President Donald Trump deserves significant credit for his ambitious efforts to bring peace to Israel, Gaza and the wider Middle East. The cease-fire agreement he helped orchestrate — alongside the hostages-for-prisoners exchange and the establishment of a humanitarian corridor — represent a real diplomatic achievement. For weeks, Trump has pointed to the Gaza deal as proof of his unmatched negotiating skills, casting himself as the indispensable statesman who can deliver what others could not.
Trump has also repeatedly claimed credit for “ending seven wars,” citing frozen conflicts in the Balkans, diplomatic initiatives in Africa, symbolic accords in Asia and troop drawdowns elsewhere. Many of those situations were already winding down, and some agreements were more theatrical than transformational. But the narrative he has crafted — a portrait of himself as a global peacemaker — has stuck. It has shaped how he presents his leadership to voters at home and leaders abroad.
The problem is not that Trump seeks diplomatic opportunities overseas. It’s that he pursues them while deliberately fomenting conflict within the United States. Trump has built his political identity on permanent combat. He describes American cities as “war zones,” labels critics “traitors” and frames opponents not as fellow citizens but as enemies to be vanquished. He defaults to the language of confrontation and often couples it with the promise of force. That is not the vocabulary of national healing or responsible leadership.
More troubling, his rhetoric is matched by his governing instincts. Trump has repeatedly treated division as an asset rather than a danger. He converts disagreements into loyalty tests, turns institutions into political props and weaponizes public trust instead of earning it. The very man who claims to seek peace abroad has made conflict at home a defining feature of his political brand.
That contradiction is not cosmetic. It is real. And it undermines the very credibility of Trump’s foreign policy claims. A nation consumed by internal strife cannot credibly arbitrate peace elsewhere. It cannot project stability or moral authority if its civic fabric is fraying and its politics are poisoned. America’s allies and adversaries watch not only what U.S. leaders say and do abroad but also how they govern at home. Influence on the world stage begins with the example a country sets within its own borders.
“America First,” if taken seriously, should begin with America itself. That means leading as if the other side is part of the nation one intends to govern. It means lowering the temperature, respecting institutions and treating opponents as citizens, not enemies. It requires more than posturing. It requires an ethic of shared civic responsibility and the willingness to lead all Americans — not just those who cheer.
Trump’s defenders argue that foreign diplomacy can stand alone. But even genuine accomplishments abroad ring hollow if American democracy remains a bonfire of mistrust and resentment. A fractured nation cannot sustain the role of global peacemaker.
The real test of leadership isn’t applause on foreign soil. It is the ability to build trust, foster unity and stabilize the country a president leads. If “America First” is to be more than a slogan, it must start at home.
