logo
Dispatch From a Den of Evil Globalism

Dispatch From a Den of Evil Globalism

Politico17-07-2025
ASPEN, Colorado — The national security elites gathered in this mountain retreat this week are finding themselves playing defense about their beliefs, motivations and patriotism — and whether they even deserve attention from the people in power.
It's a result of the Trump administration's 11th hour decision to pull nearly all of its speakers from the annual Aspen Security Forum, with the Pentagon alleging that the gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism.'
Many of the current and former officials I've spoken to here have wielded enough influence and dealt with enough criticism in their careers that at first, they responded to the administration's move with eye-rolls and words such as 'moronic.' Some questioned, in genuine frustration, what the administration means by 'globalism.' That America can ignore the world? Others suggested it is all a performative stunt by the administration, or at least Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, to gain favor with a MAGA base angry over issues like the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Still, attendees and organizers aren't completely dismissing the Trump attack, which could be just the first of more assaults on the event and those like it. The president has gone after a range of U.S. institutions at an impressive pace, and many are bending, not least because businesses and other factions that care what the U.S. president thinks can pull funding.
But the people here are making an argument in return: If President Donald Trump and his team are willing to snub an event like the Aspen forum, it means government officials are increasingly sealing themselves off from outside opinions. Doing so could hamper the administration's efforts to achieve its national security goals.
No matter how much the MAGA-heavy administration may dislike the Aspen conference, attendees argue, it is at least a place to stress-test ideas to make sure they're viable.
What Trump's team is doing is 'what autocrats do — they don't want to hear criticism,' one foreign lawmaker said.
'I think sometimes they are nervous about engaging in a real debate about their policies,' a former Biden administration official said. 'It's not healthy.'
On issues ranging from how Trump's tariffs will affect America's international alliances to the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, many in the national security space fear the president is not receiving the broad spectrum of advice he needs, and that increasingly neither are his underlings. It's especially foolish to reject ideas from the opposing political party, some said.
One example is Trump's refusal — until, apparently, recently — to appreciate Russian leader Vladimir Putin's unwillingness to give up his desire to subsume Ukraine.
The worries are reverberating in the top echelons of America's overseas allies. 'It's always better to engage, because real life is not binary,' a foreign minister told me.
I granted nearly everyone I spoke to anonymity so they could be candid and because many told me they feared the Trump administration would retaliate against them. Some need to engage with the administration professionally; others fear losing clients.
Aspen bills itself as America's 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' and it increasingly is a destination for government officials from all over the world, as well as the D.C. set.
More than a dozen Trump administration members had been slated to appear on various panels; most represented the Defense Department in some capacity, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But on Monday, the day before the four-day conference began, the Pentagon announced it was pulling all of its people. Aside from the globalism claim, the Pentagon accused the forum of showing 'disdain for our great country, and hatred for the president.'
Aspen organizers deny such allegations, noting their institution is nonpartisan, and they say their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. Trump aides might even win some converts to their America First views if they showed up, attendees and organizers hinted. The theme of the forum this year revolves around letting go of assumptions, an obvious nod to Trump's earth-shaking second term.
'A lot of what's happening in the world is making all of us who are experts in this field reassess our assumptions, and so actually engaging with people who think differently helps you do that, right?' Anja Manuel, the forum's executive director, told me.
Even after the, umm, military withdrawal, the forum could still point to two Trump officials on its agenda: Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey who also is dealing with the Syria file; and Adam Boehler, the special envoy tasked with retrieving American hostages held abroad. But then Barrack pulled out, officially due to a need to respond to new violence in Syria. If Boehler shows up, I guess we should be relieved that there's still bipartisan agreement the U.S. should try to save its hostages.
