Connect with us

News

Trump’s 2025 Foreign Policy Plan: Make Colonialism Great Again

Published

on

The president-elect has made extraordinary statements recently about poaching land from other countries. It’s tempting to write them off, but we must take him seriously.

A little over four years ago, I wrote a political obituary of Donald J. Trump. My fervent hope then was that I was penning the grand finale about the national trauma that Trump had imposed on the country for four years; I wanted, somehow, to write us out of the political darkness that Trump had embodied during his term, then to take a long shower to scrub off the accumulated filth of covering this heinous figure for four years and to move on to sunnier topics.
Alas, that dream was frightfully premature.

Here we are, in 2025, careening toward another go-round of chaos, dysfunction, sadism, corruption, and sycophancy. Except this time around we cannot even say that we, as a country, voted for all of this in a fit of absence of mind. We cannot claim that we didn’t know the full foulness of what Trump and Trumpism represent. We cannot plead ignorance to the pseudo-fascist catechism of the MAGA movement. Nor can we take solace in the fact that Trump got elected without winning the popular vote—since in 2024 he not only won the Electoral College vote but also won a plurality (and not-quite-but-almost a majority) of all the votes cast. This is, in other words, exactly what America now is.
Nearly half of voters in this country were willing to make a bargain with the political devil in exchange for a promise of lower egg prices at the supermarket and gas prices at the pump—and in exchange for permission to give their ids free rein to gang up on marginalized “others,” be they asylum seekers or trans youth. Their votes will now unleash the attack dogs in our culture.

But give the man his due. It’s hard to imagine how the next four years will be boring. Hell, we’re still more than two weeks out from Inauguration Day and the stock market has already become one giant roller-coaster ride. The various inchoate wings of the MAGA movement are in open warfare with one another over immigration policy and exactly how much xenophobia is too much. Elon Musk and Laura Loomer have been indulging in the X equivalent of an illegal cockfight—you know you’re through the looking glass when Musk, who recently endorsed Germany’s neo-Nazi AfD party, comes off as the voice of moderation in a debate on immigration policy. And bird flu is threatening to make the leap into the human population just when the conspiracy-mongering anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. is poised to take control over the Department of Health and Human Services.

And none of that even touches on Trump’s extraordinary proposals to upend the international order. Over the past few weeks, as he hovered in the wings to take power once more, Trump has signaled his foreign policy priorities, anchored around a string of threats to unilaterally impose tariff regimes not only against geopolitical rivals such as China but also against close allies of the United States, as well as a series of utterly extraordinary musings about poaching land from other countries—the Panama Canal from Panama, Greenland from Denmark, and Canada from… Canada.

CNN labeled these plans as just an audacious geopolitical strategy akin to that which led to the Louisiana Purchase and the buying of Alaska from imperial Russia. It seems to me that in fact this is more about two German words beloved by the Nazis: Lebensraum and Anschluss. The former expressed the Nazi itch to expand eastward into lands lived in by people whom their racial theorists, such as Alfred Rosenberg, identified as being of a lower order of humanity than were the Aryan Germans. The latter expressed the idea of uniting all ethnic Germans into a single political unit—an idea that reached maturity with the absorption of the rump Austrian state into the Third Reich in March 1938.

When Trump talks about seizing land in Panama, or appropriating Greenland and all its vast mineral resources without considering the will of the indigenous population that lives there, that is an updated version of the European colonial project of the 19th century and the fascist colonial project of the 1930s and ’40s. When Trump deliberately needles Canadian leader Justin Trudeau by referring to him in social media posts as “Governor Trudeau” and speculates about absorbing Canada into the US as its 51st state, he is positing an Anschluss philosophy of Manifest Destiny updated for the 21st century; a worldview that believes all of wealthy North America, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic, is, inherently, destined to fall under the governance of Washington, DC.

The temptation is to dismiss all of this as just the usual ugly trolling strategy of Donald J. Trump. And it’s certainly possible that that’s all it is. After all, in the 21st century, nobody in their right mind would possibly turn on an erstwhile friend and neighbor by seizing their land… Would they, Putin?
But it’s also possible that Trump 2.0 is far more committed to an extreme political philosophy than was Trump 1.0. It is possible that this time around, drunk on his own power and belief in destiny, as well as his sense of political invulnerability, the near-octogenarian Trump will, as Putin did before him, allow his fascist instincts unfettered expression. After all, Trump has survived two impeachments, four criminal indictments, and two apparent assassination attempts, not to mention the fact that he was rewarded for his serial misbehavior by a Supreme Court ruling granting him virtual impunity and by a stunning election victory this past November. For a man of Trump’s already vast narcissism and ego, such a string of good fortune can only come off as something akin to divine intervention. Indeed, he has explicitly suggested that God has saved him so that he can save a “broken country.”

