On November 11, Lisbon’s Trezeno Institute hosted a conference on “Transatlantic Conservatism in the Age of Trump,” featuring Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts as keynote speaker. The event drew leading Portuguese national-conservative intellectuals, activists, and think tanks, along with the Hungarian ambassador.
Speaking in Portugal’s Palace of Independence, Roberts took the occasion to chastise the postmodern Left and some of the establishment Right as “citizens of the world” who regard love of nation and love of self-government as heresy. In reality, he said, intolerance and close-mindedness are attributes of the detractors of nationalism, and only the national interest and the prioritising of the Motherland can allow prosperity and success. Not only are these principles at the heart of the Trump movement and government; they are also the key to defeating the Marxist Left and globalists in general.
The Heritage Foundation’s president did not shy away from denouncing the New World Order concept put forth by the Bush 41 administration, as it did not prevent wars but exacerbated them; did not bring freedom but only materialism; and severely undermined prosperity by exporting jobs abroad. Policies emanating from the WTO, the UN, NAFTA, and the EU worked instead to weaken the economic resilience and independence of Western nations.
Roberts chiefly aimed his criticism at the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, which he used as the paradigmatic example of what has been wrong with transatlantic foreign policy for the past decades. Founded as a means to manage foreign aid according to U.S. national interests, the agency focused on funding infrastructure, healthcare, and education, primarily across the Southern hemisphere, where the main objective was to stave off Soviet influence—a national tool at the service of a national end.
After the collapse of the USSR, though, USAID lived on, and, Roberts said,
the agency was captured by the same kind of entitled left-wing mediocrities that took over our college faculties, our government bureaucracies, and our corporate media.
These forces “twisted” the agency into promoting ignominious leftist agendas such as abortion, the LGBT obsession, ‘gender affirming care,’ DEI, climate extremism, and generally, anti-American and anti-freedom policies. In recent years, the agency even went as far as to fund and instruct Latin American entities on the best legal and practical avenues through which to illegally immigrate into the USA. U.S. taxpayers’ money was being weaponised against Americans, artificially instigating a national migration crisis on the southern border. USAID had stopped reflecting U.S. values and serving U.S. interests.
The Heritage Foundation spearheaded the outcry by first publicly calling for the elimination of the agency in 1995. The need for reform had been felt for years, with both the Clinton and Obama administrations begrudgingly admitting it. Reports arriving from Afghanistan revealed that the Taliban could very well have benefited from USAID aid and that the agency’s funds had ended up in the hands of terrorist groups across the Middle East over the years.
In what Roberts called “cutting the Gordian knot,” the Trump administration was the first to be courageous enough to outright dismantle the agency and did so against a torrent of outrage and political pressure.
Ending USAID brought about a number of positive consequences. Corporate logic brought merit to the management of the federal government, whose employees finally understood that their job security was conditional, after all. In addition, political opponents on the Left finally understood that colonising the state apparatus is not a one-way street.
The demise of USAID even benefits the countries it was active in by undoing their dependency on foreign money and by stopping their role as test subjects of Western social engineering experiments. It also served to restore the U.S. reputation, which had been negatively affected by the toxic policies imposing only the values of sinister elites.
The Trump administration has reoriented the direction of the U.S. ship of state, from abstractions to practical concerns. Foreign aid will continue but only on behalf of real American interests. The only ones negatively affected by the decisions of the Trump administration are the forces Roberts refers to as ”citizens of the world”—anti-sovereignty globalists, whose power has radically diminished. Roberts argued, in conclusion, that principled national conservatism is very much the solution to the problems of our time.
It is certainly symbolic that such a speech would be made in the westernmost European nation and a founding member of NATO, at that. It signifies that Washington does not wish to separate from the old continent but instead requalify the relationship. Any European head of government, true to his own national tradition, should welcome such a change in approach by our North American partners: not only because Westphalian sovereignty is the diplomatic tradition of Europe par excellence, but also because the Trump policy is one of greater respect for the national sovereignty of Europe’s nations. What is questionable is how many European leaders are actually true to their national traditions.
Ultimately, Heritage’s leader made it potently clear: “Sovereignty still exists if citizens and leaders have the courage and will to assert it.”
Message from the U.S.: Sovereignty Lives—If You Have the Guts To Claim It
President of the Heritage Foundation Kevin D. Roberts
DREW ANGERER / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / GETTY IMAGES VIA AFP
You may also like
Guardrails or Gag Order? The Paradox of Protecting Children Online
Social media is a scourge, and young people are suffering. But the small concession of freedom granted for the greater good always paves the way for greater enslavement.
