Connect with us

Politics

Guest writer: Trump is surrendering a century's worth of U.S. global power in a matter of weeks

Published

on

Guest writer: Trump is surrendering a century's worth of U.S. global power in a matter of weeks

Donald Trump didn’t invent the American tradition of ditching our friends like a bad prom date (ask the Kurds, Afghan interpreters or anyone who sat through “Rambo: First Blood Part II”). But since returning to office, he’s taken this all-too-frequent bad habit and made it official U.S. policy.

The latest example? Trump’s conclusion that Volodymyr Zelensky, the leader of Ukraine — you know, the country currently being turned into rubble by Russian missiles — is “not ready for peace” and that he “disrespected the United States of America.” This latter statement (made live on TV during a heated Oval Office meeting), came on the heels of Trump taking to social media to call him a “dictator.”

If irony were a renewable energy source, Trump’s rhetoric could power the United States for a century. Because while Trump throws Zelensky under the bus, his real crush, Vladimir Putin — the guy serially accused of poisoning journalists, the guy whose critics tend to end up dead, jailed or exiled, the guy who wins “elections” by suspicious, predictable landslides — is out here running an actual dictatorship. His troops are raping Ukrainian women, according to investigators; his forces are kidnapping children and flattening cities. But yeah, the real problem is the elected leader trying to stop them.

It would be hard to overstate how rapidly this relationship has fallen apart. In case you missed it, Trump took it upon himself to negotiate Ukraine’s fate without having Ukraine in the room. His team also floated an “offer” to Ukraine straight out of “The Godfather”: Hand over some mineral rights as “payback” for our past help, and maybe we’ll think about letting you keep defending your country. Maybe.

And if that wasn’t humiliating enough, during that aforementioned Oval Office meeting, Trump and Vice President JD Vance escalated things to a new low, staging a televised Oval Office attack on Zelensky in a spectacle more suited to the WWE than international diplomacy.

Advertisement

During the exchange, Vance called Zelensky “disrespectful” and said he should be more thankful to Trump. The clash, broadcast for the world to see, wasn’t just a political power move — it was a calculated act of degradation, reinforcing the message that under Trump, Ukraine is expected to grovel for every bullet. It was a diplomatic disaster and a propaganda gift to Moscow, all rolled into one.

Never mind the fact that we assured Ukraine (before and after Russia’s invasion) that we’d have their back. If we break that promise now — as it appears we are poised to do — the consequences won’t stop at Kyiv. The message will travel far beyond Ukraine to our allies (who are watching nervously) and our enemies (who are taking notes).

For the better part of a century, America’s foreign policy has boiled down to this: We foot most of the bills and prevent bullies from rolling over weaker sovereign states. In return, we get a world that (mostly) behaves itself.

Trump, however, looks at this mutually beneficial deal and assumes he’s getting “scammed.” He views NATO like a group dinner where everyone else orders lobster, and he thinks he’s stuck with the bill.

Why should we pay for security? Why should we defend our allies?

Advertisement

Uh, because it keeps the world from becoming a flaming dumpster fire.

The alternative is far worse: Allies either rearm (including nukes) or they start making new, less-savory friends. Neither scenario ends well for the U.S.

Let’s talk about our allies. Germany is rearming, which — if you’ve read even a single history book published after 1945 — might make you a bit uneasy.

That said, the free world may need Germany to step up if the U.S. retreats from the global stage like Homer Simpson disappearing into the bushes.

“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that … we can really achieve independence from the U.S.A.,” Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz said before the final results of his election were even announced. “After Donald Trump’s statements last week at the latest, it is clear that the Americans … are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.”

Advertisement

Among the most recent statements, Trump claimed: “The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. … And they’ve done a good job of it.” In reality, as a bloc, the EU represents our largest trading partner.

It’s not just Europe. Longtime friends Australia, Taiwan and Canada (or as Trump calls our neighbor, America’s 51st state) are starting to look around and get nervous. Even Japan — yes, that erstwhile empire we politely asked not to conquer the Pacific ever again — has begun since the first Trump administration to stock up on weapons like there is an apocalypse fire sale.

All of this marks a rather stark departure from the nuclear umbrella and post-war liberal order that — barring a few notable exceptions — has let Americans enjoy a blissful, air-conditioned peace, complete with two-car garages, well-manicured lawns and shopping malls since 1945.

But hey, who needs stability when you can have excitement? After all, maintaining these alliances took effort. For one thing, you have to keep sucking up to people who aren’t as strong as you, and probably aren’t chipping in as much cash as they might.

Take, for example, President Reagan’s speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of D-Day. I remember hearing it as a boy and thinking, “Why all the talk about the Allies?” I mean, Reagan raves about the “impossible valor of the Poles,” “the forces of Free France” and the “unsurpassed courage of the Canadians.” And he throws in seemingly extraneous references to British troops hearing bagpipes and to Lord Lovat of Scotland.

Advertisement

Why? Because back then, we knew the world worked better when our friends believed we were in this existential struggle together. Trump seems to be going out of his way to send the opposite message: You’re on your own!

But the biggest reason that abandoning our allies is dumb can be summed up in one word: China. You remember China, right? The country that sends us fentanyl and TikTok propaganda and outnumbers us four-to-one? Well, guess what — if the free world sticks together, we pretty much match them in population, land and strength. But only if we stick together.

Trump, the so-called greatest dealmaker, is out here making the worst deal in American history by giving away U.S. influence, alienating allies, gutting American soft power by dismantling foreign aid and handing power to the people who really want to screw us. Nothing says “America First” like leaving your friends dead last. And here’s the thing: It’s easy to fritter away our power, but it would be a decades-long struggle to regain influence once it’s gone.

How does a super power lose its moral authority, allies and standing in the world? Slowly … and then all at once.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending