Our allies refusal to join us in Iran is a warning. If America does not rebuild respect, credibility, and partnership, isolation will be the new normal.

Our allies refusal to join the United States in its war in Iran is framed by the current Administration as a failure of allied courage or commitment. It is neither. Instead, it is a damning judgment on the actions of this Administration toward America’s partners and allies, international law and multilateralism, democratic principles, and human rights. This judgment is a significant shift that, if unaddressed, will undermine U.S. international relations for years to come.

I cannot recall another moment in my 36-year diplomatic career when none of our traditional partners and allies chose to stand with the United States. Contrast this with NATO’s response after the 9/11 attacks. Our NATO allies honored America’s invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which states that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all, and commits members to assist the attacked party. NATO provided troops and military support. This was the first time Article 5 was instituted, and our allies proudly stood with us.

Not today. The U.S. has been rebuffed by nations that have unhesitatingly stood with us.

Now we are isolated, and we did this to ourselves. This isolation is the predictable outcome of a new domestic and foreign-relations pattern of making unreasonable demands, lacking a consistent strategy, being unpredictable and, most of all, treating partners and allies as tools rather than sovereign equals.

For decades, U.S. diplomacy operated on a simple principle: before taking major international action, consult with partners and allies. In 2018, when the U.S. bombed Syria in response to Syria using chemical weapons, we engaged with France and the United Kingdom. Ultimately, we announced that the United States, France, and the United Kingdom launched combined “precision strikes” against Syrian targets.

During my long diplomatic career, we consulted regularly with other countries. Our outreach was based on the premise that good relationships and trust build legitimacy. Successful diplomacy is about engaging countries on a regular basis, even our adversaries. It is how a responsible state in the international system behaves, especially a powerful nation.

Responsible consultation also demonstrates humility. A concept the current Administration does not seem to understand. Being powerful does not require threats or shows of military strength to achieve goals.

The basic principle of engaging partners and allies was absent in our war with Iran. Allies were not properly informed before the strikes. Countries with citizens in Iran were not adequately warned that their people, their infrastructure, or their companies could be at risk. There was little visible attempt to engage the United Nations or to seek earnest multilateral backing. Regular engagements with allies and others were replaced by something different: act first, then complain later if no one follows.

This unilateral instinct is reflected by the way we have treated some of our closest partners. Take South Korea, for example. The United States may soon withdraw key air defense assets, including the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), from South Korea to deploy them to the Middle East. There is little South Korea can do to stop the U.S. from doing so. However, since the end of the Korean War we have assured South Korea that we have their backs, and that they will benefit from our extended deterrence. In fact, we have convinced them not to develop a nuclear weapon because of that extended deterrence. Simply withdrawing these systems is short-sighted, as are American tariffs on South Korea affecting Korean industries and workers, and the recent detention and deportation of over 300 South Korean workers from a Hyundai-LG Energy Solution battery plant construction site in Georgia that was to provide jobs for Americans. These actions tell South Korea that the United States treats security and economic ties as bargaining chips rather than the foundation of a shared strategy.

Our approach to NATO, and Europe more broadly, also sends a destructive message. Questioning NATO’s value, criticizing and mocking European nations and leaders, and floating ideas like buying Greenland – the territory of a NATO ally – sends an unmistakable message: Washington knows best, and allies are expected to fall in line.

The moral and legal dimensions of recent U.S. behavior increase our isolation.

America’s allies have witnessed this Administration’s questionable uses of force, such as sinking boats in the Caribbean on the claim that the boats carried drug traffickers. Claims that lack transparent evidence to justify that that action, which include killing the crews of those vessels once the vessels have been immobilized. To date, U.S. Southern Command reports that U.S. military strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific have killed over 150 people. Similarly, the United States has invaded Venezuela and taken President Maduro prisoner. These actions have been labeled by some lawyers as violations of international law. President Trump, however, made it clear in early 2026 that his actions and use of American power are constrained only by his “own morality” and his “own mind,” not by international law. Relying on his own morality and own mind, President Trump pardoned the former President of Honduras, who had been convicted of Narco-Trafficking, as well as individuals who committed other criminal acts, including the January 6^th rioters.

