not all of it, by my two colleagues. I'll try very hard not to duplicate what they said. I will focus primarily on New Start. An extension of New Start, which we've discussed already, would bring significant benefits to American security for the same reasons the treaty was a good idea in the first place, the transparency and predictability that it provides. New Start contains an inspection and verification regime that includes regular exchanges of data, regular notifications, including advanced notification of launches, and intrusive on site inspections of the military bases on the territory of the other party where nuclear forces are based. General Hyten, commander of U.S. strategic Command, testified last winter that the insight provided by the verification measures are unbelievably important to his understanding of Russian force posture. Without a treaty, our confidence levels about the size, location and nature of Russian forces would decrease and the intelligence resources required to monitor such forces would increase, but they would not yield information equivalent to that which can be obtained through the on site inspections. The treaty limits the number of strategic launchers and warheads that each party may deploy, as well as a combined limit on deployed and non deployed launchers. This structure provides several advantages to the Department of Defense and Department of Energy. First, the commander of Strategic Command can devise the war plans secure in the knowledge about the size and location of Russian nuclear forces. Without the treaty, he would be required to engage in worst case planning assumptions which eventually could result in decisions to increase the size of deployed forces.

Narrator/Host (31:39)

There you have it folks. I know that like hearings like this you're probably not seeing in many other places, right? It's why at the Midas Touch Network it is so important that we cover things like this because you're not getting this on corporate news. You're not, you're not seeing these things. Nuclear testing in the United States. I mean this was a dangerous critical hearing and it got very little fanfare and attention. So it's important that we cover it here and show you what's really going on. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Thanks for watching. Have you subscribed to Scott McFarland's channel on YouTube? It's already over a hundred thousand subscribers. Not bad Scott, not bad. Hit subscribe. Thanks for watching. Love this video. Support independent media and unlock exclusive content, ad free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of the our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.