Bob Beck's Foreign Policy Blog

An incoming U.S. presidential administration is traditionally afforded one hundred days to plot the trajectory of its policies. With Trump 2.0, that conventional timeline has been shattered. In his first three weeks in office, the new president has careened from crisis to crisis like an energy drink-addled adolescent in a turbo-charged bumper car, stopping only long enough to harangue some cowering foreign or domestic target. In the realm of foreign policy, the administration has, at least rhetorically, moved past upsetting the apple cart, choosing instead the outright destruction of said cart. 

It is important, however, not to confuse action with progress. While there has been a dizzying amount of hyperbolic rhetoric and seemingly forceful executive actions, whether all of this “doing” equates to “doing good” remains a subject for debate. What, then, are the consequences of Trump’s early foreign policy initiatives? 

The fascinating aspect, from a foreign policy theory standpoint, of Trump 2.0’s initial moves on the international chessboard is the contradiction between isolationism – the President’s long-espoused preference – and imperialistic intervention.  Regarding the former, Trump’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization is petty, short-sighted, and a threat to global health. His decision (or Elon Musk’s decision) to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and freeze almost all U.S. foreign assistance is even more troubling. Having spent thirty years in the U.S. government, this observer would be the first to acknowledge that there is waste in most corners of the bureaucracy, including USAID.  However, that organization’s budget is small potatoes (roughly 1.2% of the overall federal budget) compared to the Defense Department (roughly 13% of the overall federal budget). Given this disparity, USAID is not a logical place to make significant savings in federal spending.

More importantly, most of the aid programs that USAID manages are a consistent source of America’s global soft power, which Joseph Nye, emeritus professor of political science at Harvard, defines as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.”  Over the past sixty years USAID has spread American aid to people in need around the world, along the way improving health care, agricultural production, rural development, and education while burnishing Washington’s global image. Trump’s (or Musk’s) frontal assault on the organization is akin to a gardener, faced with a few weeds in an otherwise healthy, flowering bush, choosing to dig up the bush at the roots instead of pruning the shrub. Consequently, the administration’s (or Musk’s) plans for USAID risk sacrificing a critical element of American soft power on the altar of an Orwellian Department of Government Efficiency. 

Turning to the imperialist side of the president’s foreign policy ledger, his recently-unveiled solution to the question of Palestine is absolutely stunning, venal in the extreme. Thirty years ago the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies went to war in the former Yugoslavia to prevent ethnic cleansing. Now the Trump administration is essentially proposing forced expulsion as a blueprint for the Gaza strip, promising that the Palestinians would be “resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region.”  Really?

Notwithstanding the fact that Trump didn’t ask for input from the affected parties, the Palestinians or the purported Arab destination countries for nearly two million refugees, any serious consideration of this strategy opens the floodgates for would-be tyrants the world over to play the forced resettlement card with their respective ethnic minorities. In the Middle East the policy would irrevocably alienate the 450 million Muslim citizens, satisfying, at most, only the seven million Jewish inhabitants of Israel. Increased anti-American terrorism would almost certainly be a consequence. 

Closer to home, Trump 2.0 has resurrected America’s 19th century slogan of “Manifest Destiny” to push claims on Greenland, Canada, and the Panama canal.  While these policies may serve as a rallying cry for the populist faithful, fallaciously equating expansion with prosperity, this imperialist agenda again sets an extremely dangerous precedent that can and will be exploited by other powers. Vladimir Putin in Moscow and President Xi in Beijing will feel emboldened to expand their influence and control, to the detriment of America’s erstwhile allies in Central Europe and Taiwan. In short, look for the world to become more menacing, violent, and unstable. 

In a prescient 2020 article for Foreign Affairs magazine, political scientist Michael Beckley warned of America becoming a “rogue superpower,” self-indulgently pursuing its national interests with little regard for the health and well-being of the world beyond its borders. If President Trump’s first three weeks in office are an accurate harbinger of what is to come, Beckley’s prediction may become reality. 

With that in mind, brace yourself for the coming seismic shifts in geopolitics that are certain to remake the world we knew, for better or for worse.

Note: This piece was submitted for consideration to the Monadnock Ledger-Transcript and the Brattleboro Reformer on 9 February.