Every February 6, America celebrates the birthday of President Ronald Reagan — a president whose optimism, eloquence and unwavering love for his country defined an era. We not only loved him, we loved ourselves and who we were as Americans when he was president. He made us patriotic and proud, courageous and optimistic, and gave deep meaning to our values as we shone the torch of freedom all over the world under his leadership, inviting others to follow. And they did. 

We miss Reagan and have missed those feelings of pride and optimism in America these past few years. But since January 20, it feels like Morning in America Again and as the sun is rising on the second term of President Donald Trump, there are similar emotions being evoked. Americans are celebrating. 

Having worked for both presidents, I know well that Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are two very different men with vastly different leadership styles, yet they share one love for America. And Americans. All Americans. 

Reagan and Trump hail from very different worlds, but both wound up in the Oval Office – something that could only happen in America. Reagan was born into poverty in small-town Illinois, working his way up as a radio announcer, Hollywood actor, president of the Screen Actors Guild, and then governor of California, before becoming president. He understood the struggles of ordinary Americans because he had lived them.  

Trump, by contrast, was raised in wealth and built his empire through real estate, doing so by working alongside the very people who build, make and fix America — like architects, concrete layers, plumbers, electricians and housekeepers. His work and his wealth did not insulate him from everyday Americans; it immersed him in their world and exposed him to their problems. And he saw that he could fix those problems.  

Both men knew the heart and soul of this nation and loved and respected its hardworking, everyday people. 

Another key similarity is their priority to communicating directly with the American public. Reagan did it through fireside chats, weekly radio addresses and Oval Office speeches to connect with Americans. His voice, warm and reassuring, instilled confidence and hope, and provided a vision for a better future which he invited us to create together.  

Trump, by contrast, has leveraged the tools of today to communicate – Twitter / X, Truth Social, TikTok, impromptu and formal press interactions, inviting cameras and reporters into the Oval Office – all to help him reach millions of Americans instantly and unfiltered. His transparency and accessibility are unprecedented, ensuring Americans always know what he is promising – and what he is delivering. 

While their methods were different, both presidents had a shared goal of bypassing the traditional gatekeepers in the media to speak directly to the American people and were beloved and trusted because of it. 

Reagan originally coined the phrase ‘Make America Great Again,’ – and he delivered on it. After four years of malaise under President Jimmy Carter, Reagan reinvigorated a declining America, restoring it to its domestic greatness and international respect.  

Similarly, Trump adopted that MAGA language and made it central to his own presidential campaigns, with the 2024 campaign in particular, echoing decline under President Joe Biden which was reminiscent of America in 1980 under Carter. Both Reagan and Trump shared a vision of restoring American prosperity, strength and pride – wanting Americans to be proud of themselves and their nation again.  

Trump has also embraced Reagan’s philosophy of ‘peace through strength,’ advocating for a strong military and bold foreign policy to ensure America remains the dominant global power. This is done through strong words, bold action and the resources to ensure success. Rather than capitulating to America’s enemies, through American strength, clarity and resolve, both presidents believed we can avoid conflict from ever starting by taking a strong posture at the outset as a deterrent and being willing to take assertive, decisive action when needed. 

Reagan was a unifier, his messages were always wrapped in affable, patriotic optimism. Trump, with his fighter’s instinct, has been seen as more divisive, but this toughness is precisely what Americans voted for and have come to admire in him. Reagan led in a different era, with a media environment that was far less hostile and wasn’t 24/7. Trump’s presidency has been forged in an era of hyper-partisanship and relentless opposition, requiring a different kind of leadership, one which Trump embodies. 

The story of Reagan’s life, leadership and legacy has already been written, though history will continue to examine and judge it. His words and his actions will continue to stand up to scrutiny and reveal the heart of a man who loved America, loved Americans, and inspired the nation and changed the world. That is how he is remembered today and will continue to be. 

