Welcome to Living It with Olivia Troye – Unfiltered insights from a former Trump official, exposing the chaos, uncovering the risks, and inspiring you to take action in turbulent times.

---

From Canada to Gaza, the Next Land Grab

What starts as talk can end in takeover.

Olivia of Troye Feb 13

When Donald Trump suggests annexing Canada, purchasing Greenland, or sending U.S. troops into Gaza, the instinctive reaction from many is to dismiss it as hyperbole, a distraction, or just another one of his headline-grabbing moments. But after nearly a decade of watching Trump upend political norms, and as someone who lived his chaos firsthand when it came to the rollercoaster inside the White House on foreign policy, one lesson is clear: we ignore his words at our peril.

The President's statements about territorial expansion—whether it's "joking" about Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state, re-upping his 2019 Greenland purchase proposal now backed by Republican Congressman Earl Carter of Georgia's bill (yes, he actually states Greenland should be renamed Red, White, and Blueland) or hinting at sending U.S. forces into Gaza — should not be dismissed outright. These comments might not always translate into immediate policy actions; however, they send dangerous signals to both our allies and adversaries. They reveal an underlying mindset, one where the United States, under his leadership, could disregard international norms, treaties, and alliances in favor of raw power plays. The implications for global stability, American trustworthiness, and the strength of our adversaries are significant.

Hyperbole or Real Intent?

Trump thrives on provocation. His off-the-cuff statements, often dismissed as unserious, have an unsettling tendency to manifest into reality when given the opportunity. In 2016, few believed he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement or abandon the Iran Nuclear Deal — until he did. Guess what, he just did it all over again. His musings about building a border wall, enacting a Muslim travel ban, or pressuring Ukraine for political dirt on opponents all began as seemingly exaggerated campaign rhetoric.

His remarks about territorial expansion fit within a pattern: drop an initial bombastic statement, followed by mockery from critics, then a serious pursuit behind closed doors by his advisors and enablers. When Trump floated buying Greenland from Denmark in 2019, the suggestion was met with global ridicule. Yet, those of us inside the White House knew that they were actively pursuing strategies to make it happen, framing it as a strategic necessity against China and Russia in the Arctic. Fast forward to the present day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently stated, "This is not a joke," and revisited the same theories.

This matters because Trump's statements are not just empty words. They create a permission structure for like-minded figures in his orbit to consider radical policy shifts. These wild ideas can creep into actual government action in an administration devoid of guardrails. 

What This Does to Our Foreign Policy Relationships

America's allies have already experienced the whiplash of Trump's foreign policy once, and they are rightfully preparing for a second round. When the leader of a supposed democratic superpower flirts with the idea of taking over its northern neighbor or unilaterally inserting itself into conflicts, it erodes international confidence in U.S. commitments.

Take Canada, for example. While Trump's remarks might seem like a joke, they are deeply unsettling given his trade wars, hostility towards NATO, and previous threats to dismantle long-standing alliances. It sends a message that America under Trump is not a reliable partner but a volatile force willing to rewrite boundaries and betray alliances for self-interest.

For European allies, the Greenland debacle already strained relations with Denmark, a NATO member. The idea that the U.S. could simply buy or annex another country's land shakes the very foundation of the rules-based international order. Suppose America, the champion of democracy, starts treating other sovereign nations as assets to be acquired; what legitimacy does it have in condemning similar actions by Russia, China, or Iran? In a Trump 2.0 world, given his recent conversation with Vladimir Putin, it's clear that doesn't matter to him. Those are his allies, regardless of them being our worst adversaries.

And then there's Gaza. Trump's rhetoric about deploying U.S. forces into the conflict would only serve to inflame tensions in an already volatile region. Such statements destabilize diplomatic efforts and make it harder for our allies in the Middle East, like Jordan and Egypt, to navigate the crisis without fearing reckless American intervention.

How It Destroys Trust in American Leadership

Trust is the currency of international diplomacy. When Trump tosses out reckless ideas, he undermines America's credibility. Our allies — whether in NATO, the G7, or the Indo-Pacific, have already witnessed how easily he cast aside long-standing commitments. If they believe a second Trump term means even greater unpredictability, they will hedge their bets elsewhere, strengthening alternative alliances and reducing reliance on the U.S.

