While America Looks Inward: Critical International Developments Unfold Amid Domestic Turmoil

As the United States grapples with the fallout from the release of over 3.5 million pages of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and mounting concerns about immigration enforcement practices, significant geopolitical shifts are taking place on the world stage. The timing raises a troubling question: Is America's domestic crisis consuming the attention that should be directed toward crucial international developments that could reshape global power dynamics?

Domestic Controversies: Delayed Document Release and U.S. Citizen Deaths

As international crises unfold across multiple continents, American political discourse has been dominated by two domestic controversies that have consumed significant media attention and congressional energy.

The Epstein Files: A Missed Deadline. In November 2025, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act with overwhelming bipartisan support—427-1 in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. The law required the Department of Justice to release all unclassified records related to Jeffrey Epstein within 30 days. President Trump signed the bill on November 19, 2025, establishing a December 19 deadline

.

The Justice Department violated this statutory requirement. The December 19 release was minimal and heavily redacted, with over 500 pages entirely blacked out. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the remaining files would be released on a "rolling basis," directly contravening the law. The failure to comply drew bipartisan condemnation, with Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) threatening contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The incomplete release dominated news cycles despite containing few major revelations. On December 24, the Justice Department announced the discovery of "over a million" additional documents. The major release finally came on January 30, 2026—42 days past the congressionally mandated deadline—consisting of 3.5 million pages, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images.

Three U.S. Citizens Killed by Immigration Agents. Between December 31, 2025, and January 24, 2026, three U.S. citizens were fatally shot by federal immigration agents in separate incidents, sparking nationwide outrage and bipartisan calls for investigation.

Keith Porter Jr., a 43-year-old father of two, was shot and killed by off-duty ICE agent Brian Palacios on New Year's Eve in Northridge, Los Angeles. Porter was firing celebratory shots into the air—a common if illegal New Year's tradition. Palacios left his apartment, put on tactical gear, and confronted Porter, fatally shooting him. The Department of Homeland Security claimed Porter was an "active shooter" who fired at the agent, but family members and witnesses dispute this account, stating Porter was simply celebrating the holiday.

Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old poet and mother of three, was killed by an ICE agent on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis. The administration initially claimed Good "viciously ran over" ICE officer Jonathan Ross with her vehicle. Video evidence and witness accounts directly contradicted this narrative, revealing the administration's claims were false. Good's killing sparked the first wave of major protests against Operation Metro Surge, the administration's largest immigration enforcement operation.

Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse at a VA hospital, was shot and killed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents on January 24, 2026, in Minneapolis. Pretti was filming federal agents with his phone and directing traffic during protests over Good's death. After helping a woman who had been pushed to the ground by an agent, approximately six officers tackled Pretti and shot him multiple times in the back while he was face down on the ground. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem immediately labeled Pretti a "domestic terrorist" who was "brandishing a weapon," but eyewitness videos show Pretti holding only a phone. A preliminary government review made no mention of Pretti attacking officers or threatening them with a weapon, directly contradicting the administration's narrative. The Border Patrol agent removed Pretti's holstered firearm before the shooting began.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara noted that of the three homicides in Minneapolis in January 2026, two were committed by federal immigration agents. "The Minneapolis Police Department went the entire year last year recovering about 900 guns from the street, arresting hundreds and hundreds of violent offenders, and we didn't shoot anyone," O'Hara stated. The killings prompted bipartisan congressional calls for independent investigations, with even some Republican senators expressing concern over federal tactics.

An Aggressive Military Posture

Since taking office in January 2025, the Trump administration has launched military operations across multiple theaters with a frequency and intensity that would, in other times, dominate headlines:

Yemen Operations: In March 2025, 'Operation Rough Rider' launched extensive air and naval strikes against Houthi radar and missile sites in Yemen, with UK participation. The operation targeted Iranian-backed forces that had been attacking commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

Iran Strikes: In June 2025, U.S. forces collaborated with Israel to strike three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. This marked a dramatic escalation in confrontation with Tehran and fundamentally altered the regional security landscape.

