Foreign Affairs The Donald’s Dazzling Davos Display The usual suspects are beside themselves—especially the British. I could almost hear the howls from Davos, and I was only 150 miles away. Kushner’s plans for a new Gaza-Riviera almost had me howling too—70,000 dead and this bum is thinking of real estate opportunities—but nothing compared to the screams from fat cats after Trump proposed to replace the useless UN. It was even better earlier. Last Tuesday evening I watched my Alpine TV as the great warrior performed “lukatmi,” the hardest and most lethal of martial arts, for close to three hours. Yes, I do mean The Donald’s press conference, when he outdid all samurai in valor, bravery, fearlessness, and courage. So much so, he has leftwing Americans dumbfounded and open-mouthed, and many Brits seething with anger. I read two conservative British newspapers, and both were hooting with outrage, but I will get to the Brits in a moment.  I also noticed that The Donald has tamed the White House Correspondent clique, in the past an extremely demanding lefty group that took itself far more seriously than any president, with a ghastly old hag in the front row showing off with provocative attacks at the expense of presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. Trump has trimmed the gang down to size, with mostly unknowns asking polite questions.  But back to the Brits, and why they dislike Yankee-doodle-dandies. The kindest words written by a right-wing columnist described The Donald’s “lukatmi” exhibition of martial prowess as “having fallen into a Caligulan psychosis.” It may sound knowledgeable and smarty-pants, but I detect British envy surfacing like a U-boat about to surrender after it has unsuccessfully launched its torpedoes. The second columnist simply wrote that the great lukatmi artist “is no longer compos mentis.” But my favorite was the one that brought in Cleopatra, the Egyptian queen, not the Hollywood one: “Cleopatra died 2,000 years ago, but the Great Pyramid was built more than 2,000 years before her by Khufu… so putting that into perspective, Trump’s shenanigans are a mere bump in the road.”  Boy, that was a good one—Cleo, Khufu, pyramids, The Donald. What he forgot to mention was the fact that Hollywood’s Cleo, Liz Taylor, married eight times, whereas the real Cleo was Mark Antony’s fifth wife at the time of her death. Oh well, a Hollywood win for a change. The next day brought on more abuse for the once rich little boy from Queens. Again, The Donald did not deserve it, especially after he correctly reminded the Davos crowd that they would all be speaking German if Uncle Sam had not entered the war. “A blaze-starved pyromaniac,” was the best a right-wing commentator could do. (I hate to think what the lefty British media is writing, with words I couldn’t possibly repeat in The American Conservative’s elegant pages.)  Never mind. Trump keeps them bemused but confused, and his unpredictability keeps everyone off balance. Telling home truths to European basket-cases does not a popular teller make. What I find most annoying, however, is British anti-Americanism, as prevalent among the bluebloods as it is with lesser folk in the media and entertainment world. Why doesn’t French or Italian anti-Americanism, of which there’s plenty, annoy me? Well, the Frogs hate everyone, but they were the first to help back in 1779, with Rochambeau and Lafayette and so on. The Italians had the largest and richest communist party of Europe after the war, and, with a little help from the Soviet kitty, their media preached anti-Yankee sermons for close to 50 years. That’s why the Brits stick out; unlike the Frogs who loathe everybody, or the Italians who were paid to hate Uncle Sam, Brits are simply envious of American success. I’ve seen it so much during the 45-odd years I lived in London, among good friends who did it unwittingly, as well as yellow-bellied lefty hacks who were and are as likely to resist an opportunity to denigrate Uncle Sam as they are to refuse a free meal or drink.  No matter two world wars won by Uncle Sam with the British bulldog taking all the credit, at least in their media, their movies, and during drunken evenings in grand country houses. Is it 1776, later on the surrender at Yorktown, or even the Treaty of Ghent in 1815? It can’t be Suez in 1956 or Grenada in 1983; no one’s this petty. Margaret Thatcher loved the good Uncle, and she never stopped praising his capitalist energies until the end of her life. She was a friend of mine and came to stay with me in Switzerland.  