Even within the U.S. government, his erratic rhetoric sows distrust. The State Department, the Pentagon, and intelligence agencies all suffered from policy chaos during his first term, with career officials forced to navigate the minefield of his whims and tweets. I was one of those officials helping former Vice President Mike Pence navigate it. Returning to this environment will undoubtedly demoralize institutions and push seasoned officials out, or as we've already seen, they will be forced out, leaving only those willing to carry out their most dangerous impulses.

How It Strengthens Our Adversaries

While Trump's America-first rhetoric claims to project strength, it actually hands opportunities to our adversaries. China, Russia, and Iran benefit from an America seen as unreliable and reckless.

Russia: Putin's territorial ambitions are no secret. When Trump flirts with the idea of annexing Canada or Greenland, it provides an implicit endorsement of similar behavior. How can the U.S. credibly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine if its own former President suggests taking land from democratic allies? How can America claim to be a fair arbitrator in ending the war in Ukraine? Oh. Right. We're not. Furthermore, I want to be clear that Russia is currently utilizing Trump and Elon Musk's attacks on USAID as an opportunity to intimidate its people. Yes. You read that correctly. Russia is asking Elon Musk to release information on the groups that were funded by our government so that they can persecute the recipients. Let me be even more blunt: Trump and Elon Musk are aiding Russia in the fight against democracy.

China: Beijing is watching closely. With Trump back in the Oval Office, resuming talk of isolationism, trade wars, or abandoning allies, China will use it to expand its influence in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America nations will turn to China as a more stable partner. A reminder that the only winner, given the latest headlines on the massive layoffs at USAID, is China. No, it's not "Big Balls," the DOGE staffer, although he just landed a plump new role at the State Department.

Iran & Other Adversaries: A fractured U.S. foreign policy emboldens rogue actors. If America appears distracted by internal chaos and absurd foreign policy stunts, Iran could seek to escalate aggression in the Middle East, North Korea may ramp up provocations, and terrorist organizations will undoubtedly exploit the instability.

The Growing Coalitions Against Us

Trump's foreign policy blunders are not happening in a vacuum. While he alienates allies, adversaries are forming new coalitions to counter U.S. influence. The China-Russia partnership is growing, the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are expanding, and Middle Eastern powers like Saudi Arabia are hedging their bets between the U.S. and other emerging powers. Even Latin American nations, traditionally within America's sphere of influence, have been deepening ties with China. 

The more Trump sows global distrust, the more these coalitions will solidify, creating a world order less favorable to the United States. The U.S. will find itself isolated, with fewer allies willing to stand beside it in moments of crisis.

So, do we believe Trump when he talks about taking over Canada, the Panama Canal, Greenland, or Gaza? If history has taught us anything, it's that we must take him seriously. His words are not harmless. They lay the groundwork for dangerous policies that erode trust, damage alliances, and empower our adversaries. If America wants to maintain its standing in the world, it cannot afford another term of reckless, self-serving foreign policy. Because while Trump might see these statements as ways to dominate the news cycle, the consequences — diplomatic, strategic, and geopolitical — will be long-lasting and severe. 

So what do we do? While foreign policy isn't the sexiest or easiest topic over dinner conversations with family and friends, we should make an earnest effort to educate ourselves and others on what this means for the greater good of our national security here at home.

The world is watching. And so are those who would love nothing more than to see America falter.

Please stay engaged. Inform others. Until next time…

Olivia

Living It with Olivia Troye is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Welcome to Living It with Olivia Troye – Unfiltered insights from a former Trump official, exposing the chaos, uncovering the risks, and inspiring you to take action in turbulent times.

---

Unfit for Duty: The Grave National Security Risk of Kash Patel Leading the FBI

Our nation’s security depends on stopping his confirmation.

Olivia of Troye Jan 30

As you receive this, I am on Capitol Hill for the confirmation hearing for FBI Director nominee Kash Patel. As you may know, Kash and I have a little history. We worked together in the past, and he recently made legal threats against me for speaking the truth about him. I want to share with you today some more details about that history.

I have spent my career at the intersection of national security and crisis response, working directly with the highest levels of leadership in the U.S. government. I have advised and operated alongside decision-makers who shaped our nation’s security, from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—who once stated about me that, “she does not suffer fools”—to the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Under Secretary for Intelligence at DHS, and the Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence.

