By SUZANNE DOWNING
Senators Lisa Murkowski and Jeanne Shaheen argue in their New York Times op-ed (“Congress Must Defend NATO Against Trump” that President Trump is endangering NATO, destabilizing global security, and undermining America’s alliances through his posture on Greenland and allied defense obligations. Their framing assumes that the post–Cold War alliance model is both functional and sustainable. It isn’t.
Their jointly written column is behind the New York Times paywall, so let’s go over the main points here:
Unlike their characterization, US strategic interest in Greenland did not begin with Donald Trump. Several presidents pursued acquisition or control pathways long before Trump’s presidency, including Andrew Johnson (through Secretary of State William Seward), William Taft, and Harry S. Truman. Greenland’s military and geopolitical value has been recognized for nearly a century because of its location, its Arctic access, and its role in missile defense and early-warning systems. Treating Trump’s statements as unprecedented recklessness ignores the historical continuity of American strategic planning in the Arctic, especially as China makes its moves to control Arctic transportation corridors.
The outrage over Trump’s approach to NATO rests on another flawed assumption: that the existing NATO alliance structure is healthy. For decades, European members failed to meet defense spending commitments while relying on the United States as the primary guarantor of continental security. That imbalance weakened NATO’s credibility far more than any speech or statement ever could. Reasserting American leverage is structural correction and the people of America deserve it, especially considering Murkowski and her ilk have spent us into a $38 trillion national debt.
The “America First” doctrine is not pure isolationism, so much as a matter of priorities. A nation that cannot secure its borders, stabilize its economy, and maintain internal cohesion cannot sustain global leadership indefinitely. Globalist frameworks placed international obligations above domestic stability, creating economic dislocation, security vulnerabilities, and strategic overextension. Trump’s approach reverses that order by restoring national resilience as the foundation of international power.
Their portrayal of US military history in Greenland as cooperative partnership is selective. US installations were built because American strategic necessity demanded them. They were dismantled when those needs changed. Access has always been governed by power realities, not sentiment. Diplomatic language does not alter the strategic nature of Arctic competition.
Denmark and Greenland’s openness to cooperation reflects reliance on US security capacity. That dependence creates leverage, whether acknowledged or not. Strategic alignment is not built on moral appeals but on reciprocal interests and power balance. Trump’s posture recognizes that reality rather than masking it with consensus language.
The senators also frame global instability. Russia, China, cyber warfare, Arctic militarization are used as justification for preserving existing alliance structures without reform. That logic assumes the current system is capable of managing these threats. Evidence suggests otherwise. Russia expanded militarily under alliance complacency. China grew strategically through Western economic integration. Global supply chains became vulnerabilities. Security architecture built on assumption rather than enforcement produced fragility.
Their call for congressional intervention against the president’s foreign policy posture misreads constitutional structure. Executive authority in foreign affairs exists precisely to allow coherent strategy. Fragmented legislative control produces paralysis and partisan battles. This sudden emphasis on congressional restraint appears selectively applied. Murkowski made no such comments during President Joe Biden’s ludicrous term.
Senator Murkowski’s position is especially telling. Her hatred of Trump now overrides consistency. The same language about diplomacy, alliance preservation, and international norms was absent during the Biden years of foreign policy decisions that weakened energy security, destabilized markets, and reduced American leverage. Murkowski is using no such diplomacy in working with the Trump Administration.
What Murkowski and Shaheen defend is the status quo system that distributes American power outward while neglecting internal resilience. These are not serious lawmakers and you would not want to follow either of them into battle, as they would crumple at the first sign of resistance.
America cannot permanently subsidize the defense of NATO countries.
Trump, the disruptor, has taken an approach may unsettle comfortable diplomatic institutions, but institutional comfort is not a measure of national security.
Murkowski and Shaheen believe leadership must take the same form forever, regardless of cost, effectiveness, or consequence.
That assumption is no longer defensible. It is beyond ridiculous.
Suzanne Downing is the founder of The Alaska Story and is a longtime Alaskan.
