Has America Become a Threat to Europe?

On Jan. 29, Bryan Lanza, a longtime adviser to President Trump, issued a stark warning to a group of German manufacturers. He told them that the president is a 'sledgehammer.' You either work with him, or you get hit, according to Karl Haeusgen, president of V.D.M.A, Germany's Mechanical Engineering Industry Association, who was there.
Mr. Lanza was warning the Germans not to sell hydraulics, which can be used for hospital beds as well as missile launchers, to China. It was no small ask. Germany's economy, already shaky without Russian gas, could suffer further if Beijing stops buying its stuff.
But it was the aggressive tone of Mr. Lanza's remarks that stunned many in the room that day. Was this just tough love from the United States, they wondered, to prod Europeans to do more against a common threat? Or had the Americans become the threat?
It was one of a number of meetings with American officials in recent weeks that have had Europeans re-evaluating their relationship with their most important ally. Indeed, Europeans are waking up to the fact that they are entirely dependent on a foreign power that is no longer acting like itself. America, which once championed the liberal democratic world order, is now turning against it in ways that are shocking to its allies.
The Trump administration isn't just demanding that allies pay more for their own military defense. It is threatening to incite a trade war that could make raising money for that purpose more difficult. The administration is championing illiberal, pro-Russian political parties across Europe that could undermine the European project from within. And it's striking a conciliatory tone toward Russia and setting up meetings about Ukraine's fate without including Washington's closest European allies.
It reminds me of the 1993 horror film 'Body Snatchers,' when the protagonists slowly realize that the people they love have been replaced by monstrous doubles. Part of the panic comes from not knowing who can be trusted, and realizing how exposed you can be when an ally becomes an aggressor.
Consider how Ukraine, the strongest voice in Europe for fighting for its democratic way of life, must feel. It depends on American weapons and Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite network, for survival.
Even before Mr. Trump was re-elected, about a third of the people in Germany, Italy and Britain already considered the United States a 'threat to peace and security in Europe,' according to a survey released last week by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which is affiliated with Germany's Social Democratic Party.
Those numbers are bound to rise as the Trump administration's open contempt for longtime allies comes more fully into view. Many Americans want to retreat from the world, but their leaders still feel entitled to be the boss of it. More than half of Republicans and nearly half of Democrats said they either didn't know which part of the world the United States should focus on — or they wanted no focus at all on anything outside their own borders, according to the survey. Conditions are ripe for Europe to be abandoned or shaken down for protection payments.
It must be surreal to imagine betrayal by a longtime ally that has been the foundation for one's entire security infrastructure. Peter Boehm, a Canadian senator, told me he was struck by the shock expressed by Europeans as they were hit with what Canadians have been dealing with for two months.
At the Munich Security Conference, one of the world's most prominent annual meetings of elected officials and military brass, some searched for signs of a grand strategy at work. They told themselves that Americans were focused on China, so Europe must play a bigger role in defending itself, which is true. Others surmised that Mr. Trump was trying to peel Vladimir Putin away from China, like Richard Nixon peeled China away from Russia in the 1970s. But as the conference went on, it looked more as if Russia was peeling Americans away from their allies.
As the full force of what is happening in Washington seeped in, questions began piling up: If Mr. Trump is really gearing up to compete with China, why would he eviscerate the U.S. Agency for International Development, an essential tool of American soft power influence around the world? Or fire thousands of the scientists needed keep the United States competitive? Or attack the institutions of higher education that Americans need to stay ahead? Or refer to half of his own population as the enemy within? Or threaten good neighbors while making nice with China's no-limits friend? Or hand over so much power to Mr. Musk, who has deep business interests in China?
Could it be that this American president had decided not to bother battling autocracies, opting to cut deals with them instead — if you can't beat them, join them?
A clarifying moment came when Vice President JD Vance's much-anticipated speech at the conference focused not on how the alliance can push back against Chinese and Russian aggression, but on the way that European governments like Sweden and Britain were making life too difficult for Christian conservatives and the far right.
It's true that voters across Europe are increasingly casting ballots for far-right, pro-Russian, authoritarian-leaning parties, and that mainstream politicians have yet to come up with a good response. In an era of TikTok, Russia doesn't have to go to war to take over Europe. Mr. Putin can simply fund far-right politicians and promote social media accounts, and seek to topple governments without firing a shot. It's as if the Trojan horse has arrived and Mr. Vance is commanding Europe's liberal democracies to open the gate.
The fragility of democratic decision-making has never been more clear. No matter how forcefully Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany pushed back against Mr. Vance's speech — insisting that Germany will support Ukraine until the end — German voters could make a liar out of him in Sunday's elections for his office, just like American voters made a liar out of former President Joe Biden, who vowed Americans would back Ukraine for 'as long as it takes.'
At a dinner packed with foreign ministers and a table full of Ukrainian soldiers in uniform, Kellyanne Conway, a senior counselor to Mr. Trump during his first term, said the president sincerely wants to end the war and understands that Ukraine needs real security. In meetings, Mr. Vance and other American officials reportedly sought to convey the message that Americans were still a safe pair of hands.
But the truth is that nobody really knows what American and Russian officials discussed behind closed doors this week. It has been generations since Europe felt so naked and exposed. It was President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — a leader who says he can't hold an election because his country is in the middle of an existential war — who spoke with clarity in Munich last week about what Europe's democracies need: an army of their own. Europeans must be strong, because the man who is threatening them respects only strength.
That's how people used to talk about Mr. Putin. This time, they're saying it about Mr. Trump.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

