It’s time to change our approach. Outcomes (either realized or attempted)—not rhetoric—must become the currency of accountability.
When Donald Trump remarked, “I don’t trust anybody,” in response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it was far more than an off-the-cuff comment. It was a calculated articulation of his diplomatic doctrine, a worldview shaped by skepticism, sovereignty, and the ever-shifting nature of alliances. To understand the gravity of this statement, one must delve deeper into Trump’s experience of betrayal within his administration, the psychological underpinnings of trust, and the historical parallels that reveal how this mindset influenced his approach to leadership.
“I Don’t Trust Anybody”: Trump’s Strategic Signal in Global Diplomacy
Trump’s distrust wasn’t merely abstract but grounded in lived experience. High-profile breaches of loyalty marked his presidency, none more symbolic than the New York Times op-ed penned by an anonymous senior official in September 2018. The article, titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” described efforts by insiders to thwart Trump’s agenda, with the author famously referencing a “lodestar” to illustrate guiding principles. The piece, written by someone ostensibly working toward Trump’s goals, became a symbol of betrayal within the very ranks of his leadership circle. This public act of defiance and subversion confirmed Trump’s suspicion that even those closest to him could harbor hidden agendas. The revelation that loyalty within his administration was conditional fueled a broader skepticism that extended into his foreign policy. The authors of that letter were the Joint Staff and, precisely, Lieutenant General Kenneth F. McKenzie, the then Director of the Joint Staff who was supposed to be serving President Trump during his first administration.
RELATED
IC Series| Shadows of Resistance: Chains of Command Ripple Effects of Meeker Case
The removal of Col. Christopher Meeker as commander of the 88th Air Base Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in December 2023 represents a watershed moment in the unit’s history. This event, unprecedented since the wing’s establishment in 1994, underscores the Air Force’s unwavering commitment to maintaining the highest leadership and ethical conduct among its senior officers but, to be clear, unprecedented, which means the publicized charges were probably one of many, and this is evident by Col. Meeker’s waiver of Article 32.
Trump’s skepticism toward Netanyahu, then, is not surprising. Despite the outward appearances of camaraderie, Netanyahu’s actions occasionally clashed with Trump’s interests. One notable incident occurred just days before the 2020 U.S. election when Netanyahu congratulated Joe Biden on his projected victory. For Trump, who was still contesting the election results, this was perceived as a personal slight and a signal that Netanyahu’s loyalty was pragmatic rather than unwavering. Trump’s realization that domestic and international alliances are subject to change underscored his belief that trust must be continually earned, not granted unconditionally.
This perspective on trust aligns with the psychological concept of “betrayal trauma,” first explored by Jennifer Freyd in the 1990s. Betrayal trauma occurs when those who are supposed to be protectors or allies become sources of harm.
This is something very familiar to me. For a leader like Trump, who placed immense value on loyalty, these betrayals reinforced a default stance of suspicion. This wariness extended to all realms of diplomacy, where he viewed foreign leaders as potential fair-weather allies, liable to pivot when it suited their national interests.
Unlike traditional diplomats who often operate on mutual assurances and goodwill, Trump’s worldview mirrors the principles of realpolitik. This doctrine, rooted in pragmatism and power dynamics, relies not on idealism but on measurable benefits and strategic leverage. His skepticism echoes the diplomatic realism of John F. Kennedy, who navigated the dangerous waters of the Cold War by balancing trust and verification. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy’s willingness to engage in backchannel negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev did not imply blind faith. Instead, it was a calculated maneuver that depended on continuous assessment and verification of Soviet intentions.
Trump’s remark also serves a dual purpose—communicating to international and domestic audiences. By declaring his distrust publicly, he reinforced his “America First” ethos, assuring his supporters that no foreign power, no matter how historically aligned, would dictate his policies. This approach played into the broader narrative of sovereignty, a principle that has resonated with leaders throughout history who sought to insulate their nations from undue external influence. Kennedy, too, was wary of foreign entanglements, as evidenced by his cautious approach to alliances during the Cold War, ensuring that American autonomy remained intact even while fostering international cooperation.
Yet, Trump’s distrust isn’t merely an abstract policy stance. It has tangible implications for global leadership. When the leader of the world’s most powerful nation asserts that trust is scarce, it sends ripples through the international community. For foreign governments, alliances with the U.S. under Trump were perpetually on trial, subject to ongoing evaluation. Trust became a currency as valuable as military alliances or trade agreements. Nations seeking favor with the U.S. had to prove their reliability repeatedly, knowing that one act of perceived disloyalty could shift the dynamics instantly. We must know them by their fruits.