18 thoughts on “Senators Murkowski and Shaheen defend the globalist agenda that no longer works for America”
Trump Will Strengthen NATO Through Strength, Not Surrender: A Rebuttal to Shaheen and Murkowski
As an ardent supporter of President Donald J. Trump, I read Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Lisa Murkowski’s op-ed in The New York Times with a mix of “comical bewilderment,” amusement and frustration. Their piece, “Congress Must Defend NATO Against Trump,” paints a typical unhinged (their typical mode-of-operand) picture of Trump as some kind of alliance-wrecking villain, threatening to seize Greenland and dismiss our allies’ efforts in Afghanistan. This is classic establishment fear-mongering from two RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who ‘only’ seem more interested in preserving the ‘failed’ status quo of American taxpayers footing the bill for Europe’s defense than in putting America First. Let’s dismantle their arguments point by point and show why Trump’s approach isn’t a threat to NATO—it’s the wake-up call the alliance desperately needs.
… First, the senators decry Trump’s “threats to take Greenland” as causing protests in Denmark and eroding confidence in the U.S. What they conveniently omit is the strategic genius behind Trump’s interest in Greenland. Back in his first term, Trump floated the idea of purchasing Greenland not as some imperial land grab, but as a forward-thinking move to secure Arctic resources and counter China’s growing influence in the region—something the senators themselves acknowledge as a threat. Greenland’s vast mineral wealth and its position in the melting Arctic are critical for U.S. national security, especially with Russia militarizing the area. Trump’s “threats” are likely tough negotiating tactics to expand U.S. basing rights under existing 1951 agreements, which Denmark and Greenland have shown openness to. Instead of panicking, Congress should back Trump’s vision: Invest in Greenland’s infrastructure, create jobs for locals, and build a stronger bulwark against adversaries. That’s not undermining alliances; that’s leading them.
… Next, they whine about Trump downplaying NATO allies’ contributions in Afghanistan, claiming it has “deepened the crisis of confidence” in the alliance. Give me a FRIGGIN break. Trump has been NATO’s biggest cheerleader—by forcing it to get serious. During his presidency, he called out freeloading allies who failed to meet the 2% GDP defense spending target, a commitment they’ve dodged for decades. The result? NATO spending skyrocketed by billions, with more countries stepping up than ever before. By 2024, even critics admitted Trump’s pressure worked. Downplaying contributions? That’s just Trump speaking truth: The U.S. shouldn’t carry 70-80% of the burden while Europe enjoys our protection. Afghanistan was a debacle under Biden, not Trump, who negotiated a withdrawal that his successor botched. Trump’s message is clear: Allies must pull their weight, or why should American soldiers and dollars subsidize their security? This isn’t division; it’s fairness, and it makes NATO stronger against real threats like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s Taiwan saber-rattling.
The ‘lunatic’ – ‘unhinged’ senators warn of a “rupture” in Arctic relationships and call for Congress to “defend” NATO through vague reinforcements of cooperation. This is where their argument falls apart … They’re essentially asking Congress to preemptively handcuff a duly elected president, subverting the will of the American people if Trump wins in 2024 (or whenever). That’s not democracy; that’s Deep State meddling. Trump doesn’t want to destroy NATO—he wants to reform it into a powerhouse where every member contributes equally. His “America First” policy deterred aggression: No new wars under Trump, Russia stayed in check, and China thought twice. Contrast that with the current administration’s weakness, which emboldened Putin’s Ukraine adventure and Xi’s assertiveness.
Ultimately(!!!), Shaheen and Murkowski (ie: The Dynamic Rhino Duo) represent the old guard terrified of change, meaningful success – winning, and America First. They see Trump’s classically BOLD diplomacy as a crisis because it disrupts their cozy Washington consensus. But for millions of us Trump supporters, it’s a breath of fresh air as it represents a clear departure from Political Failure. Trump will make NATO great again by demanding transparency – accountability, securing strategic assets like Greenland through smart deals, and ensuring the alliance stands united—not as a welfare program for Europe, but as a force multiplier for American interests. Congress shouldn’t “defend” NATO against Trump; it should get out of his way and let him lead. After all, peace through strength isn’t just a slogan—it’s Trump’s proven track record.
