Trump Insults America—Again
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
Oops, he did it again.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump had a rambling conversation with the Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. It was a typical Trump performance: He leaned into his trademark edge-of-the-chair crouch and spooled off long strings of words that were only sometimes on topic or related to one another. ('They call it 'magnets,'' he helpfully informed Bartimoro at one point when she asked about rare-earth minerals.) But when it came to China, Trump returned to one of his favorite themes: moral equivalence between the United States and authoritarian regimes.
Bartiromo noted that authorities recently arrested some Chinese nationals accused of smuggling in biological materials that could threaten the U.S. food supply. 'We don't know where that came from,' Trump said, waving away the arrests as possibly nothing more than the apprehension of a few 'whackos.' Bartiromo pressed on: The Chinese have hacked 'into our telecom system; they've been stealing intellectual property; fentanyl, COVID, I mean, you know, all of this stuff, so how do you negotiate with obviously a bad actor and trust them on economics?'
And then Trump went for it. 'You don't think we do that to them?' he said with a smirk. 'You don't think we do that to them?' he repeated as Bartiromo struggled during a few seconds of silence. 'We do,' the president said. 'We do a lot of things.'
'So,' Bartiromo asked, 'that's the way the world works?' Trump shrugged. 'That's the way the world works. It's a nasty world.'
As a card-carrying expert who taught international relations for more than three decades, I can affirm the president's assertion that we do, in fact, live in a nasty world. But as a patriotic American, I have a bit more trouble with the idea that the United States of America and the People's Republic of China are just two bad kids on the playground.
In my many travels to university campuses over the years, I have often heard that America is only one of many horrendous regimes in the world. Usually these pronouncements came from students trying out new intellectual clothes in the safety of an American classroom, or from radicals on the faculty for whom anti-Americanism was a central part of their academic credo. And I know, especially from studying the Cold War, that presidents in my lifetime did a lot of shady, immoral, and illegal things. But I have never heard a president of the United States sound like a graduate student who's woozy from imbibing too much Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn.
This isn't the first time that Trump has resorted to this kind of embarrassing equivocation. In early 2017, then–Fox host Bill O'Reilly asked Trump about U.S. relations with Russia and how he might get along with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'He's a killer,' O'Reilly said. 'Putin's a killer.'
Trump bristled—and rose to Putin's defense. 'There are a lot of killers,' Trump said, with the same kind of half-smiling smirk he deployed at Bartiromo. 'We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?'
Of course, Trump's only consistent foreign-policy principle during the past 10 years has been to side with Russia whenever possible. But leaving aside his obsession with Putin, the president's smears on his own country are not the result of a deeply considered moral position, or even some kind of strategic big-think. Principles are inconvenient, and if they get in the way of winning the moment—the news cycle, a trade negotiation, an argument with a reporter—then they are of no use.
Indeed, Trump has shown, over and over, that he has no real ability to make moral distinctions about anything. Perhaps nothing illustrates this vacuousness more than Bob Woodward's report that when Trump decided to run for president, an aide told him that his previous pro-choice stances and donations to Democrats would be a problem. 'That can be fixed,' Trump said. 'I'm—what do you call it? Pro-life.' As Groucho Marx is rumored to have said: 'Those are my principles, and if you don't like them … well, I have others.'
But there is also a laziness in Trump's casual slanders against America. If Trump admits that the United States is a far better nation than Russia or China, with a heritage of liberty and democracy that imposes unique responsibilities on the United States as the leader of the free world, then he would have to do something. He would have to take a stand against Russia's military aggression and China's economic predations. He'd have to take the hard path of working with a national-security team to forge policies that are in the long-term interests of the United States rather than the short-term interests of Donald Trump.
Likewise, when Trump depicts America as an unending nightmare of crime and carnage, he's not only trying to trigger a cortisol rush among his followers; he's also creating a narrative of despair. It's a clever approach. He tells Americans that because the world is nasty, all that 'shining city on a hill' talk is just stupid and all that matters is making some deals to get them stuff they need. Meanwhile, he paints America as something out of a medieval woodcut of hell, implicitly warning that he can't really extinguish the lava and the fires but promising to at least put on a show of punishing some of the demons.
This nihilism and helplessness is poisonous to a democracy, a system that only works when citizens take responsibility for their government. It is a narrative that encourages citizens to think of themselves as both scoundrels and victims, crabs in life's giant bucket who must claw their way up over the backs of their fellow Americans. The modern global order itself—a system of peace, trade, and security built by the genius of American diplomacy and the sacrifices of the American armed forces—is, in Trump's view, one big criminal struggle among countries that are no better than mob families. In his world, the United States isn't a leader or an example; it's just another mook throwing dice against the wall in a back alley.
Some people support Trump because they want certain policies on immigration or taxes or judges. Others enjoy his reality-TV approach to politics. Some of his critics reject his plans; others reject everything about the man and his character. But none of us, as Americans, have to accept Trump's calumnies about the United States. We are a nation better than the dictatorships in Moscow and Beijing; we enjoy peace and prosperity that predated Trump and will remain when he is gone.
