Is Trump a peacemaker or a hell raiser? He's both, which is not inconsistent.

By Gary Abernathy

Admirably, Trump has always been bothered by needless deaths. But as Reagan said, freedom must be fought for.

The Trump administration’s triumph in the Middle East this week is a high mark of President Trump’s second term. And no matter what happens from this point, it is already a triumph if for no other reason than achieving a ceasefire and seeing the hostages set free.

Democrats and other Trump detractors who are acknowledging the success and offering praise are to be commended. Others who are either staying silent, or minimalizing the achievement, or outright criticizing Trump despite this success, are beyond hope in ever putting the greater good over petty politics.

The historic developments in the Middle East again raise questions about Trump. Is he a devoted peacemaker with a long-term vision to leave the world a better place? Or is he an authoritarian with little respect for democracy, even willing to use the military to crush dissent in his own country?

On Monday, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) posted on X, saying of Trump, “Raising hell at home & then pretending to be the President of Peace is diabolical.” But there is no contradiction in Trump’s approach at home and abroad.

When it comes to foreign affairs, Trump has been admirably consistent in his public position, even long before his political career. He is extremely reluctant to intervene in foreign conflicts. He has consistently decried wars and the loss of life that comes with them.

Trump wants to end bloodshed, even when it means the “bad guys” (Russia) might end up with victories. His distaste for what he clearly sees as the unnecessary ravages of war goes back decades. Yes, Trump has demonstrated a willingness to order military action against terrorists or hostile nations resulting in death, but only in the service of saving more lives in the long run.

Domestically, Trump is more than willing to use the military to quell violence and maintain the peace, whether to protect ICE agents as they apprehend illegal immigrants or simply to make city streets safer.

In both cases, foreign and domestic, Trump seems to have a consistent north star – a devotion to the preservation of peace and the protection of life. He wants to stop the bloodshed at home and abroad.

Protecting lives is Trump’s main goal

For Trump, preserving life seems to override any other guiding principles. He is not a philosopher or an ideologue, certainly not a principled conservative (or liberal). He wants people to be alive versus being dead. For him, it seems to be that basic.

How often have we heard him lament the loss of thousands of lives of both Ukrainians and Russians during the Ukraine war? While his critics wish he would take a tougher line against Russia (which he has done lately), Trump mainly focuses on what he sees as the unnecessary loss of life on both sides.

Just this past August, Trump issued a statement on social media saying, “I have just been informed that almost 20,000 Russian soldiers died this month in the ridiculous War with Ukraine. Russia has lost 112,500 soldiers since the beginning of the year. That is a lot of unnecessary DEATH!”

He added, “Ukraine, however, has also suffered greatly. They have lost approximately 8,000 soldiers since January 1, 2025, and that number does not include their missing. Ukraine has also lost civilians, but in smaller numbers, as Russian rockets crash into Kyiv, and other Ukrainian locales.”

Most people are disturbed by the loss of life, whatever the circumstances. But for Trump, it seems to be a constant refrain — something more important than who’s right or wrong, even in a war wherein freedom is attempting to overcome tyranny. It has often seemed that if Ukraine surrendering to Russia would prevent more bloodshed, Trump would be for it.

Back in January and February, Trump often made statements that sounded as if he was suggesting that “Ukraine should have surrendered to Russia and blames Zelensky for war,” as the Independent headlined it. As recently as August, Trump suggested that Ukraine should consider ceding territory to Russia to end the killing.

Since then, Trump has taken a tougher stance against Russia. But his commitment to avoiding the needless loss of life is a consistent and driving pattern in Trump’s worldview.

When making remarks during Memorial Day or similar ceremonies, Trump will dutifully read lines from the teleprompter paying tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice. But in unscripted interviews, it’s noticeable that he seldom if ever invokes those who have died for the freedoms we enjoy — reminders that were made regularly by most previous presidents.

To be fair, Trump has had to have difficult phone conversations with survivors of those who have lost their lives in service to his military orders, as well as writing many letters to surviving families. It’s understandable that he believes in making as few such calls and sending as few such letters as possible.

But as Ronald Reagan said in his 1967 gubernatorial inauguration, “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.”

The fact that freedom is worth fighting for — whether by Americans or other people yearning to be free — is a principle that Trump could stress more often, especially in honor of all who have already lost their lives in service of freedom.

To save lives at home, Trump believes in a forceful response to crime. It was notable this week when Trump appeared with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, and vociferously praised el-Sissi’s approach to maintaining law and order.

“It’s really nice when you say, ‘How is your crime situation?’ And it’s like they don’t even know what you’re talking about, said Trump. ‘What do you mean crime? We don’t have crime.’ Because if he has crime, he puts it out very quickly. Some people think that’s not nice, but I think it’s great, because people don’t want to be mugged and smashed, and they don’t want to be stupid people.”

