Trump’s Sec. Of State Marco Rubio CAMLY SCHOOLS ARROGANT Democrat CongressMan During A FIERY Hearing

The Rationale of Chaos: How the “Secretary of Everything” Exposed Congressional Incompetence

The highly-charged hearing featuring the Secretary of State—who simultaneously held three other critical acting titles, earning him the scornful label, the “Secretary of Everything”—was a devastating public exposure of bureaucratic bloat and congressional hypocrisy. Representative Gregory Meeks attempted to lecture the official on his divided attention and apparent dereliction of duty, only to have his entire premise dismantled and used against him with brutal, surgical precision. This confrontation was less about governance and more about watching political arrogance get spectacularly incinerated in real time.

The Fatal Flaw: Questioning Priorities While Defending Waste

Meeks walked in armed with the obvious—the Secretary held four jobs: Secretary of State, acting USAID Administrator, acting Archivist, and interim National Security Advisor. Meeks’s initial attack was logical: “You cannot spend every day at the State Department and then neglect your other jobs.” He demanded to know how the Secretary divides his time.

The Secretary’s response, however, was a perfectly crafted rebuttal that flipped the accusation back onto Congress. He pointed to the very rationale for holding the extra roles: the functions of agencies like USAID were “duplicative” or had “tremendous overlap” with the State Department.

Meeks, recognizing the self-inflicted wound, stumbled into a disastrous logical leap: “well then why don’t I get rid of all of them and just put everything under you?” He suggested scrapping the departments if they were so easily subsumed, claiming their existence was waste.

This was the moment the Secretary went for the jugular. He coolly delivered the fatal blow: “Well, you would have to pass a law to do that if you want to combine those four offices in your reorg.”

The exchange exposed Meeks’s fundamental incompetence: he was complaining about the existence of agencies his own body was responsible for maintaining and funding, yet he lacked the understanding of the legal mechanism required to eliminate them. The Secretary, by contrast, was merely executing the executive’s prerogative to manage the inefficiency that Congress itself codified.

The Scapegoat and the Law: The USAID Reorganization

The Secretary then turned the heat up on Meeks’s own hypocrisy regarding the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Meeks accused the Secretary of flouting the law, claiming, “the law requires you to consult with Congress on any proposed reorganization of USAID… That hasn’t happened.” Meeks cited one short meeting with a former official who was later fired as the sum total of consultation, accusing the Secretary of ignoring nearly twenty letters.

The Secretary’s defense—that his office had “complied with every part of the law” and that the Department had provided briefings and written answers to a significant portion of the committee’s requests—drew attention away from his own actions and back to the slow, bureaucratic nature of congressional oversight. The core issue, however, was exposed by the context: the law requires the Administration to notify and consult with “appropriate congressional committees” prior to structural changes. Meeks’s complaint was not that the Department failed to notify Congress, but that the process was not “extensive consultation”—a highly subjective judgment used to obstruct executive action.

The Secretary’s aggressive dismantling of USAID—freezing aid contracts and merging functions into the State Department—was driven by a fiercely judgmental view: “It is not charity. Foreign aid is not charity. It is designed to further the national interest of the United States.” He argued that USAID had strayed into “stupid and outrageous” contracts that did not serve the national interest. By absorbing the agency, he was implementing a swift, aggressive ideological purge designed to prioritize American security, strength, and prosperity, an agenda that viewed the decentralized nature of USAID as an unacceptable waste of taxpayer dollars.

The Verdict: Waste and Excuses

The confrontation culminated with the Senator—now taking over the questioning—delivering the knockout blows that reduced Meeks to a sputtering, red-faced caricature of a frustrated politician. The Senator accused Meeks of failing to read his own committee’s spending report, delivering the memorable line: “Sir, the only thing ongoing is your excuses.”

The ultimate, most damning critique came when the Senator produced a chart detailing foreign aid waste and deficits, demanding that Meeks “Tell me, congressman, which of these projects made America safer? Because last time I checked, not one.”

Meeks’s inability to answer the question—stuttering, stumbling, and desperately trying to pivot to the irrelevant theme of “unity”—was the perfect final judgment. The Secretary of Everything, despite his multiple roles and the inherent controversy of his reorganization, had successfully argued that his chaotic, multi-hat approach was born of necessity, created by the legislative waste and bureaucratic inertia that Meeks himself represented.

The clear lesson of the hearing was that the Secretary’s seemingly reckless accumulation of power was a logical, if aggressive, response to a Congress that funds duplication and then complains when the executive branch attempts to clean up the legislative mess it is too cowardly or incompetent to fix itself. Meeks came to lecture about responsibility but left having been roasted for enabling waste.