Tag: foreign policy

US to Begin European Troop Withdrawal Talks, NATO Ambassador Says

In a move signaling a long-overdue shift in American foreign policy, the United States, under President Donald J. Trump, is preparing to open discussions with European allies on reducing its military footprint across the continent.

US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker confirmed the Trump administration’s plans during a security forum in Estonia, stating that the conversations will formally begin after June’s NATO summit in The Hague, Reuters reported.

“Nothing has been determined,” Whitaker said, “but as soon as we do, we are going to have these conversations in the structure of NATO.” He made it clear this isn’t just another round of diplomatic foot-dragging. “It’s more than 30 years of the US desire to reduce troops in Europe. President Trump just said, enough—this is going to happen, and it’s going to happen now.”

The remarks starkly contrast with previous administrations’ foreign policy, which treated NATO like a sacred cow regardless of how little European members contributed in return. Trump-era officials have increasingly called out what they see as chronic European underfunding and dependency.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth minced no words earlier this year, declaring that “stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”

In private discussions over the allegedly encrypted messaging app Signal, Hegseth reportedly expressed his “loathing of European free-loading,” a sentiment echoed by Vice President J.D. Vance. The two have become key voices pushing to restore a foreign policy rooted in American interests, not global entanglements.

Despite the uproar in some NATO capitals, Whitaker reassured allies that the US isn’t abandoning the alliance altogether—just recalibrating its role. “We’re going to remain in this alliance,” he said. “But we’re not going to have any more patience for foot-dragging.”

The numbers behind the move are substantial. America currently maintains an estimated 128,000 troops across Europe, with Germany hosting the lion’s share. Poland, Italy, and the UK also house significant contingents.

But the political winds are shifting, and rightly so. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently tried to tamp down fears after the US quietly redeployed forces away from a major Ukrainian support hub. Still, the writing’s on the wall.

For decades, Washington has carried the bulk of the military burden in Europe, funding and defending nations that often lecture Americans while failing to meet even basic NATO spending obligations. With ballooning domestic priorities and a border crisis back home, many Americans—especially those aligned with the nationalist, Trump-aligned right—are asking why their sons and daughters are still stationed abroad to defend countries that won’t defend themselves.

Critics of the withdrawal, unsurprisingly, warn of a “security gap” that Russia could exploit.

Keep reading

How War Propaganda Has Fueled American Foreign Policy For A Century

The New York Times this week reports that the Trump administration has canceled many grants that were to fund “research” on “misinformation.” This is being presented by the media as a dastardly deed that will supposedly allow the spread of misleading or false information through various media channels.

Of course, if there were any genuine interest in studying the most egregious efforts to spread misinformation, media outlets like the Times would study themselves and their friends in the regime. After all, few organizations have been more complicit than the national American media and the US foreign policy establishment when it comes to spreading much of the worst propaganda in American history. I say “worst” because this propaganda has often been used in service to the worst ends: to gin up support for a variety of wars resulting in the deaths of thousands—sometimes even hundreds of thousands—of innocents.

Relatively recent media-regime partnerships in propagandistic misinformation include the “Russiagate” hoax, various efforts to obscure US meddling in Ukraine, and the nearly nonstop drumbeat of “news” stories over the past twenty years designed to push for regime change in various countries from Venezuela to Russia to Libya and to Syria—where the Assad regime, according to US design, was recently replaced by Islamist terrorists. And then, of course, there is the nonstop stream of misinformation designed to prop up the State of Israel and obscure its many war crimes. And let’s not forget the fictional “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq which the US presented to the United Nations as established fact.

Throughout all this, the interventionist “foreign policy blob” in Washington received near universal support from its friends at publications like the Times and the Washington Post.

The United States did not invent these tactics. Over the past 100-plus years, however, perhaps no regime was more innovative than the British when it came to inventing “facts” designed to manufacture popular consent for wars and more foreign intervention. The United States has done its best to adopt similar methods, however, and creating invented narratives in service to the regime’s foreign policy goals is now standard operating procedure for the American state as well.

