Guest post by Officer Mike Robertson (Ret.)
After securing a strong base of support in the 2024 election, Donald Trump is positioning himself for a renewed push in foreign policy – an area that his supporters argue has deteriorated under recent Democratic leadership.
With growing global instability and concerns about America’s waning influence abroad, many see Trump’s return as an opportunity to reassert U.S. strength on the world stage.
Citing what they view as failures in diplomacy, deterrence, and global leadership under the Biden administration, Trump’s supporters anticipate a more forceful, deal-driven approach that prioritizes national interest and restores America’s negotiating power.
The Deal with Ukraine
One of the most significant early foreign policy moves of President Donald Trump’s second term is the U.S.–Ukraine Mineral Resources Agreement, signed on April 30, 2025.
This landmark deal establishes a joint Reconstruction Investment Fund, granting the United States preferential access to Ukraine’s valuable mineral resources – including lithium, graphite, and rare earth elements – while directing 50% of revenues from these resources into the fund to finance Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction.
The agreement, seen as a strategic counter to Russian influence, was finalized after months of complex negotiations and is viewed by Trump’s supporters as a testament to his assertive and transactional approach to foreign policy, especially in contrast to the strategies of previous Democratic administration.
Almost immediately, Democratic lawmakers and affiliated media outlets began to raise red flags. They argue that the agreement reflects an overly transactional and politicized approach to foreign policy, questioning whether Trump bypassed traditional diplomatic protocols to bolster his political standing.
In some corners of the Democratic Party, there are concerns that the deal may set a precedent for U.S. foreign policy being dictated by private interests rather than national strategy.
Despite concerted efforts by Democrats to oppose the agreement, the deal ultimately proceeded, marking a significant foreign policy achievement for President Trump.
Democrats expressed concerns over the agreement’s terms, with some advising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reject the deal, citing fears of compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty and the absence of explicit security guarantees.
Notably, Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) met with Zelenskyy shortly before his Oval Office meeting with Trump, urging caution against a “fake peace agreement” lacking security arrangements for Ukraine.
Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) likened Trump’s approach to a coercive real estate tactic, suggesting the deal resembled a demand for Ukraine to “pay rent” through mineral concessions. Furthermore, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) characterized the agreement as “extortion” in a televised interview.
Undercutting Democrats’ Political Narrative
From a political strategy standpoint, many Democrats view major deals initiated by Donald Trump—such as the U.S.–Ukraine mineral agreement – as potentially damaging to their own standing because these deals shift the narrative in Trump’s favor.
When Trump achieves visible wins on the international stage, especially ones that can be framed as strengthening the U.S. economy or security, it challenges Democratic criticisms of his leadership and complicates their messaging.
Such developments can resonate with voters who prioritize results over rhetoric, thereby posing a threat to Democratic poll numbers and weakening their leverage in debates over foreign policy direction and executive decision-making.
The Democratic Party has built a complex network of influence across key financial and institutional channels – ranging from public sector funding mechanisms and international aid organizations to regulatory bodies and aligned NGOs.
Supporters see this as a strategic framework for implementing progressive policy goals and ensuring long-term institutional stability.
However, this system often consolidates decision-making power within a narrow political sphere, making it resistant to disruptive policy shifts.
From this perspective, initiatives like Trump’s foreign economic deals – particularly those negotiated outside traditional diplomatic or bureaucratic structures – are viewed by some Democrats as threats to a financial and governance model they have helped shape over decades.
A growing concern among Trump-aligned policymakers is that meaningful progress in reshaping U.S.–Ukraine relations may be stalled as long as key Ukrainian institutions remain heavily staffed or influenced by figures aligned with pro-Democratic frameworks.
These individuals – many of whom have worked closely with Democratic policymakers, European Union officials, and international NGOs – are often perceived by Trump’s allies as resistant to alternative diplomatic or economic strategies, particularly those emphasizing bilateral, interest-driven agreements over multilateral aid or governance reforms.
From this perspective, any effort by Trump to establish a new kind of dialogue with Ukraine may be constrained until there is a shift in Ukraine’s internal political and administrative landscape – one that allows for greater openness to his administration’s more transactional and sovereignty-focused foreign policy approach.
And a notable example is Tomas Fiala, a key figure in Ukraine’s financial sector with deep ties to Western institutions and a consistent advocate of liberal democratic alignment.
Ties with Soros and the Democratic Party
Fiala is the CEO and founder of Dragon Capital, a leading Ukrainian investment firm.
He has served as the elected President of the European Business Association (EBA) from 2010 to 2015 and again from 2016 to 2021, leading Ukraine’s top business organization comprising over 1,000 companies with more than a million employees.