We live in an America governed by Trump. But we do not have to accept that we live in Trump's America.
Here are four new stories from The Atlantic:
Today's News
A suspect, found dead, is believed to have set a brush fire and ambushed firefighters, killing two in Idaho yesterday.
The Senate is in the midst of an extended vote-a-rama session on amendments for President Donald Trump's sweeping policy bill.
An Israeli strike on a popular waterfront café in Gaza killed at least 41 people and injured dozens, according to a hospital official.
Dispatches
Work in Progress: The whole country is starting to look like California, Rogé Karma writes. Housing prices are rising fast in red and purple states known for being easy places to build. How can that be?
Evening Read
The Conservative Attack on Empathy
By Elizabeth Bruenig
Five years ago, Elon Musk told Joe Rogan during a podcast taping that 'the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit.' By that time, the idea that people in the West are too concerned with the pain of others to adequately advocate for their own best interests was already a well-established conservative idea. Instead of thinking and acting rationally, the theory goes, they're moved to make emotional decisions that compromise their well-being and that of their home country. In this line of thought, empathetic approaches to politics favor liberal beliefs …
But the current ascendancy of this anti-empathy worldview, now a regular topic in right-wing social-media posts, articles, and books, might be less a reasonable point of argumentation and more a sort of coping mechanism.
Read the full article.
More From The Atlantic
Culture Break
Extending lifespans. America has more great-grandparents than ever. It also has a new caretaking challenge, Faith Hill writes.
Express yourself. What are emoji? Megan Garber unpacks the 🍑, the ️🤡, and the 👍.
Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
6 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Iranian Threat To World Oil Remains
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks after casting his ballot during the runoff ... More presidential election in Tehran on July 5, 2024. P (Photo by ATTA KENARE / AFP) (Photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images After the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, there was arguably a security (or insecurity) premium on oil of about $10 per barrel. There were numerous scenarios of how threats to oil supplies might develop, ranging from drone attacks on oil shipping in the Arabian/Persian Gulf to an Israeli or American attack on Iran's oil export terminal, with a massive Iranian attack on Saudi oil fields being the worst-case scenario. Instead, the best-case scenario developed: an Iranian attack on a U.S. base in Qatar, done in a manner to minimize casualties, which suggested they wanted to de-escalate. But will this prove to be a one-and-done? Israel was slow to accept a cease-fire but now seems satisfied that Iran's nuclear program has been badly damaged and President Trump has declared Iranian nuclear facilities to be 'obliterated.' While there are dissenting voices, both countries appear satisfied and unlikely to take further military operations—for now. But just as Western intelligence has been less than unanimous about the military operation's efficacy, so statements from Iranian leaders have been contradictory. Any given comment could be self-serving: declare the operation a success to deter further attacks or declare it a failure to appease a domestic audience. But certainty is not advanced by their remarks. With asymmetric conflicts, it is always good to recall the Bluto Blutarsky rule from the movie Animal House : It ain't over until we say it's over. Given the significant presence of militants in the Iranian regime, it is premature to say they will not pursue further action. There are two particular paths that threaten severe consequences for the oil market and the global economy. First, the government (or some bodies therein) could pursue asymmetric warfare. Instead of publicly launching missiles, cyberattacks, sabotage, terrorism and/or assassinations could be attempted in the hope that they would be sufficiently deniable that the U.S. and/or Israel would not respond. Yet leaders of those two nations seem unlikely to refuse to retaliate because of incomplete evidence. Not only that, but there might be other actors like Al Qaeda that want to see Iran punished and so undertake covert actions hoping that Iran will be blamed. Which would put us back in the pre-bombing situation, with concerns that military escalation would include attacks on oil shipping or facilities. It would be nice to think that Netanyahu would restrain from attacking Iranian oil facilities, given that it would damage his allies, but the Israeli leader is hardly known for restraint. The U.S. Navy, on the other hand, would probably be tasked with taking out Iranian military targets and maybe even its leadership rather than the oil infrastructure. As discussed ad nauseum Iran could disrupt shipping in the Arabian/Persian Gulf, but only partly and only for a brief period. Swarms of drones and missiles could do enough damage to enough tankers to discourage many companies from risking their ships. The effects would resemble the supply chain problems caused by the pandemic: volatile quantities and uncertainty could trigger hoarding and would raise prices above $100 if the attacks are fairly successful. But there is another response that Iran might take. A number of analysts have pointed out that the country probably regrets not building and testing a nuclear weapon, that is, following the path of N. Korea instead of Libya's Gaddafi. Nuclear weapons are considered a deterrent and for vulnerable countries like Iran have a lot of appeal. Whether Iran is weeks, months or years away from being able to test a weapon after the damage inflicted on its program is not the operative question. The overarching issue concerns the response to such a test by the U.S. and Israel. Best case scenario would be if the test made Iran fell secure enough to rejoin the community of nations as a peaceful player, instead of being a revolutionary actor. They might very well do that, but it is hardly likely that either President Trump or Prime Minister Netanyahu would assume such to be the case, regardless of promises from the Iranian regime. The