Keep reading

The National Endowment for Democracy goes dark

The National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S.-government backed nonprofit designed to influence the domestic politics of countries across the globe, says its efforts are part of a campaign to promote “open and transparent government.”

The group, funded by Congress and working in tandem with the State Department, has backed activists and civil society groups across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa to push for greater disclosure among government entities. For instance, a recent NED report argues that “enhancing transparency” is vital for building trust in institutions and democratic governance, and urges the adoption of new disclosure laws for countries in the Balkans.

Despite the altruistic goals of disclosure for the developing world, NED is now going dark. In a new “duty of care” policy published this week, NED quietly announced a new rule to conceal the names of recipients of its programs from the public. Its 2024 grant list, attached to the policy, features dollar figures and one sentence summaries for over 1,700 grants. All of the external recipient names and identities have been wiped.

The move amounts to a fundamental shift in NED programming. For decades, the group, in accordance with its public demands for transparency, has published annual lists disclosing its grant recipients.

Formed in the early years of the Reagan administration in response to increasing controversy surrounding the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, NED set out to engage in pro-American foreign influence initiatives that were once the domain of covert operations. “This program will not be hidden in the shadows. It will stand proudly in the spotlight, and that’s where it belongs,” stated Reagan in 1983.

“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” stated former acting NED president Allen Weinstein in a widely quoted 1991 interview with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. “The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flap potential is close to zero. Openness is its own protection,” he continued.

The primary U.S. funder of overt operations has been the NED, the quasi-private group originally headed by Carl Gershman that is controlled by the U.S. Congress, Ignatius explained. Through the late 1980s, it did openly what had once been covert — such as dispensing money to anti-communist forces behind the Iron Curtain and funding dissident media known as ‘samizdat’.

The endowment was initially active inside the Soviet Union. It gave money to Soviet trade unions; to a foundation headed by Russian activist Ilya Zaslavsky; to an oral history project headed by Soviet historian Yuri Afanasyev; to the Ukrainian independence movement known as Rukh, and to many other projects. Avoiding the scandal of journalists and governments uncovering covert political action funding has been the raison d’être.

Keep reading

Making Sense of Trump’s Tariffs

Trump’s entire political history is a cautionary tale against confusing elite and media fury for heartland sentiment. A certain strategic coherence and a common tactic unite Trump’s domestic and foreign policies in pursuit of the overarching goal of making America great again. The bigger concern is not that there’s no method to his apparent madness, but that the implementation of his ambitious national and international agenda could be imperilled by incompetence and bumbling, as with the amateurish use of Signal chat groups for highly sensitive discussions.

There are three components to each of Trump’s domestic and foreign policies that he is pursuing with a sense of urgency with wounds still raw from how the DC swamp-dwellers derailed his first term. Domestically, he is dismantling Net Zero, DEI and gender self-ID policies that have imposed exorbitant tax, regulatory and compliance costs on American consumers, producers and institutions. They have also deepened identitarian divisions and conflicts that threaten to destroy social cohesion and unleash an orgy of national self-abasement. Internationally, he wants to step back from forever wars that have taken a heavy toll on American blood and treasure, distribute the burden of defending Western interests and values more equitably among allies – J.D. Vance is surely right to say that being a ‘permanent security vassal’ of the US is neither in its nor their interest – and reverse the decades-long drift into globalisation and globalism that have deindustrialised America and ‘Gulliverised’ its freedom of action in world affairs with normative restraints. Mass immigration is a seventh on-border pathology that straddles domestic and foreign policy. Between them, the suite of domestic and international policies will, he believes, restore national pride and identity, stop America being ripped off by security and trade partners, re-shore manufacturing capacity and re-establish America as the word’s most powerful industrial and military power.

This is where the paradigm-shifting tariffs come in. Benjamin Brewster is credited with having written in the Yale Literary Magazine way back in February 1882 that “in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, while in practice there is”. In orthodox economic theory, free trade and globalisation create winners all round. In practice, they’ve created winners and losers, widening inequality both within and among nations. ‘Free’ trade has rewarded ‘everywhere’ elites even while its prescriptions have immiserated the ‘nowhere’ folks and denuded America’s manufacturing strengths. The inequitable distribution of the burdens of globalisation has shredded the social contracts between governments and citizens. People are citizens of nations, not of economies. Nationalism requires the prioritisation of citizens over business. Policies that enrich Chinese while impoverishing Americans, that make China stronger while hollowing out America’s industrial-cum-military might, are the antithesis of this foundational social compact.

