FW: Discussion of Non-Intervention Resolution

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 9:37:42 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Discussion of Non-Intervention Resolution

Good afternoon,

Mr. Martin and others - we have three resolutions up for debate at our meeting in a few hours.  As to not tie up as much time, I'd like to discuss a bit beforehand. 

I could support the non-intervention resolution, but there are a couple of changes I wish to suggest. As to not blind-side anyone at the meeting, and so you all may digest this ahead of time, I've annotated Mr. Martin's motion with a few proposals. 

--------

WHEREAS, the Founding Fathers of the United States repeatedly warned against foreign entanglements that could draw the young republic into unnecessary wars, with George Washington in his Farewell Address cautioning against “permanent alliances” and habitual involvement in the “ordinary vicissitudes” of European politics, and Thomas Jefferson advocating “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none”; and

I have no issues with this clause.

 

WHEREAS, these principles reflect a profound understanding that intervention abroad risks American lives, treasure, and liberty, often empowering the executive branch at the expense of congressional authority and leading to perpetual war rather than genuine national defense; and

I have no issues with this clause.

  

WHEREAS, the United States today maintains hundreds of military bases overseas, deploys troops in active conflict zones, and provides massive military aid and weaponry to foreign governments engaged in protracted wars, including ongoing support for parties in the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran escalations in the Middle East; and

I have no issues with this clause, minus a preference to not mention  specific conflicts this way. But that, to me, doesn't rise to the point of moving to amend.

 

WHEREAS, these current interventions and deployments—often conducted without formal congressional declarations of war—have escalated tensions, contributed to regional instability, risked direct confrontation with nuclear powers, drained trillions from American taxpayers, and diverted resources from domestic needs while infringing on civil liberties through expanded surveillance and emergency powers; and

Saying “these interventions and deployments” have cost trillions possibly overstates the actual cost. While trillions have certainly been spent on foreign intervention over the years, the language here makes it seem that the current deployments in the middle east and aid to Ukraine have, themselves, cost taxpayers trillions. While those engagements have been costly, most sources have their cost under a trillion. Further, I do not agree that tax money is necessarily better spent on domestic needs – depending on what’s being done. Certainly doing a road repair isn’t as offensive to liberty as bombing a wedding, but on the other hand, I think many would consider funding ICE agents in Minnesota is more offensive to liberty than warning Ukraine about drone attacks against civilians.

Further, is it accurate to say that current conflicts have increased domestic surveillance beyond the already immense police state?

There were cases of deportation being threatened against protesters in the Israel / Gaza conflict, but I don’t think a good case is made here linking the two.

Propose: WHEREAS, foreign interventions – often conducted without a formal congressional declaration of war – have escalated tensions, contributed to instability, come at a tremendous cost to taxpayers, and have led to an erosion of civil liberties; and

 

 

WHEREAS, such policies contradict the Libertarian Party’s commitment to a non-interventionist foreign policy that prioritizes defense of American soil, free trade, and diplomatic engagement without military overreach; and

I have no issues with this clause.

 

 WHEREAS, no foreign conflict, no matter how portrayed, justifies sacrificing American sovereignty or the principles of limited government enshrined by the Founders;

Sovereignty is defined as “The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power residing within a state.” What I think we’re trying to say here is “No foreign conflict can justify infringing on the liberties of any individual,” and I agree with that. However, as written, I do not think we should resolve support for the sovereignty of any state.

Propose: WHEREAS, no foreign conflict can justify violations of human liberty or the expansion of unjust power;

 

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee reaffirms the non-interventionist foreign policy vision of the Founding Fathers and condemns ongoing U.S. military interventions, arms shipments, and troop deployments abroad; and

I have no issues with this clause.

 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee urges the President, Congress, and all federal officials to:

1. Immediately cease all military aid, arms sales, and intelligence sharing that prolong foreign conflicts;

I think this may be a little broad, especially with defensive intelligence sharing. Should the LP oppose defensive intelligence sharing? Suppose we know of an attack on civilians in London, does it violate a Libertarian principle to warn them?  I should think not. I would also argue that arms sales, in and of themselves, are not a violation. If a company wishes to sell technology to defend people in other lands, I would not want the state to prevent it.

Propose: Immediately cease the initiation of force and fraud, both domestically and abroad;

2. Withdraw U.S. forces from unauthorized overseas deployments and close unnecessary foreign military bases;

I have no issues with this clause.

3. Require explicit congressional declarations of war before any future military engagement, as mandated by the Constitution;

I have no issues with this clause.

4. Pursue diplomacy, free trade, and neutrality as the primary tools of American foreign relations; and

I have no issues with this clause.

 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee calls upon the American people to demand a return to the Founders’ wise restraint, rejecting empire-building in favor of a peaceful, prosperous, and truly defended republic.

I have no issues with this clause. 

-------

I believe we all agree on the concept of non-intervention. However, I do not want to overstate points or issue statements so broad as to conceivably run against certain principles. 

I don't think these proposed changes dilute the resolution and I would be more comfortable with it should these be integrated.

My apologies if discussing in this way violates the PM.

Thanks,

Keith Thompson

Region 3 South Rep

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 10:03:28 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Discussion of Non-Intervention Resolution

Thank you for sharing your thoughts — I will consider these suggested amendments carefully. 

Along those lines, a friend also suggested to me that it might be good to point out that Congress, the only branch of government with war making powers, has too often avoided debate and a clear declaration of war, instead allowing whichever President is in power to exercise sole foreign policy making authority including military action. In a literal example of this: a vote to consider for debate a motion on Venezuela to limit the US involvement failed to be heard. I'm just not sure if it's worth the potential length increase, and it seems to already address the issue, though less specifically. 

• Election Subversion / Misconduct 

If I may I'd like to ask what is your opinion on the Election Subversion issue? 

I want to distinguish this from ordinary "voter fraud", instead focusing on widespread failures to follow election rules. In my opinion, both major parties are bad about breaking / bending the rules, and there's been a total lack of accountability around this. The widespread issue here also involves failing safeguards and checks, such as in the judiciary. Judicial and qualified immunity were the cited basis for the dismissal of most of my election complaint(s) in 2022-2023. Not a lack of substance, but immunity. 

I tried to keep this issue non-partisan — since it gets badly politicized. The LP is the only partisan entity that can credibly address this election fraud issue without the partisan baggage attached. I also respectfully remind those on the right that it would be foolish to presume that the GOP doesn't play the same dirty games. Both parties do it, and it needs to stop. 

That's why the widespread election fraud resolution is the most important one to me. If there are questions I could answer that would help you arrive at a decision on this issue, don't hesitate to ask.  

The other election resolution is more strictly about access to election data. It is very important for our party to get that voter data from the states — but it doesn't really address the issue of widespread election fraud directly. It's more just aimed at supporting general transparency in election data, so it won't, on its own, cover this important issue. 

I think we need both. 

Austin Martin 

R1

Join the fight and support the removal of Socialism from the LP by donating at the link below:

Lp.org/martindonor 

Ua may ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 11:37:42 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 12:14:09 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Discussion of Non-Intervention Resolution

How did we get 8 people to amend out one of the most specific and actionable portions of this resolution? The reasoning wasn’t even consistent with the original text (“…that prolong foreign conflicts” doesn’t preclude letting the UK know they are under imminent threat of attack). Was anyone actually paying attention?

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 5:03:28 PM