Gaza Operations: U.S. military support for Israeli operations in Gaza has continued throughout 2025, with American forces providing intelligence, logistics, and defensive systems.

Syria Operations: Following the killing of two U.S. soldiers and a civilian interpreter in December 2025, the U.S. launched 'Operation Hawkeye Strike,' striking over 70 ISIS targets across central Syria. U.S. forces have conducted nearly 80 operations against ISIS in Syria in recent months, with operations expanding in January 2026 to include 35 additional targets.

Somalia Campaign: The Trump administration has dramatically escalated operations in Somalia, conducting at least 111 airstrikes in 2025—more than the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations combined. The campaign targets both ISIS-Somalia in the Puntland region and al-Shabaab forces advancing on Mogadishu, with operations continuing into 2026.

Nigeria Operations: On Christmas Day 2025, U.S. airstrikes targeted ISIS militants in Nigeria's Sokoto State, with Trump choosing the date for symbolic reasons to address what he characterized as attacks on Christians.

Caribbean and Pacific Maritime Operations: Beginning in September 2025, the U.S. military launched 'Operation Southern Spear,' conducting strikes on alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean. By late 2025, at least 21 strikes had killed over 100 people. The operation has drawn intense controversy, with reports that a September 2 strike included a follow-up attack killing survivors clinging to wreckage, accusations from Colombia that fishermen were killed rather than cartel members, and legal scholars questioning whether the strikes constitute war crimes. The administration provided no public evidence that vessels were carrying drugs or that those killed were cartel members.

Venezuela Intervention: Following the maritime campaign and naval operations in the Caribbean, U.S. forces acted against Venezuela in early January 2026, resulting in the detention of President Nicolás Maduro. This unprecedented action effectively placed a sovereign nation's leader in U.S. custody and assumed operational control of Venezuelan oil infrastructure.

This extraordinary campaign of military action—spanning four continents and including strikes on nuclear facilities, the overthrow of a sitting head of state, and ongoing combat operations—has received surprisingly limited sustained attention in American political discourse. The question of why deserves examination.

Note: This article does not address military deployments within the United States to cities, border regions, threats to engage directly with drug cartels in Mexico, or changes to U.S. force structure. These significant developments will be examined in a forthcoming article.

Territorial Expansion and the NATO Crisis

Concurrent with these military operations, the Trump administration has pursued an unprecedented campaign of territorial expansion rhetoric that has brought NATO to what some observers characterize as its greatest crisis since the alliance's 1949 founding.

Greenland: Throughout 2025 and into January 2026, Trump escalated demands to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. After initially refusing to rule out military force, Trump threatened to impose 25 percent tariffs on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland unless they supported U.S. control of Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that any attack on Greenland would end NATO. Eight NATO allies deployed forces to Greenland in Operation Arctic Endurance, creating the extraordinary scenario of NATO members preparing to defend against potential U.S. aggression. Trump stated he "no longer felt an obligation to think purely of Peace" after not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, adding that "it may be a choice" whether to preserve NATO or seize Greenland. The crisis temporarily eased on January 21, 2026, when Trump agreed to a vague "framework" with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, though details remain undisclosed.

Canada: Trump has repeatedly called for annexing Canada as the "51st state," moving from what was initially dismissed as jokes to serious policy discussions. While ruling out military force, Trump advocates "economic force" through tariffs and trade pressure. Canadian officials, initially treating the comments as satire, now take them as legitimate threats. Prime Minister Mark Carney stated bluntly that Canada is dealing with "a country we can no longer trust." A 2025 poll found 85 percent of Americans oppose expansion if it requires force. The annexation threats have sparked increased Canadian nationalism, boycotts of American goods, and warnings from legal experts that Canadian courts may need to prepare to resist annexation attempts.

