Harv's Corner 07/13/2026

Harv's Corner

Our system of government was intended to be "by the people and for the people"—so where are we in the current conversation? What about Medicare, Medicaid, and the very programs designed to protect and support this country's citizens? Where exactly do they sit on the President's agenda?
Harv

​
Soccer, NATO, and Mount Rushmore
Dan Rather and Team Steady
Jul 6

American soccer star, Folarin Balogun, finds himself at the center of an international incident. Credit: Getty Images

Donald Trump will attempt to direct the news in ways that benefit not the country, but him. The latest example involves the president interfering in the world’s biggest sporting event, soccer’s World Cup.

Trump put his thumb on the scale in favor of the reinstatement of an American soccer star who had been disqualified from playing an upcoming match. While the outrage over that move reverberates around the world, giving people more reasons to hate the American president and lose respect for our country, another story involving international maneuvering warrants your attention. It may not get as many headlines or internet clicks, but its potential for long-ranging consequences is far greater.

On Monday in Ankara, Turkey, the head of the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) said what would have been unthinkable ten years ago. Secretary General Mark Rutte told reporters that the current alliance between Europe and the United States is no longer sustainable.

This is a major development and comes just hours before the annual NATO summit, which could mark the beginning of the end of the 77-year partnership.

For decades, European security has also meant American security. NATO, a group of 32 nations, has long been the bulwark between Russian aggression and the rest of Europe. The alliance was founded at the end of World War II to guard against a similar war from ever happening again. In the decades since, the United States has been the foundation holding NATO’s defense strategy together.

Trump claims the U.S. does not get “any benefit” from membership and consistently complains that most countries do not give their fair share, while the United States pays too much.

He is obviously oversimplifying a complex international alliance that clearly benefits the U.S., given the importance of European security to this country and the world.

Using “flattery diplomacy,” Rutte attempted to keep the president in the fold. Last June, he handed Trump a huge win, with an agreement that member nations would increase their contributions from 2% to 5% of GDP by 2035. Reportedly, Rutte and others told reluctant leaders not to worry; no one is going to hold them to such a large increase. Even so, the ensuing year has seen a 20% increase in NATO’s coffers. Rutte fawned over the American president and his initiative, calling the windfall “Trump Trillions.”

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently announced a six-month review of U.S. forces in Europe, while reducing its troops “to pre-2022 levels,” on top of a “reduction of 5,000 forces earlier this year.” All the while, the war in Ukraine continues into its fifth year, with Kyiv holding its own against its bigger, richer neighbor, Russia.

Any argument for the U.S.’s continued membership in NATO runs through this war. If Putin wins, the consequences for European and global security are an open and chilling question. With this as the backdrop, Trump is begrudgingly attending this week’s summit as many European leaders are quietly discussing NATO without the U.S.

According to The Wall Street Journal, French President Emmanuel Macron believes Europe’s overreliance on the U.S. is a grave risk to European security. He said, “There is no going back,” that the rupture between Europe and America is insurmountable, and NATO needs to become strategically independent.

Leaders of the U.K., Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands have also voiced concerns. Even Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, historically a Trump supporter, admitted in March that Trump “is not reasonable.”

While international leaders are pondering the existential threat to the most successful peacekeeping alliance ever, the rest of the country and the world is tugging its collective hair out over Trump’s soccer moves.

Last week, the top scorer on the U.S. team, Folarin Balogun, was shown a red card after fouling an opposing player during the American victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina. A record 33 million Americans watched.

​A red card means an automatic one-game suspension. FIFA, soccer’s international governing body, has no official means of appealing such a call. That didn’t stop Trump from phoning his good friend Gianni Infantino, the head of FIFA, to urge him to review the suspension. Four days later, Balogun’s suspension was lifted, allowing him to play in the round of 16 against Belgium on Monday night. Belgium’s appeal was lodged and quickly denied. Rather than downplay his involvement, Trump thanked FIFA “for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!”

Trump and Infantino’s relationship is no secret. FIFA rents office space for its U.S. headquarters at Trump Tower in Manhattan. And remember when Trump was kicking the dirt because he didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize? It was FIFA who rode to the rescue, creating its own peace prize and awarding it to none other than Donald J. Trump, trophy and medal included.

Trump is happy to interfere in an international incident that might mean the difference between America winning or losing a game. But he does not want to be involved in an alliance that might mean the difference between the world winning or losing its security.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, an American president was considered the leader of the free world. That title has been eroded as we watch walls go up and relationships shatter.

Instead, Trump is hunkering down in his isolationism, closing borders and ending alliances, with no strategic endgame.

​ And let us pause to note that this is the same president who wants to be carved into immortality alongside some of America’s greatest presidents on Mount Rushmore. He’s promoting the idea again, as if his odds increase the more times he talks about it. Those leaders made a positive difference. They didn’t continually find new paths to degrade and endanger the nation.