SURPRISE
You can send an email to the Senator requesting a copy of her op-ed. As constituents, we need her to provide us with information on how she views the president’s agenda, U.S. international policy (yes, she’s attempting to influence, control, and direct it), and how she’ll vote in the Senate on related matters.
The op-ed is not on her official page of press releases and op-eds, nor any other public-facing page on the site.
I sent her an email request for a copy. Waiting to see what I get back.
https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/contact/email
The initial mistake was expanding NATO. Only the US has the ability to discharge the obligation to defend against the Russkies. The remaining NATO states are free-riders. The more the “attack-against-one-is-an-attack-against-all” obligation is extended, the greater the burden on the United States.
What is implicit in Senator Murkowski’s approach is that she favors NATO membership for Ukraine (and a certain war with Russia). That is nuts. Also implicit, in my estimation, is that she favors the madness of globalization and the cultural suicide of massive immigration from the third-world.
Vice President JD Vance appropriately called out the pseudo-elites pushing immigration and censorship at Munich. Senator Murkowski needs to hear and understand the Vice President’s message. Alliances are best based on shared principles and interests. To the extent NATO fails to reflect western civilization and becomes a protect racket for pseudo-elites, it ceases to be valuable.
I ask myself how this egocentric, condescending, liberal woman who considers herself an expert on everything had to take the bar exam so many times to pass. I submit she has the most extreme and dangerous case of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the country. She is hurting Alaska and our nation.
From the start of her corrupt and destructive reign of terror, Princess Lisa has shared the same overweening arrogance, and contempt for the public, that her father displayed while governor of Alaska. The wormy and rotten apple did not fall far from that tree at all.
Forget Denmark. Something is really rotten in the Murkowski Family. Nancy and I didn’t know it was going to end like this. Our heartfelt apologies to all of Alaska.
Haha…always enjoy this spoof-ed …!… After daddy appointed princess Lisa to the Senate, she got my vote in that following full cycle, only because I thought she’d be better than the opposition.
But we all have been fooled at some point in life.
I try to forgive myself for that vote. Lisa is a total buffoon and I would forgive Frankie, but Frankie was a buffoon as well.
And I told Frankie that we should start using birth control before Lisa’s conception. But no, Frankie is a strict Catholic and he didn’t like the idea of a withdrawal. Paradoxically, Frankie had no problem withdrawling the private bank accounts of his many Alaskan customers. He pissed off many, but then we had Lisa.
Frankie tried for a withdrawal, but instead got an overdraft.
😆
…..could it have been a back draft?
LOL …….
Probably a little of both…..
Globalism was never intended to be good for the U.S. . it was meant from the start to destroy any notion of self governance, Iin order to revert the world to a feudalist system of rule by Euro- technocrat- elites, where those ” uppity peasants” in America would Know Their Place at the bottom,being ruled by the Philosopher-Kings of Old Europe who are Our Enlightened Betters
The globalist agenda has NEVER worked for America. NATO is a failed organization that has been totally obsolete for a very long time, and at this point, financially, is a losing proposition for the U.S.. We should simply leave NATO, the sooner the better.
You can lead a rino to water, but you can’t make it think.
And speaking of thinking, I cannot think of a single political position held, or policy advocated, by Lisa Murkowski since well before Covid, if ever, that was not detrimental to this state, to this nation, and to freedom.
✅
Princess Murkowski should be investigated for possible FARA and Logan act violations re: her actions on Denmark and Greenland as well as her ties to 50501, the acts of violence, civil unrest and leftist groups inciting anarchy. She already said she was a leader in the resistance and opposes and criticizes Trump at every turn.
If she applied her criticisms of K. Noem to her own actions, she should be the one to resign.
Thank you Jefferson!