Tag Archives: Trump

On the Government Shutdown, President Trump Proved He is the Bigger Man

The liberal media’s incessant “Trump lost, Pelosi won” coverage of the President’s decision to reopen the government after a 35-day partial shutdown does not reflect what really happened – President Trump, unlike Democrat leaders, refused to put politics above the interests of the American people and national security.

Media talking heads can’t contain their glee that Mr. Trump suffered a political defeat because the government reopened without funding for a border wall. The agreement reopened the government until February 15 and all parties agreed to discuss border security. Although the White House Acting Chief of Staff said on the Sunday morning talk shows on January 27 that President Trump is prepared to shut the government down again on February 15, I hope he does not take such action.

I said in a media interview in December that although I admire President Trump for his efforts to keep his campaign promises, closing the government to get a border wall was a mistake because Democrats — especially Nancy Pelosi — are prepared to let Americans suffer unending pain to hurt the President politically and prevent him from being reelected. They don’t care about governing.  They don’t care about securing the southern border.  For this reason, I recommended that the President find another way to fund a border wall.

The President’s decision to reopen the government was a difficult one, but it also was an act of leadership because he realized Democrat leaders were putting their hatred of him ahead of the welfare of the American people and U.S. national security.  He proved he was the better man.  In the future, the Trump administration will need to find inventive ways to protect our national security – including building a border wall – that gets around the Democrat’s irresponsible political obstructionism.

Clare Lopez: Chaos in Venezuela

Originally published on Newsmax:

Hundreds of thousands of desperate, hungry, fed-up Venezuelans took to the streets today in cities all over the country after Juan Gerardo Guaidó Márquez, president of the opposition-controlled National Assembly of Venezuela, declared himself Interim President.

Statements of official recognition and support quickly followed from U.S. President Donald Trump and senior administration officials, Canada, and many countries in Central and South America. The governments of Bolivia, Cuba, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey, notably, remain solidly behind current President Nicolas Maduro.

By day’s end, Maduro cut off diplomatic ties with the U.S. and gave American diplomats 72 hours to leave the country. The Trump administration fired back, saying through a spokesman that “all options are on the table.”

While the diplomatic, moral, and verbal support of the U.S. and other regional countries is surely important, what will matter even more are several factors likely beyond any of their control.

Will the Venezuelan people remain on the streets this time, no matter what?

Will the Venezuelan military remain loyal to Maduro even to the point of firing live rounds at their fellow Venezuelans? (The answer to that may already be coming into view, as there have been reports of live fire from the Venezuelan Guardia Nacional and casualties earlier today.)

Will Maduro’s Cuban, Hizballah, and/or Iranian “security advisors” take an even more active, direct role in putting down what may be the most serious challenge to Maduro’s rule yet?

Stay tuned, as Diosdado Cabello, a member of the Venezuelan National Assembly and reportedly one of the most corrupt politicians in the country, has called Maduro supporters to defend Miraflores Palace, the official presidential residence, in downtown Caracas.

It’s Impossible to be “Wired” Without Electricity:  How Anti-Missile Defense Advocacy Invites a Prolonged Electric Grid Blackout

In the wake of President Trump’s 2019 Missile Defense Review, Wired magazine published an article titled: “Trump’s Missile Defense Plan Creates More Problems Than It Solves.”  The author gave prominent space to missile defense critics who claim that strengthening our missile defense will cause an “arms race” with China and Russia (wake up folks, these adversaries have been running full speed for over a decade while we sat on the sidelines) and that effective missile defense will be cost prohibitive.

Conversely, our nation’s preeminent experts on missile defense, like Ambassador Henry Cooper have written extensively about both the need for effective missile defense and the affordability of creating this capability in space.  Cooper led the development of President Reagan’s space arms control policy while serving as Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force.  Under President Bush, he served as the Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO).

Rather than interview an expert with decades of experience such as Cooper, Wired chose to champion Joe Cirincione of Ploughshares Fund who stated:  “If you liked the President’s border wall, wait until you see the space wall.”