The international community has also witnessed American mistreatment of migrants and asylum seekers through family separations, an abandonment of due process, harsh detention conditions, and violently aggressive immigration raids. They have witnessed the detention and killing of American citizens. They’ve seen people, including children, dying in U.S. detention centers. The United States projects the image of a country that is disturbingly comfortable with the suffering of vulnerable populations.

This moral indifference is not limited to our borders or even just our hemisphere. The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has worsened starvation. In 2025, for example, the U.S. incinerated nearly 500 metric tons (about 1 million pounds) of taxpayer-funded emergency food aid stored in Dubai after delays caused by USAID staffing cuts. The food was to be sent to hungry children in crises. We then followed this up by withdrawing from over 66 international organizations, some of which address issues affecting women, children, and the effects of climate change.

These acts erode any perception that the United States is a defender of human rights. We are now on “that side” of the list of countries with little to no moral authority or a guardian of a rules-based order.

Yet there is more.

Countries around the world watch this Administration, and this President, make extreme and racist statements, and use racist images. There are no filters to mask their racism, nor does the Administration and its supporters seem to care how these statements resonate domestically and abroad. The President and many of his friends are connected to Jeffrey Epstein and are alleged to have engaged in sexual crimes. Foreign governments have acted against leaders implicated in the Epstein scandal. Yet this Administration hides the facts and blames political opponents. Leadership matters, as do the personal entanglements of leaders.

For democratic governments that must answer to voters and taxpayers, joining a controversial U.S. war is not just a security decision—it is a reputational gamble. Foreign publics see the pattern of scandals, alleged abuse, and an apparent lack of full or even partial legal accountability. Few responsible leaders want to explain to their citizens why they aligned their country with a government perceived as indifferent to basic human rights and the crime of sexual abuse. The Trump Administration appears oblivious to the fact that “business is not usual” in a country where a major scandal involves its leadership and those around it. Some may wish to pretend others won’t be affected, or that the public won’t care, but leaders of democratic nations know their constituencies care. They will weigh this in their calculations of association with the U.S. and, when they can, find ways to dissociate themselves from this Administration and the “Epstein class.”

Our allies’ refusal to support the United States in Iran is more than a question about why the United States and Israel invaded Iran and how the war will end. The hard truth is that many now see the United States as a rogue actor and inconstant ally. We are seen as a country that disregards international law when it is inconvenient, undercuts multilateral institutions while insisting others respect them, treats human life as negotiable both at home and abroad, and uses alliances as instruments of pressure rather than partnerships of mutual respect.

There is another truth this Administration and this Nation must confront: military power alone does not confer leadership, nor does it automatically confer respect. This Administration cannot bomb its way into legitimacy. The U.S. cannot ignore international processes that help ensure stability in the international system – a system the United States helped establish after World War II.

Sadly, this Administration has repeatedly shown itself willing to punish or abandon partners when convenient, and there is no reason to assume this would be any different were an ally to provide military support to the Iranian War. Under those conditions, refusal is not seen by our allies as betrayal. It is seen as responsible self-preservation.

If the United States wants allies to stand with it again in future crises, it must change course.

As a start, this Administration must restore a strong, respected State Department and make genuine consultation with allies the default, not the exception. Partners and allies must be treated as equals, not subordinates. This Administration must publicly and clearly commit to following international law, supporting the United Nations, and engaging in serious multilateral diplomacy.

Just as importantly, The Administration must align the United States’ domestic policies with the values we claim to uphold. It must end abusive detention practices, value migrant lives, and hold our own officials to account when they violate the law or basic ethics. If we fail to rebuild international respect, credibility, and partnership, we will be treated as a rogue national and inconstant ally, which will only benefit America’s adversaries.

Ambassador (ret.) Bonnie Jenkins is currently the Shapiro Visiting Professor of International Affairs at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University. She is also Founder and Executive Director of Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security (WCAPS). Jenkins served as the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. From 2009 – 2017, Jenkins served as Special Envoy and Coordinator for Threat Reduction Programs in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation with the rank of Ambassador. She is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

ICYMI: Leaving MAGA isn’t just about changing your politics. It’s about walking away from an identity.