23 minutes ago

• Yahoo

10 Reasons Every American Adult Should Invest in the Stock Market

Investing can be scary, and there are many horror stories out there. But investing can also be simple and boring. If done right, history shows that losing money in the stock market is unlikely on a long-term basis. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › Investing can be daunting for many reasons. Stocks, index funds, and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) go down all the time, and the market has been extremely volatile, especially since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. Furthermore, most people are investing money they will need in the future, and nobody can predict the future. That said, 62% of Americans reported owning a stock in 2025, according to a Gallup poll. Here are 10 reasons every American adult should invest in the stock market. The main reason most retail investors buy stocks, index funds, or ETFs is because they want to start saving for retirement. I don't need to tell anyone that life is expensive when you consider the cost of paying a mortgage or rent, food, transportation, and clothing, among many other expenses. These expenses can eat up a large portion of your paycheck, which is why people need to think about ways to grow their wealth over time. Investing allows people to do this while they work and sleep. Most investors have likely read stories about people investing in meme stocks like GameStop back in 2020 or some small cryptocurrency that no one has ever heard of. Rarely, someone does strike it big, but often, people end up losing their money on these high-risk trades. That roller coaster ride certainly isn't for everyone, and rightfully so, because many people need every last dollar they can save and can't afford to make overly risky bets. Luckily, investing can be quite boring if you invest in an index fund or ETF that buys a basket of diverse stocks set up to generate steady returns for patient investors that stay invested for years if not decades. Many investors with a long-term horizon invest in the broader benchmark S&P 500 index. According to data from Berkshire Hathaway, the S&P 500 has generated compound annual gains of 10.4%, including dividends, between 1965 and 2024, for an overall gain of 39,054%. That means $1 invested in 1965 would be worth $390.54 now. While the S&P 500 can be volatile on a short-term basis, the longer one stays invested, the more likely they are to make money. This is generally because long-term investors aren't trying to time the market, so they ride out generally short-term downturns and profit from recoveries. Now, investors may be concerned that the S&P 500 is too heavily concentrated by a group of stocks called the "Magnificent Seven,"+ meaning diversification in the broader benchmark index is less than it used to be. This is true. A group of large companies specializing in tech and artificial intelligence have taken the market by storm. Stocks like Nvidia and Apple now have market caps well over $1 trillion, a feat that used to be unthinkable. For investors who want to avoid this concentration, there are ways to buy an equal-weighted S&P 500 fund that removes the weighting of each stock. Investing requires patience, but if you trust the process, you'll realize that you can accumulate more wealth than you may have ever thought possible. This is due to the power of compounding. For instance, let's say you're just starting your career and don't have a lot of spare cash to invest but manage to scrape together $500. If you invested that money in the S&P 500, assume long-term historical returns of 10.4%, and add just $100 to your portfolio a year for 30 years, that initial $500 will grow into over $27,000. All you have to do is wait patiently. Also, as your career advances, you will likely have more disposable cash to invest, which will significantly enhance your returns. Now, a lot of risk-averse people may simply care too much about their money to trust the market, and I can certainly understand this sentiment. Unfortunately, keeping money in a checking account that doesn't earn anything will actually lose you money. This is because of inflation, in which consumer prices generally rise over time. Just think about how much prices have risen from before the pandemic in 2020 to now. If you kept your money in a checking account, its value stayed the same, but the price of pretty much everything else rose, leading to a loss of purchasing power. Many people are investing through an individual retirement account (IRA) or a 401(k) through an employer. In these cases, the U.S. tax code actually allows people to deduct a certain amount of contributions from the income they earn that will be taxed, leading to a lower tax bill. The limits in 2025 for an IRA are $7,000 per year for those under 50 and up to $23,500 for a 401(k). It can definitely make a difference. There's more than one way to invest. Some people buy large, very safe blue chip stocks; some buy stocks for their dividends; and some are more aggressive and make risky bets, hoping that one big win will make up for all the other losses, similar to a venture capitalist. The point is that you can invest in different strategies, sectors, regions, etc. Speaking to a financial advisor can be helpful because they can assess your current financial situation and your risk tolerance to develop a good investment strategy for you. When most people have money, they want to spend it. This tempts all of us to make purchases that we may want but don't necessarily need. By putting a certain amount of money each year into a retirement account or portfolio, people are removing some of these temptations and reinforcing smart spending habits. As I mentioned earlier, each dollar invested can go a long way due to the power of compounding, so each dollar we don't invest subtracts from your future wealth. It would be wonderful if everyone had financial freedom all the time, but that just isn't realistic. However, most people need more money as they get older because they have more responsibilities, whether it's starting a family, buying a house, or dealing with higher medical bills. If you invest younger when you typically have less responsibility, you'll be happy you have an investment portfolio that you can use later on if needed or that you aren't stressing about retirement. More than a few disciplined and patient investors have achieved financial freedom much earlier than they likely ever thought possible by starting early. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $373,066!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $38,158!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $664,089!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Bram Berkowitz has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 10 Reasons Every American Adult Should Invest in the Stock Market was originally published by The Motley Fool