Reagan made America believe in itself again and today Trump is fighting to restore that belief in Americans again. Trump has the unique opportunity to take the best of Reagan — his ability to inspire, unite and elevate American greatness — and combine it with his own fearless approach.  

If Trump continues to channel Reagan’s optimism, strength and unwavering determination, combining it with his own ideas, ferocious defense of American interests, and commitment to bringing peace to the world, Donald Trump’s legacy will rival – or could even surpass – that of Reagan’s.  

Today we remember and celebrate Ronald Reagan, who continues to inspire America and the world – and perhaps is even inspiring the current president as he is strengthening and refining his own place in history. Reagan’s life story has been written. This next chapter is Donald Trump’s to write. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week said that if the U.S. cannot guarantee a quick path toward NATO membership, then there are alternative security options Kyiv would accept: nuclear weapons. 

But don’t think the United States is eager to agree to those terms. 

‘The chance of them getting their nuclear weapons back is somewhere between slim and none,’ retired Lt. General Keith Kellogg, special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, told Fox News Digital. ‘Let’s be honest about it, we both know that’s not going to happen.’

In 1994, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine agreed to give Russia its nuclear arms in exchange for reassurances from Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. that its sovereignty and independence would be respected – a treaty Moscow has violated with its repeated invasions – and in an interview on Tuesday, Zelenskyy argued that Ukraine should be given its arms ‘back’ if a timely NATO membership is off the table.

But Kellogg, the man tasked by President Donald Trump to help bring an end to the three-year war, said rearming Ukraine with nuclear weapons is a non-starter.

‘Remember, the president said we’re a government of common sense,’ he said. ‘When somebody says something like that, look at the outcome or the potential. That’s using your common sense.’

Zelenskyy on Tuesday confirmed his willingness to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin face-to-face if that is the best option for bringing an end to the war, though the Kremlin chief has not agreed to any in-person meeting with the Ukrainian leader.

Trump on Sunday said that initial talks had begun with both Ukraine and Russia, and Kellogg this week confirmed that Kyiv and Moscow will need to make concessions if there is going to be a peace deal.

The administration has been tight-lipped on what sort of compromises will need to be made, particularly when it comes to the biggest hot-button issue for both Zelenskyy and Putin: Ukrainian NATO membership. 

Kellogg wouldn’t comment on where Trump lands when it comes to backing either Ukraine with a membership in the security alliance or Russia in denying its southern neighbor access to the top coalition.

‘That’s one of the reasons I’m going next week to Europe, to actually see them face-to-face,’ he said. ‘I can bring that back to the president and say, ‘OK, Mr. President, this is their concern. This is what the issues are.’’

Kellogg is set to travel to the Munich Security Conference, which runs Feb. 14-16, where he said he will meet with world leaders to discuss Russia’s war in Ukraine and get a better idea of where nations like the U.K., Germany and Denmark, along with other top providers of military aid to Ukraine, stand on negotiations to end the war.

‘As you develop the plans to end this carnage, you have to make sure that you’ve got the feel of everybody in play,’ Kellogg said. ‘Once we get to have these face-to-face discussions, then you can really kind of work … on concessions.’

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte last month urged member nations to increase their support for Ukraine, an issue he said is vastly important when it comes to bolstering NATO deterrence in the face of the Russia, China, North Korea, Iran bloc.

‘If we get a bad deal, it would only mean that we will see the president of Russia high-fiving with the leaders of North Korea, Iran and China, and we cannot accept that,’ Rutte said. ‘That will be geopolitically a big, a big mistake.’

Rutte has urged NATO nations to ramp up defense spending and warned that if Russia comes out on top in this war, it will cost NATO allies ‘trillions’ not ‘billions.’

Kellogg will also press NATO allies to increase defense spending and, as directed by Trump, to start shouldering the burden of the war in Ukraine.

Last week, President Donald Trump doubled down on his ambitions to purchase Greenland despite the fact that the idea was outright rejected by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in a recent call between the two.

‘I think we’re going to have it,’ insisted our bombastic commander in chief when speaking with journalists on Air Force One last week. 

