Former U.S. Congressman and libertarian icon Ron Paul sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s proposal to seize control of Gaza, calling it a “disastrous overreach” risking alienation of key allies like Saudi Arabia.
Ron Paul, known for his non-interventionist stance, stated, “U.S. ownership of Gaza, accompanied by forcible relocation of Palestinians, will fuel anti-American sentiment and terror threats.” This aligns with his long-standing opposition to foreign military engagements, including votes against the Iraq War and Patriot Act.
Congressional Opposition Emerges
Paul explained that Trump’s plan faced unexpected pushback from Republican leaders, including Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Ron’s son. Rand declared, “This contradicts America First principles.” South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham also voiced skepticism, marking a rare break from his pro-military stance.
The former Congressman also revealed that polls indicate most Americans oppose funding overseas conflicts, citing libertarian scholar Tom Woods’ remarks when he labeled the proposal “wasteful spending,” emphasizing fiscal responsibility in light of the nation’s $36 trillion debt.
Ron added that Saudi Arabia joined critics, warning that the move could accelerate its shift toward the BRICS alliance, undermining the petrodollar system, emphasizing, “Losing the dollar’s reserve status would trigger economic collapse and austerity-driven unrest.”
He urged Trump to prioritize debt reduction over military adventurism, noting the unsustainability of open-ended commitments. Paul advocates ending U.S. support for Israel’s Gaza blockade, stating, “Peace requires free trade, not occupation.”
A Vision for Peace Through Trade
Paul’s vision mirrors his 2013 budget plan, proposing slashing defense spending and abolishing five federal agencies. By refocusing on diplomacy, Paul argues, the U.S. could rebuild global trust and economic competitiveness.
As a 12-term Congressman and three-time presidential candidate, Ron Paul’s warnings about federal overreach have shaped libertarian movements. His son Rand’s alignment underscores the family’s ideological consistency.
As Saudi Arabia weighs its alliances, Paul’s critique highlights a pivotal moment for U.S. foreign policy, and the risks of ignoring fiscal and moral limits. The best path forward involves ceasing financial support for Israel’s blockade and encouraging peaceful relationships based on mutual trade benefits.
By focusing resources domestically rather than engaging in costly foreign interventions, the U.S. can enhance its competitiveness globally without resorting to protectionist measures like tariffs. Thus, promoting stability within the region through free trade offers a better alternative to military occupation.
