-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
Sure, President Trump’s erratic foreign policy has alienated allies, shredded the U.S.-led rules-based global order, nudged Canada closer to China and turned NATO into something resembling your uncle’s Facebook page after someone brings up politics.
Other than that? Everything’s terrific.
Just kidding. It might be even worse than we think.
The problem isn’t just that we’re losing friends, it’s that we’re creating potential enemies. And not just the kind who boo the national anthem at sporting events, but the kind who someday might decide that America is the villain in their personal origin story, right before the montage where ominous music starts playing.
If this sounds abstract or alarmist, it’s worth noting that it has already happened.
Osama bin Laden — who was once, awkwardly, sort of an informal ally against the Soviets — was radicalized largely by the Gulf War and the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia.
This is notable because the Gulf War — unlike the subsequent Iraq War — had international approval, a clear mission and an exit strategy. By war standards, it was practically a model U.N. bake sale. And yet it still produced consequences that reshaped America’s future, resulting in 9/11 and a couple of not-so-tidy wars.
There’s another uncomfortable part people tend to forget: the timing. The Gulf War ended in 1991. Sept. 11, 2001, happened 10 years later. The shoe did not drop immediately. It sat there. Quietly. Waiting.
The lesson is not just that military interventions can cause backlash, but that even the ones we conduct “by the book” can still leave people angry years later. Which brings us to the present.
Trump has claimed there is a “framework of a deal” with NATO in regard to Greenland, which — if it holds — is good news because you should never underestimate people who can ski and shoot at the same time.
During a recent visit to Greenland, U.S. lawmakers reportedly encountered “a level of anti-Americanism that stunned and depressed them.” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) warned this could lead to “retaliatory measures” against the U.S., which probably means boycotts. Or harsh looks. Or maybe more.
Now, if the idea of U.S. troops getting bogged down in the snow outside of Nuuk sounds ridiculous — or if the idea of radicalizing stoic Danes seems too fanciful — keep in mind that Greenland is merely one of the fights we’ve decided to pick.
We could just as easily be creating enemies much closer to home — or even at home.
Some may be natural-born U.S. citizens swept up in a fiery politics of permanent resistance. Others may be Somali Americans in Minnesota whose families are mistreated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the relatives of a Cuban immigrant whose death at an El Paso detention facility was ruled a homicide, or a hypothetical Venezuelan kid whose father was killed in the operation to exfiltrate Nicolas Maduro.
These are not people who will submit formal complaints. These are people who will hold grudges.
This doesn’t mean America should curl up into a ball and never do anything again. But it probably means we should pause before assuming that today’s rhetorical flex or tough-guy sound bite magically disappears once the news cycle moves on.
Because if even the best-laid plans (like the Gulf War) evoke backlash, imagine dealing with the fallout from policies that are impulsive, performative and seemingly designed to irritate as many people as possible.
Just put yourself in the other guy’s shoes.
How would Americans react if another country kidnapped a political leader from our capital, or even threatened to invade the United States?
There would be outrage, the emergency return of Lee Greenwood and “freedom fries.” And that would be before things get all “kinetic.”
Now imagine opening social media and seeing a map where someone else’s flag has been pasted onto your territory.
This is not how you win hearts and minds. This is how you manufacture righteous indignation and anger.
In this regard, it doesn’t matter if Trump decides to walk down from his provocative rhetoric; much of the damage is already done.
Rhetoric that treats other nations as roughly equivalent to hotel properties is not free of charge. It sends a message that trust is optional and sovereignty is revocable. Sooner or later, someone is going to decide that the United States is less a partner than a recurring antagonist in their national storyline.
Here in the real world, you don’t have to go looking for trouble — and you sure as heck don’t have to go in search of monsters to destroy.
Some of the most dangerous threats have a way of finding you.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
Trump’s foreign policy approach is erratic and chaotic, having alienated traditional American allies and undermined the rules-based international order that has long benefited the United States[1][2].
The administration’s actions—including military intervention in Venezuela, threats against Greenland, and confrontational rhetoric toward other nations—risk radicalizing populations against the United States in ways that may not produce immediate consequences but could generate significant backlash years later[1].
The pattern mirrors how the Gulf War, despite being conducted with international approval and a clear exit strategy, ultimately contributed to radicalization that led to 9/11 a decade later, suggesting that even carefully executed military interventions can breed long-term resentment[1].
Treating other nations as mere assets to be acquired or coerced—comparable to hotel properties in real estate negotiations—sends a dangerous message that American sovereignty and partnership are conditional and that trust is optional[1].
The damage from provocative rhetoric about territorial acquisition has already been inflicted, as evidenced by widespread anti-American sentiment encountered by U.S. lawmakers visiting Greenland, potentially creating new sources of radicalization among both foreign populations and marginalized American communities[1].
Different views on the topic
The Trump administration characterizes its foreign policy actions as historic successes that have reasserted American leadership globally, including brokering multiple peace agreements, forcing NATO allies to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, and capturing wanted narcoterrorists[3]. Supporters view these achievements as proof that the administration’s assertive approach yields tangible results for American interests[2].
Analysts note that Trump has succeeded in using his transactional approach to extract concrete commitments from other nations, with his dealings in Panama and against Houthi militants in Yemen demonstrating that clarity of presidential intent combined with willingness to exercise American power produces diplomatic wins[2].
The administration views its foreign policy through the lens of “America First,” arguing that all decisions are evaluated based on clear and tangible benefits to the United States and direct impacts on American welfare, with the White House deputy press secretary stating that foreign policy decisions come down to ensuring benefit to the U.S. is clear[2][3].
While some analysts acknowledge risks in Trump’s approach, historians note that if the administration successfully maintains alliance relationships while securing increased defense commitments from allies, the outcome “is not the worst outcome in the world,” suggesting the strategy may yield sustainable benefits despite its unconventional methods[2].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Taped Jan 8, 2026, a year after the Eaton Fire, this episode features Ondi Timoner. After losing her home, she began documenting the displacement and financial struggles of her neighbors, joining My Tribe Rise to help Altadena rebuild and recover.
Attorney Frank Carson defended the accused for decades. Framed for murder and later acquitted, a star witness admitted he lied. Stanislaus County paid $22.5M to settle his estate’s lawsuit.
Hear from the winner of the 1968 Caltech vs MIT electric car race. But it’s not all fresh air: smog devastates communities of color, and the Trump administration may pull the plug on California’s ability to clear its own air.
