Photo courtesy of the European Parliament

Even during his first term in office, President Trump questioned why the United States continues to underwrite Europe’s security when Europe refuses to defend itself. Most European nations no longer have conscription, and until Trump forced them earlier this year to increase their defense spending, they had stopped supporting their militaries economically.

At the same time, they were clinging to free medicine and education, as well as generous social benefits for citizens and illegal immigrants alike. Furthermore, since the onset of the Russia–Ukraine war, Europe has been poking the Russian bear with a stick, making defiant statements that could trigger NATO Article 5 and drag the United States into a war with Russia.

With low birthrates, widespread refusal to serve in the military, and minimal government spending on defense, Europe has become dependent on the United States to maintain its freedom at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and the lives of U.S. soldiers. It is no wonder that the Trump administration has issued an official document that pulls no punches, telling Europe exactly what he thinks and demanding that Europe take responsibility for its own defense.

The Trump administration’s new national security strategy formally codifies President Trump’s long-standing distrust of Europe’s political and military establishment. The document presents Europe as militarily weak, culturally eroding, and no longer a reliable strategic partner.

For the first time, an official U.S. strategy paper shifts primary responsibility for Europe’s defense onto European governments and signals that the United States may no longer guarantee Europe’s security as it did after World War II. Europe is explicitly downgraded as a strategic priority in favor of an “America First” retrenchment.

The strategy contains harsh language for Europe, describing the continent as being in “civilizational decline” and warning that current political and social trends could render parts of Europe unrecognizable within two decades.

It argues that Europe’s challenges extend far beyond insufficient military spending or economic stagnation, suggesting that EU overreach, regulatory burdens, migration policies, demographic decline, censorship, and erosion of national identity collectively threaten the continent’s long-term viability. These structural weaknesses, it claims, could leave several European states too weak, economically or militarily, to remain dependable allies.

The NSS criticizes European governments for suppressing political opposition, particularly by marginalizing right-wing parties, framing these actions as “political censorship.” It warns that migration could result in “certain NATO members” becoming majority non-European, raising questions about whether future governments will share U.S. interests or uphold NATO commitments. The document also describes several European governments as “unstable minority governments” whose internal crises undermine their ability to address security challenges.

The strategy accuses European leaders of holding “unrealistic expectations” about how to end the war in Ukraine. Although Europe views Russia as an existential threat, the NSS argues that political fragmentation, weakened democratic processes, and growing external dependencies hinder meaningful reform. It links Europe’s handling of the Ukraine conflict to broader structural problems, including economic reliance on Russia and China that has deepened during the war.

This marks a clear break from Trump’s first-term National Security Strategy, which focused heavily on countering Russia and China. The new document softens criticism of Russia while sharpening criticism of Europe, calling for an end to NATO expansion and arguing that the alliance should not become a perpetually enlarging burden for the United States. Europe, once central to U.S. foreign policy, now ranks behind the Western Hemisphere and the Indo-Pacific in strategic importance.

The NSS codifies Trump’s view that Europe relies too heavily on American protection. It argues that European nations must assume primary responsibility for their own defense and operate as aligned sovereign states rather than depend on U.S. guarantees or NATO enlargement.

Additional priorities include increasing U.S. access to European markets, strengthening ties with Central, Eastern, and Southern European nations, improving defenses against technological theft and cyber espionage, and encouraging Europe to counter Chinese economic influence.

Despite its criticisms, the strategy acknowledges Europe’s cultural, economic, and scientific importance. It warns, however, that Europe cannot play a meaningful global role if it remains paralyzed by demographic decline, political division, and loss of confidence. The stated objective is to “help Europe correct its current trajectory” by encouraging a revival of national identity and supporting “patriotic” movements within European nations.

The release of the strategy comes as Russia signals readiness for conflict with Europe, intensifying debate within the continent about whether to deepen military integration or pursue greater self-reliance. European governments have increased defense spending, expanded conscription, and built new EU defense structures, yet they still rely heavily on U.S. capabilities. Analysts warn that weakening Europe while softening the U.S. stance toward Russia aligns with long-standing Russian strategic aims and could leave Europe vulnerable.

Most European leaders have responded cautiously, emphasizing the continued importance of the United States as an ally and avoiding open confrontation. Some right-wing European parties have welcomed the strategy as validation of their criticisms of the EU and NATO leadership.

The NSS forces Europe to confront a reality it has long avoided: the United States may no longer serve as its unconditional security guarantor. As a result, European governments must reconsider their assumptions about defense, identity, sovereignty, and long-term geopolitical alignment.

The post US National Security Strategy Codifies Trump’s Disdain for Europe’s Weak Defenses appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Joe Biden emerged from hiding on Friday to deliver remarks at a forum hosted by the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute.

Biden received the Chris Abele Impact Award for building the most LGBTQ+ inclusive administration in US history.

“The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute—the only national organization dedicated to elevating out LGBTQ leaders at all levels of government—is proud to announce today that President Joe Biden will receive the Chris Abele Impact Award to honor his historic role in championing LGBTQ+ rights and for his leadership in achieving the most LGBTQ+ inclusive administration in U.S. history,” the organization said.

“President Biden will be the third recipient of the award in the Institute’s history,” the organization said.

“President Biden has shown unwavering commitment to ensuring LGBTQ+ people can participate fully and openly in our democracy,” said Evan Low, LGBTQ+ Victory Institute President & CEO.

