On foreign policy and national security, we were recently treated to two assessments that provide guidance on the underlying foundations of the administration’s policy and American attitudes in these areas. The National Security Strategy(NSS) was issued in November 2025 by the Trump administration. At the recent gathering of many of the country’s best minds on foreign policy at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, the Reagan National Defense Survey was widely discussed.

Karl Rove, in the Wall Street Journal, points out that many of the government’s positions are in stark opposition to the attitudes of the American Public.  For instance, our policy towards Europe. In Ukraine, the Reagans Survey found, “A strong majority (62%) want Ukraine to prevail in its war with Russia, and 64% support sending U.S. weapons, up  9 points from last year, with bipartisan gains (59% of Republicans, 75% of Democrats).”  “Favorability toward NATO has reached its highest level ever at 68%, with strong bipartisan support for Article V commitments.”

The NSS says, “as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat.” The American public agrees that Russia is a threat. We want Ukraine to prevail.

Reading both, you get a sense that Americans still want to stand by our friends, especially those who share our values. On the other hand, the administration’s NSS takes a harder line with our longtime friends and allies than with Russia and China. One can’t help but wonder if down the road we might find ourselves without any friends.

We’ve seen Japan and South Korea hammered and forced to make U.S. investment commitments while facing higher tariffs. Our friendly neighbor, Canada, has incurred Trump’s ire, even though he updated the NAFTA trade treaty with Mexico and Canada in his first term.

Nations negatively affected by NSS and tariffs have little choice but to seek new arrangements. Canada approved a new oil pipeline from Alberta to the Pacic coast. Instead of a million barrels of oil a day profitably processed by U.S. refineries, the oil will go to Asia, primarily to China. How does this benefit us?

The Washington Post editorial board took notice of the administration’s policy incoherence: it is allowing China to buy Nvidia’s advanced chips while taking a cut of the profits. Surely the chips used in China’s high-tech military weapons and systems are a “security risk” of the highest order. Still, Canadian Aluminum is a “clear and present danger” and is therefore heavily taxed.

The administration cites National Security as a significant legal justification for its wide-ranging tariff policy. Still, it levies many tariffs that hurt friends and allies. Trump has now added the threat of military force to achieve his ends using the same justification.

Most other nations in our hemisphere probably detest the Maduro government in Venezuela. Still, many oppose U.S. military action to achieve change. They remember previous U.S. military actions, some of which resulted in actual occupations. Why would we think our neighbors would want to be the U.S.’s vassals?

Our militancy comes at a time when some Latin American nations have moved in a friendlier direction. Ecuador has moved to the right and dollarized its economy. Argentina is moving in that direction. The frontrunner in Chile’s presidential election is likely to be a friend.

Collective action against despots could improve the odds of better governments in the hemisphere, while acting pompously alone could provoke the opposite reaction. Remember, the U.S.-friendly Canadian Prime Minister candidate was well ahead until our President stated bullying that nation. He lost big.

Concerted action by those adhering to similar principles that leaves those who can’t abide them on the outside looking in can be more effective than strongarming. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), bringing together trading partners willing to play by the rules so supply lines weren’t at risk from bad actors, such as China, was negotiated by the Obama administration under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was ready to be put to the Senate for approval. Donald Trump campaigned against the treaty in the 2016 election, and Clinton then abandoned her own work.

Far from the treaty dying, it still exists as the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership). It’s essentially the original TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) minus the United States. The other original eleven members have since been joined by the United Kingdom. The only difference is that it no longer has several U.S.-favored priorities.

I bring up the TPP as an example of how we can work with friendly nations to achieve our goals. Lower barriers to our goods were in the treaty. Protections for intellectual property, ditto. Leading the free world into free and fair trade would have shown authentic American leadership.

Instead, we’re driving our friends toward closer relations with China and others to offset the loss of the U.S. market, the fear of U.S. aggression, and the perception of unreliability. Why would anyone trust us? Instead of making treaties, we tear them up and demand more. NAFTA is a good example.

What these two assessments show is a continuing divergence between the views of the American public and those of its government. This situation isn’t new with the present administration. The Biden administration ignored the public on the border, student loans, and COVID.

Like the Biden administration, the present government thinks it knows best. Along with its national security policies, the Trump administration continues its tariff regime despite widespread public opposition.

What accounts for this dichotomy? Isolation of our Presidents? Biden’s physical and mental decline caused him to be shielded by his staff and spouse. While Trump seems to be constantly talking to the media, does he listen, or is he only telling? In his second administration, he has surrounded himself with sycophants unlikely to challenge him.

Only the crushing defeats in the recent bi-elections have made an impression on the Trump administration, and they rescinded some silly tariffs. Still, the President’s response mostly echoes the previous administration, telling us how good things are rather than how they’ll fix the problems.

While we can punish incumbents in elections, Americans need to be able to get our government to adopt the policies we want, rather than what they tell us is good for us. We will remain in deep trouble until we do.