Trump’s instinct may well be right that globalisation had shifted the trading balance to America’s net disadvantage and the new equilibrium that eventually settles after his rupture of the existing world trading order will reposition the US to recover lost ground. The WTO, for example, has proven to be not fit for purpose in enforcing fair-trade rules on a predatory non-market economy of China’s size and a mercantilist bloc like the EU. Time will tell if the punitive tariffs are a ‘shock and awe’ negotiating tactic to recalibrate the trading order or an attempt to compel trading partners to capitulate to arbitrary US demands. Trump is taking an audacious gamble that efforts by others to threaten American financial primacy as they de-risk from the US by diversifying to other markets and suppliers will quickly run into hard limits. Besides, how many countries will, if pushed to the choice, opt for long-term strategic dependence on China rather than the US? Will we? The scramble for bilateral deals with Washington, by countries that hold weaker trade cards than the US and are rushing to placate Trump, may prove a harbinger. For example, hit with 18% tariffs, Zimbabwe has suspended tariffs on US goods in order to build a ‘positive relationship’ with the Trump Administration. And the administration has worked the miracle of converting British PM Keir Starmer into a champion of free speech and increased defence spending while cutting health and foreign aid spending.

Michael Pettis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writing in Foreign Affairs on April 21st, notes that the world trading order became increasingly cumbersome as countries externalised domestic economic imbalances into trading imbalances through a complex maze of tariffs, non-tariff barriers and subsidies. Trump’s policies aim at the transformation of this global trade and capital regime that subordinated the needs of individual economies to the demands of the global system. A new equilibrium of individual and global needs could result in better-balanced economic growth, higher wages and trade parity.

Keep reading

The Case For Tariffs – How Tariffs Can Help Bring Back The Golden Age Of American Economy

About once a decade, the question of Protective Tariffs finds its way into the national debate. Whether a political candidate dares to raise the issue or a clever collection of activists and analysts work together to inject it into the national discussion, the reaction is always the same from the halls of entrenched power – hysteria and panic over the mere discussion of tariffs. 

Both the establishment Right and the establishment Left in the United States argue that tariffs represent an end to industry and trade, that they deny opportunity to the third world, will only raise prices for American consumers, and that they are the first shot in a tragic trade war. In the halls of corporations and academia, everyone seems to agree – tariffs are bad for the economy and the country as a whole. Predictably, corporate property in Congress parrot the same line and it appears that opposing tariffs is one of the few areas where Democrats and Republicans can agree.

Thus, when anti-tariff politicians, CEOs, and academics speak, their warnings that tariffs represent an end to their globalist vision where international corporations continue to abandon Western workers with their pesky wages, rights, and protections while exploiting third world workers for lower wages, easy replacement, and lack of concern for basic human needs are thinly veiled. This latter, more honest, concern is, in fact, correct. tariffs do threaten globalism and corporate exploitation of workers and societies. Particularly older working class citizens remember the days of American Tariffs and the undeniably better economic distribution of wealth and opportunity they afforded. Younger (middle aged) Americans remember at least the removal of those Tariffs and the “giant sucking sound” of American jobs leaving for Mexico, South and Central America, Asia, and China that decimated their communities and the American economy before their eyes. Indeed, it seems that the working class inherently understand the benefit of Tariffs and Protectionism, at least when they are properly explained. This is why such a massive and sustained media, academic, and governmental propaganda campaign has been invoked to convince them otherwise and why, whenever Tariffs are mentioned in the public discourse, they are immediately attacked as fringe, crazy, xenophobic, racist, populist, and dangerous. 

Keep reading

Stocks surge as White House confirms 100 countries want a trade deal with U.S.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has confirmed that there is progress on President Donald Trump’s agenda to get fair international trade standards for American manufacturers and consumers alike.

The president launched a series of tariff battles because for years American producers have had to pay high tariffs to get their products and services into other nations, while those nation’s often have been given virtually free access to American markets.