The executive branch presence here is smaller than the norm across past administrations, including during Trump's first term. The secretary of State and the national security adviser tend to show up to Aspen. Not this time, and it's the same guy.
The forum in this Colorado ski town is designed to allow for an exchange of views in a relaxing setting. Many of the conversations happen off-stage, and the leafy, mountainous views are indeed calming.
The security forum, whose events are live-streamed, is also held right before a meeting of the Aspen Strategy Group where more unfiltered debate can happen. The latter is a private gathering, but it includes people from both political parties, including some Republicans who served in Trump's first term and who for the most part today are not seen as MAGA-worthy. Organizers told me they invited a slew of Trump administration officials to attend the strategy group as well as the forum, but for now, no current administration officials are expected to show up to the strategy group either.
Are the public forum and the private strategy group gatherings of elites? Well … yes. Do they skew more left than right? Yes, especially in the Trump era. Something about all that probably frustrates the populist strain that animates much of Trump's MAGA movement.
But it's getting harder in an increasingly polarized country to stage any events where top players in the national security field can exchange ideas across ideological lines, particularly in private settings where participants don't have to worry about nasty headlines about their proposals.
If Republicans, under pressure from Trump, decide they shouldn't show up to forums such as Aspen, 'where is the place where smart liberals and conservatives can have a debate?' the former Biden administration official asked.
Early in the first Trump administration, the Aspen forum drew several top officials, including then-CIA chief (and later Secretary of State) Mike Pompeo. As the years went by, the forum struggled to bring in Trump types, especially as the president's America First MAGA base grew more empowered over the traditional denizens. Pompeo, for instance, was staunchly loyal to Trump but is now viewed with suspicion by the MAGA faction. Republicans still involved in Aspen events, including those who worked for Trump in his first term, tend to be more the George W. Bush-era types who believe the U.S. should not retreat from the world.
Aspen organizers told me they tried hard to get as much Trump representation as they could this year. And while most of the Trump military types who'd signed up were likely to be cautious (those in uniform in particular almost never say anything startling), they would nonetheless have offered a window into the administration's thinking, the topic that most interests many in the audience here. The Aspen forum also tends to draw many tech, cyber and other business leaders whose views the Trump administration might find helpful.
Besides, had Hegseth's 'warfighters' been allowed to attend, they would have found that the Aspen forum is not exactly the Colosseum of such confabs. Its moderators press panelists, but they rarely go for the kill. I once published a piece suggesting some spicier questions for Aspen's moderators.
It's still something of a mystery exactly who in the administration decided to pull the plug on its Aspen line-up. I asked the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department that question. The only real answer I received was from a White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, who said, 'We did not direct anyone to pull their speakers.'
As conference attendees munched on paella and other treats this week, some wondered if the Pentagon, knowing the Trump team lacks a formal national security strategy, was worried that one of its representatives might say something that could irk the president.
Others theorized that the Trump administration is trying to send a warning to all such conferences in an effort to reshape their programs more in the MAGA mold. When I asked Aspen organizers if they would change their program in response to a potential such demand, they declined to answer.
Either way, the Trump administration's voice is nearly silent at a major gathering of national security thinkers, some of whom might even be useful allies on some issues.
It is, a former senior U.S. intelligence official told me, a missed opportunity.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LeBlanc 'encouraged' after meeting with Lutnick, lawmakers ahead of tariff deadline
LeBlanc 'encouraged' after meeting with Lutnick, lawmakers ahead of tariff deadline