In the latest episode of The Steady State Sentinel, John Sipher sits down with Rich Logis, founder and executive director of Leaving MAGA, for a deeply personal and revealing conversation about how people fall into political extremism—and what it actually takes to find the exit. Here’s the readout.

Logis is not an outside critic. He is a former MAGA activist, media contributor, and organizer who lived inside the movement for years before quietly—and then publicly—walking away. What he offers is not a pundit’s critique, but something far rarer: a firsthand account of how identity, emotion, and propaganda can overtake reason, and how de‑radicalization happens not all at once, but step by painful step.

MAGA as Identity, Not Ideology

For Logis, entering MAGA in 2015 had little to do with tax policy or legislative priorities. It filled a deeper need.

After years of disillusionment with politics and the two‑party system, MAGA gave him something he had never found before: purpose, belonging, and community. It became what he describes as a “second family,” one that, at times, took precedence over his own.

“MAGA wasn’t just something I did,” Logis said. “It shaped my worldview, my identity, my being, my personhood.”

That sense of belonging came with a shared grievance and a shared enemy. Outrage wasn’t incidental—it was central. The movement rewarded intensity, conformity, and total allegiance. If you weren’t 100% aligned, you were considered the enemy.

The Rage Feedback Loop

One of the most striking insights Logis shares is what he calls “anger addiction.”

Inside the MAGA media ecosystem, rage becomes a unifying force. Outrage delivers emotional energy, clarity, and a rush of purpose. Logis describes repeatedly consuming MAGA media—especially Breitbart—dozens of times a day, living not just in the headlines but in the comment sections, surrounded by reinforcement.

Any contradictory information wasn’t debated. It was rejected as “enemy media.” Over time, this created a closed feedback loop where fear, paranoia, and dehumanization weren’t bugs, they were features.

Leaving that state behind, Logis says, required de‑traumatizing himself, unlearning the belief that political disagreement meant existential threat.

How the Wall Finally Fell

Logis didn’t leave MAGA because of a single revelation. He describes the process as removing bricks from a wall—gradually, then suddenly.

Each event weakened the structure:

• Trump’s mismanagement of COVID

• Election lies following 2020

• The platforming of anti‑vaccine rhetoric while children were dying

• Re‑examining January 6th after stepping outside the echo chamber

• And finally, the Uvalde school shooting in May 2022

Eventually, enough bricks were gone. The wall collapsed.

The most consequential step sounds almost mundane: he diversified his information sources. That single act—widening the aperture—allowed him to see reality differently.

Why Accountability Matters

Logis didn’t just leave MAGA quietly. After years of being publicly outspoken in support of the movement—writing, podcasting, organizing—he felt a responsibility to be just as public in his renunciation.

On August 30, 2022—what he now calls his “MAGAversary”—he published a mea culpa apologizing for supporting Trump and for the harm his rhetoric and activism caused.

He didn’t expect anyone to care.

They did.

The messages that followed weren’t congratulatory—they were desperate. Friends, parents, siblings, spouses all reached out asking the same question: Can you help my loved one?

That response became Leaving MAGA: an organization built to provide a safe off‑ramp from political extremism, grounded in one non‑negotiable principle: accountability. Leaving requires acknowledging the harm done. Without apology, Logis argues, you haven’t really left.

What Families Get Wrong—and What Helps

For families watching loved ones disappear into extremism, Logis offers difficult but hopeful guidance.

Facts alone don’t change people. Shaming doesn’t work. And writing someone off as hopeless may foreclose the very possibility of change.

Most people in MAGA, he believes, have a red line, even if they haven’t crossed it yet. The change must come from within—but patience, continued human connection, and compassion matter more than arguments.

“If the people who loved me had given up on me,” Logis said, “I wouldn’t be here today.”

Why This Moment Matters

Logis believes MAGA is uniquely tied to Donald Trump, ideologically and emotionally. Trump didn’t merely lead a movement; he branded it and built a community around grievance and belonging.

When Trump eventually leaves the political stage, Logis expects millions of people to find themselves politically unmoored. That moment will create risk—but also opportunity.

Whether what comes next is further radicalization or genuine re‑integration will depend on whether there are credible exits available.

That is the work Leaving MAGA is trying to do.

Changing your mind, Logis reminds us, is not weakness. It is growth. It is accountability. And sometimes, it is the bravest thing a person can do.

