Trump's pen, America's verdict: the cost of tying Trinidad and Tobago to one man in Washington

On 7 March, at his golf resort in Doral, Florida, Donald Trump signed a proclamation committing the governments in the room to “using lethal military force to destroy the sinister cartels and terrorist networks once and for all”, then handed one of his signing pens to Kamla Persad-Bissessar.252662 On Tuesday, American voters handed his party a defeat that reached into Republican strongholds held for generations. Democrats won the House and the Senate, taking Senate seats in Kansas, Iowa, Texas, Ohio and South Carolina. Reuters and the Associated Press both reported that anger over prices, corruption and the war in Iran drove the result.12

No sensible foreign policy for Trinidad and Tobago can do without the United States. The question the election raises is narrower and more uncomfortable: whether this Government built its American relationship with a country, or with one man and his political movement. The public record, from her statements as Opposition Leader to two votes at the United Nations last week, points to the second.

Before she took office

Minutes after Trump's inauguration on 20 January 2025, the then Opposition Leader issued a statement that went well beyond congratulation. “The previous administration in the US has been a disaster for the American people and the world,” she wrote. It had pushed “a woke, extreme left-wing agenda”, “disoriented and mutilated children”, “weaponised the judicial system against political opponents” and “fuelled wars around the world”. Trump, she concluded, “is the leader America needs right now”.22

Four years earlier she had greeted Joe Biden's election very differently: “Their victory is one for hope and unity over dishonesty and division.”23 The then Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr Amery Browne, warned at the time that her language was “dangerous to the interests of Caricom and of Trinidad and Tobago”.24 Three months later she was Prime Minister, and the statement became the opening position of a government.

On Tuesday, tens of millions of Americans voted for the party that statement condemned.1 That does not make every one of its charges false, and it does not oblige a Caribbean government to share any American party's views. It does mean that a Prime Minister who adopted one side's language in America's domestic argument will now deal with a Congress run by the other side.

Iran: a position settled in four hours

On 28 February the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran. That evening the Ministry of Foreign and CARICOM Affairs expressed “support for the continued actions of the United States of America aimed at preventing oppressive regimes from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities that would jeopardise international peace and security”.10

It was the second version. A first statement had been posted on the Ministry's Facebook page at about 4 pm and taken down after at least an hour. The replacement, issued after 8 pm, dropped the word “allies” and added sympathy “for all loss of life”. Foreign Minister Sean Sobers said the Government had been “still assessing the situation”.11 Guardian Media reported that the first version had signalled support for both the United States and Israel. The release that stands names only the United States.1210 On whether Trinidad and Tobago backed Israel's part in the war, the Government's position changed within four hours, and it has offered no fuller explanation.

Elsewhere in CARICOM the tone was different. Antigua and Barbuda warned of “a rapid and dangerous escalation” and urged Iran into good-faith negotiation. Guyana condemned Iran's missile attacks on Gulf states and called on all parties to de-escalate. In CNC3's survey of the region's responses that weekend, Port of Spain was the capital that aligned itself with Washington.13 The Express editorial board defended the choice as “hard-nosed pragmatism”, pointing to the Iranian state's killing of protesters in the weeks before the strikes.14 That argument deserves a hearing. It was not the argument the Government made.

Americans, meanwhile, turned against the war early and stayed there. In March, 59 per cent told Pew Research Center that using force had been the wrong decision. By April, YouGov found 53 per cent opposed. In September Navigator recorded 54 per cent opposition, its highest. In October, 65 per cent of Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the conflict, and on the eve of the election the Silver Bulletin average stood at 57 per cent opposed and 36 per cent in favour.46758

Precision matters here. AP VoteCast found six in ten voters thought the war the wrong decision, but only about a third called it crucial to their vote; the cost of living and corruption counted for more.3 Trump himself conceded: “I think a part of it was Iran.”9 The war did not decide the election alone. It was the foreign-policy question on which American voters most clearly parted company with their President, and it was the one on which this Government chose, within hours, to stand with him.

