logo
Trump's Plans for the Rest of the World Are Truly Unhinged

Trump's Plans for the Rest of the World Are Truly Unhinged

Yahoo05-03-2025

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
President Trump spent only 15 minutes of his nearly two-hour speech Tuesday night on foreign policy—but those minutes were as full of falsehoods, distortions, and personal insults as the rest of what must be the most angrily divisive presidential address to a joint session of Congress.
His first lie on the subject was that, because he and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had removed 'wokeness' from our military, recruitment rates are higher than any time in the last 15 years. In fact, according to a headline in Fox News, of all places, 'Army recruiting is up, but data show trend began before the election.'
According to that data, there were more recruits in August 2024, three months before the election, than there were in December, one month after the election (a lot more: 7,415 compared with 5,877). Nor did recruitment in January 2025 surpass the numbers of August 2024.
The reason is that, back in 2023, the military put 1,200 more recruiters in the field and set up a six-week pre-boot camp to help lower-performing recruits meet the required standards.
This highlights an ominous fact for the future: the nation is having a hard time recruiting physically and mentally fit men and women to join the military. However, steps to adjust for that were taken in the final year-and-a-half of the Biden administration—and higher numbers were met in that time than in the time since Trump was elected.
The second howler of the night was Trump's characterization of what he is now calling the Golden Dome system to defend the United States from nuclear attack. He said that President Ronald Reagan wanted to create such a defense, but the technology didn't exist. 'Now we have the technology,' Trump claimed, 'it's incredible, actually. And other places—they have it, Israel has it. Other places have it. And the United States should have it too.'
All of those sentences are false. Israel's Iron Dome program is designed to intercept missiles with a range of 40 miles traveling at twice the speed of sound. The sorts of missiles that would attack the United States would fly at a range of 6,000 miles, traveling at 10 times the speed of sound. The technology required for the one is completely different from the technology required for the other.
The U.S. already has plenty of air- and missile-defenses at least as good as Iron Dome—the Patriot, the Standard Missile, and others. No country has a defense of the sort that Reagan had, and Trump has, in mind. We have spent more than $10 billion a year for the last 40 years trying to develop such a defense, to little avail. At best, we are now able to hit one mock warhead with one anti-missile missile in a carefully planned test. The test managers have never even tried to hit two with two, or a dozen with a dozen—because they know they cannot.
The third distortion came with Trump's announcement that he would create an office of shipbuilding in the United States. He didn't say what such an office could do that the U.S. Navy could not. We'll wait for details. But then he segued, as if it followed that promise, with a pledge to reclaim the Panama Canal, which he said President Jimmy Carter gave away. In fact, the biggest defenders of the treaty that Carter signed, transferring the canal to the country of Panama, were the top U.S. military officers, because they knew they could not easily defend the canal in the face of rising anti-American sentiment—and they knew actual ownership of the canal wasn't necessary to use it. Trump has said in recent months that China has taken over the canal's ports and that U.S. ships have been overcharged while transiting through. Neither claim is true.
He then said that he was putting Secretary of State Marco Rubio in charge of getting the canal back. 'Good luck, Marco,' he said, to laughter. 'Now we know who to blame if anything goes wrong.' As if Rubio hasn't experienced enough humiliation in the first six weeks on the job, his failure to make progress on this task—all the while realizing, deep down, that it's a mad mission—may eclipse all prior demoralization.
Then came Greenland. At first, Trump seemed to soften his earlier commitment to 'get' Greenland. He said, as if speaking to that country's citizens, 'And if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security. And we're working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it really for international world security. And I think we're going to get it.' Then he added, 'one way or the other, we're going to get it,' thus renewing his threat.
Greenland does occupy potentially valuable geostrategic territory, near the Arctic, alongside possible ship and submarine routes by Russia or other adversaries. However, Greenland and its present owner, Denmark, are both NATO members. The U.S. has a massive military base on Greenland and other bases nearby. There are no local protesters to U.S. presence. The U.S. does not need to own the place.
The Ukraine portion of Trump's speech was filled with exaggerations. He said the U.S. has donated $350 billion to Ukraine, while all of Europe—which should have a higher stake on the country's defense—has given only $100 billion. In fact, the U.S. has given $175 billion—half as much as Trump claimed—of which $66 billion was in military aid, much of which was paid to American defense manufacturers. Meanwhile, the European Union and its member states have provided about $200 billion—more than the United States.
But then came an interesting, possibly hopeful twist—the only one in the entire speech. He read parts of a letter from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky saying he is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible, ready to work under President Trump's strong leadership. 'I appreciate that he sent this letter,' Trump said, signaling a possible do-over of the Oval Office meeting last week where he and Vice President J.D. Vance screamed at Zelensky for being insufficiently thankful to his hosts.
Trump then said he'd spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who told him that Russia is ready for peace too. 'Wouldn't that be beautiful?' Trump mused. We'll see what kind of peace Putin wants. We'll also see if Zelensky's letter moves Trump to reverse his decision to halt all arms transfers to Ukraine—even the arms in the pipeline.
That would be less likely. When he itemized (though incorrectly) the billions that the U.S. has spent on arms for Ukraine, many Democrats started applauding—for the first and only time in the speech. Trump looked over to them and muttered, 'You like that?' Then he said, 'Pocahontas says yes'—Pocahontas being his belittling nickname for Sen. Elizabeth Warren. To her credit, the camera showed her smiling and nodding in response.
As usual, Trump spent more time and energy chiding Warren, other Democrats, and especially former President Joe Biden—calling him 'the worst president,' among other insults—than he spent criticizing any of the country's adversaries.
To any foreigners watching the speech to glean Trump's priorities, that said it all—and it wasn't at all assuring.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds
Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds

