Donald Trump’s recent accolades for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, while simultaneously holding back on crucial fighter-jet sales, represent more than just another headline. This delicate dance of praise and withholding, reported by outlets like The Washington Post, is a stark embodiment of a transactional foreign policy that actively undermines democratic principles and emboldens authoritarian leaders on the global stage. For progressives, this dynamic isn’t just about military hardware; it’s about the erosion of human rights, the stability of alliances, and the dangerous precedent set when personal relationships trump strategic values and international law.
The Current Reality
As of early July 2026, the proposed sale of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey remains a contentious issue, characterized by a fluctuating landscape of political maneuvering and conditional agreements. Donald Trump, a prominent voice in the Republican Party and a potential presidential contender, continues to express admiration for President Erdogan, a stance that has consistently complicated U.S. foreign policy toward the NATO ally. While specifics regarding a definitive approval remain elusive, Trump’s public comments have frequently lauded Erdogan’s leadership, creating an unpredictable environment for the critical defense deal.
Recent reporting indicates that the Biden administration, despite facing considerable pushback from Congress over Turkey’s human rights record and its past acquisition of Russian S-400 missile systems, ultimately moved forward with the F-16 sale in early 2024, after Turkey ratified Sweden’s NATO membership. However, lingering concerns and conditions, particularly from congressional leaders, mean that while the administrative hurdle may have been cleared, the political capital invested by Trump in his relationship with Erdogan continues to shape the discourse around future defense cooperation and U.S. influence in the region. The rhetoric from Trump, even out of office, continues to signal a willingness to overlook democratic backsliding in exchange for perceived transactional benefits or personal rapport, a pattern that profoundly worries international observers and human rights advocates.
A Progressive Critique
The ongoing saga of Trump’s engagement with Erdogan, characterized by personal flattery and conditional military deals, is a textbook example of a regressive foreign policy that prioritizes individual whims over consistent democratic values. From a progressive viewpoint, the very notion of a U.S. leader praising an authoritarian figure like Erdogan, whose government has systematically suppressed dissent, jailed journalists, and eroded judicial independence, is an abject failure of moral leadership. This approach normalizes autocracy and sends a dangerous message to burgeoning democracies worldwide: that America’s commitment to human rights is negotiable.
Furthermore, tying critical defense sales to the personal rapport with a leader, rather than to adherence to democratic norms or strategic alliance integrity, undermines the very fabric of international cooperation. It transforms foreign policy into a transactional game, where the U.S. risks becoming an unreliable partner, willing to sacrifice long-term democratic goals for short-term gains or personal favor. The original hold-up and subsequent approval of the F-16 sale to Turkey, deeply intertwined with geopolitical bargaining over NATO expansion and Turkey’s problematic S-400 acquisition, illustrates a dangerous willingness to compromise on principles for strategic leverage. This not only jeopardizes regional stability but also empowers leaders who see Western alliances as tools to be exploited, rather than partnerships built on shared democratic ideals.
The Path Forward
For progressives, addressing the dangerous precedents set by such transactional diplomacy requires a fundamental reorientation of U.S. foreign policy. First and foremost, a principled stand against authoritarianism must be non-negotiable. Future administrations must consistently and unequivocally condemn human rights abuses and democratic backsliding, regardless of the perceived strategic value of the offending nation. This means conditioning military aid and sales not just on geopolitical needs, but on adherence to international human rights standards and democratic governance.
Secondly, empowering grassroots democratic movements and civil society organizations in countries like Turkey is crucial. Instead of focusing solely on state-to-state relations with authoritarian regimes, the U.S. should invest in fostering independent media, supporting human rights defenders, and promoting democratic institutions from the ground up. This involves using diplomatic leverage, targeted sanctions against human rights abusers, and robust public diplomacy to champion the voices of those fighting for freedom.
Finally, reinforcing multilateral institutions and alliances based on shared democratic values, rather than individual leaders’ preferences, is vital. Strengthening NATO as a democratic alliance, while holding all members accountable for upholding democratic principles, provides a bulwark against authoritarian influences. The international community, led by progressive foreign policy, must advocate for a world order where human rights and democratic governance are not optional extras but foundational pillars of global engagement. Only by re-centering our foreign policy on these core progressive values can we effectively counter the allure of autocracy and build a more just and stable world.