In another setting during the same trip, appearing with Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Trump heaped similar praise, saying, “I don’t know what it is. I like the tough people better than I like the soft, easy ones. I don’t know what the hell that is. That’s a personality problem I suspect.” (Trump is seldom reflective, so it was interesting to hear him briefly diagnose his own psyche.)

Of course, the hardline tactics used in other countries to keep the peace are not tactics most Americans would typically welcome. Our constitutional liberties by their nature result in more freedoms of expression and actions than are tolerated in many of the countries Trump says he admires.

But expressions of freedom in the U.S. include public demonstrations that increasingly seem to turn violent as of late. And in many cases, it seems like demonstrations never end. Anarchy has become part of daily life in too many cities.

It’s one thing to hold a rally or a protest that lasts for a few hours and then comes to a conclusion. It’s another thing when cities have permitted entire blocks and regions to be occupied for weeks, months or even years by protestors or homeless encampments. When it comes to crime in general, it’s unforgivable that six shootings per day is considered acceptable in cities like Chicago.

It’s going too far when a lack of aggressive policing has led to travelers routinely being warned to avoid certain sections of cities, especially after dark. At some point, a tipping point has been reached – even in a liberal democracy – when government leaders have a responsibility to intervene and return order, even if it requires military intervention.

That’s the point we have obviously reached in some states and cities where governors and mayors have seemed more interested in defending the radical elements of society instead of protecting property and innocent life. And that’s where Trump finds justification to send in troops – whether the National Guard or regular Army – to restore order and keep the peace.

Freedom, security often at odds

The Democratic Party is in danger of becoming known as the defender of anarchists, rioters, criminal activity and general lawlessness. Rather than welcome outside help to regain control of their cities, Democrat officials, with rare exception, insist there’s nothing to see here, while the rest of the country clearly witnesses the daily violence with a mix of shock and disgust.

Just as disturbing is when various judges appoint themselves the deciders of whether troops are justified based on their determinations of whether the level of unrest or violence justifies such intervention. In so doing, they are inserting their judgment for the judgment of the president, who has actually been entrusted by voters with making such determinations. It’s a blatant usurpation of power by the judicial branch, inserting itself into the executive branch lane.

In other words, it might be appropriate in some cases for judges to decide if the president has the authority to order troops into cities under certain conditions. It is NOT for judges to decide whether those conditions exist; that’s for the president to decide.

Just as groups such as Tren de Aragua and Hamas are recognized as terrorists abroad, Trump identifies drug cartels and Antifa (yes I capitalize the A on purpose) as terrorists at home. They and other domestic terrorists are the disrupters, the instigators of unrest, violence and, too often, death in our streets. And when they can’t be dealt with by local authorities, Trump will step in — internationally at the request of the leaders of our allied countries, or, domestically, in spite of governors and mayors in the U.S. who are letting their citizens be victimized.

In the Middle East, the work of Trump and his administration, along with many regional partners, has led to an impressive achievement, however long it lasts. Neither peace nor war is ever permanent in this world. But if the current agreement can last for several years, that’s a major accomplishment.

Can Trump achieve peace at home? Politically, no; the opposition is too consumed by Trump-hate. But in our cities, Trump can achieve much safer streets and neighborhoods if the courts don’t erect too many barriers.

So, is Donald Trump an authoritarian? A wannabe dictator? No. He believes in democracy. But he also clearly believes in quashing unrest before it morphs into violence. He supports freedom — but on a short leash.

Trump’s devotion to preventing deaths is admirable. In the Middle East peace settlement, it undoubtedly served as motivation for Trump to successfully pressure Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu to agree to the concessions necessary to bring all parties to the table.

But the desire to prevent deaths is not always sufficient as a first and last principle. The traditional American ideal — a concept obviously shared by Ukrainians in their war with Russia — holds that freedom, liberty and independence are concepts worth fighting and even dying for.

Ukraine conceding territory or, worse, surrendering to Russia might well spare lives — but at the cost of Russian expansion and the emboldening of Russian President Vladimir Putin to continue his goal of reconstituting the Soviet Union. There are indeed some things worth dying for. All of us living under the umbrella of freedom owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who fought and, in many cases, died to guarantee our freedoms. Trump may well understand and appreciate that fact, but the president giving voice to it more often would be welcome.

In our current American society at this particular moment in history, Trump’s determination to restore order is the right one. But in the U.S., the pendulum swings, sometimes slowly. Right now, it’s swinging toward the need for more strong-arm tactics from our government to quell constant violence or the real threat of violence in our cities.

It will be important for Americans to be on guard to ensure that when that objective is met, the pendulum swings back again to ensure that our freedoms and liberties are protected.

Freedom and liberty. Safety and security. Those ideals are often in conflict. In service of both those concepts, constant vigilance is the duty of all Americans.