Time​ Magazine

26 minutes ago

• Time​ Magazine

Why Trump Has Had Enough of This Republican Congressman

'MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him,' President Donald Trump wrote in a lengthy tirade against Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky who has criticized the President over a number of issues from war with Iran to the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. 'He is a negative force who almost always Votes 'NO,' no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded 'grandstander' who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling 'DEATH TO AMERICA' at every chance they get,' Trump posted on Sunday. He added: 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' Massie responded with a tongue-in-cheek post on X that the President 'declared so much War on me today it should require an Act of Congress.' Massie joined last week with a number of Democratic lawmakers to raise the alarm over potential U.S. military intervention in the Middle East without constitutionally-mandated congressional authorization. While Massie won't face a reelection contest until 2026, Trump has already unveiled a plan to challenge him and further enforce loyalty within the GOP ranks. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard,' Trump added, without naming a prospective primary opponent. 'MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one.' Massie, who is known for his outspoken libertarian views, has survived primary challenges before and told Axios, which reported on the effort to oust him, that 'any serious person considering running should spend money on an independent poll before letting swampy consultants take them for an embarrassing ride.' Who is Thomas Massie? Massie, 54, was born in West Virginia and earned bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering from MIT in the 1990s before turning to local politics in 2010, when he ran and won the race for Judge Executive of Lewis County, Ky., amid the Tea Party wave. In 2012, after then-Rep. Geoff Davis announced his retirement in Kentucky's deep-red 4th congressional district, Massie, who described himself as a 'constitutional conservative,' won the Republican primary in a landslide. When Davis resigned early, Massie won the same-day special election and general election to succeed him, taking office two months earlier than his fellow freshmen representatives elected in 2012. One of Massie's first moves was to vote in January 2013 against party leader John Boehner for Speaker, opting instead to vote for fellow libertarian Justin Amash. (Boehner narrowly won the speakership but would go on to resign in 2015. Amash would go on to not run for reelection in 2020 and temporarily leave the Republican Party after earning Trump's wrath for consistent criticism of the President and supporting his impeachment.) Since then, Massie has made a name for himself by regularly voting against bills, often breaking with his caucus and sometimes siding with Democrats. In 2013, Politico dubbed him 'Mr. No.' In 2016, Massie said he would vote for Trump but do everything he could to 'rein him in' if he acts unconstitutionally. In 2017, Massie tried to explain how the same movement that propelled him into office could also propel someone like Trump, telling the Washington Examiner: 'All this time, I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron [Paul] and me in these primaries, they weren't voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a b----- in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class.' During Trump's first term, Massie was among a small group of Republicans who joined Democrats in trying to override Trump's veto of legislation that would block his national emergency declaration at the border in 2019. That same year, he was the sole Republican to vote against a resolution opposing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement targeting Israel, and he was the sole no-vote across both parties on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. In March 2020, Trump called Massie a 'third rate Grandstander' and urged Republicans to throw him out of the party after the congressman tried to force a roll-call vote on a $2 trillion pandemic relief package. The stunt earned rebuke from both sides of the aisle, with former Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State John Kerry posting on social media: 'Breaking news: Congressman Massie has tested positive for being an a--hole. He must be quarantined to prevent the spread of his massive stupidity.' But in a U-turn, Trump endorsed Massie in 2022, calling him 'a first-rate Defender of the Constitution.' In 2022, Massie was the lone 'No' vote on a symbolic measure condemning antisemitism, a move he defended as a stance against 'censorship' but critics described as 'performative contrarianism.' Why Trump wants Massie out Massie was once again on Trump's bad side in 2023 when Trump shared posts on his Truth Social platform that called the congressman a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' and