Frank J. Gaffney offers a stark warning about the current state of U.S. foreign policy under President Trump, highlighting a post-ideological approach that may overlook the fundamental ideologies of nations like China. Gaffney argues that such a mindset is both puzzling and perilous, pointing out that Trump, a self-styled Deal-Maker-in-Chief, has engaged with leaders who aim to undermine American interests.
At the heart of Gaffney’s critique is the idea that these negotiations and concessions come without a full understanding of the ideological ambition driving adversaries like Communist China. He notes, “The trouble comes when…a post-ideological leader ignores the reality that his interlocutors are intensely dedicated to one or another ideology that demands our national obliteration.” In essence, Gaffney suggests that while Trump seeks peace through trade and diplomatic relations, he may inadvertently empower regimes that harbor aggressive intentions toward the United States.
The dangers of this approach are manifold. Gaffney identifies two significant repercussions of failing to acknowledge these threats. First, hostile regimes perceive American actions as weakness, leading them to intensify their aggressive postures. “They are…affirmed in the belief that ultimate victory is theirs,” he warns. Such miscalculations could embolden enemies like China, which has shown increasing belligerence toward U.S. allies, including Japan and Taiwan.
Second, Gaffney speaks to a domestic concern—if the U.S. populace begins to underestimate real threats, it becomes less likely to support decisive action in addressing these challenges. This dynamic creates a cycle of complacency that could prove catastrophic. He insists that “the inevitable response is not to worry further about them,” which could ultimately lead to a grave reckoning.
As tensions rise with adversarial nations, Gaffney posits that the administration’s inaction on policies designed to protect American interests further exacerbates the situation. He contrasts the current landscape with Trump’s “America First Investment Policy,” arguing that neglecting such strategies allows adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party to solidify their influence and power at the expense of U.S. security.
Gaffney lays bare the implications of America’s foreign engagements, emphasizing the numerous ways adversarial forces have exploited perceived American leniency. For instance, Qatar is portrayed as a country benefiting from U.S. investments while supporting a broad range of jihadist activities. “Qatar’s gift of a new Air Force One,” he argues, translates into a “green light for…virtually every other jihadist threat worldwide,” showcasing the interconnectedness of seemingly benign relations and the rise of extremism.
He also focuses on the alarming resurgence of figures like Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former jihadist leader, now legitimized through diplomatic channels. This case exemplifies a broader trend Gaffney warns against—idealized peace overtures obscuring the reality of ongoing violence and oppression in places like Syria. He states, “Those jihadists are literally getting away with murder,” underscoring the moral and strategic implications of such diplomatic engagements.
Gaffney further believes that the situation in Gaza, characterized by a ceasefire that allows Hamas to regroup, reflects another example of ideological foes negotiating from a position of strength. The recent diplomatic maneuvers are presented as temporary solutions that ultimately allow aggressors to rebuild their capabilities, while the legitimate interests of allied nations like Israel remain imperiled.
Finally, Gaffney warns against the potential repercussions of endorsing candidates like New York’s mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. He expresses concern that rising figures with radical ideologies could gain ground in American politics, thus leading to unchecked revolutionary activity at home. A meeting between such candidates and the presidency may signal dangerous times ahead, with Marxist and jihadist ideologies threatening to influence U.S. policy and, by extension, the nation’s future.
In summary, the article serves as a critical examination of America’s foreign policy under President Trump, urging greater awareness of the ideological character of adversaries. Gaffney’s conclusion sounds a clear alarm: The U.S. faces a pivotal moment and must either confront the ideological threats it faces head-on or risk succumbing to a post-America world characterized by totalitarian rule. As a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Gaffney’s insights carry weight, reminding readers of the stakes involved in the nation’s ideological battles.
"*" indicates required fields