The imbalance is what has caused America’s large trade deficit and other financial complications.

Trump’s tariffs have been producing results she said.

“We’re doing very well in respect to a potential trade deal with China. There have now been 18 proposals and more than 100 countries around the world who are wanting to make a deal with the United States of America,” Leavitt confirmed.

“The president and administration are setting the stage for a deal with China. … We feel everyone involved wants to see a trade deal happen — and the ball is moving in the right direction.”

The Daily Mail pointed out the Dow Jones Industrial Average rocketed up 600 points on the announcement. Actually, the market surged about 1,000 points on the news.

Fox News reported she continued, “You have Secretary Bessent, Secretary Lutnick, Ambassador Greer, NEC Director Hassett and Peter Navarro, the entire trade team meeting with 34 countries this week alone. We are moving at Trump speed to ensure these deals are made on behalf of the American worker and the American people.”

Keep reading

US Trade Wars and Military Globalization Spark Complex Alignments

President Trump’s new round of reciprocal and universal tariffs will escalate trade tensions, lower investment, hit market pricing, distort trade flows, disrupt supply chains, and undermine consumer, business and investor confidence. It will certainly penalize global economic prospects.

As fears of a recession mount and mass protests in the US have begun, the loss of over $6 trillion on Wall Street in only two days is just a prelude of what’s to come. Along with China, the large trading economies in Europe, Japan and South Korea, India and Brazil and the rest of the world are positioned to counter the Trump tariffs.

Days before Trump’s new tariffs, China declared its trade minister had agreed with Japan and South Korea, Washington’s two treaty allies in Asia, on a common response to Trump’s actions. In Seoul and Tokyo, the statement was seen as overstated. Nonetheless, after the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk Yeol, the divided South Korea must cope with trade war amid a constitutional crisis, whereas Japan’s PM Shigeru Ishiba has declared it a “national crisis.” In South and Southeast Asia, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, developing economies coping with natural disasters and external destabilization efforts are targeted by Trump tariffs as well.

As Washington is decoupling the old linkages between trade and defense policies, it has opened the Pandora’s box for multi-dimensional alignments.

“National security” as pretext for global fragmentation

Taken at face value, the Trump reciprocal tariffs indicate that contemporary America’s greatest threats would be Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Lesotho and Cambodia; that is, a few tiny French islands close to Canada and two poor and small developing countries in Africa and Southeast Asia, respectively.

Ostensibly, the new international tariffs are legitimized by “national security.” In practice, they foster new volatility and uncertainty.

In the past, US military allies were trade partners and vice versa. Now military allies are trade adversaries. In the past, disagreements were resolved while tariffs were reduced; today the reverse applies.

The new protectionism is reminiscent of the Smoot-Hawley and reciprocal tariffs in the 1930s that went hand in hand with assertive nationalism, xenophobia and massive military rearmament paving the way to World War II, the Holocaust, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is thus odd that the military dimension has been largely ignored in recent globalization/deglobalization surveys.

In 1945, the United States accounted for almost half of the global economy. It was the world’s manufacturing giant and greatest debtor. US dollar monopolized cross-border transactions. Today, the relative share of the US in the world economy has halved. It’s the world’s de-industrial giant and greatest borrower. And the global dominance of the US dollar in world transactions has likely been halved, too.

Military power is an entirely different story, however. It is the muscle that the Biden administration used covertly and the Trump White House likes to tout overtly. It is this brute military primacy that is systematically exploited as the White House seeks to hammer the world into its image.

Keep reading

Dem Rep. Raskin Threatens Foreign Nations That Work With Trump Admin – ‘When We Come Back To Power We Are Not Going To Look Kindly’

Corrupt Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin (Md.) issued a direct threat to leaders of foreign nations daring to do business with the Donald Trump administration in a Saturday podcast.

The Maryland representative told a “Pod Save America” host that Democrats need to promote “transnational Democratic solidarity,” a.k.a. left-wing globalism, in order to “prevent the spread of lawlessness and fascist chaos that’s been unleashed” by the Trump White House.

