U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the Trump administration’s foreign policy is based on restraint and realism. But U.S. foreign policy actions across the world suggest a lack of understanding for what the concept means in practice. Restraint values diplomatic engagement over military coercion and domination. so don’t be fooled by Pompeo’s hollow language. The latest video from the Quincy Institute explains:
Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia’s 14th district, who at one time was arguably the politician most associated with Donald Trump’s “MAGA” movement outside of the president himself, announced in a lengthy video Friday night that she would be retiring from Congress, with her last day being January 5.
Greene was an outspoken advocate for releasing the Epstein Files, which the Trump administration vehemently opposed until a quick reversal last week which led to the House and Senate quickly passing bills for the release which the president signed.
Rep. Greene has also been a staunch “America First” advocate, criticizing U.S. interventionism abroad, including the policies of President Trump.
She consistently and vocally opposed U.S. aid to Ukraine. Greene was also the first and perhaps only Republican member of Congress to call the U.S.-backed Israeli war in Gaza a “genocide.”
The congresswoman shared on X in late July: “It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct. 7 in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza.”
From RS in early August: “Rep. Greene or ‘MTG,’ has served as the tip of the spear in defining MAGA. Brash and controversial, she has been the embodiment of President Donald Trump’s movement on Capitol Hill and has had the president’s back at almost every turn.”
“Except, seemingly, where she perceives Trump might stray from MAGA principles. In June, Greene initially supported but then turned against the heavily Trump-promoted “Big Beautiful” spending bill. Earlier this month, she also opposed the president’s decision to continue sending aid and weapons to Ukraine.”
“She’s now come out swinging against Israel’s war in Gaza and U.S. support for it,” RS noted at the time.
“I can unequivocally say that what happened to innocent people in Israel on Oct 7th was horrific,’ Greene posted on X on July 27. “Just as I can unequivocally say that what has been happening to innocent people and children in Gaza is horrific.”
“This war and humanitarian crisis must end!’” she added.
As President Trump continued to support funding for Israel, Ukraine and has hinted at regime change in Venezuela, Greene publicly opposed all of it.
Eventually the president seemingly became frustrated with Greene’s opposition and began attacking her as a “traitor.” He recently unendorsed her and said he would back a primary challenger against Greene.
The Georgia mother admitted that this played a role in her stepping aside.
“I have too much self-respect and dignity… to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the President we all fought for, only to fight and win my election while Republicans will likely lose the midterms,” she said.
“It’s all so absurd and completely unserious,” Greene continued. “I refuse to be a ‘battered wife’ hoping it all goes away and gets better. If I am cast aside by MAGA Inc and replaced by Neocons, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Military Industrial War Complex, foreign leaders, and the donor elite class that can’t even relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.”
For realist and restrainers right, left and center, Greene went from being someone thought of as controversially confrontational or dabbling in conspiracy theories to a moral compass within her party on war and peace issues, particularly on Gaza.
Even out of Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene has established herself as a prominent voice on the American right with likely high profile opportunities in the future. As Donald Trump’s GOP continues to figure out what a contemporary Republican foreign party looks like, she is someone that should be heard.
A familiar and disheartening pattern is emerging in European capitals following the presentation of a 28-point peace plan by the Trump administration. Just as after Donald Trump’s summit with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska this past August, European leaders are offering public lip service to Trump’s efforts to end the war while maneuvering to sabotage any initiative that deviates from their maximalist — and unattainable — goals of complete Russian capitulation in Ukraine.
Their goal appears not to be to negotiate a better peace, but to hollow out the American proposal until it becomes unacceptable to Moscow. That would ensure a return to the default setting of a protracted, endless war — even though that is precisely a dynamic that, with current battleground realities, favors Russia and further bleeds Ukraine.
The European reaction to Trump’s proposal has been swift and revealing. According to Bloomberg, Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron, the leaders of Britain, Germany and France respectively, have hastily joined Zelensky in rejecting key elements of the Trump plan. Berlin has emerged as the chief hawk among the Euro Trio and reportedly is developing a counter-proposal far more attuned to Ukraine’s position.
Meanwhile, the EU high representative on foreign affairs Kaja Kallas outlined the bloc’s grand strategy for achieving peace with devastating simplicity: first, weaken Russia; second, support Ukraine. That’s it. One would search completely in vain for a diplomatic off-ramp, a vision for a future European security architecture, or even a basic acknowledgment of the compromises necessary to stop the killing in this “peace plan.” For it is no such thing: it is pure virtue signaling that translates into a perpetual conflict on the ground, with further destruction of Ukraine and growing risks of escalation and expansion of the war in Europe.