The Hill

time27 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds

NEW YORK (AP) — The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, 'Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass.' Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. 'For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.' Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency 'will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50% in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14% amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4%. 'Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm,' said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. 'Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative.' One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling 'regulatory credits' to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas 'in a meaningful way.' But he's now less hopeful. 'There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,' TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, 'and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts.' Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the U.S. SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40% of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an 'illegal boycott' and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, 'there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,' said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an 'exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.' ___ Associated Press Writer Barbara Ortutay in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Appeals court lets Trump block AP from some White House spaces for now
Appeals court lets Trump block AP from some White House spaces for now

The Hill

time28 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Appeals court lets Trump block AP from some White House spaces for now

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the Trump administration may ban the Associated Press from the Oval Office and other limited spaces for now, pausing a judge's order to return the wire service's access. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden's April 8 order deeming AP's exile from the press pool, a small group of journalists who document the president's movements and statements in and around the White House, unlawful. The White House's exclusion of AP stemmed from the outlet's refusal to use the term Gulf of America in its popular stylebook. 'The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Gregory Katsas, both appointees of President Trump. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' The judges said that, without a stay, the government would suffer irreparable harm because the injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces.' McFadden, a Trump appointee, ordered the Trump administration to reinstate AP's access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other small spaces that hold a limited number of officials and journalists. The AP's spot in the president's press pool has traditionally been secured daily, both at the White House and when the president is traveling. Its reporters are usually granted access in a tradition dating back decades. 'The AP and the district court again lean heavily on the history of the press pool as an institution,' Rao wrote. 'But the AP cannot adversely possess a seat in the Oval Office, no matter how long its tradition of access.' The panel did not pause the portion of McFadden's order restoring AP's access to the East Room, noting that it does not share the 'hallmarks' of spaces like the Oval Office. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cornelia Pillard said that participation in the press pool or broader White House press corps has never been conditioned on a news organization's viewpoint 'until now.' 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' the Obama appointee wrote. The Justice Department had argued that the spaces from which the White House sought to exclude the AP are not a press facility like the Brady Press Briefing Room and are intended for the president's personal use. Plus, presidents have the 'personal autonomy' to decide to whom they reveal their minds. Charles Tobin, a lawyer for the AP, argued that the White House can't single out an outlet for exclusion from the pool based solely on its viewpoints, though he acknowledged that it's the president's prerogative to revoke AP's daily spot in the press pool. After McFadden ruled in the AP's favor, the White House removed the spot typically reserved for wire services from the press pool, instead making those outlets eligible for selection as part of the pool's daily print-journalist rotation. Patrick Maks, a spokesperson for AP, said in a statement that 'we are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The Hill requested comment from the White House.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store