When Brussels Decides the Winner: Romania and the Crisis of European Democracy
When electoral outcomes depend on conformity to approved narratives, voters are no longer citizens exercising constitutional rights—they are just pawns in a supervised process.
What We Lose When We Abandon the Classics
Excluding the Western canon and emphasizing minority writers forces students to dwell on identity politics until it becomes an empty obsession.
On November 11, Lisbon’s Trezeno Institute hosted a conference on “Transatlantic Conservatism in the Age of Trump,” featuring Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts as keynote speaker. The event drew leading Portuguese national-conservative intellectuals, activists, and think tanks, along with the Hungarian ambassador.
Speaking in Portugal’s Palace of Independence, Roberts took the occasion to chastise the postmodern Left and some of the establishment Right as “citizens of the world” who regard love of nation and love of self-government as heresy. In reality, he said, intolerance and close-mindedness are attributes of the detractors of nationalism, and only the national interest and the prioritising of the Motherland can allow prosperity and success. Not only are these principles at the heart of the Trump movement and government; they are also the key to defeating the Marxist Left and globalists in general.
The Heritage Foundation’s president did not shy away from denouncing the New World Order concept put forth by the Bush 41 administration, as it did not prevent wars but exacerbated them; did not bring freedom but only materialism; and severely undermined prosperity by exporting jobs abroad. Policies emanating from the WTO, the UN, NAFTA, and the EU worked instead to weaken the economic resilience and independence of Western nations.
Roberts chiefly aimed his criticism at the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, which he used as the paradigmatic example of what has been wrong with transatlantic foreign policy for the past decades. Founded as a means to manage foreign aid according to U.S. national interests, the agency focused on funding infrastructure, healthcare, and education, primarily across the Southern hemisphere, where the main objective was to stave off Soviet influence—a national tool at the service of a national end.
After the collapse of the USSR, though, USAID lived on, and, Roberts said,
These forces “twisted” the agency into promoting ignominious leftist agendas such as abortion, the LGBT obsession, ‘gender affirming care,’ DEI, climate extremism, and generally, anti-American and anti-freedom policies. In recent years, the agency even went as far as to fund and instruct Latin American entities on the best legal and practical avenues through which to illegally immigrate into the USA. U.S. taxpayers’ money was being weaponised against Americans, artificially instigating a national migration crisis on the southern border. USAID had stopped reflecting U.S. values and serving U.S. interests.
The Heritage Foundation spearheaded the outcry by first publicly calling for the elimination of the agency in 1995. The need for reform had been felt for years, with both the Clinton and Obama administrations begrudgingly admitting it. Reports arriving from Afghanistan revealed that the Taliban could very well have benefited from USAID aid and that the agency’s funds had ended up in the hands of terrorist groups across the Middle East over the years.
In what Roberts called “cutting the Gordian knot,” the Trump administration was the first to be courageous enough to outright dismantle the agency and did so against a torrent of outrage and political pressure.
Ending USAID brought about a number of positive consequences. Corporate logic brought merit to the management of the federal government, whose employees finally understood that their job security was conditional, after all. In addition, political opponents on the Left finally understood that colonising the state apparatus is not a one-way street.
The demise of USAID even benefits the countries it was active in by undoing their dependency on foreign money and by stopping their role as test subjects of Western social engineering experiments. It also served to restore the U.S. reputation, which had been negatively affected by the toxic policies imposing only the values of sinister elites.
The Trump administration has reoriented the direction of the U.S. ship of state, from abstractions to practical concerns. Foreign aid will continue but only on behalf of real American interests. The only ones negatively affected by the decisions of the Trump administration are the forces Roberts refers to as ”citizens of the world”—anti-sovereignty globalists, whose power has radically diminished. Roberts argued, in conclusion, that principled national conservatism is very much the solution to the problems of our time.
It is certainly symbolic that such a speech would be made in the westernmost European nation and a founding member of NATO, at that. It signifies that Washington does not wish to separate from the old continent but instead requalify the relationship. Any European head of government, true to his own national tradition, should welcome such a change in approach by our North American partners: not only because Westphalian sovereignty is the diplomatic tradition of Europe par excellence, but also because the Trump policy is one of greater respect for the national sovereignty of Europe’s nations. What is questionable is how many European leaders are actually true to their national traditions.
Ultimately, Heritage’s leader made it potently clear: “Sovereignty still exists if citizens and leaders have the courage and will to assert it.”
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
Ireland Is Playing With Holy Fire
What We Lose When We Abandon the Classics
A Conservative Welfare State for a People with a Long Memory