Yet European politicians’ knee-jerk rejection of the Trump plan as a “capitulation” is misguided. As Russia scholar Mark Galeotti argues, while the plan is “poorly drafted and incomplete,” it is “not a simple call for Ukrainian capitulation” and “as a starting point for something that could stop the killing, it has some promise.”
A serious examination reveals a structure aimed at a stable, if imperfect, peace: a 600,000-strong Ukrainian army that aligns with what analysts believe Kyiv can sustain; a finesse on occupied territories in Donbas and Crimea that avoids forced de jure recognition of Russian sovereignty over them; and a mechanism to funnel $100 billion of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Territorial question is likely to be the thorniest to negotiate. By contrast, a demand that Ukraine foregoes NATO membership shouldn’t be a dealbreaker — those European leaders who now oppose Trump’s plan know full well that Ukraine won’t be joining the NATO, in part because they themselves haven’t shown any readiness to directly fight for it. Then what is the point of prolonging the war by insisting on something both sides — existing NATO members and Ukraine — know is not going to happen?
Further, the provisions in the Trump plan to safeguard the minority and religious rights of different groups in Ukraine have reportedly met objections. But the plan explicitly stipulates that the benchmarks for realization of such rights are to be based on EU frameworks, not unilateral Russian impositions. Besides, as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, the protection of minority rights is a long-term investment in Ukraine’s security and should be welcomed by those who claim to be its supporters.
Crucially, this potential diplomatic opening is not emanating from a position of Russian weakness. Putin has explicitly stated that the "current dynamic on the front line... is leading to the achievement of [Russia's] goals by military means." Yet, in a critical window of opportunity, he has also confirmed that Russia received the 28-point U.S. plan and is ready to negotiate on its basis. Putin acknowledged that the plan could be a foundation for a final settlement. This is not a sign of a Kremlin rejecting diplomacy out of hand, but one testing its possibilities.
Europe now faces a stark choice. It can continue its current course — deriding the plan, encouraging Kyiv to insert poison pills, making its own unreasonable counter-proposals and hoping to scuttle it within Washington itself.
But this gamble carries an enormous risk. What if Trump, using a combination of pressure and persuasion, successfully convinces President Zelensky — obviously weakened by major corruption scandals in his entourage — that accepting the plan is Ukraine's least-worst option? If Kyiv signs on and Moscow engages, Europe risks finding itself completely excluded from the settlement that ends the largest war on its continent in decades. Having offered no credible alternative beyond more war, its influence would evaporate, and it would be forced to comply with the terms of a deal it played no part in shaping.
Seemingly trying to avoid that scenario, Merz spoke with Trump on Friday in what he characterized as a “good call,” but without giving any details due to its confidential nature.
It remains to be seen what will come out of it, but moving forward, it’s crucial to remember that any realistic plan will require painful compromises. A lasting settlement will remain impossible so long as key stakeholders in Europe refuse to move beyond a strategy whose sole components are weakening one side and arming the other.
By working to hollow out the only serious negotiation on the table, Europe is not protecting Ukraine; it is condemning it to more bloodshed and itself to strategic irrelevance. Right now, the alternative to Trump’s flawed but real plan is not a better deal — it is just endless war, and Europe will bear the consequences alone.
At a congressional hearing Thursday, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) did something that members of Congress rarely do; he called out a conflict of interest from an “expert” witness.
“I think it’s fair to consider whether there are conflicts of interest being presented here today,” said Castro.
Castro’s comments were directed towards Carlos Trujillo, who testified during a hearing on election integrity in Honduras and allegations that the center-left incumbent LIBRE party is trying to steal the November 30 presidential election.
“If they do steal the election and go down that road…it has to end without any credible democratic actor recognizing the legitimacy of the regime,” Trujillo warned the lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
Trujillo, a former U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States, told Congress that Hondurans' “hope for saving their democracy” is “vested in a hearing like this,” pointing to the U.S.’s ability to impose sanctions on the government.
However, what Trujillo failed to mention is that his lobbying firm, Continental Strategy LLC, worked for at least four clients tied to Honduras this year, including financial institutions owned by some of the country’s richest men, a port company, and Honduras Próspera, a controversial private charter city in Honduras backed by Silicon Valley billionaires. Altogether, these Honduran clients paid Trujillo’s firm at least $670,000 this year alone, and many of the entities that it represents have a clear stake in ousting the LIBRE party in favor of a more business-friendly administration.
This would have gone undisclosed, if Castro — the committee's ranking member — had not raised the question about Trujillo’s status as a paid lobbyist for Honduran business interests opposed to the LIBRE party. That revelation led to a tense exchange during Thursday’s hearing.
