In recent weeks, the political landscape has felt reminiscent of a Cold War thriller, with allegations of an enemy agent infiltrating the highest levels of the United States government. Soldiers defending democracy appear to be left to face dire situations alone. The U.S. president has made alarming claims about annexing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. Established alliances now hang by a thread, and economic mismanagement threatens to plunge the nation into recession. This series of MAGA-related controversies seems to benefit America’s adversaries on the global stage.
As journalists who have spent considerable time covering the pro-Trump movement, we are frequently asked to clarify the current situation and its implications. We find ourselves participating in conferences, appearing on television, and engaging with international reporters. Often, we encounter what I term the “opioid dispenser.”
[J. D. Vance: Opioid of the masses]
The opioid dispenser can be a politician, a business leader, or an academic—anyone who offers a reassuring narrative based on their authority:
Yes, these recent actions are indeed provocative. However, they are motivated by serious strategic intentions. [Insert an imagined rationale here.] We should focus on the signal, not the noise. It’s a wake-up call, not the end of the world. We must take Trump seriously, but not literally. [Multiply clichés until the allotted time is exhausted.]
I liken these soothing messages to opioids because they alleviate immediate distress while risking severe long-term consequences. Just as chemical opioids block pain receptors in the brain, these comforting narratives about Donald Trump dull the collective consciousness.
At a European security conference, the opioid dispenser might claim that Trump’s hostility toward European allies stems from their inadequate defense spending.
If that were accurate, one might expect that increased defense budgets would ease Trump’s antagonism. However, the administration’s chief operating officer, Elon Musk, publicly insulted Poland—a key European ally with a robust defense expenditure now approaching 5 percent of GDP. Just days earlier, Trump’s vice president ridiculed countries that have not engaged in combat for decades, seemingly targeting France and Britain (although he denied it). This occurred shortly after the UK announced its largest defense spending increase since the Cold War. France had already committed to significantly boosting its defense budget in 2023. Clearly, Trump’s behavior doesn’t reflect a genuine desire for allied defense enhancement.
In justifying Trump’s apparent support for Russia, another opioid dispenser might frame this pro-Russia stance as part of a grand strategy to counter China.
This argument sounds impressive, yet it quickly unravels under scrutiny. A president keen on countering a major economic power would seek to unite strong allies. However, Trump has systematically alienated partners, from neighboring countries to historical allies in Europe and the Pacific. It’s not just about Trump wanting Russia as an ally—he seems to have little interest in other relationships, aside from perhaps with Saudi Arabia and El Salvador.
Moreover, the Trump administration has not been assertive in confronting China. In his latest campaign, Trump dismissed Taiwan’s worthiness of U.S. protection, claiming it “doesn’t give us anything.” His aggressive cuts to foreign aid have allowed China to expand its influence, particularly in Africa. Musk faces significant exposure to Chinese economic pressures due to his extensive business dealings there. Trump himself has received considerable funding from a Chinese investor for his cryptocurrency ventures.
Trump’s longstanding admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin—and his attraction to Russian financial interests—dates back two decades. At a time of financial hardship, Trump profited immensely from a property deal in Palm Beach, with his former lawyer Michael Cohen noting on MSNBC that this was due to Putin’s influence. Regardless of the reasons behind Trump’s affinity for Putin, to label it a brilliant diplomatic maneuver is laughable.
[David Frum: At least now we know the truth]
Another opioid dispenser might attempt to justify Trump’s economic conflict with Canada as a measure against drug trafficking, particularly concerning fentanyl crossing the border.
However, the fentanyl narrative has been quickly discredited. If the goal were truly to combat drug trafficking, why would Trump propose annexing Canada or parts of it? Trump’s aides have suggested expelling Canada from intelligence-sharing agreements, which would not align with a commitment to enhance cross-border drug enforcement. While Trump’s notion of Canada becoming the 51st state may not be meant to be taken literally, the implications are clear: these sentiments reflect animosity toward Canadian sovereignty rather than a desire for improved cooperation between the U.S. and Canada.
To navigate such a perilous environment, accurate assessments of the lurking threats are essential.
Concocting an alternative version of Trump—one that is more rational and less harmful than the reality—might provide temporary relief. Yet, this fabrication ultimately collapses under the weight of its own falsehoods, squandering precious time that could be used for more effective actions to safeguard against real dangers.
