By Benjamin Sachs
The last few weeks have arguably seen the most significant shift in American foreign policy in the post-war era. The Trump administration has essentially severed the transatlantic alliance and abandoned Ukraine, whilst also threatening allied and friendly nations with invasion and conquest. The question I want to answer is quite simple; what is the logic of Trump’s foreign policy.
Trump, the Isolationist
Many argue that Trump is an isolationist. Certainly, much of Trump’s politics has been centred around a reaction to ‘Globalism’ and ‘Liberal Internationalism.’ He won the 2016 presidential election, in part by appealing to the losers of globalism, such as Americans who lost employment in the declining manufacturing industry in the ‘Rust Belt’ of America. Similarly, he broke with his Republican competitors in the 2016 presidential primary by explicitly attacking the Iraq War, questioning why Americans were dying in far-off countries.
If Trump’s foreign policy is a reaction against liberal internationalism and a turn towards isolationism (such as America did following the First World War), this would explain some of his actions. He has challenged American support for Ukraine - arguing that America had limited interests in a country thousands of miles from the American heartland, preferring instead to broker a ‘peace deal,’ which is in truth shaping up to be almost a surrender.
However, this falls short. Why has Trump called for American expansion into Greenland and Canada? Why has he granted almost unlimited support to Netanyahu’s government? Trump doesn’t seem to be withdrawing America from the world. Instead, he wants to lead an Imperialist America that will reshape the world in its image.
Trump, the Grand Strategist
Others have argued that Trump’s actions have greater strategic logic than meets the eye. Historically, hegemonic states have often enabled their own downfall. They become bogged down in too many political and military commitments and fall victim to overextension, straining their resources. Trump’s efforts may be seen then as a pivot towards America’s most significant great power competitor, China.
China has long been recognised by American policymakers as their greatest adversary - especially since Obama's ‘pivot to Asia’. China’s economy has continued to grow. Its military is improving and is possibly gearing up for an invasion of Taiwan. China has become more emboldened; it’s dominant in the South China Sea and has even sent its navy within 150 miles of the coast of Sydney. So, maybe Trump is acting logically? The Europeans needed a wake-up call to stop mooching off the Americans, and a reminder that Russia is actually a European problem – enabling the Americans to focus on China.
Yet, this also fails. If Trump was attempting to ‘rationalise’ American foreign policy, it would be difficult to imagine why he would embolden the Israelis to take such an aggressive stance. Moreover, his comments on North America are not some grand ploy to secure American interests but have rather alienated states which were already friendly. There is no need for America to ‘buy’ Greenland when they already have a military presence in Greenland, nor did he need to commit economic seppuku with tariffs on Canada and Mexico. The Trumpian foreign policy is not defined by some process of rationalising American commitments.
Trump, the Madman?
So if the new American foreign policy doesn’t fit into any of these more traditional frameworks, then how should we make sense of it? Instead of trying to impose traditional frameworks on Trump – I think we should seek to understand the Trump administration through what they repeatedly tell us.
It's clear that the Trump administration does not see the main ordering principle of the international system as a competition between Western, democratic states and authoritarian adversaries. In fact, they don’t even think there is a ‘West.’ The American Vice-President spent his speech at the Munich Security Conference railing against Europe, as being anti-democratic and invaded by hordes of immigrants. He spent more time highlighting the ‘plight’ of British anti-abortion activists (barred from harassing women near abortion clinics) than he highlighted the plight of Ukrainians.
For the Trump administration, what defines global politics is a competition between the ‘woke’ and ‘degenerate’ forces and nationalistic/far-right ones. Europe is a continent of insipid, homosexual, globalists, being overwhelmed by ‘hordes’ of immigrants. Far-right parties such as the AfD are Trump’s true allies on the continent. Russia is seen as a bastion of traditionalism and Christianity. He applauds Israel as a bastion of strength and ‘ethnic purity’ - rather than for being a democratic ally.
They have also taken an obtusely realist position, in which relationships with countries are entirely transactional. For example, they have demanded huge portions of Ukraine’s natural wealth, in ‘repayment’ for American support. International trade cannot be mutually beneficial, instead, the Trump administration views it as a way to shake down other countries.
Moreover, the Trump administration is systematically dismantling the American state. The Federal government is being purged and filled with loyalists, the Judiciary is being ignored, and the state apparatus is being weaponised to go after opponents. Trump’s America more closely approximates to electoral autocracies of states like Victor Orban’s Hungary, or Erdogan’s Turkey. Even if a Democratic President is elected in 2028, the nature of the American nation has fundamentally changed.
Conclusion
The question I asked at the beginning was what the logic of Trump’s foreign policy is. The answer is that in the mind of the Trump administration, the world is a nasty, mean place - you’re either a winner or a schmuck. They don’t believe in ‘Western’ or ‘democratic’ values, in their mind, Canada is just as bad as North Korea because they put in place vaccine mandates. They live in a totally different world to you and me, they consume different information and hold downright medieval beliefs. In other words - they are madmen.
Comments