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

LeBlanc 'encouraged' after meeting with Lutnick, lawmakers ahead of tariff deadline

WASHINGTON — Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc says he's feeling "encouraged" after meeting with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and American lawmakers in Washington, D.C., ahead of next week's tariff deadline. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to slap Canada with 35 per cent tariffs if there's not a deal by Aug. 1 but the White House has said it would not include goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Canada is also being hit with Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, and will be impacted by copper tariffs that are also expected to kick in on Aug. 1. LeBlanc says Ottawa will take the time necessary to get the best deal in the interest of Canadians, indicating a new economic and security arrangement may not materialize by Trump's deadline. LeBlanc says he will return to Washington next week for additional meetings. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she's hopeful for a return to normal relations with Canada but doesn't sense there will be a deal before Trump's deadline. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Trump's settlement with Columbia could become a model for his campaign to reshape higher education
Trump's settlement with Columbia could become a model for his campaign to reshape higher education

Associated Press

time19 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Trump's settlement with Columbia could become a model for his campaign to reshape higher education

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration's milestone settlement with Columbia promises to bring stability to a university in crisis. It also delivers a crucial win to President Donald Trump in his campaign to reshape higher education. And at colleges around the country, the deal clarifies the stakes for anyone weighing whether to fight the administration's demands or concede. Columbia agreed Wednesday to pay more than $220 million to the federal government to restore federal research money that was canceled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. That decision offers a contrast to the path taken by Harvard University, which has lost billions of dollars in government funding as its legal battle escalates with no end in sight. Yet the Columbia deal also raises questions about university independence as the school submits to closer federal oversight. No sooner had Trump announced the deal than he sent a warning: Numerous other universities, he said, 'are upcoming.' The deal is the first to settle a federal investigation into allegations of campus antisemitism since Trump returned to office. It's also the first agreement with a university touching on so many elements of the president's agenda, including diversity, equity and inclusion programs and admissions to women's sports and campus protests. Columbia agreed to some provisions similar to those that Harvard rejected and called a dangerous precedent. The settlement requires the hiring of new faculty in Jewish studies and a review of academics to ensure 'balance.' Additionally, Columbia will be placed under the watch of an independent monitor and ordered to disclose hiring, admission and discipline data to be audited for compliance. In what Columbia described as a victory for university autonomy, the agreement includes a clause saying the government has no authority to dictate hiring, admissions decisions or the content of academic speech. Acting University President Claire Shipman said it was 'carefully crafted to protect the values that define us' while restoring the university's federal research funding. Where some see pragmatism, others see capitulation Some at Columbia called it the best feasible outcome. Some called it capitulation. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., a Columbia graduate whose district includes the Manhattan campus, called it a 'cowardly' agreement that won't improve the campus. Columbia has effectively waved 'the white flag of surrender in its battle at the heart of the Trump Administration's war on higher education and academic freedom,' Nadler said. Columbia had been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support, including more than $400 million in research grants canceled earlier this year. David Pozen, a law professor at Columbia, said the settlement raises legal questions about Trump's strategy of regulation by dealmaking. Instead of applying a single standard across all of higher education, Pozen said, Trump is relying on one-off deals with individual universities as a condition to regain federal funding. It mirrors his hardball approach with trade partners and prominent law firms. 'In short, the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme,' he said. Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary and former president of Harvard, called the settlement an 'excellent template' for agreements with Harvard and other universities. He said it preserves Columbia's independence while addressing antisemitism and renewing a focus on merit. 'This may be the best day higher education has had in the last year,' Summers wrote on the social media platform X. Dozens of colleges are facing federal investigations With the deal, Trump has new momentum in his expanding campaign to bring the nation's universities in line with his vision. Dozens of campuses are under federal investigation for allegations related to antisemitism, DEI and transgender athletes in women's sports. Trump has saved his strongest rebuke for elite private universities, yet his administration has also recently turned attention to big public universities including George Mason University. Among Trump's backers, the Columbia agreement is seen as a first step to counteract the liberal bias they say has permeated college campuses. Education Secretary Linda McMahon called Columbia's reforms a roadmap for universities looking to regain public trust. 'I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come,' McMahon said in a statement. The settlement follows smaller wins for the administration, including a recent deal with the University of Pennsylvania over transgender swimmer Lia Thomas. Penn agreed to modify school records held by Thomas and to apologize to female athletes 'disadvantaged' by Thomas' participation. Just days earlier, the president of the University of Virginia agreed to resign amid a Justice Department investigation over DEI policies. Dozens of university presidents have rallied behind Harvard in its fight against the Trump administration, seeing their own independence jeopardized by the government's sanctions against the Ivy League school. Harvard, the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, is often seen as a bellwether for other institutions, and some regard it as the best hope to repel the Trump administration's pressure campaign. Now even more rides on Harvard's case. Earlier this month, Trump said a deal with Harvard appeared imminent, only to lash out at the university this week following a court hearing in one of Harvard's legal battles. 'A big part of it is going to be how much Harvard gets in the future,' Trump told reporters this week. 'And they're not going to get very much.' Even before Trump took office, more universities had been pulling back on DEI and taking other steps to backtrack on what some see as a leftward political drift. Yet if the Columbia agreement becomes a model, it could force an even deeper reckoning. The agreement requires full compliance with the administration's interpretation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Trump officials have used the law to force the removal of transgender athletes from women's sports. The deal also requires regular reports to ensure Columbia does not 'promote unlawful DEI goals.' On admissions, the settlement pushes Columbia to limit the consideration of race even beyond the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action. That decision left open the possibility that universities could consider an applicant's discussion of how their race affected their life, including in college application essays. The Columbia deal appears to bar such considerations. It also requires Columbia to heighten scrutiny of international students and ask questions about their reasons for wanting to study in the United States. It orders the school to take steps to 'decrease financial independence' on international students. Columbia has one of the largest international student populations in the nation, making up about 40% of its enrollment. How much Columbia ceded in exchange may not be clear for years. There's also no guarantee that the school is fully in the clear — the agreement leaves open the possibility of future 'compliance reviews, investigations, defunding or litigation' by the government. Still, Trump commended the university for doing 'what is right.' 'I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!' he said on his social media platform. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at

