russia

Hopes Dashed in ’25

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

A year ago, I was still befuddled by the Democrats having secured the Republican Presidential nomination for the weakest candidate, Donald Trump, by burying him in bogus lawsuits. That made him a sympathetic figure to many and sucking all the media attention away from his competition. Democrats nominated the only person who could manage to lose big. While pondering this turn of events, I had to come to terms with the fact that Trump was back.

As I pointed out at the time, the outlook could be very positive. After all, Trump’s first term employed supply-side economics to cut taxes on capital and work to reduce onerous regulations. These actions have led to solid pre-COVID growth. Increasing supply is the best way to tackle the high inflation engendered by the Biden administration’s heavy spending. A government-directed economy was shoveling vast sums into the fight against “climate change.” Covid relief swallowed more billions.

Daming the river of wild spending to reduce demand growth, while pumping up supply, worked for Reagan in subduing double-digit inflation and promised to work for Trump. Sure, Trump had added some things to his campaign, such as no tax on tips, overtime, and Social Security, which are not supply-side, but on balance, things looked to be improving on the economic front.

After Trump’s peaceful first term, the war in Ukraine and in the Middle East raged under Biden after his disastrous Afghan withdrawal. In the campaign, Trump promised to bring peace quickly to both areas.

Millions of illegal aliens streamed across our southern border, with the Biden administration just throwing up its hands. Americans know they need immigrants, but not in this way. Trump promised to get control of the border.

The Trump Administration has taken action in all three areas, but it’s unpopular:

The question is why? While other essential problem areas, such as education and healthcare, exist, these three are most directly under the president’s control. The states dominate education, and neither party has a handle on reasonably priced healthcare.

While Trump, in his first term, imposed tariffs on a few products, such as steel and aluminum, and forced a revision of the NAFTA trade treaty with Canada and Mexico, the administration granted many tariff exemptions, and the new treaty had only minor changes. This time around, Trump has wielded tariffs like a club, hitting everyone in the room.

One thing we know about tariffs is that they don’t lower prices—quite the opposite. Claiming crisis conditions and national security, Trump last spring imposed the highest tariffs on imports since the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs—coffee from Brazil and chocolates from Switzerland were deemed existential threats.

Continue reading →

A Tale Of Two Assessments

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

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.

Continue reading →

The Majority Leader Must Lead

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

John Thune is on the hot seat. Most Americans would ask, Who is that? He’s the Republican majority leader of the Senate, one of the most powerful positions in the U.S. He replaced the long-serving Mitch McConnell, the brilliant political strategist who dominated much of the Senate’s actions for decades. Thune is responsible for moving legislation and appointments through the Senate.

While he did yeoman work shepherding President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bil” through the Senate, he has thwarted the will of the Senate to please the President. Eighty-five members signed onto the Graham-Blumenthal Russian sanctions bill, yet the Republican leadership under Thune has not brought the legislation to the floor. After the failure of the Alaska summit to achieve a ceasefire due to Putin’s intransigence, it’s time to apply maximum pressure on Russia.

As I’ve pointed out, the Trump administration has been visibly tougher on Ukraine than Russia. The administration’s theory was to bring the latter to the negotiating table. Well, Trump met with Putin, and Putin came away with enhanced prestige while giving up nothing. The Russian attacks on civilians have intensified. If there was ever a time to deal Russia pain, it’s now.

What we are getting from the administration is, at best, mixed signals. Instead of blaming the continued fighting on Putin, the Trump administration holds both countries equally to blame. While acknowledging Russian attacks on civilians, Caroline Leavitt, the presidential press secretary, pointed out that Ukraine had taken out 20% of Russia’s fuel capacity. This equivalence is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Oil refineries and pipelines have always been legitimate war targets, while direct civilian targeting is a war crime.

Even stranger is the recent disclosure that Exxon is in talks with Russians regarding the development of Russian oil assets. Why would the largest American oil company be cleared to work with the Russians to increase output? Russia pays for this ugly war with oil sales. How is it in our interest to help Russia?

Continue reading →

…Full Of Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump claimed he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. He won, but the first 24 hours came and went with Ukrainian civilians still targeted and killed—no action taken against Russia. In February, President Trump and Vice President Vance bullied Zelenskyy in the Oval Office to consider what he would offer for a ceasefire. Ukrainian civilians are still being targeted and killed, and no U.S. action against Russia.

In July, Trump temporarily halted arms shipments to Ukraine. Later in the month, he gave Putin 50 days to agree to a ceasefire, which he then shortened to 10-12 days. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no U.S. action taken against Russia.

In early August, the U.S. agreed to sell a billion dollars of weapons to Europeans to give to Ukraine. President Trump arranged to meet Putin in Alaska on August 15th to negotiate a ceasefire. Putin being seen as a great national leader rather than an international pariah, forestalling any severe sanctions, while the war continues, underlay his attendance.

As the two Presidents returned home, it was clear that Trump had failed to secure a ceasefire, whereas Putin had achieved all his objectives. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no U.S. action taken against Russia.

Somewhere, Trump got the idea that Putin was open to a NATO-like force on the ground and in the air that would keep Ukraine safe, even if it gave Russia vital defensive territory. European leaders descended on Washington on Monday to discuss the details of the peacekeeping force and to praise Trump.

Russia claims it went into Ukraine to prevent Western troops stationed on its borders, so it’s fanciful to believe it is suddenly OK now. Then all the attendees went home. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no U.S. action taken against Russia.

Now that a few days have elapsed, it’s clear Russia agreed to nothing, saying that Ukraine’s guarantors should include Russia and China, each with a veto. Any further meeting, either between Putin and Zelenskyy or one that also includes Trump, would require extensive prior groundwork. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no action taken against Russia.

Continue reading →

Demand Answers Now

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

The Russian summer offensive in Ukraine is in full swing. Heavy attacks along the front lines join heavy drone and missile attacks pounding that valiant nation. It stands to reason that the US and its NATO allies are rushing all the help they can. On Monday, we were surprised to find this isn’t the case. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the US is not only not increasing its support, but is also holding up already approved armaments, some of which are already in Poland.

With all the attention focused on the President’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” this situation is being overlooked. It shouldn’t be. Russian control of Ukraine brings it right up to NATO’s borders. Unless we withdraw from the organization, a Russian attack on a NATO nation will directly involve us. Why would anybody want that? Right now, we only have to provide material support to fend off Russian aggression. An attack on a NATO nation means Americans are in harm’s way. Whatever we’ve spent supporting Ukraine is cheap compared to direct conflict.

This action is the second time the Trump administration has halted arms to Ukraine. Last March, we halted shipments while the Russians were pounding Ukraine, including civilians, to pressure that nation to agree to a ceasefire. They agreed and are still open to the idea.

Russia has agreed to nothing except some prisoner exchanges. Yet the administration has refrained from exerting any real pressure on Putin. Why are we putting more pressure on Ukraine in the middle of a battle, when they’re not the holdup?

Elbridge Colby, the Defense Department undersecretary for policy, appears to be the point person on the arms pause. The excuse given is low stockpiles. What an odd reason. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East didn’t start yesterday; they’ve been going on for a long time. If we hadn’t ramped up production, it would be our mistake—Produce more rather than taking the bullets out of our friends’ guns. Some are questioning whether the stockpiles are, in fact, low.

Continue reading →