Netanyahu’s balancing act between supporting Trump and maintaining his political survival in Israel exemplified the precarious nature of these alliances. Netanyahu’s pragmatism, though rational from an Israeli standpoint, reinforced Trump’s belief that loyalty is ultimately transactional. The lesson Trump drew from these interactions was clear: trust is a fleeting commodity, and skepticism is a necessary safeguard against betrayal.
Trump’s statement, therefore, encapsulates more than just a personal ethos; it defines a strategic approach to diplomacy. His skepticism is not weakness but vigilance, a refusal to be lulled into complacency by traditional notions of friendship between nations. Just as Kennedy employed scrutiny during his diplomatic dealings, Trump’s wariness reflects a belief that trust must be continually tested and verified in global power.
Ultimately, it is not their words, titles, or the status they project that reveal the truth. No matter how loudly they are promoted as authorities, their actions—and only their actions—expose their true character and intentions. Deeds are the measure by which all claims of legitimacy must be judged.
Tore Maras
“Know Them by Their Fruits”: Why Actions Must Define Trust
Promises are easy. Speeches? Even easier. But how often do words translate into something real, something tangible? The timeless truth captured in the phrase “Know them by their fruits,” drawn from Matthew 7:16, challenges us to look deeper. It compels us to strip away facades and judge based on the enduring outcomes of actions.
This isn’t just philosophy—it’s strategy. Leaders, institutions, and businesses must all be held to one standard: their results. As individuals, we should constantly ask ourselves: Are the fruits of their actions worth our trust?
Leadership Defined by Delivery
Consider Elon Musk and his work with SpaceX. What started as a vision many dismissed as a pipe dream—reusable rockets, affordable space exploration, private partnerships with NASA—could have remained mere words. Instead, Musk’s actions spoke volumes. Successful launches, groundbreaking innovations, and cost-cutting measures have reshaped the space industry forever. His vision became a reality not because of speeches but because his results justified the belief.
Contrast that with Enron’s collapse. Its leaders preached grand visions of growth and innovation, projecting an image of relentless success. But their fruits? Fraud, deception, and eventual catastrophe. Thousands of lives were upended, pensions were wiped out, and trust in corporate leadership was shattered. Their words painted a masterpiece; their actions revealed decay.
Governments and Legacy
Governance, too, must be viewed through this lens. Theodore Roosevelt’s commitment to fairness in his “Square Deal” could have been dismissed as political rhetoric. Yet his actions—trust-busting monopolies and enacting the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906—proved his words held weight. Roosevelt’s legacy endures because his policies created tangible benefits that shaped lives long after his speeches faded.
Similarly, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has built his reputation on a commitment to defending Texans and upholding the Constitution. His promise to stand for state sovereignty and constitutional integrity isn’t just campaign rhetoric but reflected in his actions. Paxton has led multiple legal challenges against federal overreach, protecting Texas from what he sees as unconstitutional mandates. Notably, his lawsuits against federal policies on immigration, COVID-19 restrictions, and environmental regulations have demonstrated his resolve to defend the rights of Texans and the principles of limited government. His consistent legal victories show that his words are matched by results, proving his dedication to the promises he made.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: How often do we trust words alone? Sweet promises from politicians, flashy marketing from businesses, polished personas on social media—all these can be seductive. Yet far too often, we find ourselves swayed by carefully crafted language, overlooking the substance (or lack thereof) behind it. Promises Made Promises Kept.
It’s time to change our approach. Outcomes (either realized or attempted)—not rhetoric—must become the currency of accountability. Whether evaluating a leader, choosing a business partner, or deciding whom to vote for, your trust should be grounded in tangible results.
Every time you’re faced with a choice, every time someone asks you to believe in their promises, ask yourself:
What fruits have they borne?
Ultimately, it is not their words or success but their deeds that reveal the truth.
Today, more than ever, alliances are mutable, and betrayals are part of the political landscape; Trump’s declaration that he doesn’t trust anybody is a stark reminder that, in his view, every player—domestic or international—must constantly prove their worth. For those analyzing global strategy, it serves as a critical lesson: past loyalty is no guarantee of future trust, and vigilance is the price of sovereignty.
TIP ME
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me onSubscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack or on X. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
