Divining Trump

Writing on this, the second full day of Donald J. Trump’s renewed presidency, one must be either brave or reckless to try predicting what he will do next or even to interpret accurately what he has already said and done. But that is my task.

First, it is obvious that whatever else President Trump is, he is a skilled showman, adept at manipulating the media and hence much of the public (and foreigners!)  It is a major stock-in-trade. That does not mean that what he says does not need to be heeded carefully, only that his true meaning may not be contained in what he says. Like the rest of his public career, beginning with his television show, “The Apprentice,” he relies on the mainstream media to help him dazzle and distract. But make no mistake: he is highly intelligent and can focus when he wants to do so.

Trump decided to start his presidency with a bang – “red meat” to his friends and no quarter to those whom he sees as enemies. He set out to move fast and to try channeling instant critiques in directions serving his larger purposes. Predictably, the mainstream media have complied.

Second, his statements and actions can already be roughly sorted into several categories. Most likely to start the chattering classes chattering is what he is doing about America’s internal affairs, especially on so-called “social issues.” He thus has attacked the LGBTQ+ community, by Executive Order forbidding its members employment in the US military and, likely, in other parts of the government. He has already mandated throughout the administration the closing of offices for promoting DEI – Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

At the next level, he is signaling that he will be basically a domestic president. Most of all, that means sealing America’s southern border, a step that is immensely popular. Whether Trump’s Executive Order will survive legal (and judicial) scrutiny is to be seen, as well as whether Congress will appropriate the funds to make possible what Trump wants to do, which is far from certain.

Further, on Day One, he signed an Executive Order removing the automatic right of anyone who is born in the United States to be a full citizen. This is designed to target children of illegal immigrants and is popular with Trump’s core supporters and indeed many others.  It is already being challenged in the courts, however, since it directly contravenes Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1868): “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside…”. It can thus be counted as politically symbolic, not substantive.

Trump has also emphasized what he calls the need to reinforce national security within the Northern Hemisphere. Notably, he declared an energy national emergency and rescinded all limits on research and production of fossil fuels, thus reinforcing (and boasting about) America’s being the world’s leading producer. As he put it boldly in his Inaugural Address: “Drill, Baby, Drill!” In addition, Trump ended federal mandates for electric vehicles and quit the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, thus mortgaging the future.

Even before Inauguration, he advanced three ideas on US sovereignty in the Northern Hemisphere, as part of his “America First.”  One is seizure of the Panama Canal, which was returned to Panama under President Jimmy Carter. In Trump’s mind, the reversal is designed to end what he says is the growing influence of China over the canal. Another is his desire to take control of Greenland from Denmark. That is for two basic reasons: to secure access to Greenland’s extensive mineral resources; and to promote “security” for the sea route leading to the Northwest Passage, which is becoming a major shipping route. For good measure, he also floated the idea of annexing Canada, which has achieved nothing but universal Canadian contempt.

Trump is thus demonstrating a basic attitude with major ramifications: viewing relationships as bargaining leverage. In that vein, he is proposing a 25% tariff on goods coming from Mexico and Canada (in violation of formal agreements). He says he is considering a 15% tariff on Chinese goods. And at the Davos Economic Forum (by video) he dropped his tariff bombshell: that companies that manufacture and create jobs in America will be well treated, including low corporate taxes.  But others will face both tariffs and higher taxes.

Of course, he should know that, despite his assertions, tariffs have negative as well as positive impacts on the US domestic economy for both producers and consumers. He will also need to contend with members of Congress who understand that tariffs are inflationary and thus can undercut Trump’s pledge to reduce the cost of living. Republicans control both House of Congress (the House by 3 votes), but at least some members won’t just be supine when Trump goes against their political interests – as on tariffs and sizeable federal spending on the President’s pet projects like sealing the border,  

Notably, except for economic dimensions, Trump is placing a lower priority on foreign policy than did his predecessors. Symptomatically, several of his nominees for top positions lack needed knowledge, skills, and experience. Trump has also mandated replacing many competent Foreign Service Officers with less skilled political loyalists; and he is cleaning house (by his lights) elsewhere in the government.

Critically important, President Trump has made clear that, short of a direct attack on the US homeland, he opposes wars that could lead to US engagement, especially American “boots on the ground.” (If need be, Panama could be an exception.)

He first wants to end the war in Ukraine as soon as possible and, to that end, wants to meet soon with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. So far, however, Trump has provided no details, such as the role of the Ukrainian government; what would happen with Ukrainian territories that Russia now occupies; and solid guarantees for Ukraine’s future security.

Trump has reiterated his earlier demands that the NATO allies spend more on defense and undertake a greater role in European and North Atlantic security. Thus, he wants to move the goal posts from each ally’s spending on defense at least 2% of GDP to 5%. (He must know that allies will not agree and that, after cajoling, he will have to settle for less!)

If he becomes too frustrated, would Trump withdraw the US from NATO? The answer is “No”: even beyond basic geopolitics, Trump must know that the flourishing of the American economy depends, among other things, on a solid security relationship with Europe. Further, two years ago, the US Congress legislated that quitting NATO would require a two-thirds Senate vote; and one of the two key sponsors of that law, Marco Rubio, has just become Secretary of State.

In what he has said about allies, Mr. Trump seems not to realize – or care – that he has not only ruffled feathers in Europe and Canada but also raised unprecedented doubts about his reliability and thus of the United States. Perhaps he believes America’s power will suffice. Experience teaches otherwise; and at least leading allies are not just cyphers.

The other critical area is the Middle East. Trump (and others) have been lucky -- if that is the right word – that the wars in Gaza and Lebanon have stopped – at least for now. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad is gone, and Iran has been seriously weakened.

These changes reinforce what Trump has long signaled is his resistance to being drawn into another Middle East conflict, in this case with Iran. He does underscore continued US support for Israel’s security; but with the crippling of both Hamas and Hezbollah, he will not be under the same domestic pressures, as was President Biden, to be in effect co-belligerent with Israel.

Even so, with continued risks and uncertainties, Trump cannot stop playing a major US role in the Middle East – though, for the first time in decades, based on its national interests the US could begin to play a reduced role. Even resolute opposition to Iran’s possibly developing nuclear weapons need not lead to conflict, provided the United States (and Iran) would be prepared to return to something analogous to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which trammeled Iran’s nuclear program until Trump in 2018 quit the JCPOA and Biden refused just to rejoin it.

Finally, as Trump takes up his foreign policy agenda, China poses the biggest challenges. Right or wrong, “containment” has become a near consensus. Yet no president has yet reconciled contending US interests in China: military, political, diplomatic, human rights, business, and American consumers. Until Trump comes to grips, predictions about his China policies are not particularly useful.

In sum, the best hope is that Trump will understand and act upon the nation’s true needs, at home and abroad. The biggest risks in foreign policy are that his behavior will too often be unsettling, and that his domestic focus will detract from American leadership in the world.