Is Trump in the Epstein files? Before Bondi's reported alert, here is where he appeared
Is Trump in the Epstein files? Before Bondi's reported alert, here is where he appeared

USA Today

time20 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Is Trump in the Epstein files? Before Bondi's reported alert, here is where he appeared

Fallout over Jeffrey Epstein has been propelled by reports that Attorney General Pam Bondi told President Donald Trump in May that he was mentioned in the criminal case files. The Wall Street Journal and CNN reported on July 23 that anonymous sources said Bondi told Trump his name appeared multiple times, along with other figures, in the government's files on the late financier indicted on sex trafficking charges. (Being named in the files does not mean he engaged in criminal activity, and a White House official denied wrongdoing, USA TODAY previously reported.) Bondi's Justice Department on July 7 released a memo saying no further disclosure of the documents was needed after teasing a "truckload" of Epstein files in March. In a rare moment of discord among Trump's supporters, many Republicans have pushed for more transparency around the files. 'The fact is that the president kicked him out of his club for being a creep," White House Communications Director Steven Cheung previously said. "This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about." But criminal investigations into Epstein spanned nearly 15 years, and Trump had already appeared in some evidence that has been made public. Here is what to know: See the list: Which MAGA supporters is Trump calling 'weaklings' over Epstein files? Is Donald Trump's name in the Epstein files? Trump had already appeared in legal documents concerning Epstein's crimes, but never in a way that implicates him. In the 1990s, Trump rode on aircraft owned by Epstein, according to flight logs released in two lawsuits. But that was 30-plus years ago. In Palm Beach County state attorney documents, an image of a message pad communication seized in a Palm Beach police search appeared, but there is nothing more than Trump's name and a phone number. Florida court has rejected the administration's call to unseal documents A federal judge in Florida on July 23 denied the Department of Justice's move to unseal grand jury transcripts from a federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein as part of the first criminal case against him. U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, formerly a circuit court judge in Palm Beach County, said in a memo on July 23 that her "hands were tied" and that the DOJ hadn't shown sufficient evidence to release transcripts related to a federal investigation of Epstein in the 2000s. The material sought in Rosenberg's court involved a 2006-08 federal investigation of Epstein that never resulted in an indictment. Part of the infamous "deal of the century," in which Epstein pleaded guilty to two state-court, prostitution-related charges, said that if Epstein followed the agreement that the federal charges would be dropped. Two other requests for related grand jury testimony are still pending in a Manhattan federal court. When was Epstein caught and first charged? A police investigation into Epstein began in March 2005 after a woman from the Palm Beach area in Florida said her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been molested by a wealthy man. In July 2006, Epstein was indicted by a state grand jury on a felony charge of soliciting prostitution, which did not address the 14-year-old victim's age. He was arrested and spent one night in Palm Beach County jail, released the next day on $3,000 bond. Epstein signed a non-prosecution agreement that was called the "deal of the century." He pleaded guilty in 2008 to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor for prostitution. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, where he was allowed work leave privileges six days a week/12 hours a day over the 13 months he served. When he was released from jail, he spent a year on house arrest but was allowed to travel anywhere so long as he returned in 24 hours. What was Epstein convicted of? Epstein never sat for trial, but he pleaded guilty to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor for prostitution in 2008 in Florida. He was also a registered sex offender. He died in 2019, before he could be tried for sex trafficking charges in New York. He was found hanged in a Manhattan jail cell, and the medical examiner ruled it a suicide. Trump himself has cast doubt on Epstein's death. Contributing: Joey Garrison and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store