Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Your Essential Guide to How Trump Will Handle Literally Any Foreign Crisis

Opinion

Donald J. Trump

IN FLIGHT - OCTOBER 19: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the press on October 19, 2025 aboard Air Force One. The President is returning to Washington, DC, after spending his weekend at Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

Getty Images, Alex Wong

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Every American president has a foreign policy doctrine. But no president has ever had one quite like Donald Trump’s.

With President George W. Bush, it was to invade resource-rich countries under the pretext that there are terrorists there, preferably preemptively. Bomb them to spread freedom and democracy, but leave the Middle Eastern monarchy in Saudi Arabia that’s backing them alone, because, well, they already run a country that sells oil to the U.S.


President Barack Obama ran the show like a party van. Pile in as many allies as possible for the trip down regime-change highway. And if some of them insist on driving — like France and the UK did en route to overthrowing Libya — then all the better for when the crash inevitably occurs.

Trump has been nothing short of a gravitational force that has bent global conflicts to his will — for better or worse — like Bush. But he also likes having allies around, like Obama. The difference? No president has ever been so overt in factoring in the cash benefit for America. And one American, in particular: himself. Arguably, the Trump Doctrine could be described as overtly monetized hegemony.

The transatlantic relationship under Trump looks like a subscription renewal scam, with Trump telling Europeans that their 2 percent NATO defense spending commitments just randomly got upped to 5 percent.

Trump also recently went over to Israel to celebrate the peace deal he says he worked out between Gaza and Israel. In his speech to Israeli parliament, he singled out from the audience Israeli-American megadonor Miriam Adelson, whom he suggested loves Israel more than America. He conveniently left out the fact that his campaign benefited from about $100 million of her largesse, according to Forbes.

Of course, peace talks under the Trump Doctrine come with a side of commerce. In September, the Trump administration also proposed selling Israel $6 billion more in weapons, the Associated Press noted. “We make the best weapons in the world, and we’ve got a lot of them. And we’ve given a lot to Israel, frankly,” Trump said in his speech, turning alleged war crimes into a showcase opportunity. “I mean, Bibi would call me so many times, ‘Can you get me this weapon, that weapon, that weapon?’ Some of them I never heard of… But we’d get them here… And they are the best.”

Trump also talked about how rich the surrounding Arab countries are, and how they’re going to pay to rebuild Gaza now. So here comes “Trump Gaza,” the resort, probably — if the AI-generated video that Trump posted on Truth Social earlier this year is any indication.

Trump’s son-in-law, real estate mogul Jared Kushner, was front and center during Trump’s Israel trip as a negotiator without any public mandate, and has already publicly salivated over the “valuable” Gaza oceanfront property.

Sounds very American profits first. War is milked for weapons sales as long as possible, and then things wrap up with a connected few well-positioned to get first dibs.

Similarly, Trump had been talking up the notion of giving long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine capable of striking Moscow — something that Europe wasn’t even yet willing to do with its German Taurus missiles despite all their anti-Russian tough talk. Why not? Because any plausible deniability would go out the window. Tough to argue against the idea of the West being directly at war with Russia when its own personnel would be needed to operate the guidance systems for these long-range strikes.

But we’re not talking about Trump giving Ukraine a gift here. Rather, it would mean him selling them to European countries for Kyiv. Suddenly the guy who keeps talking about how much he wants the Nobel Peace Prize sounded like he was on the verge of the kind of recklessness that could launch a third world war, and the only thing standing in the way was the notoriously janky common sense of European leaders.

It was after a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Trump’s mind refocused back on peace, at least temporarily. Trump said that the U.S. needed to keep its Tomahawk supply and that “a lot of bad things could happen” if they were to be used. Surely his change of heart has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that, by his own admission, he and Putin talked about future trade deals between the U.S. and Russia for when the bombings wrap up.

See the pattern? Peace first. Unless there are easy profits to be made for America from war. At least until there’s an even better opportunity for private profiteering.


Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of independently produced talk shows in French and English. Her website can be found at http://www.rachelmarsden.com.

Your Essential Guide to How Trump Will Handle Literally Any Foreign Crisis was originally published by the Tribune Content Agency and is republished with permission.


Read More

Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less
​Herbert Hoover  listening to a one valve radio set.

Herbert Hoover (1874 - 1964), Republican Party candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America, listening to a one valve radio set.

Topical Press Agency/Getty Images

A Second Axial Age Demands Global Leadership Rooted in Hoover’s Ideals

The time has come when we must take an enlarged vision of the future. (Herbert Hoover)

Our 31st President, Herbert Hoover, said this in 1926. Although one hundred years have passed since — and it is always time to take a larger view of the future — his proclamation rings truer now than ever.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. President Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on October 16, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida.

(Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

Trump — President by Law, Not by Constitutional Duty

A president can win an election and still fail the test of leadership. The presidency is a public trust, not a personal platform, family enterprise, or license to demean people and disregard the law. Donald Trump holds the office legally. Yet his conduct raises a fundamental question: is he fulfilling the constitutional duties that give the presidency its meaning? The answer, visible in his behavior, is no. He performs the role of president the way a showman performs a part — loudly, aggressively, and without the substance the office requires.

Leadership is not conferred by a title; it is demonstrated through conduct. Ethical leadership requires integrity, honesty, sound judgment, and accountability. Moral leadership demands empathy, fairness, humility, and the courage to do what is right even when doing so carries a personal or political cost. When a president repeatedly demeans people, disregards established norms, and places personal interests above public duty, citizens have every reason to question his leadership — or whether he is leading at all.

Keep ReadingShow less