These territorial ambitions represent a fundamental challenge to the post-World War II international order. As one international relations scholar noted, Trump has openly stated he "does not need international law" and views his "own morality" as the only constraint on his actions. The United States last purchased foreign territory over a century ago with the 1917 acquisition of the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark for $25 million.

The Ukraine Stalemate

Meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine war—now in its fourth year—continues with no end in sight despite Trump's campaign promise to end it "in 24 hours." Throughout 2025, the administration engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts, including an unprecedented August summit in Alaska where Trump met separately with Putin and Zelenskyy. By year's end, Trump admitted "I thought the Russia-Ukraine war was the easiest to stop but Putin has let me down."

Recent negotiations have produced tentative frameworks involving 15-year U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, demilitarized zones, and possible territorial concessions. First-ever trilateral meetings among U.S., Russian, and Ukrainian officials occurred in Abu Dhabi in late January 2026. However, fundamental disagreements persist over territorial control, with Russia demanding recognition of its seizure of Ukrainian territory and Ukraine insisting on full sovereignty.

The front lines remain largely static, with Russia making incremental gains at enormous human cost. Russia conducted over 1,100 attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure in 2025, reducing generating capacity from 33.7 GW pre-war to approximately 14 GW. European allies provided a $105 billion interest-free loan to Ukraine covering much of its projected needs through 2027, even as questions mount about continued American support and NATO cohesion in light of Trump's Greenland threats.

Mexico-Cuba Relations: A Strategic Crossroads

While these domestic issues dominate American attention, Mexico faces a critical decision that could reshape Caribbean geopolitics. With Venezuela's oil supply to Cuba effectively cut off following the U.S. military's January 3, 2026, operation that resulted in the detention of President Nicolás Maduro, Mexico has become Cuba's primary oil supplier.

Mexico supplied approximately 44 percent of Cuban oil imports before the Venezuelan cutoff, sending roughly 5,000 to 20,000 barrels per day depending on the period. President Claudia Sheinbaum has characterized these shipments as both contractual obligations and humanitarian aid, invoking Mexico's historical policy of solidarity with Cuba dating back to the 1960s.

However, intense pressure from the Trump administration has placed Mexico in an increasingly untenable position. During a January phone call, President Trump directly questioned Sheinbaum about oil shipments to Cuba and the presence of Cuban doctors in Mexico. While Trump did not explicitly demand an end to the shipments, the exchange was pointed enough to trigger intense internal debate within the Mexican government.

On January 28, 2026, President Sheinbaum announced that Mexico had temporarily halted oil shipments to Cuba, though she insisted this was a "sovereign decision" not made under U.S. pressure and related to fluctuations in oil supplies. Days later, she reversed course again, stating Mexico would resume shipments while seeking diplomatic channels for additional humanitarian aid.

The situation is further complicated by ongoing U.S.-Mexico trade negotiations and Trump's threats of military action against Mexican drug cartels. U.S. Navy surveillance drones have been observed flying over the Gulf of Mexico and Bay of Campeche, roughly tracing maritime routes used by tankers carrying Mexican fuel to Cuba.

For Cuba, the stakes could not be higher. The island faces constant power blackouts and an economy on the verge of collapse. According to Cuban government data, the U.S. embargo caused estimated damages of $7.6 billion between March 2024 and February 2025, a 49 percent increase from the previous period. The cutoff of both Venezuelan and Mexican oil would represent a potentially catastrophic humanitarian crisis.

Ricardo Pascoe Pierce, former Mexican ambassador to Cuba, suggested that Mexico's oil exports may represent "a historic hiccup at the end of a long road." If forced to choose between Cuba and the United States, he noted, Mexico will inevitably choose its northern neighbor.

