Trump wants the US military to be rent-a-cops

Trump wants – President Donald Trump has floated a new framing of U.S. military power as something other countries would pay for—ranging from a proposed “VIP pass” to escorts through the Strait of Hormuz to a broader “guardian” role financed by Middle East oil revenues. The

When President Donald Trump talks about the U.S. military, the language has been getting sharper—and more transactional. In recent remarks, he has recast American security not as a job Washington does to protect its own interests, but as a service the region should buy.

The core of that pitch has been consistent with Trump’s long-running demand that allies pay more for the benefits of U.S. power. He has argued that South Korea and Japan should pay more for the presence of U.S. troops on their soil. He has also suggested that Washington would only honor its NATO mutual defense obligations for countries that are not “delinquent” in their defense spending.

But lately, Trump appears to be going further. Instead of describing U.S. protection as a strategic commitment tied to long-term security. he has increasingly framed it as something paid for—whether through specific military measures such as naval escorts in the Strait of Hormuz. or through a broader role he has described as a “guardian” function financed by Middle East oil revenues.

That shift comes amid uncertainty about whether there are still customers for the kind of deal Trump is describing. The source of the doubt is not theoretical. The U.S. has recently faced the disappointing results of the Iran war. and America’s depleted military resources have been part of the backdrop. At the same time, countries in the region have been looking to diversify their alliances.

One of the clearest examples has come from the Strait of Hormuz. Politico reported that Trump administration officials were considering ideas to encourage still-reluctant shippers to return to the strait. even though they worried it still wasn’t safe after the U.S.-Iran ceasefire deal. One of the ideas included a “VIP pass” system, where shippers would pay the U.S. to receive a naval escort through the strait.

Then the timeline snapped into even sharper focus. Iran announced on June 20 that it was reclosing the strait, throwing the arrangement into doubt.

Trump’s “guardian” concept is built on the same logic, but stretched to an even wider geography. In an interview with the New York Times’ David Sanger last week. Trump suggested that if Iran does not abide by the terms of its deal with the U.S. one step he might consider would be making the United States “the guardian of the Middle East” in return for 20 percent of the region’s revenues—effectively a regional police force paid in oil money.

Over the weekend, Trump expanded on that idea in a Truth Social post. He pushed back against reports that Iran would charge tolls for ships transiting the strait. writing: “There ​will be NO TOLLS in the ​Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the Cease Fire Period. and there ​will be NO TOLLS ​after the 60 day period has expired. ‌unless ⁠they are imposed by and for the United States of America. should the deal not ​be ​completed. for ⁠services rendered as the Guardian Angel to ​the countries of the ​Middle ⁠East for purposes of both past. present. and future reimbursement ⁠of ​costs.”.

Sanger also described the concept as a departure from a president who has long questioned the need for expensive large-scale military deployments in the region and the need to get the U.S. involved in foreign wars. But there is a tension in the framing that goes beyond political style. The biggest reason the U.S. has maintained a large military presence in the region has long been the need to keep oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf.

For decades, U.S. force has been justified as a vital American interest—starting with the 1980 “Carter Doctrine. ” moving through the Reagan administration’s Persian Gulf tanker war. then through Desert Storm and continuing through 9/11 and the War on Terrorism. Across that arc. American military power has been described as helping keep oil flowing not because local emirs were paying. but because it was seen as directly tied to U.S. national security.

Trump’s vision sounds different. It doesn’t read like a global guardian offering stability at a strategic cost; it reads like a state-backed mercenary force—turned into a product with a price tag.

The transactional framing also echoes earlier remarks from Trump that compared American security to a protection racket. At one point, he appeared to view the ideal model for U.S. global military primacy as a system where countries would pay for being under the U.S. security umbrella.

Now, his approach points to something more fleeting and transactional still: a structure where the U.S. is a troubleshooter for hire.

