Gabriel Schoenfeld

The horrors of the Manchester bombing follow the horrors of the shooting on the Champs-Élysées in Paris, which follow the truck attack in Stockholm, which follows the bombing of the St. Petersburg subway station, which follows the Westminster bridge car attack in London, which follow the Louvre knife attack in Paris, and on and on and on.

Since Donald Trump became president, the world has suffered a spate of terrorist incidents. But the United States thus far has been spared. Given that only four months have elapsed since Inauguration Day, the dearth of attacks here does not necessarily reflect any special achievements of American counter-terrorism policy. With both Orlando (49 dead) and San Bernardino (14 dead) in our rear-view mirror, we must be prepared to face the fact that the United States is likely to see more attacks in the months and years to come.

It is an axiom of domestic counter-terrorism that success hinges in no small part on maintaining good relations with the leaders of the Muslim community from which radicalized individuals have emerged. Yet as a candidate for the presidency, Trump did much to poison relations with that community, beginning by floating the idea of shutting down mosques and ending with his blatantly anti-constitutional proposal for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” As president, he had done little to drain the poison other than removing his proposed Muslim ban from his campaign’s website. In his address to the leaders of majority Muslim states assembled in Riyadh, Trump said not a word about the Muslim community back at home. Whatever damage he has done has yet to be erased.

That is a backdrop. In the foreground is the FBI, America’s premier counter-terrorism agency. Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt in a May 11 interview that under the leadership of James Comey, the bureau was “in turmoil.” “You know that,” he continued, “I know that. Everybody knows that.” In fact, nobody knows that because it is false. Comey was actually one of the most respected FBI directors in the bureau’s history. There may not be turmoil in the FBI, but there has certainly been disruption at its apex, owing entirely to Trump himself for abruptly firing Comey as part of his effort to shut down the FBI’s investigation of his own campaign.

On top of disruption, there has also been diversion. In a perfect world, the FBI would be focusing the lion’s share of its resources on countering terrorism. But we do not live in that kind of world. The FBI has been compelled to devote resources to other problems, including, most notably, investigating the president and his associates for possible collusion with Russia. Although only a small fraction of the total number of FBI agents are focused on that task, they necessarily include, given the gravity of the matter, some of the best people in the bureau. Will the diversion have any effect on the FBI's ability to hinder the next terrorist plot, if only at the margins? It is as important a question as it is unanswerable. We will never be in a position to know.

What we do know is that every successful terrorist attack represents an intelligence failure. If and when the next terrorist outrage comes, Trump has already announced his intention to pin blame on the federal judges who have blocked his backdoor Muslim ban. However, his own poor choices, including especially the hiring of individuals with illicit links to Russia like former national security adviser Michael Flynn and campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and which have now burned up so much oxygen in Washington, will have to be weighed in the balance.

There is also, of course, the problem of defending America’s overseas facilities from terrorism, including embassies and consulates. Whatever one makes of Hillary Clinton’s role in the Benghazi affair, there is no escaping the fact that the State Department fell short in providing adequate security to its personnel in Libya, resulting in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stephens and three other Americans. Now with Trump offering a State Department budget that cuts expenditures by a staggering 28 percent, diplomatic security, along with everything else, will be starved for resources. Sen. Lindsay Graham has warned that it will cause “a lot of Benghazis.”

Trump’s budget proposal will not pass. Indeed, it is said to be dead on arrival in Congress. But its cavalier treatment of security for American diplomats is of a piece with a larger picture. For even as Trump talks loudly about how “my highest duty is to keep America safe,” he is marching in the other direction. When the next attack comes, his failures in the realm of counterterrorism will be the central fact he will strive mightily to blame on others and explain away.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors and the author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law, was a senior adviser to the 2012 Romney for President campaign. Follow him on Twitter @gabeschoenfeld