Iran-Saudi Arabia: Détente Under Pressure

In the Middle East, the fragile détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia faces its most serious test since the two nations restored diplomatic relations in March 2023 through Chinese-brokered negotiations. The reconciliation marked a dramatic shift after years of proxy conflicts across the region, particularly in Yemen and Syria.

Recent weeks have seen both nations working to prevent escalation amid mounting U.S. threats against Iran. Following the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the region and Trump administration warnings of potential military action in response to Iran's crackdown on protesters, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman held multiple phone conversations.

In a remarkable statement on January 27, 2026, the Saudi Press Agency reported that Crown Prince Mohammed told Pezeshkian that Riyadh would not allow its airspace or territory to be used for military actions against Iran. The Crown Prince "affirmed the Kingdom's position in respecting the sovereignty of Iran" and emphasized that Saudi Arabia would not permit attacks on Iran "from any party, regardless of their origin."

This represents a significant diplomatic development. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been regional rivals since 1979, engaging in proxy conflicts and competing for influence across the Muslim world. The countries severed diplomatic relations from 2016 to 2023 following incidents including the execution of Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr and attacks on Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran.

Saudi Arabia's current stance appears driven by pragmatic concerns about regional stability. The Kingdom is pursuing ambitious economic reforms under Vision 2030 to diversify away from oil dependence and boost tourism—goals that require peace and stability. A U.S.-Iran conflict would threaten these initiatives while exposing Saudi oil infrastructure to potential Iranian retaliation, as occurred in 2019 when Iran-backed Houthi forces struck Saudi oil facilities.

Behind the scenes, Gulf nations have engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts. Reports indicate Saudi Arabia has lobbied the Trump administration to refrain from striking Iran, while Qatar and Oman have worked to maintain communication channels between Washington and Tehran. These efforts intensified after reports suggested direct U.S.-Iran contact had broken down.

However, tensions persist. Iran warned regional countries that U.S. bases on their territory would be targeted if America attacks Iran. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is simultaneously building new defense partnerships with Pakistan and potentially Turkey, partly to contain Israel's rising military assertiveness and partly to hedge against Iranian power.

The situation in Yemen continues to test the Saudi-Iranian relationship. While both nations seek to avoid escalation of the Israel-Hamas war, Iran-backed Houthi forces have continued launching attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, threatening to upend fragile peace talks aimed at ending Yemen's nine-year civil war.

A Question of Priorities

The convergence of these developments raises fundamental questions about American attention and priorities. The Epstein document release and immigration enforcement controversies are undoubtedly matters of legitimate public concern involving issues of justice, accountability, and human rights. Yet they are largely backward-looking—attempts to understand and hold accountable past actions.

By contrast, the Mexico-Cuba oil situation and Iran-Saudi Arabia dynamics are forward-looking crises with immediate implications for regional stability, humanitarian conditions, and U.S. strategic interests. Mexico's decision on Cuban oil shipments could determine whether Cuba faces a humanitarian catastrophe, potentially triggering mass migration to the United States. The Iran-Saudi relationship could mean the difference between regional stability and a devastating conflict that would affect global oil markets and draw in American forces.

The Biden and Trump administrations' immigration policies—which have generated the current detention crisis—were ostensibly designed to enhance national security and border control. Yet if these same policies, through their controversial implementation, are consuming governmental and public bandwidth that should be directed toward critical diplomatic engagement, they may paradoxically undermine broader U.S. security interests.

Similarly, while the Epstein files may eventually yield important accountability, the massive resources devoted to their release, redaction, and public consumption occur at a moment when skilled diplomatic engagement could prevent humanitarian disasters and regional conflicts.

History suggests that nations pay a price when domestic turmoil diverts attention from international developments. The challenge for the United States is whether it can address legitimate domestic concerns while maintaining the strategic focus necessary to navigate an increasingly complex and volatile global landscape. As Mexico weighs Cuba's fate and Saudi Arabia attempts to prevent a U.S.-Iran war, the question remains: Is anyone in Washington paying attention?