On the verge of World War II and in the early Cold War, isolationists promoted the idea of walling off the country from the prospect of “foreign wars” and entanglement in alliances that would inevitably draw us into conflict. This “Fortress America” concept was xenophobic, anti-immigrant, nationalistic and, honestly, more than slightly paranoid about the enemies both “without” and “within.” Fortunately, other countervailing views that promoted engagement with the world, especially in the postwar rebuilding of Europe and Japan, carried the day.
Alas, it appears that the darker forces of our nature predominate again. In the 11 months that Trump has held office, he has dismantled nearly all forms of foreign assistance, aside from those to boost American-made weapons systems, and dropped out of, reduced or refused to fund various United Nations–affiliated organizations, e.g., announced withdrawal from the World Health Organization.
His disdain for NATO and the European Union was manifest in his recent release of the National Security Strategy. While elements of the strategy are laudable, his charges that Europe is in “civilizational decline,” primarily because of immigration, lead him to champion nationalist and “patriotic” movements within Europe to preserve “traditional cultures.” Racism bubbles barely beneath the surface.
He has entirely upended America’s traditional role in accepting migrants to the United States, charging extortionate rates for highly trained specialists — $100,000 for an H-1B visa — and limiting the refugee flow. Not surprisingly, these fees are having an enormous negative impact on the delivery of health care in rural communities, leading some local clinics and hospitals to shutter because they cannot pay the fees and cannot find enough American medical professionals in these communities to meet demand. Gone, too, is any pretense at giving “me your tired, your poor, your struggling masses yearning to be free.” For fiscal year 2026, which started Oct. 1, 2025, the U.S. refugee cap was set at a historic low of 7,500, a drastic cut from the prior year’s 125,000, with priority given to Afrikaners.
And, of course, one cannot fail to acknowledge the disgraceful treatment of immigrants who, in most cases, have resided in the United States for years, if not decades; who have contributed to the well-being of our communities in so many important ways; and who are now being whisked off the streets by a menacing paramilitary force that soon will be the largest law enforcement agency in the country. It will take decades to repair the damage already done, but we are already experiencing staggering consequences from the loss of farmworkers, construction workers, health care providers in our hospitals and nursing homes, and myriad other vocations upon which we depend.
We are losing these workers throughout Alaska. The impacts of this xenophobia could soon also be felt in our tourism industry. The National Park Service has announced its new fee schedule for national parks that requires “non-residents” to pay $250 for its annual pass — $80 for most citizens — though one can gain free admission on Trump’s birthday. On Dec. 10, Customs and Border Protection announced a proposed requirement that citizens from some 42 countries, most of whom are Western allies, who otherwise do not need a visa to enter the United States henceforth submit the last five years of their social media history, their telephone numbers and those of family members and their email addresses for the past 10 years — all in the name of national security.
This latter development is particularly pernicious. Given these barriers, countless individuals will rethink any plans to travel to the United States. What gives rise to this proposal? Is it possible that our government has unwittingly admitted scores or hundreds of Western European terrorists who have eluded it and its screening methods over the last two decades, thus necessitating this invasive crackdown? I suspect not. What should alarm every American is that establishing a system of data collection this extensive will justify a corresponding increase in the organization collecting the information and the cost of doing so. How easily would it be to extrapolate this intrusion into the private affairs of our visitors to our own citizenry? How soon will we become “the enemy from within”? It would be no large step for an autocrat who already brands those who disagree with him as “the enemy.”