Skip to main content

Trump’s foreign policy is to try to get America paid

(CNN) — President Donald Trump ran for office promising to put America First. He has governed with an eye toward getting America paid.

In Trump’s transactional view of the world, the US is more like an interested party in a business deal than a beacon of capitalism and democracy. Efforts to extract tolls, impose tariffs or take ownership of resources in foreign countries, both allies and opponents, have been a notable focus of foreign policy in Trump 2.0. in which the president has also cast his expansionist vision to Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal.

These things don’t usually work out according to plan, as the world learned during Trump’s first term when Mexico did not pay for a border wall like he repeatedly vowed it would. But the military might and economic heft of the United States are as ever, in Trump’s view, assets to be exploited. In recent months:

► He suggested — and then abandoned — a 20% toll for US protection of cargo passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

► He took over the sale of Venezuela’s oil by propping up what remains of the antidemocratic regime he decapitated and icing out the democratic opposition.

► He held up opening of a new bridge to Detroit, trying to squeeze something more out of Canada even though Canada paid to build the bridge.

► He’s gotten more friendly toward Ukraine now that he says the US has a “stake” in the country’s rare earths.

A tollbooth on the Strait of Hormuz?

Setting aside the legal issue of putting a toll on what’s supposed to be open water — and the fact that Iran set up a tolling system first — charging for protection sounds either like common sense or like an organized crime tactic, depending on your perspective.

In either case, it was not meant to be. Within a day, Trump had moved on and was instead promising the US would receive another sort of payment — this time from Gulf nations instead of shipping companies.

“Based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership, I have decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States,” Trump wrote in a social media post Tuesday, one day after first proposing the toll idea.

The underlying idea Trump may be trying to convey is that the US will be getting something in exchange for this foreign entanglement he started and has so far been unable to end.

The Pentagon has not put a price tag on the war with Iran, but watchdog groups have guessed it will cost more than $40 billion and counting. Everyday Americans have seen the financial toll of the conflict each time they head to the gas station.

A portion of the profits may not be very much

Back in February, Trump piled on to his tense relationship with Canada by demanding the US should split ownership of the Gordie Howe Bridge between Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, even though Canada paid to build the bridge.

The bridge’s opening was delayed as the countries reworked their agreement. The resolution appears to be that Canada will split net profits from tolls for the next 15 years with an economic development fund, although specifics on how that fund will work are lacking. The bridge will now open on July 27, according to the Canadian government.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney defended the emerging deal in an interview with CTV.

“The word ‘net’ does a lot of work in this. We are sharing after Canada is paid back,” according to Carney.

“There’s not going to be a lot of net to split,” he said.

No sign of trillions of dollars Trump claims will be invested in the US

Trump did not expand on what sort of investment Gulf nations will put into the US now that he has abandoned the toll idea, but he has repeatedly claimed that he has secured funding from foreign countries to be invested in the US. He frequently cites the enormous figure of $19 trillion in foreign investment that he has secured.

CNN’s Daniel Dale has tried and failed to find anything close to that level of foreign investment in the US during Trump’s term. But Trump continues to make the fictitious claim with regularity.

Current problem: How to repay illegal tariffs

The backbone of Trump’s trade and economic policy was to impose tariffs on imports. These are effectively taxes paid on imported goods. While economists generally argue that it is American consumers who ultimately pay for tariffs in the form of higher prices, Trump has argued it is foreign countries that pay them.

In any event, the US government is currently in the process of paying back tariffs the Supreme Court ruled this year it should not have collected. In June, for instance, the US repaid more than $49 billion. Trump has said he will look for new ways to impose taxes on imports. Meanwhile, lawsuits from businesses and individuals to reclaim illegal tariffs are proliferating.

Major questions about US control over Venezuela

While the tariff policy is trackable through government reports, much less is known about US control of Venezuela. The Trump administration authorized the US military to capture former President Nicolás Maduro early this year and bring him to the US for prosecution. But the rest of Maduro’s regime has retained power with oversight from the Trump administration, which has taken control of the sale of Venezuela’s oil resources.

Details on the size and scale of those oil sales have been hard to come by. Even Republican members of Congress have voiced concern about the lack of transparency, particularly after devastating earthquakes rocked the country.

The political opposition, meanwhile, has largely been left out of the process even though opposition leader María Corina Machado gifted Trump her Nobel Peace Prize before the US military acted against Maduro. The New York Times reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is exerting a high degree of control over the country from afar, working through the existing regime.

Elliot Abrams, who was special representative for Venezuela during Trump’s first term, wrote for The Free Press that the administration is choosing access to oil over reform.