Here’s another commentator writing in a conservative newspaper about what’s wrong with Britain today: “We’ve been infected by American individualism. Marriage and birth are out of style, pews are empty, and people only watch TV. No nation can resist the power of America or the temptation of individualism.” I say it’s not a bad infection, but the pews are empty because the Church of England went woke a long time ago. As have successive so-called Conservative governments. The Brits are getting what they richly deserve. The post The Donald’s Dazzling Davos Display appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Europe’s Delusions of Power The U.S. should break from the old continent, not bully it. Washington’s European allies are increasingly angry at President Donald Trump and his administration. The latest irritant was Trump’s initial insistence on “purchasing” Greenland from Denmark, with the president making it clear that Copenhagen must relinquish the island to the United States. Denmark and other European governments reacted harshly to such a brazen act of old-style imperialism. Several European members of NATO even planned joint military exercises in the vicinity of Greenland to emphasize their annoyance, and some officials warned that Washington’s bullying behavior could cost the United States its bases in Europe. But Greenland was hardly the first issue that has caused the transatlantic security and economic relationship to reach an unprecedented level of disenchantment. A pronounced chill already was apparent during Trump’s first term. The new president’s demands that NATO’s European members spend more on defense and stop free riding on Washington’s security efforts were not well received in allied capitals, although many of them eventually did comply. Early in the president’s second term, he and his administration soon alienated their NATO partners on an array of other issues. Bitter trade and tariff disputes erupted between the United States and several governments. Vice President J.D. Vance also delivered a caustic lecture to European delegates at the annual Munich Security Conference in February 2025 about their countries’ increasingly numerous, hypocritical violations of their professed democratic values. The administration’s ambivalence about NATO’s provocative support for Ukraine’s war against Russia drew shrill condemnation on the other side of the Atlantic. However, the differences on policy toward Russia also underscored Europe’s continuing dependence on the United States for the continent’s security. That realization stoked proposals from the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and other prominent officials to create a strong, independent European military. In May 2025, the European Union (EU) adopted a plan to spend $170 billion on developing a greater defense capability. Two motives for a more robust, independent military stance were evident. One was the (exaggerated) fear of an expansionist threat by Russia. That concern has become even more intense and far-fetched as the various feuds between the United States and its allies deepen over Greenland’s status and other matters. Indeed, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stressed in January 2026 that neutralizing the Russian threat to Ukraine must remain Europe’s top priority, even overshadowing the Greenland issue. Leading European powers are sometimes taking highly risky actions against Moscow. This month, French warships boarded and seized a Russian oil tanker in the Mediterranean, despite the danger of a direct clash on the high seas between a NATO member and Russia. The other prominent motive was a concern that European and U.S. interests and objectives were no longer sufficiently compatible. Trump’s initial threat to acquire Greenland from Denmark produced a new surge of loud, angry complaints from Washington’s NATO allies. European leaders have drawn a very firm line against the Trump administration’s policy. There are now unmistakable indications that the European members of NATO are preparing to create their own standing army in reaction to Washington’s abrasive conduct. Declarations of Europe’s independence from U.S. domination have become increasingly frequent and pointed among the continent’s political elite. Many Americans might be tempted to cheer on such signs of a more serious European commitment to military matters, despite the underlying risk to NATO unity and Washington’s domination of the alliance. Professor Rajan Menon, a longtime critic of NATO, asserts that the end of the alliance would, on balance, not be a bad development. To American realists, the decades of European security free riding have been especially annoying. However, there are several worrisome problems with the current manifestations of an “independent” Europe. First, such schemes may turn out to be little more than hollow rhetoric. Building a truly robust, cutting-edge European military would be very challenging and time-consuming. It would also entail an unprecedented degree of multilateral cooperation and coordination among proud civilian and military players who are used to dominating the debates and policy options in their respective countries. Perhaps most important, a comprehensive military buildup would be extremely expensive. The EU’s $170 billion pledge in 2025 would be merely a modest down payment. Second, taxpayers in European countries have become accustomed to having their defense burden heavily subsidized by the United States—that is to say, by American taxpayers. It is likely that the political reaction in Europe will not be favorable or quiescent if the full bill now becomes visible—and due. Third, there would appear to be only two ways to manage that problem. One would be to scale back the extremely generous welfare states that the longstanding U.S. security subsidy made possible. Cutting the welfare states would be extremely unpopular and, therefore, politically toxic. The other option would be to massively increase government borrowing—a step that would be economically damaging, perhaps even ruinous, in the long run. There is little evidence that eager