I have worked first-hand with National Security Advisors like Ambassador John Bolton and Charlie Kupperman—individuals who understood the weight of their roles and the precision required in matters of intelligence and counterterrorism. My experience spans three administrations—those of Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump—where I sat in the room during responses to terrorist attacks, watching our country’s leadership make decisions in real-time that impacted national security.

Because of this, I know what true leadership looks like at the highest levels. I know what it takes to operate within the national security apparatus. I understand the demands of the role and the gravity of the work. I know the role of the FBI. And I know what happens when people in these positions are unfit for the job. It is with this background that I feel compelled to express serious concerns regarding Kash Patel’s qualifications for Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It’s also the reason that I signed onto this letter earlier this week with more than 20 former Republican law enforcement officials urging Republican senators to oppose Patel.

The FBI plays a critical role in safeguarding our national security, maintaining public trust, and ensuring justice. Its leadership demands integrity, independence, and experience rooted in law enforcement and public service. Unfortunately, Mr. Patel’s track record as publicly reported, raises significant questions about his suitability for this vital role. Former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton recently described Patel as a “climbing weed”. I agree with him. Mr. Patel’s approach to his role at the National Security Council I would describe as prioritizing his own egotistical personal bravado, partisan loyalty and personal agendas over professional responsibilities. I also made sure to fact-check everything he ever said to me.

It seems that when it comes to very sensitive national security operations this was a pattern that repeated itself as highlighted by former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s recollection of what happened during a U.S. SEAL Team rescue mission in Nigeria during President Trump’s first administration when Mr. Patel was said to have misinformed the Department of Defense’s leadership that they had country clearance when in reality this had not been secured. I can’t overstate how dangerous and reckless this is. It could potentially put lives at risk. CBS also recently reported that an FBI insider has come forward with new information questioning Mr. Patel's judgment during sensitive hostage rescue missions.

Mr. Patel’s public behavior and affiliations raise serious concerns about his ability to lead the FBI impartially. By appearing on far-right podcasts, promoting conspiracy theories, and openly expressing distrust in the very professionals he is meant to lead, he has systematically eroded the integrity of the FBI’s leadership. He has repeatedly said he will be hostile to them and I take him at his word given that I witnessed him openly disparage the Bureau during meetings while sitting in his role at the National Security Council. The FBI has faced increasing public scrutiny and politicization in recent years. Appointing a leader with a history of extreme partisanship and having demonstrated efforts to weaken key national security institutions would further diminish public confidence in the Bureau’s impartiality.

Mr. Patel’s partisan rhetoric and numerous examples of frivolous litigation, which he has both brought on behalf of himself and funded for others, should further cast doubt on his ability to demonstrate the level of integrity needed to head the FBI. These actions, which appear poised to continue even while he would be in office, would undermine the Bureau’s credibility, which is critical to its ability to carry out investigations domestically and internationally. What Mr. Patel has said repeatedly has cast dispersions on the ability to trust FBI agents, who are obviously expected and will testify often in courts of law. If he is confirmed–what’s to stop the defense team from arguing in a case that the FBI is involved with from simply saying: how can the jury trust the testimony of this FBI agent when their own FBI Director doesn’t trust them.

Furthermore, Mr. Patel’s partisan track record, coupled with his public statements about downsizing or dismantling the FBI, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bureau’s mission and post-9/11 reforms. After 9/11, the FBI shifted from a reactive law enforcement agency to a proactive, intelligence-driven organization, making counterterrorism its top priority and creating specialized units like the National Security Branch and Directorate of Intelligence to improve threat detection and response. It expanded Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), as well as enhanced intelligence sharing with agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

It is my strong belief that Mr. Patel’s potential nomination raises two critical questions:

• Can the United States Senate assure the American people that he is the best candidate to lead the FBI during an era of heightened threats both foreign and domestic?

• How many career special agents will be fired or transferred from their post for having simply performed their jobs following his confirmation as part of a retribution plan of ensuring loyalty to one man? And who will fill those roles?

As has been reported in various publications, many individuals across the national security community have witnessed firsthand Mr. Patel's pattern of dishonesty and are acutely aware of the significant threat such behavior poses to our national security and the safety of the nation. Unfortunately, many are reluctant to come forward due to his explicit promises of retaliation. Please do not take their silence as a sign of support when it is actually a sign of fear. That such a statement has to be made about this nominee perhaps says it all.