“The focus has been on seeking investments in Venezuela and above all boosting oil production, with recovery and democracy pushed off to an indefinite future,” Abrams wrote. “This is a self-defeating policy.”

A friendlier view of Ukraine now that the US has a “stake” in rare earths

Trump surprised US companies and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a NATO conference last week when he said Ukraine should be able to license and manufacture defensive Patriot interceptors.

Trump’s warmer stance toward Ukraine may have something to do with his view that the US has an interest in the country — not as a democracy in Europe, but as a place with natural resources.

“We have a little stake in that country now because we have some land in that country, but we have minerals. It’s among the wealthiest, it’s among the best land anywhere in the world for rare earth,” he said, referring to a deal the US signed with Ukraine last year that creates a joint investment fund. But Trump may have a different view than Ukraine of what the deal does. Ukrainians have maintained that they retain full ownership of their natural resources.

Demanding more from NATO will have unintended consequences

Trump’s main gripe with NATO has been his argument — which has some basis — that European countries were not paying enough. Trump phrases the complaint as if the countries should be paying the US, when in fact NATO countries are supposed to be dedicating a certain percentage of their GDP to defense spending.

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria recently argued that Trump should get credit for making European nations spend more on defense, but also that it will have unintended consequences such as making European countries less likely to defer to the US. The old system, he said, “was stable, peaceful, and pro-American.”

“We have set off a chain reaction, and over time, Americans will come to miss the old NATO, not because it was fair, but because it was the most successful security system the world has ever known, with America at its center,” Zakaria said.

The same could be said for the rest of the world as Trump changes the way the world looks at the United States.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Another Democratic nail-biter in Wisconsin and other takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries

(CNN) — The Democratic primary for governor in Wisconsin was neck-and-neck early Wednesday morning, with democratic socialist state lawmaker Francesca Hong and moderate Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley separated by less than a percentage point.The race was seen as a gauge of the party’s ideological direction — testing whether the progressive insurgency that has played out in deep-blue districts this spring and summer would extend into another presidential battleground.Hong, though, faced deep concerns about her electability, and outgoing Gov. Tony Evers sought to rally Democrats behind Crowley in the race’s final days.It was the most closely watched race on a primary day that included a Democratic Senate battle in Minnesota, a Republican Senate contest in South Carolina and a long-time incumbent being ousted in Connecticut. Here are takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries:Another underperformance for the leftAugust has been a big test for the left-wing of the Democratic Party – a rare chance for it to demonstrate its ability to win not just in deep-blue urban areas but also swing states.But for the second straight week, its candidate had a dogfight on their hands. Last week, it was Abdul El-Sayed winning the Michigan Democratic Senate primary by a very narrow margin; this week, it’s Hong facing a race that is closer than many expected.So, what might explain this?One possibility is that some voters might be gun-shy about following through and voting for candidates who might struggle to win in the general election. Democratic leaders have worried greatly about nominating both El-Sayed and Hong, and perhaps some voters were convinced those votes would be too risky.Polling primary elections is also more difficult than general elections, because the universe of voters isn’t as predictable. And there is some thought that these surveys might be over-sampling more-educated, urban voters (who favor more left-wing candidates) and under-sampling more rural, blue-collar ones.Plus, there just wasn’t much quality polling in either race.But in the case of the Hong-Crowley race, there could be another explanation: that the opposition to Hong simply consolidated late.A late July poll from Marquette Law School showed Hong at 46%, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes at 21%, and Crowley at 11%.Sometimes when it’s clear a race is coming down to two candidates, voters see that and decide to choose between them. Crowley became the alternative when Barnes dropped out the day after that poll was released.Progressive wins Minnesota Senate primaryNext door in Minnesota, progressives won yet another race that served as a proxy battle between the party’s left and center flanks.Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan defeated moderate Rep. Angie Craig in the Democratic Senate primary. The two were competing for the party’s nomination to replace retiring Sen. Tina Smith.Flanagan criticized Craig’s history of financial support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. She also lambasted Craig’s vote for the Laken Riley Act, which mandates the detention of undocumented immigrants charged with certain crimes and which the congresswoman now says she regrets supporting. The issue of immigration enforcement became a flashpoint in Minnesota after federal agents shot and killed two US citizens who were protesting mass deportation efforts there in January.Flanagan, however, never ignited the sorts of deep worries about electability that Hong faced in Wisconsin. She was also endorsed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, both of whom sat out the Wisconsin governor’s race.The lieutenant governor will be the heavy favorite in November, when she’ll take on former NFL broadcaster Michele Tafoya, a first-time candidate.Progressives notched another victory in Minnesota in the primary for the 2nd District House seat that Craig is vacating. Matt Little, a former state senator, emerged as the winner in a crowded field in the Twin Cities’ southern suburbs.Darline Graham makes runoff, but has her work cut out for herDarline Graham rode President Donald Trump’s support to a Senate appointment and, now, to first place in South Carolina’s Republican special primary for a full term. But whether it will take her any further in the August 25 runoff is a big open question.Graham took about one-third of the vote on Tuesday, running well ahead of her new runoff opponent, Rep. Ralph Norman. But that’s no guarantee that she’ll be the favorite in the runoff, where the winner needs to get a majority of the vote.In fact, Graham is pretty far from 50%-plus-one, relative to other Trump-endorsed candidates. Before Tuesday, only one Trump-backed statewide candidate took less of the primary vote than she did.That was South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pam Evette in the June gubernatorial primary; she went on to lose by 37 points in the runoff, when her opponents’ supporters coalesced.One of the other candidates in that gubernatorial primary was Norman, who finished in third place with 17% in the initial contest. That wasn’t a great showing, but it meant he had a statewide campaign infrastructure to tap into in the wake of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s death last month.Norman has strong conservative bona fides as a leader of the House Freedom Caucus, which could be especially valuable in a one-on-one matchup with Darline Graham. And he served notice Tuesday that he’ll contrast his proven conservative record with her lack of a political track record.“My record is an open book,” he said.If Norman has one problem, it might be his decision in 2024 to back former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley over Trump. Norman has explained it was because of personal ties, but Trump often holds grudges over such things.It’s been a bad week for Trump’s endorseesNot only does Graham have plenty of work to do, but MyPillow founder Mike Lindell’s loss in the Minnesota GOP gubernatorial primary means three Trump-backed candidates have lost since last Tuesday.The first was Michigan congressional candidate Amir Hassan on August 4. He lost to a candidate who had dropped out of the race, Tom Smith, by double-digits.Then it was incumbent Rep. Andy Ogles falling to former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher on Thursday.And now it’s Graham going to a runoff and Lindell losing to Minnesota state House Speaker Lisa Demuth.Lindell’s loss means seven Trump-backed candidates for Congress or statewide office have lost this primary season, including five who ran for statewide office.The seven losses are more than Trump-backed candidates had in 2018, 2020 and 2024, according to a CNN review of data from Ballotpedia. And the four gubernatorial candidates who have now lost this year is more than in 2022, as well.Democratic upheaval in ConnecticutIn central Connecticut, the Democratic divide was less about ideology than generational change as voters in the 1st District ousted 78-year-old incumbent Rep. John Larson in favor of 47-year-old former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin.Bronin’s win is a reminder of just how restive Democratic voters are. The party’s youth movement is being accelerated in the aftermath of former President Joe Biden’s ill-fated decision to seek reelection, only to drop out of the race as concerns about the then 81-year-old president’s age and mental acuity mounted.Larson, a 14-term incumbent, faced health concerns after abruptly freezing on the House floor during a February 2025 speech. He later said he suffered a complex partial seizure and had been prescribed medication that would “greatly reduce” the chances of another such episode.The longtime congressman made the case that his seniority best positioned him to deliver on the district’s priorities. But Bronin said Democrats need a new direction and a greater sense of urgency in taking on the Trump administration. He won the Connecticut Democratic Party’s endorsement, and was also backed by former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a likely 2028 presidential contender.Dems stick with establishment’s pick in key Wisconsin districtRebecca Cooke will get the rematch she sought with Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden in southwestern Wisconsin after she fended off progressive rival Emily Berge, the former Eau Claire city council president, in the 3rd District Democratic primary.It was a key race, with the Driftless Area congressional district looking like one of Democrats’ prime pick-up opportunities after Cooke, a small business owner and waitress who highlights her background as the daughter of dairy farmers, came within 3 percentage points of ousting Van Orden in a political environment more favorable to the GOP in 2024.Establishment Democrats are backing Cooke, who has proven to be a strong fundraiser. But the race wasn’t a traditional progressive-versus-moderate showdown. Cooke has distanced herself from left-leaning policies like defunding the police and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But she was also endorsed by Sanders, and aired a television advertisement focused solely on highlighting the Vermont senator’s support.The biggest question entering Election Day was whether a progressive wave led by Hong would also sweep Berge to a surprise victory. But that surge did not materialize on Tuesday.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story