Trump even insinuated in early January that he might be forced to compel Denmark to let the United States take possession of the autonomous island.

Last week, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) deployed two Air Force F-16s to Greenland from Alaska, ‘exercising its standard agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark to forward posture NORAD presence in the Arctic.’

Trump’s justification for wanting to make Greenland part of America is ‘the protection of the free world.’ The United States is ‘the one that can provide the freedom.’

‘They [Greenland and Denmark] can’t,’ stressed Trump on board the presidential aircraft last week. 

The rationale for The Donald’s insistence lies in space. 

Greenland’s strategic significance to the United States and Europe lies in the fact that it houses an important U.S. military base, Pituffik, operated by the Space Force, a whole new branch of service Trump established in 2019. 

With Greenland providing the shortest route between North America and Europe and geographically sitting at the top of the world in the Arctic, the Pituffik Space Base carries out the critical function of enabling space superiority, which is the centerpiece of the U.S. war-fighting doctrine. Due to its unique geographic position on the world map, the base is a vital hub for early threat detection achieved through missile warning and space surveillance during peacetime and satellite command and control during both peace and war.

During my service in the Defense Intelligence Agency, I specialized in space warfare and participated in war games simulating an armed conflict in space. Space already underpins every aspect of our way of war as our satellites – 8,530 space birds in orbit at the unclassified level, the most of any country – enable communications among the troops, synchronizing operations, missile warning, navigation, intelligence collection, targeting of our weapons and precision strikes.

Space is undoubtedly the next frontier of any future armed conflict, and both Russia and China are gearing up for space warfare. Recognizing Greenland and the Arctic’s geostrategic value, America’s top two opponents have conducted joint military drills in the Arctic. Russia and China plan to disrupt or destroy our satellites in wartime or in the run-up to a conflict in order to disable our ‘kill chain,’ preventing our weapons from reaching their targets. Both Moscow and Beijing are beefing up their commercial and military presence in the Arctic. Russia already has more military bases in the Arctic than the U.S. and NATO combined. Russia has 57, while NATO has 32 among Canada, Denmark, Norway and the U.S.

By acquiring Greenland, President Trump likely seeks to establish the Monroe Doctrine 2.0, to keep U.S. adversaries farther away from the U.S. sphere of strategic interests and to beef up our space superiority. Denmark is not investing in Greenland’s security, as admitted by Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen in early January. 

Trump likely wants to have autonomy over this strategic island so he doesn’t have to depend on Danish authorities for national security decisions in which space forces and the space base figure prominently due to their mission. Much of this mission is related to U.S. counter-space operations against our adversaries and is highly classified. Fast operational decision-making is critical during wartime, especially because some of our adversaries have preemptive doctrines when it comes to space warfare. It would give U.S. forces the strategic initiative and increase their ability to deter or win wars. 

During World War II, after Germany’s invasion of Denmark in 1940, the United States secured Greenland under the Monroe Doctrine by signing a ‘Defense of Greenland’ agreement with the Danish ambassador. 

It is hardly surprising that Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t pleased with Trump’s efforts to strong-arm Denmark into letting the U.S. own Greenland.

‘We are watching the rather dramatic development of the situation very closely, but so far, thank God, at the level of statements,’ said Putin’s press secretary, Dmitriy Peskov, in early January. Peskov declared that the Arctic was in Russia’s ‘sphere of national and strategic interests, and it is interested in peace and stability there.’

President Trump has excellent geostrategic and geopolitical instincts, which will likely have a positive impact on U.S. military strategy. Trump is the first president to recognize the strategic value of space as a war-fighting domain and to prioritize America’s superiority in space. To that end, Trump established the U.S. Space Force in 2019, 18 years after Putin established Russia’s. He was mocked for it by Jen Psaki, a former State Department spokesperson, and many other former Obama-era officials.

It is my assessment as a former intelligence officer specializing in space warfare that Trump’s goal to acquire Greenland is a smart move from a national security standpoint.