P.S. While my focus today is on the singular threat Kash Patel represents, I have some opinions about Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard as well. As she faces her own hearing today, you can read my previous comments about her here and here.

That’s it for this post! If you are looking for more, consider becoming a premium member and get more from me each week. If you enjoy reading this newsletter each week, would you mind sharing it on X, Threads, or Bluesky? Have an idea or feedback? Reply directly to this email.

Kash Patel Threatens To Sue Woman Who Criticized Him

STEVEN BESCHLOSS in AMERICA AMERICA responded (I encourage everyone to subscribe to his SUBSTACK):

These are serious times. They need to be taken seriously. That means confronting the threats and facing the dangers with all the intensity that we can muster. But can we agree that we will not lose our sense of humor, both for our own sanity and well-being and because it’s a powerful weapon? Consider: Trump henchman Kash Patel demanded through his attorney this week that former Mike Pence advisor Olivia Troye retract her statements exposing Patel’s propensity to lie and unfitness to serve as FBI director. In response, Troye’s attorney Mark S. Zaid wrote a letter treating the demand with the seriousness it deserves. “As you know, I am personally well aware of the impulsive nature fueled by your client’s appetite to sue individuals, as well as your firm’s proclivity to support such lawsuits,” Zaid wrote. “I am reminded of the Italian proverb that a ‘lawsuit is a fruit-tree planted in a lawyer’s garden’ and I can only imagine the number of apples and oranges growing in your backyard.” (Those are Zaid’s italics.) And then Zaid concludes his short letter with this: “But to answer your specific question as to Ms. Troye’s intentions as to a retraction, I think Monty Python expresses it best.” He then inserted a photo taken from the film “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” in which a mustachioed French soldier makes a mocking gesture. In fact, that character is known as the French Taunter, who mocks and insults King Arthur and his knights. Let’s leave aside the question of how hilarious you may (or may not) find Zaid’s mockery, a la Monty Python. Rather, let’s applaud his determination to defuse the intended threat and refuse to play the bullying Trumpist’s game. It’s not hard to see how the use of humor—indeed mockery—becomes an act of strength to let its target know that you know the truth and won’t be intimidated.

Beyond that, these WEALTHY DIM WITS believe government funds the ACLU, THANKS TO MAXWELL FROST for enlightenment: Permit me several other choice examples from Florida congressman Maxwell Frost. Here’s how he described the so-called Department of Government Efficiency that Trump has Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy fronting. “Let’s be honest about DOGE and this whole thing: It’s a joke,” Frost said on national television. “We are talking about two billionaires who are cosplaying as government officials.”  

In response to the world’s richest man and X owner posting that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) should be defunded, Frost noted this with a laughing emoji: “The guy who owns the other platform thinks that the government is funding the ACLU. You know, the group famously known for SUING the government. This is what happens when billionaires buy themselves influence with absolutely no clue about what they’ve inserted themselves into.” Frost wasn’t done performing vivisection on Musk: “Elon pretty much paid Trump so he could become Co-President of the United States,” he posted on Bluesky. “We have serious work ahead of us to protect our Democracy by getting billionaires and corporate money out of our politics.” 

Greg Olear offered information regarding the new book by Christopher Steele on SUBSTACK that you might subscribe to.

Well worth reading about Trump's betrayal of national security & the intelligence assets that were killed as a consequence.

Steele Yourself Thoughts on "Unredacted: Russia, Trump, and the Fight for Democracy," the important new book by Christopher Steele Greg Olear Dec 6

It explains KASH PATEL'S importance to TRUMP.

Farron Balanced

599K subscribers

Kash Patel, Donald Trump's nominee to run the FBI, sent a letter from his lawyers to a former aide to Mike Pence saying that they will sue her because of her criticisms of Patel. The woman, Olivia Troye, said in an interview this week that Patel would lie about intelligence, if confirmed, to suit Trump's needs, and his lawyers claim that the statement is defamatory. There's no court in the country where this rises to the level of defamation, as Farron Cousins explains. Link - https://www.mediaite.com/politics/kas... Follow me on social media! https://bsky.app/profile/farronbalanc...   / farronbalanced     / farronbalanced   https://www.threads.net/@farronbalanced   / farronbalanced     / farronbalanced   Listen to my videos in an audio format by subscribing to my podcast: https://farronbalanceddaily.buzzsprou... Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

 THANK YOU MAXWELL FROST!