advocates of a stronger, independent Europe as a major geopolitical player in the global arena have thought seriously about such problems. Indeed, critics who contend that Europe already is finished as a serious global strategic and economic player make a credible case. The amorphous collection of sovereign nations has no coherent mechanism for making key policy decisions. That point became apparent when the leading European governments were caught flatfooted in mid-January as Trump rhetorically reversed his stance regarding Greenland, now indicating that he would not use force against the island and canceling tariffs that he had threatened to impose on several countries for daring to oppose his acquisition plan. Washington’s new stance caused the immediate transatlantic crisis to recede, although European resentment persisted. A fiasco in December 2025 over the EU’s attempt to use frozen Russian financial assets to help fund Ukraine’s war effort should reinforce concerns about policy incoherence. When EU leaders could not gain the required unanimous consent of member states to execute the scheme, they had to scramble to approve a substitute $105 billion “loan” so that they could send promised funds to Kiev. Even that move barely salvaged the embarrassed bloc’s credibility. Worst of all, too many European political leaders seem to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they seek to have a Europe that is free to pursue its own economic and security objectives even when those goals directly conflict with U.S. policies and national interests. On the other hand, they want a Europe that enjoys a continuing transatlantic security arrangement relying on Washington for protection if a serious security threat to Europe arises. Influential European policymakers almost never propose dissolving NATO or even rescinding the commitment in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to regard an attack on one member as an attack on all. The provision theoretically obligates the United States to help any besieged NATO ally repel an aggressor. That obligation would continue on behalf of a more independent Europe, even if some allies adopt policies that explicitly defy Washington’s objectives. Indeed, it would continue even if certain countries forge close ties with the People’s Republic of China or some other geopolitical adversary of the United States. U.S. leaders and the American people should disabuse European leaders and their publics of that convenient, self-serving notion. If the European Union or some other “Europeans only” organization decides to play a more active, independent role in regional or global affairs, it has every right to do so. However, the United States would be foolish to continue incurring both the risks and costs of defending an independent, much less an uncooperative, European bloc. The American people need a genuine America First policy. Washington can make the necessary policy changes without behaving as a boorish, international bully. Trump’s approach has been thoroughly counterproductive and needlessly abrasive. Nevertheless, it is time to orchestrate a transatlantic strategic divorce handled in a more mature, amicable fashion. The post Europe’s Delusions of Power appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics On Immigration, MAGA Needs Less Morality To avoid political doom, the right should rethink Minneapolis. President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement suffers from an excess of morality. On no issue is that more apparent, and more self-damaging, than immigration. That claim likely would strike both the right and the left as absurd. The former sees itself as hard-nosed realists who will do whatever necessary to take back their nation. And the latter doesn’t see much MAGA morality in Minneapolis, where this weekend immigration officers again shot dead a disruptive protester, the second this month. Nevertheless, MAGA conservatives have succumbed to the same style of thinking that animates the left, with its “no human is illegal, love is love, kindness is everything” yard-sign ideology. That style of thinking is moralism, a special form of idealism that makes enlightened political judgment and prudent political action nigh impossible. Describing this mental tendency in August, I wrote: The philosopher Raymond Geuss, in an essay on the historian E.H. Carr, argued that moralism, not utopianism, is the true antithesis of political realism. Moralism, Geuss wrote, is a “complex set of attitudes that give unwarranted priority to moral considerations in explaining and justifying human action.” Often, Geuss added, it amounts to “moralized preaching.” Once you notice MAGA’s inclination to moralize, you can scarcely unsee it, though it tends to be expressed more abrasively than what you hear in church on Sunday. Consider a recent tweet by the right-wing commentator Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire, who has 4 million followers on X. Satirizing the alleged squishiness of unnamed conservatives regarding the Minneapolis shootings, Walsh wrote:  This ICE situation is really complex. My take is more nuanced. I want our immigration laws to be enforced but I just want them to do it without using any force, and without anyone ever getting hurt, and without anything sad or upsetting happening ever… The tweet goes on, but you get the idea. Other conservatives took a similar view. “There is no room on the right for anyone who will not stand unequivocally behind ICE, 100%,” wrote Gavin Wax, an influential staffer at the State Department. “No hedging. No half-measures. No ‘I support them, but’ lectures.”  