Raskin added that part of the worldwide “Democratic solidarity” should be the idea that “if and when” American Democrats “come back to power, and we will, we are not going to look kindly on people who facilitated authoritarianism in our country.”

The Democrat claimed foreign nations working with the current administration equates to “an assault on our Constitution and our people.”

Of course, one could argue that threatening global trade partners with repercussions for doing business with a lawfully elected president and Congress is an assault on both the U.S. Constitution and the will of the people who overwhelmingly voted for the MAGA politicians currently in power.

The radical rep. issued a similar threat during a Sunday appearance on MSNBC’s Inside With Jen Psaki, saying, “President Bukele… and the other tyrants, dictators, autocrats of the world have to understand that the Trump administration is not going to last forever.”

“We’re going to restore strong democracy to America and we will remember who stood up for democracy in America and who tried to drive us down towards dictatorship and autocracy,” he stated.

Keep reading

Elizabeth Warren: Congress Has to Take Tariff Authority Away from Trump

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Congress had to take away the tariff authority from President Donald Trump.

Warren said, “It is a mistake to have the President of the United States out there just playing red light, green light and saying, oh, this morning I woke up and think the tariffs should be this big. Now, I think they should be this big; now, I think they should be somewhere else. And I got to say, saying, well, I will continue to make those decisions and I’m going to hold off on these tariffs for 90 days, that doesn’t put the economy in a better place. That doesn’t put investors in a better place.”

She added, “Congress has a job right now, and that is to step up and take this authority away from Donald Trump. He has proven how he will use it. But remember the statute that he’s now using starts with a declaration of emergency. And in that same statute, Congress has the responsibility to decide is it really an emergency or not? Are we really in an emergency with Belgium right now? Are we really in an emergency with South Korea? Congress can say no, there’s no emergency. It’s a resolution. And if we do that, it takes Donald Trump back to the trade as we had it before. Tariffs are then decided with Congress having an important say in it. That’s an important signal to the rest of the world. Right now it’s a no curbs on Donald Trump and that means chaos and corruption. We have an opportunity in Congress to vote that down and to say, no, we are going to use tariffs in a far more targeted way.”

Keep reading

Ten Tariff Questions Never Asked

1.Trump’s So-Called “Trade War.”

Many call the American effort to obtain either tariff parity or a reduction in the roughly $1 trillion trade deficit and fifty years of consecutive trade deficits “a trade war.” But then what do they call the policies of the past half-century by Europe, Asia, China, and others to ensure asymmetrical tariffs, pseudo-health and security trade restrictions, and large surpluses?

A trade peace? Trade fairness?

2. Do Nations Prefer Surpluses or Deficits?

Why do most nations prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs?

Are Europe, Asia, China, and others stupid? Are they suicidal in continuing their trade surpluses and protective or asymmetrical tariffs?

Is the United States uniquely brilliant in maintaining a half-century of cumulative trade deficits? Do Americans alone discover the advantages of a $1 trillion annual trade deficit and small or nonexistent tariffs?

Why don’t America’s trading partners prefer deficits like ours—given we supposedly believe they are either advantageous or perhaps irrelevant?

3. Would Our Trade Partners Prefer to Trade Places With Us?

Would our trade partners prefer to have America’s supposed benefits of a $1-trillion trade deficit? Would the United States then “suffer” like they do by running up $200 billion annual surpluses?

4. What if Wages Went Up at the Rate of the Stock Market?

What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade wages had increased at the rate of stocks—and the stocks at the rate of wages?

5. Is Wall Street’s Panic Based on What Might Happen—Or What Is Happening?

Is Wall Street’s meltdown a fear of what might happen in the future? Or is it reacting to March’s latest jobs report that there were 93,000 more jobs created than predicted? Was the Wall Street panic predicated on reports of much lower oil prices? Did the furor arise over the March inflation report that the annualized inflation rate dipped to 2.6% per year?

6. Is the Frenzy Caused by the Trump Economic Agenda?

Is Wall Street’s worry that Trump’s impending tax cuts, more deregulation, greater budget cuts, and continued efforts to eliminate budget deficits and reduce national debt will stall economic growth?

Keep reading