The cost did not stay in the Gulf. By April, with the Strait of Hormuz closed, the Prime Minister was telling the House that Paria held enough fuel and that the Government was “providing diplomatic support for the unfettered freedom of navigation through the Strait”.15

Israel and an American public that has moved

In February, for the first time in a quarter of a century of Gallup polling, more Americans said they sympathised with the Palestinians (41 per cent) than with the Israelis (36 per cent). A year earlier the figures were 46 and 33. From 2001 to 2018 the Israeli lead averaged 43 points. Gallup notes that this year's five-point gap is within the margin of error; the direction is not.16 It was the second major survey to record the reversal: in September 2025 a New York Times/Siena poll found 35 per cent of registered voters sympathised more with the Palestinians and 34 per cent with Israel, from 47 per cent for the Israelis before the Gaza war.56 The sharpest movement this year was among independents, who swung from 42–34 in Israel's favour to 41–30 the other way.57

The favourability numbers are starker. In March, Pew Research Center found 60 per cent of American adults held an unfavourable view of Israel, against 53 per cent a year earlier and 42 per cent in 2022. Only 37 per cent viewed it favourably. Fifty-nine per cent said they had little or no confidence in Benjamin Netanyahu. In both parties, majorities of adults under 50 now rate Israel unfavourably.55 In four years the country went from a 13-point positive balance to a 23-point negative one.

The money question

The shift in opinion found a political target. AIPAC, which for decades lobbied without endorsing candidates, set up a political action committee and the United Democracy Project super PAC ahead of the 2022 cycle.59 In 2024 that super PAC spent a record $14.5 million to unseat Jamaal Bowman, in advertisements that did not mention Israel.61 By October this year AIPAC had raised $233 million for the midterms, and the money itself had become an issue: candidates refused it, or campaigned on the group's opposition as a credential.58 In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic Senate primary after attacking his opponent for taking AIPAC support.59

Two weeks before the election AIPAC changed course. It told members it would stop endorsing candidates, making direct PAC contributions and earmarking donations, and described 2026 as “one of the most challenging environments in recent memory”. Its super PAC remains, and it intends to channel more money through individual donors.60 That is a retreat in method, not in ambition. It is still a retreat, and an unusual one for an organisation long regarded as one of the most effective lobbies in Washington.

It would be wrong to say Americans voted on Israel on Tuesday: most voters did not rank it among their priorities.18 It is accurate to say that the bipartisan consensus which once made unconditional support for Israel the safe position in Washington has broken, most sharply among the Democrats who will control both chambers from January, and that the influence of pro-Israel money is now openly contested inside American politics.17

Port of Spain has been moving the other way. Israel's ambassador presented credentials in February. In July an Israeli delegation met the Planning Minister to advance a “strategic development partnership” covering cybersecurity, agriculture and smart cities. In September, as other delegates walked out of the General Assembly hall, Trinidad and Tobago's delegation stayed for Benjamin Netanyahu's address, while restating its support for a two-state settlement.192021 Those are choices a sovereign government is entitled to make. They are also choices calibrated to one Washington, not the one that voted on Tuesday.

The pen

The Doral summit came a week after the first strikes on Iran. Leaders of twelve countries in the hemisphere attended.54 From CARICOM, only Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana joined the Americas Counter-Cartel Coalition, and the Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister stood at the President's shoulder as he signed. The State Department's own footage shows him passing signing pens to the leaders around the desk; she was photographed holding hers as he raised the signed proclamation.2562

Trump's welcome was personal. “This is Kamla as opposed to Kamala. I like Kamla better, in many ways,” he said, before adding: “We don't like 'Kam'.” The reference was to Kamala Harris, the Democrat he defeated.26 Two days later the Prime Minister said Trinidad and Tobago stood proud and committed to the coalition. She was the only woman among the invited heads.27

A fortnight before Doral, the State Department's readout of her meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio recorded that he “acknowledged Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar's public support for U.S. military operations in the South Caribbean Sea”.28 Washington noticed. That is what such statements are for. The question is what everyone else noticed.

The Caribbean ledger

The break with the region began at the General Assembly in September 2025. While other CARICOM leaders used their addresses to call for the Caribbean to remain a zone of peace, she told the Assembly: “The notion that the Caribbean is a zone of peace has become a false ideal.”29

On 18 October CARICOM heads reaffirmed the zone of peace, “save in respect of TT, (which) reserved its position”. The next day her Ministry declared its “strong support for the on-going military intervention of the US in the region”.30 On 28 October she went further: “I do not consider Caricom a reliable partner and over the next couple years there will be a significant realignment of our foreign policy.”31 The same day Venezuela's National Assembly declared her persona non grata and endorsed the suspension of energy agreements with Trinidad and Tobago. She called the declaration useless.3233