It’s apparent that Wired and Ploughshares disregard the importance of America maintaining its national sovereignty and the safety of its citizens. President Trump’s border wall is an important element of preserving our nation’s defenses and it must be built. Similarly, an effective space-based missile defense (or “space wall” as they put it) can serve as one of the most cost-effective methods of protection against one of the most catastrophic forms of attack against America – Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).

EMP is a phenomenon discovered by the U.S. and the Russians in the early 1960s during atmospheric nuclear tests.  Any nuclear weapon detonated at a height of 30km or higher produces a series of pulses that can catastrophically damage small electronics as well as critical, large-power transformers that make up the backbone of the nation’s electric grid. America’s foremost experts on EMP have written for years about the urgent need for America to defend against this method of attack.  They consider it a “Kill Shot” since it would take down the nation’s electric grid, which sustains every other critical infrastructure and the basic elements of human life in a modern society.

Meanwhile, Wired magazine’s recent writings about EMP demonstrate their belief that it’s “overhyped.”  To their credit, they completed a 2017 article on the topic with a quote from Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Chief of Staff of the Congressional EMP Commission: “I suspect people will continue to describe an EMP threat as unlikely. Right up until the day before North Korea actually attacks us.”

One can only hope that Wired and other missile defense naysayers won’t continue to claim that effective spaced-based missile defenses are unaffordable, lest they – and we – come to discover the cost of suffering a ballistic missile EMP attack, after which Wired, and America, will be offline and out of business.

The ‘Trump Hid His Meetings with Putin’ Stories Begin to Unravel

Originally published in National Review Online

On Sunday, the mainstream media launched a new ploy to promote their Trump-Russia collusion narrative with a story that first appeared in the Washington Post titled “Officials in dark on Putin talks.” A similar piece was published in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, titled “Trump didn’t use notetakers at Putin/ Meeting.” Cable-news networks and Democratic congressmen claim these stories indicate that President Trump held secret discussions with Russian president Putin that were revealed to no one. For example, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) told CNN on Sunday that the U.S. government “does not know” what Trump and Putin discussed.

It is now clear that these stories were misleading, if not mostly false. First, they neglected to mention that the president’s decision to restrict access to read-outs of his two one-on-one meetings with Putin were due to the extraordinary number of leaks to the press of his phone calls and meetings with foreign officials at the beginning of his presidency.

Second, it is untrue that senior officials are unaware of what was discussed in President Trump’s meetings with Putin.

Concerning Trump’s first meeting with Putin in 2017, although a notetaker reportedly was not present and Mr. Trump allegedly took possession of his interpreter’s notes, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson attended this meeting and provided a detailed read-out to senior U.S. officials. It is clear that the unnamed officials cited in the Washington Post piece on the 2017 Trump-Putin meeting were irritated that they were not provided with copies of Tillerson’s read-out of the meeting, not that there wasn’t a read-out. It also is ridiculous for the press to assert that President Trump said something nefarious to Putin with Tillerson present.

Concerning President Trump’s one-on-one meeting with Putin in Helsinki last July, I can attest as former national-security council executive secretary and chief of staff that senior U.S. officials — including myself — know everything that was discussed. Again, the real issue here is that some U.S. officials are irritated that they do not know what was discussed in this meeting and voiced their frustrations to the press.

The media’s claim that this story amounts to a U.S. president concealing his secret discussions with the Russian president as part of his alleged collusion with Russia is fake news. Senior U.S. officials knew exactly what was discussed in these meetings. This story is really about a successful effort by President Trump to prevent anti-Trump government officials from leaking sensitive national-security information to the press.

As Venezuelan Dictator Begins Another Term, U.S. Officials Condemn Illegitimacy

U.S. leaders denounced the Maduro presidency as illegitimate as the dictator began his second term in Venezuela. Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton weighed in on Twitter.

While condemning the authoritarian leader’s illegitimacy, Pompeo and Bolton also expressed U.S. support for Venezuela’s National Assembly.


Last year U.S. leaders including Vice President Pence blasted the Maduro regime and decried the election as illegitimate.

During a speech in 2018 Bolton identified Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as the “Troika of tyranny,” leveling scathing criticism against the trio.

“This troika of tyranny, this triangle of terror stretching from Havana to Caracas to Managua is the cause of immense human suffering, the impetus of enormous regional instability and the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism in the Western hemisphere,” Bolton declared.