said he 'helped destroy the Tea Party and now he's trying to destroy MAGA.' That didn't stop Massie from endorsing Trump in the 2024 general election after previously backing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the Republican primary. But Trump finally had enough of Massie in March, when Massie voted against a continuing resolution to fund the federal government until September as Republicans worked to pass Trump's massive tax-and-spending legislative package, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' (OBBB). The President took to Truth Social to appeal for a primary candidate to challenge Massie in 2026: 'HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He's just another GRANDSTANDER, who's too much trouble, and not worth the fight. He reminds me of Liz Chaney [sic] before her historic, record breaking fall (loss!). The people of Kentucky won't stand for it, just watch. DO I HAVE ANY TAKERS???' Massie brushed off the criticism, telling Politico: 'I had the Trump antibodies for a while — I needed a booster.' He said at the time that he had no intention to cave to Trump's pressure and believed the President's grudge would 'blow over.' When Massie continued to voice loud opposition to the OBBB, which is estimated to add trillions to the national debt, Trump said of Massie in May: 'He doesn't understand government' and 'should be voted out of office.' The OBBB ultimately passed in the House in May, when Massie was one of two Republicans in the lower chamber to vote against it. It has yet to pass in the Senate, especially after Massie found a sympathizer to his concerns about the bill's impact on the deficit in tech billionaire Elon Musk. Trump's latest missive against Massie came as Massie has become a leading voice against military intervention in Iran. Days after Israel launched an attack on Iran, Massie cosponsored a war powers resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna (D, Calif.) aimed at blocking the U.S. government from engaging in 'unauthorized hostilities.' After Trump revealed U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Massie posted on X: 'This is not Constitutional.' While some have categorized Massie's wing of the MAGA base when it comes to the war as 'isolationists,' Massie told CBS on Sunday that he rejects the label, preferring 'non-interventionists.' 'We are exhausted,' he said. 'We are tired from all of these wars.' How is Trump planning to beat Massie? Trump is dedicating campaign firepower to oust Massie. Axios reported that Trump's senior political advisers, Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita, will launch a political action committee devoted to defeating Massie in the May 2026 primary. LaCivita said the PAC will spend 'whatever it takes' to defeat Massie, who according to the team's internal polling was lagging behind the President in terms of support. As of now, only one candidate, Niki Lee Ethington, has announced that she will vie for Massie's congressional seat. Other names being floated, per Axios, are state senator Aaron Reed and state representative Kimberly Moser. 'Massie's long-time opposition to President Trump's working family tax cuts—and really anything to do with President Trump—is coming to an end,' LaCivita said in a statement. 'Thomas 'Little Boy' Massie will be fired.'

Associated Press

33 minutes ago

• Associated Press

How covering your face became a constitutional matter: Mask debate tests free speech rights

CHICAGO (AP) — Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings, drawing scorn from him. 'MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests,' Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic yes. Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests, which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror,' state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable.' 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. State restrictions on mask-wearing At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons, a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. An unresolved First Amendment question People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech but to 'restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks.' Conversely, he said, First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an 'unresolved First Amendment question' that has yet to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court 'has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment.' Few of these laws have been challenged in court, Stone said. And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has 'deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies.' Federal agents wearing masks 'The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government,' Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents, asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried 'the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain clothed officers and masks' in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said.