Trump keeps Congress and Europe guessing

OPINION:

How to handle and get along with President Trump is a mystery to Congress and the European Union.

There was a theory – almost proven in Mr. Trump’s first term – that all a nation had to do was flatter him and they’d get along famously.

In Mr. Trump’s second term, mere flattery isn’t enough. Mr. Trump, who may be a lame duck after the 2026 midterms, won’t go quietly.

Congress’ attempts to limit the president’s power to make war and Mr. Trump’s latest fast turnaround on Greenland are perfect examples of what we should expect in the next three years.

In only a few weeks, Mr. Trump has deposed Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, threatened Venezuela’s neighbors and Iran with military action and demanded ownership of Greenland, hinting at a military takeover of that ice-bound semi-continent.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, RINO from Alaska, tried to state forcefully that the limits on presidential power didn’t extend to threatening our NATO allies. She said, “Congress has ceded its authority in far too many areas,” during the two-day trip to Copenhagen that failed to calm NATO over Greenland. “We’re the ones that have to speak up for our role … We can’t just complain that there’s executive overreach.”

Congress may do nothing more even if a large war breaks out.

About two weeks ago, the Republican-led House defeated, by a vote of 215-215, a resolution that would have restricted Mr. Trump’s ability to deploy troops to Venezuela. He apparently doesn’t want to do this, believing (incorrectly) that he can deal with interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, a true believer in Maduroism. The Senate is, by default, accepting Mr. Trump’s foreign policy.

Neither the House nor the Senate can control Mr. Trump unless they impeach him. He likes to keep Congress – and the world – guessing about what he’ll do next. The EU (and the NATO nations, which are virtually indistinguishable from the EU) is in turmoil because of Mr. Trump’s Greenland ambitions. Or they were until his speech at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last week.

In that talk, Mr. Trump disavowed the use of force to take Greenland, which is a relief to the EU and NATO. He may have remembered the 1950 Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement and 1951 agreement with Denmark that allows the U.S. to establish bases there. Those agreements confirmed that Greenland was key to the defense of the U.S. Whatever his memory may be, the president stated that an agreement on other Greenland bases was nearly accomplished.

Mr. Trump has been effective in insisting on more NATO investment in defense. In 2006, the NATO allies agreed to spend 2% of their gross domestic products on defense. At a 2025 summit, they agreed to spend 5% on defense by 2035. That figure is made up of 3.5% that should be spent on “pure” defense, with an added 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare and intelligence.

Those expenditures have not, in general, been made. Germany, Canada, for example, are badly lagging in defense investments. France, of course, is also lagging badly having only barely exceeded 2%. Only Poland and Estonia are approaching 5%. The U.S. is also lagging but Mr. Trump has proposed a $1.5 trillion dollar defense budget for next year. The best question is what we will get for that enormous amount of money.

Mr. Trump wants to establish part of his “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative in Greenland. His sudden reversal on that nation won’t quiet Europe, which now regards the United States as an unreliable ally. That could, at least partially, be remedied by extending our missile defense project to NATO nations and welcoming their investment in it. They will even then resist investment in a system that would primarily defend the U.S.

Mr. Trump also wants to keep the world guessing about his intentions. He is, as his sudden reversal on Greenland proves, too mercurial for the EU (or Congress) to handle.

Mr. Trump should moderate his words about NATO. His statement to a Fox News interviewer that we never needed NATO and that, while its members sent some troops to Afghanistan, they “stayed a little off the front lines,” was an unnecessary insult to those who died, and to their families.

The president needs to rebuild NATO and continue to pressure those countries to spend more on their own defense because that would make it easier for the U.S. to help defend them. But raising their defense expenditures conflict with their quasi-socialist states. The risks are high but, with some moderation, President Trump may yet succeed.

• Jed Babbin is a national security and foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Times and a contributing editor for The American Spectator.