CASTRO: You and your firm have significant corporate clients in Honduras who are actively working against the sitting government, is that correct?
TRUJILLO: That is not correct.
CASTRO: You have clients in Honduras.
TRUJILLO: I do have clients in Honduras.
When Castro asked whether Trujillo had spoken with his clients about the hearing, the subcommittee’s chairwoman, Florida Republican Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), interrupted:
SALAZAR: Ambassador Trujillo may have many clients in Honduras but that does not mean that he does not want the best outcome on November 30th, so I think we should just concentrate on finding out what’s really happening right now and how we can preserve the integrity of those elections.
CASTRO: Chairwoman, I never interrupted your time and you’ve never interrupted my time and these are fair questions about a witness especially when the witness talked about conflicts of interest of others in Honduras. I think it’s fair to consider whether there are conflicts of interest being presented to us today and so that's why I asked him about the clients that he represented, including Prospera which was very controversial in Honduras, which was fighting with the government there, involved in litigation and later arbitration.
Watch the full exchange:
Trujillo’s clients, of course, do have interests of their own. In particular, they have close ties to former right-wing President Juan Orlando Hernández, who, after being reelected in 2017 in a process declared fraudulent by the OAS, among other observers, pursued a set of pro-business policies benefiting Trujillo’s clients. As the U.S. ambassador to the OAS, Trujillo met with and praised Hernández — who is now serving a 45-year federal prison sentence for facilitating and profiting from drug trafficking to the U.S. — for his cooperation with Washington in the fight against organized crime.
One of Trujillo’s clients, Grupo Ficohsa, a company led by one of the country’s richest men, Camilo Atala Faraj, has paid Trujillo’s firm $120,000 so far this year. Atala Faraj maintained close ties — and his bank lent millions of dollars — to the former president, whose economic policies favored large conglomerates like Ficohsa. Another of Trujillo’s clients, Banco Atlántida, is a bank whose founding president, Gilberto Goldstein Rubenstein, was a long-time leader of Hernández’s National Party. The firm has paid Trujillo $415,000 thus far in 2025.
Trujillo’s clients have long opposed the ruling LIBRE party of President Xiomara Castro.
Honduras Próspera, which gave Trujillo’s firm $105,000 since October 2024 before the contract was terminated last July, is currently embroiled in a multi-billion dollar dispute with the Castro administration over its policies to rein in unregulated special economic development zones (ZEDEs) that had been greenlit by Hernández.
Over the past three years, Honduras Prospera has lobbied D.C. lawmakers in an effort to portray the project as a bulwark against socialism in Latin America. Many of these lawmakers have since called for sanctions if President Castro continues to oppose the ZEDEs legislation, while others have inserted language ratcheting up the pressure into the annual State Department funding bills.
Banco Atlántida, which had been granted concessions for 14 major hydroelectric projects under Hernández’s administration — only to be taken away soon after by Castro’s in response to popular protests by nearby communities — has since been implicated in the creation of a new, explicitly anti-LIBRE media outlet, ICN Digital, which regularly gives the bank free publicity.
After the 2009 military coup in Honduras that ousted Castro’s husband and LIBRE party leader Manuel Zelaya as president, Grupo Ficohsa paid lobbyist Lanny Davis to help legitimize the provisional government of Roberto Micheletti in Washington. More recently, it hired lobbyists to oppose legislation supported by the LIBRE party that would have conditioned U.S. military aid and international loans to the country on investigations into grave human rights violations carried out by Hernández’s security forces.
Thursday’s hearing underscored concerns about the U.S. intentionally tipping the scale of Honduras’ upcoming elections one way or the other through the purportedly independent expertise provided by witnesses called to testify before the subcommittee.
“I think it’s fair to consider whether there are conflicts of interests being presented to us here today, so that’s why I asked him about the clients he represented,” Castro said, defending his comments. ”I think folks need to know that, I think that’s important.”
When non-governmental witnesses testify before Congress, they are required to fill out a disclosure document designed to reveal conflicts of interest, known as a “Truth in Testimony” form. However, there is no question on the form that requires witnesses to disclose organizational funding from private companies that may have a vested interest in the committee’s deliberations, leaving Congress in the dark on conflicts of interest simply because they didn’t ask.
Many witnesses also choose to exploit a loophole that allows them to testify in a “personal capacity.” In other words, even if they happen to work as a lobbyist and represent foreign government or corporate clients, they are not required to disclose that information.
When Trujillo testified on Thursday, he did so in a “personal capacity” and did not disclose any of his foreign clients.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