In a Fox News interview in 2018, then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley described the dire circumstances she witnessed as she watched people cross the Venezuelan border into Columbia in order to obtain food.

“I was on the Venezuelan border about a month ago and I saw, literally, a million people cross that border every day for their only meal,” Haley noted, saying that there were “people bringing their last possessions to sell in Columbia just to buy food. And this is all because of failed socialism that led to corruption, a dictatorship and poverty.”

President Trump himself described the desperate situation in Venezuela and emphasized the deplorability of socialism during a 2018 UN speech:

More than 2 million people have fled the anguish inflicted by the socialist Maduro regime and its Cuban sponsors. Not long ago Venezuela was one of the richest countries on earth. Today socialism has bankrupted the oil-rich nation and driven its people into abject poverty. Virtually everywhere socialism or communism has been tried it has produced suffering, corruption and decay. Socialism’s thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone. In that spirit, we ask the nations gathered here to join us in calling for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.

Secretary Pompeo: “Age of Self-Inflicted American Shame” in Middle East is Over

Secretary of State Pompeo gave a powerful speech in Cairo on January 10 that repudiated President Barack Obama’s disastrous Middle East policies – often referred to as “leading from behind” – that undermined security in the region and America’s reputation worldwide.  Pompeo also tried to mobilize regional states against Iran and reassured them about the Trump administration’s policies.

Pompeo’s speech was delivered in Cairo to draw a sharp contrast to President Obama’s controversial 2009 “apology tour” speeches, one of which he gave in that city in June 2009.

Pompeo vilified Obama’s Middle East policies by saying at the start of his speech by saying, “When America retreats, chaos often follows.”  The Secretary also rebutted criticism that President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria is no different that President Obama’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011, stating “let me be clear: America will not retreat until the terror fight is over.”

Pompeo also reiterated President Trump’s strong support for Israel and how Mr. Trump has repaired this relationship which was weakened by the Obama administration.

One of the most important statements of the speech was when Pompeo said this rejecting Obama’s claim that radical Islam is not a driver of terrorism:

“In this very city, another American stood before you. He told you that radical Islamist terrorism does not stem from ideology… He told you that the United States and the Muslim world needed ‘a new beginning.’ The results of these misjudgments have been dire.”

Pompeo harshly criticized Obama for “willful blindness” with respect to Iran and how the Obama administration’s “desire for peace at any cost” led it to agree to the dangerous 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.  Pompeo followed up today by announcing an international summit on Iran next month that will discuss how to promote stability and freedom in the Middle East and focus on Iran’s regional influence.

Secretary Pompeo’s speech was important because it explained the President’s Middle East strategy and reassured U.S. allies in the region.  A transcript can be found HERE.

Washington Post Distorts Bolton’s Statements on Trump’s Syria Policy

Originally published by National Review:

Today’s above-the-fold front page Washington Post story “Bolton contradicts Trump on Syria”  led the reader to believe that national security adviser John Bolton has gone rogue when he said during his trip to Israel over the weekend that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria is conditioned on defeating the remnants of ISIS and assurances from Turkey on the safety of Kurdish Syrian fighters allied with the United States. The Post article said that Bolton contradicted President Trump, who said last month that he wanted an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and claimed that ISIS had been defeated.

Certainly Ambassador Bolton’s statements differed from what the president said about withdrawing from Syria last month. But it is well known in Washington that over the past two weeks, President Trump has been adjusting his plan to withdraw American troops from Syria in response to feedback from experts, members of Congress, and foreign leaders.  This included National Review, which published a persuasive editorial arguing against withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria on December 19. The president’s position on this issue also was influenced by his recent visit to Baghdad.

Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted this on December 30, illustrating how President Trump’s position on a troop withdrawal from Syria has evolved:

The Post article didn’t mention that Bolton’s statements about conditions for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria were no different than what President Trump told Senator Graham a week earlier. Instead, the Post tried to create the false impression of a rift between President Trump and his national security adviser.

