"After that everything what Trump has recently been doing, I'm forced to revise my thoughts on him," a good friend of mine wrote to me in a brief text message. My friend is not a shallow observer of the world around him — he understands politics, can see its implications, holds consistently conservative views, and is able to defend them eloquently. When someone like him writes that he’s “revising his thoughts on Trump,” it compels me to reflect such an opinion more thoroughly.

What exactly does my friend mean by mentioning “after that everything”? Is he referring to Trump’s (chaotic?) strategy of threats, negotiations, and ultimately imposing tariffs on nearly the entire rest of the world? Is he troubled by Trump’s domestic anti-immigration policies? Did he expect a faster, more fundamental, perhaps even breakthrough Trump’s diplomacy regarding the war in Ukraine? Is he confused by Trump’s unexpected shifts—from the position “no weapons for Ukraine” to all of a sudden promise of delivering more, perhaps even more dangerous, arms quickly? Or was the turning point of his the Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear research sites, effectively letting America be drawn by Israel into a potential “major” war—something he repeatedly pledged not to start during his campaign? I don't know.

At the Václav Klaus Institute, we welcomed Donald Trump’s election (for example, in our collection of texts and essays Trump’s Return: What Can We Expect?). We saw in the decision of the American voters’ majority a “victory for people with common sense … a triumph over political elites … a defeat of the world of political correctness, hypocrisy, the suppression of free speech, elitist social engineering and a revolt against the passive acceptance of the West’s decline.” I believe that even six months of the Trump’s presidency—with all its surprising decisions and controversial reversals—there is no reason to change a word of that. At the same time, on the other hand, we cautioned against “simplistic tones of triumphalism … and disappointed expectations that lead to resignation, a sense of defeat, and passivity.” That, too, still stands. We approached the content and form of Trump’s future administration with caution, did not overinflate our expectations, and were well aware that the American and world reality, he was stepping into, were far more complex and challenging than the usual political clichés suggest.

Even though I can find some of Trump’s decisions questionable or problematic, even though his statements often appear (at least to me) contradictory, and even though he does not always seem to act with political clarity, after all that, I am still on his side.

Why? For the same reasons I supported him during the campaign and at the beginning of his term: what was the alternative to Donald Trump? I don’t mean an ideal or imaginary alternative, but a real one. Well, we do not live in an ideal world—we live in a real one.

Choosing Trump was, and still is, for me a choice against Biden, against Harris, against political worlds they represent. To be “pro-Trump” is still, for me, a defense of conservative common sense against the left-wing progressivism of the Democratic Party, against uncontrolled mass migration, against the woke policies of Kamala Harris, against her semi-communist views on society and economy, against irresponsible American warmongering, and against the reckless escalation of the war in Ukraine.

Being “pro-Trump,” and in this sense I have not been disappointed, meant finding a rational voice against the madness of the green crusade to “save” the climate—and, in this context, a strong advocate of the role of nation-states over supranational governance by Brussels institutions. Trump’s policy toward the European Union did not disappoint me. His Vice President, J. D. Vance, made courageous statements at the Munich Security Conference—saying that “freedom of speech in the EU is in decline” and that “the greatest threat to Europe is not Moscow or Beijing, but the retreat from fundamental democratic values.” These were bold words the European elite had never heard before. Was that disappointing? Not to me.

Donald Trump has unapologetically removed the often hollow and insincere word “alliance” from his vocabulary and replaced it with “national interest.” And he defends it. Most European—and many of our own—politicians dislike him for this, because they themselves have long forgotten how to define and defend their own national interests. European politicians have nearly made an enemy of the U.S. simply because America refuses to pay for their “ideas.” And Trump is right when he claims, “if Europe can afford the Green Deal, it should be able to pay its own defense.” And so on, and so forth. Was I disappointed in Trump because of these views? No.

Which brings me back to the fundamental question: if not Trump, then who? What would the world look like now if the leftist Kamala Harris had become President of the United States? Would the world be more stable? Safer? Would her policies have shifted from confrontation to diplomacy? Would she support Netanyahu’s politics less than Trump? Would she dare say that the EU project is “naked”? Would she tackle illegal immigration, given that she supported it as Vice President? Certainly not.

We do not live in an ideal world of ideal people and ideal politicians. We live in the real world. That is why I still stand with Donald Trump.

Ivo Strejcek, 15. 7. 2025