Politics
Opinion: Much of the world is terrified by another Trump presidency. Here's why
Words matter. Especially when uttered by a president, and especially overseas. “Speak softly, and carry a big stick,” Theodore Roosevelt advised, though he never envisioned a successor would prove capable of obliterating cities half a world away in under half an hour. That nuclear stick is pretty big indeed, capable since 1945 of keeping our most virulent adversaries, including Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang, from their most reckless ambitions. It also keeps allies in line. What do Japan, Saudi Arabia, Germany and South Korea have in common? Each is but a day away from joining the nuclear club. That day is when their leaders stop believing the president of the United States will come to their aid.
This is why I fear a second Trump term. A world increasingly riven by renewed great power rivalries and historic animosities is further weakened by Oval Office instability, exemplified by ill-advised remarks, ill-timed threats and outright lies. Calm captains of the ship of state struggle to navigate the world system’s waves and shoals. An erratic one won’t help. Especially one whose obsessions, personal grievances and loose relationship with the truth make others question not only America’s policy but more fundamentally our reliability.
How trite. The professor in the ivory tower reminds us that words retain meaning. How very 20th century. Does he not realize that legions of bots and ChatGPT enable today’s policymakers to forge the algorithmic reality they desire?
Presidents must be held to higher standards. Their quips move markets. Their words invite or ward off aggression. Save or end lives. Examples abound of even experienced leaders forgetting their rhetorical reach.
Dwight Eisenhower’s 1956 promise of aid inspired Hungarians to revolt against Soviet control, leading most to their death or to exile. Ike never thought they’d take him so literally. He meant moral and rhetorical aid, the thoughts and prayers kind. Hungary’s freedom fighters expected guns, or better yet American troops that Eisenhower never meant to imply would be forthcoming. Desperate people heard what they wanted to hear when the man in the Oval Office was unclear.
Words mattered at the end of the Cold War, too. Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” against his own State Department’s guidance, which also tried to stop him from saying “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” lest such a direct challenge rile the Kremlin. But that was precisely Reagan’s point. Another word for “rile” is “catalyze,” which is what Reagan hoped to do to the rumblings of change behind the Iron Curtain.
George H.W. Bush also understood the power of presidential proclamations and was thus largely mute when the Berlin Wall finally fell in 1989. “I guess I’m just not an excitable guy,” he told CBS reporter Leslie Stahl and a similarly bewildered White House press corps amazed by his laconic response. But Bush knew presidential triumphalism at that precarious moment might spark a hard-line backlash. “I’m not going to dance on the wall,” he said privately, forgoing personal political gain to preserve America’s Cold War triumph.
Presidents are supposed to care more about the nation’s fate than their own. Barack Obama’s reputation suffered when he refused to back up his own “red line” against Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013, but he ultimately reasoned his promise to avoid another Middle East quagmire mattered more than his own temporary loss of prestige. Joe Biden’s decision to keep his promise to end America’s generation-long fight in Afghanistan showed consistency even when retaliation for losses endured during the evacuation might have helped him in the polls. Better to demonstrate prudence, he reasoned, than to rashly reverse a well-considered decision in hope of temporarily saving face.
This is why the prospect of a second Trump presidency is so terrifying: His unconsidered words reverberate. He was the first president since Harry Truman, which is to say the only president ever, to cast doubt on our commitment to defend our NATO allies. “Does that mean that you won’t protect us in case — if we don’t pay, you won’t protect us from Russia,” Trump boasted a foreign leader lamenting. “I said, ‘That’s exactly what it means.’”
Perhaps this was more bluster than extortion, a negotiating tactic to encourage tight-fisted allies to boost their defense spending. Either way, the story has become part of Trump’s standard rally repertoire. Our allies, meanwhile, inch closer to creating their own security guarantees every time Trump puts another dent in the armor of collective security. Including their own nuclear deterrent.
Treaties and promises are, ultimately, mere scraps of paper. They only matter if leaders are trusted to follow through. After a decade of undermining Washington’s commitment to NATO, including four years as president, Trump has no reservoir of reliability among our partners, at least those that remain beyond the grip of their own strongmen. During a second Trump presidency our most meaningful allies would be certain to further their own security arrangements without U.S. involvement and thus, without U.S. input. After all, would you buy a second car from a dealer that threatens to disregard the warranty on your first?
Trump’s prevarications underline his unreliability. He will say anything that leaps to mind, or anything he thinks will help him win, no matter the veracity or collateral damage. A presidential candidate willing to lie about immigrants, FEMA, military chiefs or a hurricane’s expected path can’t be trusted to tell the truth about future crises. Worse still is his tendency to double down rather than admitting error. If Trump’s putting America First means risking the well-being of Ohio schoolchildren, continuing to push the Big Lie that he won the last election or redefining the Jan. 6 Capitol assault as pure patriotism rather than partisan violence, why would our foreign friends trust his judgment?
Trump’s falsehoods are unmatched in presidential history. Franklin Roosevelt promised that Americans would build 50,000 aircraft a year to combat Nazi aggression. Asked by aides where he got that big, round number, Roosevelt responded he’d made it up, noting that defeating fascism required Americans to think in larger terms than ever before. Abraham Lincoln fibbed as well, telling newspaper readers in 1862 that he was not considering emancipating the Confederacy’s enslaved people when he’d already decided to do so. Even the greats sometimes lie, albeit for national rather than personal gain. Trump lies for himself.
International politics is not best overseen by saints or sophists. We are forced to trust the person we put in charge of our security to use their words judiciously. But Donald Trump shuns what Ike learned, Reagan deployed, Bush restrained and Obama realized: The big stick of American power requires speaking not so much softly as reliably.
FDR and Lincoln knew when they were lying. Does Trump? The world should fear another four years of wondering if he can tell the difference.
Jeffrey A. Engel is the founding director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. He is at work on his 15th book, “Seeking Monsters to Destroy: How Americans Go to War from George Washington to Today.”
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Alabama4 minutes agoAlabama has one of college football’s toughest schedule stretches in 2026
-
Alaska7 minutes agoFormer Alaska corrections officer sentenced to 150 years in prison for killing wife and teen daughter
-
Arizona13 minutes agoDozens charged under Preston’s Law in Arizona
-
Arkansas19 minutes agoStockton rappers plead guilty to possessing machine gun, marijuana in Arkansas traffic stop
-
California22 minutes agoCalifornia’s AB 412 Still Demands Developers Do The Impossible
-
Colorado27 minutes agoColorado governor vetoes bill that would have allowed lawsuits against federal immigration officers, signs another to regulate detention centers
-
Connecticut35 minutes agoOwner seeks return of historic Abraham Lincoln documents lost in New London
-
Delaware37 minutes agoDelaware high school lacrosse star returns for playoffs after potentially deadly jaw condition