Having had the privilege of working as a chief-of-staff to Ambassador Bolton at the National Security Council, I can report that Bolton precisely represents the president’s policies to American audiences and to foreign officials. Unlike some former senior foreign policy officials that President Trump fired, Mr. Bolton offers the president his candid advice that he keeps strictly private. Bolton also does not freelance or try to undermine the president’s policies.

This is why President Trump and Ambassador Bolton have worked so well together. It also is why the Post’s assertion that Bolton contradicted the president on his Syria policy is fake news.

Clare M. Lopez: Turkey Is Key Player in US Withdrawal From Syria

Originally published by Newsmax:

As National Security Advisor John Bolton heads to Turkey today for discussions about President Trump’s announced decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syrian battle spaces, he might question Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about his expressed intent to re-establish the Ottoman Empire and how Erdogan calculates U.S. policy in the region to figure into that ambition.

He might cite from Erdogan’s February 2018 assertion that “modern Turkey is a ‘continuation’ of the Ottoman Empire,” or ask exactly what Erdogan meant when, in November 2018 he declared that “Turkey is bigger than Turkey; just know this. We cannot be trapped inside 780,000 kilometers [Turkey’s total area].” He might perhaps ask also what exactly Erdogan meant by threatening the U.S. with an “Ottoman Slap,” in reference to American support for Kurdish forces fighting against the Islamic State.

Then there was the November 2018 “International Islamic Union Congress,” held in Istanbul. Headed by Erdogan’s chief military advisor, Adnan Tanriverdi, the event’s participants endorsed the aim of “unity of Islam” through establishing the “Confederation of Islamic Countries.” It was not entirely clear how or if such a “Confederation” would differ from a Caliphate or Islamic State.

Clearly, U.S. objectives for the region are not the same as Turkey’s.

In the areas of the former Syria closest to the Turkish border, it has been obvious for some time that Ankara intends to carve out a sphere of influence and control, aimed specifically at annihilation of Syrian Kurdish forces operating there. Turkish planes, tanks, and troops first invaded northern Syria in Operation Euphrates Shield in August 2016 and expanded that offensive with Operation Olive Branch in 2018. Turkey now controls an area of some 3,500 square kilometers, encompassing hundreds of towns and villages. There is no indication that Ankara intends to withdraw from this territory any time soon.

Because the Trump administration to date has declared the mission of U.S. troops in Syria to be only the defeat of the Islamic State, other (arguably equally important) national security objectives including standing by our Kurdish allies, re-evaluating where Turkey is headed, and blocking aggressive Iranian expansion that directly threatens Israel have been less well-articulated. President Trump’s withdrawal announcement thus caught many by surprise, both in the region and apparently even among his own senior advisors. His decision followed a December 14, 2018, phone call with Erdogan in which Trump reportedly agreed that Turkey should take over the fight against the Islamic State as well as management of territory seized from it. In view of Turkey’s unambiguously jihadist neo-Ottoman agenda, alarm bells began to go off. For just these reasons, then, Bolton’s 4-day trip to Israel and Turkey this week will be critical as has been the apparent willingness of the president to reconsider the timetable for any troop withdrawal.

As Center for Security Policy President Fred Fleitz wrote on New Year’s Day, “the President did the right thing by adjusting his plan to quickly withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. This shows that he is listening to experts, members of Congress and foreign leaders.”

Speaking on Sunday, January 6, to reporters accompanying him on his trips to Israel and Turkey, Bolton said that Trump will not withdraw American troops from northern Syria until and unless the Turkish government guarantees it won’t attack the Syrian Kurdish troops who’ve been at our side fighting against the Islamic State. Bolton also indicated that any withdrawal timetable will be conditioned on U.S. priorities for the region, saying, “Timetables or the timing of the withdrawal occurs as a result of the fulfillment of the conditions and the establishment of the circumstances that we want to see.”

A comprehensive U.S. strategic policy for the Middle East has long been wanting. Indeed, a thorough overhaul of the entire post-9/11 understanding of the enemy we fight and that enemy’s threat doctrine has never been more urgent. There may be no better juncture than this turning point in U.S. ME policy and no better team of advisors now on board the Trump administration to address this most critical of policy priorities.

Clare M. Lopez, a former CIA officer, is Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.