Trump is not describing himself as an isolationist. The notes attached to his worldview here are that he has been comfortable intervening—including with military force—to handle foreign crises even when American interests are not obviously at stake. At the same time, he has shown suspicion of alliances and binding security commitments. The description includes the mutual-defense deal with Qatar inked by executive order last year. characterized as less a sign of how seriously this administration takes Qatar’s security than of how unseriously it takes deals like that.

In one telling comparison. the coverage draws a parallel to deals Russia inked in recent years to provide security services to various governments in Africa—first through the now-defunct military contractor Wagner Group. and now via more directly state-run paramilitaries. That is described as a different way of thinking about the role of American power in the world.

There is a practical question embedded in all of this: if the U.S. is turning its military into a paid service, potential “customers” may wonder what they’re getting for the money.

Countries in the Gulf were already reconsidering reliance on the U.S. before Trump launched a war that led to missile attacks on their cities and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The war. the account says. ended with the Iranian regime still in power and much of its missile and nuclear programs intact. Trump has gone as far as to say that it’s only fair for Iran to have ballistic missiles when so many of its regional rivals do.

It is hard, the account argues, to market services as a “guardian angel” when the outcomes look like that. Talks are described about developing a regional security framework that includes the Gulf countries and Iran, but not the United States.

Firepower is the other constraint. The Iran war is described as a relatively short conflict with a far weaker adversary, yet it taxed U.S. stocks of missiles and interceptors to the point that the military had to divert resources from other global hot spots.

On Wednesday, Trump gathered the heads of U.S. defense contractors at the White House to pressure them into ramping up production.

The modern battlefield also brings new dependence. In an age of AI-enabled warfare, the account says, the U.S. military is increasingly locked in to the services of companies like SpaceX and Anthropic. It cites that SpaceX raised the price of internet connectivity for U.S. kamikaze drones during the war with Iran. and that Anthropic pushed back on how its products were being used on the eve of the conflict.

The account also references a 2025 Wired magazine article by Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman about “the enshittification of American power. ” using Starlink as a prominent example of how countries become locked into U.S.-dominated military platforms. The Ukrainian military’s dependence on Starlink for battlefield connectivity is cited. along with the claim that it became a liability when Musk cut service in 2022 as Ukraine was rapidly retaking territory. reportedly due to fears of nuclear retaliation by Russia. The point made is that the U.S. can be vulnerable to leverage from its private contractors.

Even with the political pitch for a monetized guardian role, the account says the U.S. still has difficulty winning asymmetric wars against weaker adversaries that have the advantage of geography and a greater will to fight. The U.S. “can’t eliminate” the security threat from adversaries like Iran. the account says. though it can punish and degrade them—hence Trump’s repeated threats to return to airstrikes if Iran steps out of line again.

That backdrop also sharpens the irony of the phrase “guardian.” The notion that the U.S. would play an ongoing guardian role to keep the Middle East stable is described as a far cry from the “everlasting peace” Trump was promising a year ago after the signing of a ceasefire deal in Gaza.

This moment is portrayed as not a high point for the U.S.-Israel relationship, just a few months after the two countries broke new ground by going into combat side-by-side for the first time.

Still, the account says Trump appears to have embraced Israel’s logic of “mowing the grass”—the idea that rather than getting locked into long wars to defeat asymmetric adversaries, it’s better to launch periodic missions to degrade and knock them off balance.

In the end, the account portrays the “guardian” role as less of a long-term police force and more like a landscaping service—replacing long-term security with short-term profit.

What Trump is proposing may sound like a clever way to demand payment for protection. But as the details stack up—naval escorts framed as a “VIP pass. ” tolls linked to services rendered. and a broad oil-funded guardian concept—the stakes turn on a simple question: will allies and shippers still see the U.S. military as worth the bill, especially after the outcomes that have already left them uncertain?.

Trump military rent-a-cops Strait of Hormuz VIP pass guardian of the Middle East NATO delinquent defense spending oil revenues 20 percent Iran ceasefire tolls U.S. defense contractors production SpaceX Starlink leverage US-Israel relationship mowing the grass