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Why subscribe? Note the kind words of one new paid subscriber, Jan: “I'm trying to pick smart people to follow after deciding that WaPO and NYT are not for me." And this from Larry: “You and your fellow Substackers are leaders in the Resistance. I want to help.”

---

Can We Hold On to Our Sense of Humor?

A Saturday Prompt

Steven Beschloss Dec 7

These are serious times. They need to be taken seriously. That means confronting the threats and facing the dangers with all the intensity that we can muster. But can we agree that we will not lose our sense of humor, both for our own sanity and well-being and because it’s a powerful weapon?

Consider: Trump henchman Kash Patel demanded through his attorney this week that former Mike Pence advisor Olivia Troye retract her statements exposing Patel’s propensity to lie and unfitness to serve as FBI director. In response, Troye’s attorney Mark S. Zaid wrote a letter treating the demand with the seriousness it deserves. “As you know, I am personally well aware of the impulsive nature fueled by your client’s appetite to sue individuals, as well as your firm’s proclivity to support such lawsuits,” Zaid wrote. “I am reminded of the Italian proverb that a ‘lawsuit is a fruit-tree planted in a lawyer’s garden’ and I can only imagine the number of apples and oranges growing in your backyard.” (Those are Zaid’s italics.)

And then Zaid concludes his short letter with this: “But to answer your specific question as to Ms. Troye’s intentions as to a retraction, I think Monty Python expresses it best.” He then inserted a photo taken from the film “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” in which a mustachioed French soldier makes a mocking gesture. In fact, that character is known as the French Taunter, who mocks and insults King Arthur and his knights.

Let’s leave aside the question of how hilarious you may (or may not) find Zaid’s mockery, a la Monty Python. Rather, let’s applaud his determination to defuse the intended threat and refuse to play the bullying Trumpist’s game. It’s not hard to see how the use of humor—indeed mockery—becomes an act of strength to let its target know that you know the truth and won’t be intimidated.

Permit me several other choice examples from Florida congressman Maxwell Frost. Here’s how he described the so-called Department of Government Efficiency that Trump has Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy fronting. “Let’s be honest about DOGE and this whole thing: It’s a joke,” Frost said on national television. “We are talking about two billionaires who are cosplaying as government officials.”

In response to the world’s richest man and X owner posting that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) should be defunded, Frost noted this with a laughing emoji: “The guy who owns the other platform thinks that the government is funding the ACLU. You know, the group famously known for SUING the government. This is what happens when billionaires buy themselves influence with absolutely no clue about what they’ve inserted themselves into.” Frost wasn’t done performing vivisection on Musk: “Elon pretty much paid Trump so he could become Co-President of the United States,” he posted on Bluesky. “We have serious work ahead of us to protect our Democracy by getting billionaires and corporate money out of our politics.”

An old friend of mine asked my wife last night over dinner how we’ve stayed together for so long (yes, amazingly, 30 years). She was quick to note: We have maintained our sense of humor. To which I added, rare days when our sense of humor evaporated were particularly long and unpleasant days.

I hope you have other and better examples of humor and mockery to share here. Goodness knows, this reckless and incompetent collection of Fox hosts, billionaires and other Trump donors that the next president wants to foist upon the country and call our top leaders are more than deserving of mockery and laughter. Better that than non-stop fury and tears. And this just might serve the critical purpose of revealing that many of these people—making pronouncements and threats—are just wannabe emperors who have no clothes.

So what do you think? Can we hold onto our sense of humor? Will this be natural for you or tough amid these dark and treacherous times? Do you worry that humor may serve to minimize the gravity in some cases? Are there any recent examples that you’d like to share?

As always, I look forward to reading your observations and the opportunity for this community to learn from each other. Please do be respectful in your remarks. Trolling will not be tolerated.

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $50 a year or just $5 a month, if you’re not already. This helps sustain and expand the work of America, America, keeps nearly all the content free for everyone and gives you full access to the comment sections. That has never been more important.

*Photo: The French Taunter from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. That’s the image lawyer Mark Zaid included in his letter.