If that is the case, I suspect we will see it play out not only domestically—with a full-frontal assault on the media and on academic freedoms, with political prosecutions and show trials, and a willingness to deploy the National Guard, and perhaps the US military, against protesters and against immigrants—but also fairly quickly in the international arena.

Trump and his allies like to portray “America First” politics as the practice of peace-through-strength, of a United States concerned only with the well-being of its own citizens. In fact, what this gang of hoodlums is proposing is an America that uses, or threatens to use, brute military and economic force not only against established enemies but also, at least as importantly, against erstwhile friends. It is a might-is-right philosophy that views the world entirely in zero-sum terms, judging that what benefits the United States must, almost of necessity, hurt others; and, conversely, that what benefits others must, somehow, be seen as an intolerable rip-off of the good ole US of A.
Given such a calculus, why would Trump, who will soon control the most powerful military on earth, not bully allies to cede territory to him? Why would he not threaten to walk away from alliances unless allies pay to play? Why would he not grab key infrastructure assets, such as the Panama Canal, or at the very least coerce the governments who own those assets to make huge economic concessions, in order to maintain their sovereign integrity?

I desperately hope that I’m wrong, and that Trump turns out to be more the troll than the tyrant. But, frankly, I’m not seeing too many signs of a cool, calm, and collected governing strategy emerging in this bizarre interregnum. What I am seeing, hiding in plain sight, is the erratic, perhaps senescent, nature of the would-be strongman, paraded on full, rancid, display before a global audience.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

“I think yes”: Biden believes he would have won election over Trump had he stayed in the race

Published

on

By

When asked if his health would have held up to four more years of the presidency, Biden said “Who the hell knows?”
President Joe Biden thinks he had the juice. 

The outgoing president speculated that he would have beaten President-elect Donald Trump a second time had he stayed in the presidential race in 2024. In a wide-ranging interview with USA Today, Biden was adamant that he would have fared better than Vice President Kamala Harris but balked on whether he could have served for four more years.

“It’s presumptuous to say that, but I think yes,” Biden told the outlet when asked if he would have won in November. “When Trump was running again for reelection, I really thought I had the best chance of beating him.”

Biden was less confident about making it through a second term. He said he considered “pass[ing] the baton” because he “wasn’t looking to be president when I was 85 years old, 86 years old.”

“Who the hell knows?” Biden said when questioned directly about whether he would have held his hypothetical presidency through 2028.

Elsewhere in the interview, Biden speculated about how his presidency would be remembered and advocated for what he viewed as the strengths of his administration.

“I hope that history says that I came in and I had a plan how to restore the economy and reestablish America’s leadership in the world,” Biden said. “That was my hope. I mean, you know, who knows? And I hope it records that I did it with honesty and integrity, that I said what was on my mind.”

Continue Reading

News

BREAKING: Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Claps Back After Trump Suggests Renaming Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America” with Bold Renaming Proposal of Her Own!

Published

on

By

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum hits back hard after Donald Trump absurdly suggests renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” by suggesting some renaming of her own.

This is how you handle a man-child like Trump…

“I mean obviously, ‘Gulf of Mexico,’ the name is recognized by the United Nations, an organism of the United Nations. But next, why don’t we call it ‘Mexican America?’ It sounds nice, doesn’t it?” Sheinbaum said at a press conference.

She then waved at a map showing that North America was historically referred to as “Mexican America” before the rise of the United States.

“Since 1607 The Constitution of Apatzingán was for Mexican America, so we’re going to call it ‘Mexican America,’ it sounds nice, doesn’t it?” she went on. “And Gulf of Mexico, well, since 1607 and it’s also recognized internationally.”

Brian Winter, vice president of the Council of the Americas, praised Sheinbaum’s remarks—

“Humor can be a good tactic, it projects strength, which is what Trump responds to. It was probably the right choice on this issue,” he said.

“Although President Sheinbaum knows it won’t work on everything — Trump and his administration will demand serious engagement from Mexico on the big issues of immigration, drugs and trade,” Winter added.