Listen and watch the full conversation below

One Betrayal Too Many: Why I Left MAGA by Rich Logis is available via leavingmaga.org

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Robert Mueller stands out as a true American hero, a man devoted to country, public service, and the institutions that make the United States the world’s leading light.

The Steady State joins a long list of other organizations and luminaries in rightly honoring Mueller and his legacy of service. In addition to his post-college decision to volunteer to join the Marines and the Bronze Star and Purple Heart he earned in Vietnam, his FBI career was capped by two unanimous Senate confirmations to serve as FBI Director after nominations by Republican and Democratic presidents. His effective leadership and service in the fraught and challenging post-9/11 world helped make the U.S. more secure and safe at home and abroad.

In contrast, and exhibiting yet again his own derangement syndrome, President Trump celebrated the patriotic American’s passing with the simple statement, “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!” That post joins his myriad similarly appalling and disrespectful statements dishonoring the country and the office of the President.

The country has much to thank Mr. Mueller for, beyond his military service and contributions via a truly laudable career in the FBI. The country should also express appreciation for his work as Special Prosecutor, pursuing the facts and actions surrounding the Russian government’s efforts to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. His work, and that of his non-partisan team, established the facts and made carefully worded judgments, while recognizing the Constitutional complexity of investigating a sitting president for serious potential crimes.

The August 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee’s own investigation confirmed the substance of the March 2019 Mueller final report. The details are relevant even today as global tensions rise and we look to understand the war in Iran, the continuing war in Ukraine, and the vulnerabilities the U.S. faces with regard to both conflicts and other threats, including the strategic challenge of China.

Attorney General Barr preempted a fair Congressional review of the Mueller report when he mischaracterized the report and its conclusion in his March 24, 2019, letter to Congress, a letter strongly challenged by Mueller on March 27 for not fully capturing “the context, nature, and substance” of the Special Counsel’s work and conclusions.

The Report’s second part, related to possible Administration obstruction of justice, highlights Mueller’s grasp of the political minefield in which he and his team operated. His carefully worded bottom line: “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.” A far cry from the Barr assertion of “nothing to see here.”

This legal history distracts from the “just the facts” dimension of the Russia interference campaign and President Trump’s long relationship with the Soviet Union in the 1980s and Russia in the decades since. Mr. Trump’s perplexing full-page broadside published in the September 2, 1987, Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe, some five weeks after his mid-July visit to Moscow, strongly attacked U.S. foreign policy under Reagan in language that parroted then Soviet disinformation efforts to create wedges between the U.S. and its allies and partners.

Many examples of questionable behaviors followed, among them unclarified Trump real estate dealings with Russians through the 1990s, a second Trump visit to Moscow in November 1996, the 2013 Moscow Miss Universe pageant visit, and other Russian dealings with the Trump organization. Key question marks clouding the Trump 2016 election campaign include campaign manager Paul Manafort, a man with recognized links to Russian intelligence, and a June 7, 2016, Trump speech promising a full expose of the Clinton campaign’s dirty linen, with the infamous meeting between Trump representatives and Russian emissaries to discuss such on June 9 in Trump Tower.

Trump’s dealings with Russian leader Putin are most perplexing and elude explanation, notably the conduct of the July 2018 summit in Helsinki, a solo, bilateral meeting at which , apparently, no notes were recorded, leaving Secretary of State Pompeo unable to report the details of in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a week later. The same opaqueness marked the August 2025 Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska as well as his pro-Russian handling of the Ukraine war and relaxation of sanctions on Russian oil during the ongoing war with Iran. Trump’s ambivalence about, indeed antipathy to, NATO is a clear strategic concession to Russia.

These many strands, taken together, leave numerous unanswered questions that linger from the facts uncovered by Mueller’s team’s investigation and 2019 report. As for obstruction of justice, Trump 47 offers new examples with each passing week, even today.

Bob Mueller, a grateful nation thanks you, even if the President doesn’t.

Mike Mozur is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer with over 33 years of experience in the Soviet Union, former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Latin America. Mike also led a global professional association of environmental scientists and writes periodically on current political, economic, and social issues. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Because the structure of the “Ice Gulag” is currently supported by all three branches of the Government, opposition must target all three aspects: apprehension, detention, and removal.