In 2015, Fiala co-founded and became Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Centre for Economic Strategy, an independent economic policy think tank.
He was also elected to the Board of Transparency International Ukraine from 2016 to 2020, part of a leading global anti-corruption watchdog. In October 2020, Fiala was elected to the Board of Directors of the Kyiv School of Economics.
Fiala’s extensive involvement in Ukraine’s financial and policy-making sectors, along with his strong ties to Western institutions, positions him as a significant figure in shaping Ukraine’s economic and political landscape.
Moreover, he has been associated with George Soros through business partnerships and media ownership in Ukraine.
In 2015, Soros became an anchor investor in a new Ukraine fund managed by Dragon Capital, marking a significant international investment in the country following its 2014 revolution .
Additionally, Dragon Capital’s pro-Western stance and Soros’s involvement have been noted in discussions about media ownership and potential foreign influence channels in Ukraine.
By the way, Soros Fund Management has held various investment positions across the financial sector, including bonds issued by major firms like BlackRock.
Regarding connections to the Democratic Party, the media outlets associated with Fiala have supported Democratic figures. For instance, reports indicate that a media group funded by the Open Society Foundation and managed by Fiala played an active role in the U.S. electoral process, supporting Democratic candidates .
As Trump Sets the Narrative, Democrats Struggle to Respond
Some Democratic strategists are reportedly growing concerned that the ideological momentum behind Trump-aligned populism could disrupt their longstanding influence over policy and financial frameworks – both domestically and in foreign relations.
With Trump and his allies promoting a more transactional, sovereignty-focused agenda, Democrats fear a weakening of the multilateral, values-driven approach they’ve championed for decades.
This includes not only narrative control but also influence over financial channels such as foreign aid, NGO funding, and institutional partnerships.
With the 2026 Congressional elections approaching, many within the Democratic Party see the stakes as increasingly high.
For them, preventing a deeper shift in public sentiment – and preserving their grip on key institutions and funding networks – has become a political priority.
The next two years are likely to see intensified efforts to frame Trump’s foreign policy initiatives as reckless or self-serving, in an attempt to shore up support and avert further losses at the ballot box.
But Democratic strategies to counter his influence have largely fallen flat. Rather than offering a compelling alternative vision, many within the party appear to be relying on the hope that Trump will eventually sabotage himself through legal missteps or controversial decisions.
Attempts to discredit him through satire, corruption accusations, or appeals to democratic norms have not significantly eroded his support base.
Despite internal calls for a bold rebranding, Democrats remain fragmented and overly reactive, often focused more on opposing Trump than defining their own agenda.
This passive stance leaves them vulnerable, especially as Trump continues to dominate political discourse with a clear, sovereignty-focused message. Ultimately, waiting for him to stumble may prove to be a losing strategy as the 2026 congressional elections approach.
Ensuring Loyalty and Effectiveness
As Donald Trump pushes forward with a series of high-profile foreign policy initiatives – ranging from negotiations with Ukraine on resource development to renewed diplomatic overtures in the Middle East – the Democrats are increasingly focused on delaying or obstructing these efforts.
By questioning the legitimacy or strategic value of Trump’s proposals, the Democratic Party is seeking to slow the pace of diplomatic progress in order to limit potential political gains for Trump.
In this view, the Democratic strategy is less about offering a clear foreign policy alternative and more about buying time to regroup and rebuild public support after electoral losses.
While Democratic leaders often frame their objections in terms of ethics, national security, or international norms, the Republicans see these moves as politically motivated efforts to deny Trump momentum.
To effectively carry out the policy agenda, the President must continue to go beyond reforming agencies like USAID and pursue broader leadership changes across the federal government.
The certain agencies remain staffed with individuals whose ideological leanings may conflict with Trump’s vision.
If Trump leaves pro-Democratic officials in key government and diplomatic positions, the Republicans risk enabling internal opposition that could undermine their foreign policy goals.
These individuals, aligned with previous administrations’ multilateral and progressive agendas, may reinterpret or redirect the implementation of Trump-initiated deals to align with Democratic priorities.
Even major agreements – such as the Ukraine mineral resources deal – could be reframed or administratively adjusted in ways that benefit Democratic narratives or obstruct Trump’s broader strategic vision.
To safeguard the integrity and intent of his initiatives, Trump may need to ensure that loyal, ideologically aligned personnel are placed throughout relevant institutions.
The post Political Sabotage: The Democrats’ Obstruction of Trump’s Foreign Policy Wins appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.