Incidents like this reaffirm what a huge mistake the United States made be reelecting Trump. We are transitioning from stable, sane governance to the egomaniacal ravings of a reality TV star.

The world is laughing at us.

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s trolling and tariffs sped up Trudeau’s demise. How will Canada handle him now?

Published

on

By

Liberal Party infighting over Trudeau’s handling of the president-elect and his threat of tariffs dealt a final blow to the prime minister’s premiership. What now?

Canadians woke up Tuesday to an uncertain future, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he would resign and bring his near-decade in power to an end.

Trudeau’s announcement came just days into an election year and followed weeks of mounting pressure from within his own party to step down as he battled dire poll ratings partly driven by soaring inflation, rising immigration and his handling of President-elect Donald Trump.

“If I’m having to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option” in Canada’s next election, Trudeau, 53, told reporters in Ottawa.

His decision has triggered an urgent search within the Liberal Party to identify a new candidate who can take on Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre has dominated in the polls and was last on 44% according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, compared with Trudeau — whose rating sits just above 20%.

The Trump factor

A key focus for whoever leads Canada next will be managing their country’s relationship with the incoming Trump administration.

After winning re-election in November, the president-elect vowed to impose a 25% tariff on all products imported from Canada and Mexico.

While Trudeau sought to appease Trump, visiting him at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, the incoming president has since repeatedly jabbed at the prime minister, suggesting making Canada the 51st state and reiterating the idea in response to Trudeau’s resignation.

Trudeau’s handling of Trump precipitated the final blow to his tenure, with the high-profile departure last month of his Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland. In a scathing resignation letter, she accused Trudeau of failing to take seriously Trump’s threats to increase import tariffs on Canadian goods.

Freeland warned that Canada needed to take Trump’s plans “extremely seriously” and avoid “costly political gimmicks.”

In contrast to Trudeau, Poilievre — the former-Conservative minister’s biography touts him as a “life-long conservative” and “champion of a free market” — has sought to present himself as the candidate with the “strength and smarts to stand up for this country.”

In an interview with Canadian broadcaster CTV News last month, Poilievre said that his first message for the incoming president was “that first and foremost, Canada will never be the 51st state of the U.S.” — and Canada, he said, had a “very proud future ahead of us.”

Tari Ajadi, a politics professor at McGill University in Montreal, was less sure. He told NBC News that Poilievre has yet to produce a clear plan on how to tackle the Canada-U.S. relationship under Trump, adding that “I think Canada’s in for a rough ride.”

What happens now?

Even though Trudeau is quitting, Canadians will have to wait for months before they can head to the polls.

An election date has yet to be announced, and while the Canada Elections Act says it must be held on or before Oct. 20, Trudeau’s resignation means it’s likely that a vote will be called before then.

Before that can happen, the Liberal Party must find a candidate. Trudeau said he would remain at the party’s helm until his party colleagues have undertaken a “robust, nationwide, competitive process” to find his successor.

In the meantime, Trudeau said Canada’s governor general had accepted his request to prorogue Parliament, suspending proceedings without the dissolution of parliament, until March 24. Then, a confidence vote is expected to be held, with a no-confidence result triggering the next federal election.

That means the Liberal government will remain in power, but parliamentary activity will come to a halt.

Referring to his party’s lack of working majority and Canada’s legislative gridlock, Trudeau said Monday that “Parliament has been paralyzed for months after what has been the longest session of a minority Parliament in Canadian history.”

Who will replace Trudeau?

Trudeau, a former teacher who campaigned with the slogan “sunny ways,” took office in November 2015 and enjoyed high popularity ratings early in his leadership with the promise of liberal reforms, progressive tax policies and a focus on gender equality.

His initial appeal was also boosted by the legacy of his father, the charismatic but polarizing Pierre Trudeau, who was one of Canada’s longest-serving leaders.

But in recent years, Trudeau’s approval ratings plummeted from around 65% in September 2016 to around 22% in December, according to the nonprofit Angus Reid Institute.

According to figures from the Angus Reid Institute, Freeland, a former journalist, is the Liberal candidate most likely to beat Poilievre.

Former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney is also a contender, and the Conservatives have sensed that. They have long attacked Carney, with Poilievre dismissing him as “just like Justin.”

But regardless of who Trudeau’s successor is, “it’s hard to imagine anyone coming in who can hold on to the government in the next election,” Cornell University government professor Peter Loewen.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.