The Ice Gulag series centered on how the Trump Administration led by DHS has created a vertically integrated structure that relies on a massive multi-year appropriation from Congress, the newly recruited paramilitary detention force, the Roberts Court Shadow Docket decisions, the active cooperation by Big Tech, and the ability to operate without fear of serious legal consequences to apprehend, detain, and remove thousands of undocumented individuals currently residing in the United States.

Assault on the Constitution and Rule of Law

While the series focused on the terrible impact this structure has had on documented and undocumented individuals within the United States, the Gulag effort is also a fundamental and dangerous assault on the rule of law and the constitutional principles that provide the basis of our democracy.

The administration’s coordinated effort to deny basic fifth amendment due process rights to all non-citizens threatens the basic rights that we all enjoy as US citizens. The violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on illegal searches and seizures is not limited to warrantless break-ins but includes collection and analysis of massive amounts of data. The denial of these basic rights applies indiscriminately to refugees, those seeking asylum, Dreamers, those in the process of obtaining permanent residence status, and those in the United States under Temporary Protected Status. The mass ICE and CBP roundups that we have seen in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis also have swept up US citizens in Supreme Court sanctioned “Kavanaugh stops”. DHS has taken aggressive measures intended to discourage protests and actions to document activities of masked and armed ICE agents in public spaces. Last year, according to the Wall Street Journal, DHS officers have taken to X to publicize the arrest of 279 people accused of attacking federal officers, of which 181 were US citizens. Close to half of the publicly accused US citizens were never charged with assault. Most appear to have been arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights in protesting ICE actions that have routinely violated our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights against warrantless searches and seizures and deprivation of liberty without due process.

Assault on Civil Liberties

As part of the removal program, ICE has created a vast domestic surveillance network contracted out to such powerful high-tech companies as Palantir. The ICE database, assembled with no judicial oversight and seemingly no internal DHS oversight, includes vast troves of US citizen data, to include license plate collection, protest activity, facial recognition data, and DNA samples. In addition to contractor collection and analysis of massive amounts of bulk data, it has been widely reported how heavily armed ICE and CBP forces have followed protesters, engaged in aggressive driving, and appeared at protestors’ homes, all intended to intimidate citizens. Individuals who have had their faces scanned by ICE have received notices from DHS cancelling their access to TSAPre screening at airports; others have been told they are now domestic terrorists.

It’s Up To Us

Following a series of disastrous appearances before Congress that exposed the incompetence and corruption that has been a hallmark of DHS, the President fired Kristi Noem. Noem’s replacement is Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin. Given the results of Senator Mullin’s recent hearing, it is doubtful that we can anticipate any meaningful reforms at DHS, and we can look forward to the continuation of what is now a wildly unpopular aggressive program of mass apprehension, detention, and removal.

In Minnesota, the pushback has started, as local prosecutors have begun criminal investigations into the behavior of individual members of the ICE detention force during its deployment to Minneapolis.

• As demonstrated by the millions who turned out across America on March 28 for the “No Kings” protests, it is important for individuals and communities to continue to organize, protest, and report on the inevitable abuses that occur when the ICE paramilitary detention units arrive in force.

• It important to demand investigation of the cruel conditions that currently exist in the detention facilities that seem to operate with no independent oversight.

• It is important that local communities continue to object to turning warehouses into massive prisons intended to hold thousands of detainees.

• It is important to show support to brave communities like Minneapolis, which this year has borne the brunt of ICE aggression.

• It is important to call out members of Congress who are not actively promoting legislative measures to limit ICE’s abusive behavior directed against both undocumented individuals and US citizens.

• It is important to continue to highlight the impact of Shadow Docket decisions by the Supreme Court.

And throughout, let us always remember the unwilling sacrifices of people like Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who wanted only to exercise their First Amendment rights and instead became victims of ICE brutality.

James Petrila spent over thirty years as a lawyer in the Intelligence Community, working at the National Security Agency and, for most of his career,at the Central Intelligence Agency. He has taught courses on counterterrorism law and legal issues at the CIA at the George Washington University School of Law. He is currently a senior advisor to the Institute for the Study of States of Exception and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.