Biden was awarded for having a black lesbian press secretary, a gay Transportation Secretary, a nonbinary Department of Energy official who is into “pup kink,” and a transgender Assistant Secretary for Health.

They weren’t qualified to serve in those positions, but all that matters is that they were gay, nonbinary, or transgender.

At one point, Biden forgot the name of his lesbian White House Press Secretary during his speech to the LGBTQ+ crowd.

Biden’s press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, boasted about being the first black, lesbian immigrant White House spokesperson.

Recall that on the first day of her job as White House Press Secretary in May 2022, Karine Jean-Pierre wanted the reporters in the briefing room to know how special she was because she is a black lesbian.

“I am obviously acutely aware that my presence at this podium represents a few firsts. I am a black, gay, immigrant woman—the first of all three of those to hold this position, I would not be here today if not for generations of barrier-breaking people before me. I stand on their shoulders.” she said.

Biden was so proud of his black lesbian spokeswoman that he forgot her name.

“When I took office I promised to have an administration that looked like America… not just for the community, but my Press Secretary ‘KAREEM,'” Biden said to applause.

WATCH:

Sleepy Joe FORGETS the name of his former Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

BIDEN: “When I took office I promised to have an administration that looked like America… not just for the community, but my Press Secretary ‘KAREEM.'” pic.twitter.com/VVUY2NxtFU

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 5, 2025

Biden also botched “America” during his unhinged speech.

“We just have to get up. As long as we keep the faith…and remember who in the hell we are! We’re the United States of Ameragotit!” Biden shouted.

WATCH:

The post Biden Forgets the Name of His Black Lesbian White House Press Secretary During LGBTQ+ Victory Institute Speech (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Naval Institute

Pete Hegseth delivered a defiant speech at the Reagan library defending the Pentagon’s lethal strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean, insisting that President Trump has the authority to use military force “as he sees fit.”

He argued that the operations, which have killed more than 80 people since September, are justified because the traffickers work with designated terrorist organizations. Hegseth compared them to al-Qaida operatives and warned that any group bringing drugs into the United States would be targeted and sunk.

His defense comes as legal and political scrutiny intensifies. The administration claims the strikes fall under the laws of armed conflict because groups like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and Colombia’s ELN are terrorists. Legal experts reject that argument, noting the United States is not at war in the Caribbean, and the traffickers have not attacked Americans.

However, under U.S. domestic law there is no requirement for a formal declaration of war before the United States can use lethal force against terrorists; Congress can authorize force by statute, and the president also has self-defense authority.

Critics also point out that the suspects were never convicted of any crimes, that evidence behind the terrorist designations has not been made public, and that fentanyl typically enters the United States through Mexico, not via Caribbean smuggling routes. The rebuttal here, however, is that no conviction is necessary to counter terrorist operations. The 9/11 terrorists, for example, had no prior conviction, but lethal force would have been justified in stopping them.

There is also no requirement for the evidence of a terrorism designation to be made public. Furthermore, the administration has never claimed that these boats were carrying fentanyl. The claim is that they are carrying cocaine, which is consistent with the facts.

Tensions escalated after reports that a 2 September strike was followed by a second attack that killed two survivors clinging to debris, allegedly under Hegseth’s directive to ‘kill everybody.’ Hegseth denies issuing such an order. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he gave that order; the claim comes solely from media reports based on anonymous sources.

In closed-door briefings to lawmakers, Frank Bradley, the admiral who oversaw the operation, reportedly told Congress there was no ‘kill them all’ order from Hegseth.

Adm. Bradley told members of Congress that all 11 people aboard the suspected drug-smuggling boat struck on Sept. 2 were on an internal U.S. military target list, meaning they had been pre-approved for lethal action. According to several officials familiar with the briefings, Bradley said intelligence had identified each individual and validated them as authorized targets under President Trump’s campaign against narco-terrorist vessels.

This previously undisclosed detail adds new weight to the controversy surrounding the operation, especially the second strike that killed two survivors in the water.

Bradley said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered him to kill everyone on the approved target list, destroy the drugs, and sink the boat. He emphasized that military lawyers reviewed each step and that he acted within U.S. and international law.

Administration officials have similarly defended the strikes, saying the boat carried cocaine and was linked to a cartel designated by President Trump as a terrorist organization, though no evidence has been publicly released. However, there is no requirement for the government to release such evidence to the public for the strikes to be legally justified.

Bradley described firing a precision airburst munition that killed nine people and capsized the vessel, leaving two survivors who climbed onto the overturned hull. He observed the survivors for more than 30 minutes, determining they were not injured and had not surrendered.

He also said cocaine bundles appeared to still be strapped inside the capsized boat, raising concern the drugs could be recovered. A larger vessel suspected of being the intended rendezvous point was spotted nearby, but it was not on the authorized target list, preventing any action against it.

Bradley told lawmakers he ordered additional strikes because the survivors remained lawful targets, the drugs remained intact, and the vessel might still float or drift. Although U.S. intelligence later assessed that the cocaine was heading toward Europe or Africa, not the United States, Bradley said the drugs themselves constituted the threat. He denied receiving or issuing any illegal “no quarter” order and insisted the operation complied fully with the law.

The post Secretary of War Hegseth on Drug-Boat Strike: No Public Evidence of an Illegal Order appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.