This year the dispute became institutional. After the CARICOM summit in St Kitts, she challenged the reappointment of the Secretary-General, Carla Barnett, saying the organisation “should absolutely expect no quarter from my government” while insisting that “Trinidad and Tobago remains committed to CARICOM”. Guyana's President, Irfaan Ali, who had joined the coalition beside her at Doral, backed the reappointment.37 Ralph Gonsalves, the former Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, said the reappointment was lawful under the Treaty of Chaguaramas and warned that leaving CARICOM would mean tariffs and economic pain.63 The Associated Press described a widening feud with Caribbean neighbours.64 In May she went further: CARICOM could expel Trinidad and Tobago if it wished, and the country would not recognise Dr Barnett after August. A majority of the leaders at a virtual meeting that month accepted the reappointment as valid.65 By then her Government had also applied to join Mercosur, the South American trade bloc.66

Then came last week. On 28 October Trinidad and Tobago became the first CARICOM state ever to vote against the annual resolution calling for an end to the US embargo on Cuba. In 2025 every CARICOM member had voted for it. This year seven voted yes, Jamaica, Guyana and Haiti abstained, and three were absent. Her own People's Partnership government had voted for the resolution every year from 2010 to 2015.38394041 She defended the change in the language of freedom: “We cannot demand democracy and free and fair elections for ourselves and remain silent when those freedoms are denied for neighbouring citizens in neighbouring countries.”42

On 2 November Trinidad and Tobago abstained on the resolution supporting the International Criminal Court, the institution A.N.R. Robinson helped bring into being. Barbados and Guyana voted for it. The Ministry issued no explanation.434445 The same day the Prime Minister withdrew from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Antigua, citing “a bad case of flu”; Mr Sobers led the delegation.47

A ledger of political capital

Political capital is spent in public and recorded in public. Taken one event at a time, the record since September 2025 shows a government that has repeatedly placed itself outside regional positions, quarrelled with CARICOM's institutions and drawn rebukes from its neighbours, with two real gains along the way: a seat on the Security Council and a restored relationship with Caracas. The ledger below scores each documented event by a fixed rule, so readers can check every step and disagree with any of them.

Measuring standing without inventing it

There is no official index of diplomatic standing. The ledger above is an editorial judgment, scored rule by rule from the record; it is not a measurement. What can be counted is company: how many governments cast the same vote as Trinidad and Tobago. On the Cuba resolution, Trinidad and Tobago stood with 98 per cent of voting states in 2024 and 90 per cent in 2025. This year it stood with 10 per cent, 17 of 172. On the ICC resolution the figure fell from 76 per cent in 2023 to 25 per cent this week.52393849505143

Inside CARICOM the pattern is starker. Where positions can be counted, the number of other members standing where Trinidad and Tobago stood looks like this. In October 2025, none of the thirteen joined its reservation on the zone of peace; eleven days later, all thirteen voted with it on Cuba. At Doral one did. On Cuba this year, none of the ten that voted.30392540

The counter-evidence belongs in the same ledger. In June the General Assembly elected Trinidad and Tobago to the Security Council for 2027 and 2028 with 181 votes.46 That is the clearest single measure of global standing available, and it was strong. It was cast before last week's two votes. The country will take its seat having broken with the CARICOM majority on Cuba and with Barbados and Guyana on the Court, on both occasions moving toward the position of the United States.

Then and now

Governments change positions, and sometimes they should. The test is whether the change is explained by principle or by circumstance. Eleven months after Caracas declared her persona non grata, the Prime Minister was asked for a message to Venezuela's acting President, Delcy Rodríguez. “I love her. I look forward to meeting her,” she said, adding: “I will meet with anyone who wishes to meet me.” They met at the United Nations on 23 September.3435 A working relationship with Caracas serves Trinidad and Tobago, not least on cross-border gas. But Dr Browne, now in Opposition, put the question that the record raises: “One is anticipated to demonstrate principle. One is anticipated to demonstrate dignity. And one is anticipated and called upon to demonstrate consistency.”36

A relationship with a country, or with a man

On Wednesday Taiwan, whose security depends on American support to a degree few governments share, described its policy toward Washington as one that “has always been guided by the principles of non-partisanship, building broad-based goodwill, and active engagement”.48 That is what a durable small-state relationship with the United States sounds like. It survives a change of party because it was never staked on one.

Trump remains President until January 2029. From January, Democrats will control the committees, budgets and oversight powers through which Congress shapes security cooperation, aid and trade.1 At the time of publication we could find no public statement from the Prime Minister on the result.

The questions for her are plain. Was Trinidad and Tobago's support for the Iran strikes a judgment about the war, or about the President who launched it? What changed between the 4 pm and 8 pm statements of 28 February? Why did the Government break with every CARICOM neighbour on Cuba and say nothing about the Court? And how does she intend to deal with a Congress led by the party she called a disaster for the world?

A pen is a souvenir. Trinidad and Tobago's interests will outlast this American President, this Congress and this Government. The country needs a foreign policy that can say the same.