For Wax and Walsh, any nuance on this issue distracts from the ideal of justice as they conceive it and from the relevant principle they derive from it: Illegal immigrants broke the law by coming here, so they should be deported. I agree with that principle, and I probably subscribe to the same ideal of justice as they do, more or less. But that’s not the end of the matter. From the standpoint of real politics, it’s not even the beginning. Realism, as the cliché goes, deals with the world as it is, not as it should be. And in America, the political reality is this: Trump was elected to solve the immigration crisis, but public approval of his immigration policy has plummeted, and the decline seems to be accelerating amid the Minneapolis crisis. Evidently, Americans don’t like the sight of masked immigration officers on the streets roughing up and occasionally killing protesters.  Now, I agree with right-wingers who point out that the killed protesters had been actively impeding law-enforcement operations, and that they plausibly had threatened or seemed to threaten the safety of the officers who killed them. And those facts should be pointed out to leftists who pretend that Trumpian Brownshirts are gunning down random Americans. But the right-wingers’ observations amount to a moral (and legal) appraisal, which misses the political significance of the controversy. The growing unpopularity of Trump’s approach to immigration signals looming political disaster for the MAGA movement. The president himself has said he thinks immigration was the main issue that motivated Americans to elect and reelect him, and that’s a plausible read. The upshot? If Americans come to prefer the Democrats over the Republicans on immigration, it could be lights out for the GOP in the midterms and in 2028. In other words, if you, like me, want Vice President J.D. Vance to become President J.D. Vance three years hence, then you need to grapple with the political reality of immigration enforcement, however inconvenient. Of course, if no viable alternative to Trump’s deportations policy existed, the political reality would be different, and the moralists would have a better argument. But alternatives do exist. For example, the Republican Party could revive a policy proposal that has fallen out of favor: mandatory national E-Verify. That’s the program that enables businesses to determine the eligibility of employees and applicants.  If all businesses were required to use it, then foreigners would have less incentive to sneak into the country and illegal aliens less incentive to stay. “If you have a mandatory E-Verify program, it’s game over for illegal immigration in the United States,” Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies told me last year. Some experts say the president can implement E-Verify through executive action.  Businesses that rely on cheap illegal labor would object, but forcing them to hire Americans and other eligible workers would surely be politically more fruitful than the current approach, which yields sob stories and mass protests and violent imagery and sanctimonious Democratic politicians. Arrests and deportations would still be needed, but armed immigration agents could be more selectively deployed. Some right-wingers might object that the scale and urgency of mass migration makes unrelenting state force necessary. I agree that America and the Western world as we know them will be forever lost if we don’t halt and reverse mass migration, which our nations never voted for. But surging immigration officers into liberal cities isn’t achieving this goal at scale, even as it’s galvanizing the left and discrediting right-wing populism. If we don’t find broadly palatable solutions and the Democrats, seizing the advantage, return to power, they’ll simply turn the immigration hose back on, justice be damned. Of course, morality can still play a role in political thinking, just not the all-encompassing and determinative one that moralists ascribe to it. And it can still play a role in rhetoric as well. Appeals to abstract justice often mobilize an audience, inspiring allies and winning converts to one’s political side. (And moralized preaching is a better path to 4 million X followers than nuance will ever be.) But as Aristophanes knew when he mocked Socrates, the morally better argument often loses to the worse when the winner is established by public sentiments. His point, I think, was that we should rethink what “better” and “worse” mean in political debate, and revise our moral expectations accordingly. Politics is war, and winning the immigration battle is a moral imperative. But at this moment, prudence counsels a tactical retreat, followed by a stealthier, better-targeted attack. I predict that Trump, a battle-hardened anti-moralist, will listen to prudence. The post On Immigration, MAGA Needs Less Morality appeared first on The American Conservative.

How a Texas Judge Hurt Kids and Helped Big Tech

Protest, Aggression, and Self-Defense

Democrats Want Blood and They Aren’t Ever Going to Stop