implication is that further military action would be undertaken, at the very least a new campaign of bombing and/or assassination. In this case, the potential for oil shipping and/or facilities to be attacked by one or both sides is revived, by one or both sides of the conflict. During the Iran-Iraq War, one editorial cartoonist portrayed the two antagonists astride an oil barrel, each stabbing his end and shouting, 'Take that!' The U.S. especially seems unlikely to want to use the 'oil weapon' against Iran: it would deny them revenue but simultaneously hurt the global economy. Still, the President might see that as a fifth-dimension chess move that would pay off in the long run. On the other hand, shutting down Iran's oil exports, now about 1.5 million barrels per day, could be offset by either increased Saudi production and/or releases from strategic inventories. For their part, the Saudis might prefer not to antagonize the Iranian regime given the recent rapprochement between the two or out a desire to avoid antagonizing a nuclear-armed neighbor. Strategic stocks in IEA countries could easily offset the loss of Iranian exports for many months, but consumer governments have a long history of withholding supplies during a crisis, fearing a worsening of the shortage or being unconcerned about higher prices. Energy security analysts have long considered an Iranian attack on the giant Saudi oil processing at Abqaiq to be the biggest threat, but the relative failure of the 2019 missile and drone attack on that facility has allayed those fears. Yet since then, Iranian capabilities have advanced, suggesting it should be newly considered as a threat. Certainly, if the regime believes its existence to be at issue, an extreme action cannot be ruled out. Paul Erdman's famous book Crash of '79 posited a nuclear attack on the Saudi oil fields by the Shah of Iran and a successful test of a nuclear device could kindle fears of just that doomsday scenario, particularly if the response to the test is a massive military attack with the goal of overthrowing the Iranian government. Even if such doesn't occur, as long as Iran remains in something close to a state of war with Israel and the U.S., even a slight possibility that it would happen will impose a security premium on oil. Many are hoping that Iran's weakness will continue to encourage them to moderate their behavior, rein in their proxies and give up their nuclear weapon ambitions. Unfortunately, the history of foreign policy and military mistakes shows the folly of assuming one's opponents will behave as desired. Without a major change in the Iranian regime, there remains a significant potential for future threats to oil supplies from the various parties involved. And should the Iranian regime appear threatened, we could see a repeat of Saddam Hussein's destruction of oil fields in Kuwait (successful) and Iraq (unsuccessful). At any rate, complacency about energy security would appear to be shortsighted.
Associated Press
6 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Every legal route to US residency, explained
The United States has been granting about 1 million green cards a year, formally known as legal permanent residency. Legal permanent residents can remain in the country indefinitely if they are not convicted of any disqualifying crimes and can apply for citizenship in five years. The current system was built in 1965 and retooled in 1990. About two-thirds of green cards are granted based on family ties. The rest are based on employment or for humanitarian reasons. A 'diversity visa lottery' is for people from countries that are underrepresented in the U.S., including many in Africa. The United States also admits hundreds of thousands of workers, foreign students and exchange visitors a year on temporary visas. Repeated attempts to expand legal immigration have failed in Congress. In 2013, the Senate approved legislation that would have granted a path to citizenship to millions of people, but it died in the House. There is little appetite in Congress or the White House to expand legal immigration amid President Donald Trump's drive for mass deportations. Still, there are some cracks, even among Republicans. Trump has expressed sympathy at times for companies that rely on H-1B visas, largely for the tech industry, and for people who came to the U.S. with their parents as young children, known as 'Dreamers.' Trump is bypassing Congress to replace EB-5 visas for investors with his 'Trump Gold Card,' which charges $5 million for a green card.
Business Insider
6 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump suggests DOGE should 'take a good, hard look' at government contracts with Musk's companies
President Donald Trump suggested that the Department of Government Efficiency — an initiative Elon Musk spearheaded — look into slashing government contracts with Musk's companies. "No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!" Trump wrote on Truth Social. Trump also suggested that Musk might have to "close up shop" and return to South Africa, where he was born. Musk has been a US citizen since 2002. The Department of Government Efficiency was, until April, headed by Musk. Trump's comments come after Musk reignited their feud by criticizing the president's proposed "Big, Beautiful Bill," which proposes cuts to Medicaid, removal of taxes on tips and overtime, and axes tax credits for electric vehicles. Musk has not responded to Trump's latest jab on slashing his government contracts. He has, in the meantime, vociferously opposed the spending priorities outlined in the bill, and threatened to start a new political party if it passes in the Senate. On Saturday, Musk wrote on X that the president's proposed bill "will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country." "Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future," he said. This is at least the second time Trump has threatened to end Musk's contracts since their very public falling-out in June. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" Trump wrote in June, at the start of their feud. Responding to the jab, Musk wrote on X that SpaceX " will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." He walked back the comment a few hours later. SpaceX works closely with NASA, and the Dragon spaceships are used to ferry NASA astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station.
