A Deep Dive On Trump’s Foreign Policy
Strategy Central, For and By Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth, September 21, 2024
Introduction
Donald Trump's foreign policy has often been characterized by its lack of definition and unpredictability, yet key themes have emerged that indicate a distinct vision, sometimes referred to as "America First." This approach seeks to prioritize U.S. interests, often at the expense of traditional multilateralism. Trump has consistently advocated for reducing the U.S. role in international agreements and institutions, pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. His trade policies reflect a protectionist stance, applying tariffs, especially in his dealings with China, in an effort to rebalance what he perceives as unfair international trade practices.
However, Trump's foreign policy is not isolationist in the traditional sense. He has emphasized peace through strength, increasing defense spending, creating the U.S. Space Force, and maintaining robust military alliances when they align with U.S. interests. Trump's rhetoric on NATO, for instance, often sounded hostile, but his administration strengthened NATO by pressuring European allies to increase their defense spending. His stance on the Middle East, including brokering the Abraham Accords and maintaining a hard line on Iran, reflects a focus on supporting traditional U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Critics argue that Trump's foreign policy lacks a coherent strategy, pointing to his erratic statements and reliance on tariffs and threats rather than diplomacy. While he prioritized disengaging from international entanglements that he believed undermined U.S. sovereignty, such as the Iran deal or global climate agreements, his policies still kept the U.S. deeply involved in regions like the Middle East and in strategic competition with China and Russia. This mix of retrenchment and military strength reveals a foreign policy vision that seeks to redefine America's global leadership on its own terms. It simply requires faith in a strongman image and an unsteady hand at the wheel of state.
Trump’s Foreign Policy Advisors
Donald Trump's foreign policy is significantly influenced by a small group of national security advisors and thinkers, each of whom brings distinct worldviews that shape Trump's approach to global affairs. Key figures such as Elbridge Colby emphasize a pivot away from Europe and toward China, advocating for prioritizing competition in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly concerning Taiwan. Other advisors like Fred Fleitz push for hardline stances on issues like the Russia-Ukraine war, with plans to broker ceasefires while threatening both sides with military or economic repercussions. Figures like Ric Grenell and Robert Lighthizer embody Trump's transactional and confrontational approach to diplomacy and trade, often advocating for aggressive tactics against traditional allies and rivals alike.
What ties these advisors together is their alignment with Trump's "America First" philosophy, which prioritizes U.S. interests through a combination of isolationist tendencies, economic nationalism, and skepticism toward international alliances. While Trump's advisors present varying views on global priorities—such as focusing on China over Europe or emphasizing economic decoupling—there is an underlying commonality in their belief that U.S. foreign policy should be less bound by multilateral agreements and more directed by immediate national benefits. These influences suggest that a second Trump term would continue the transactional, unpredictable style of foreign policy that characterized his first, with an intensified focus on limiting U.S. involvement in global commitments while exerting pressure on rivals like China and Russia.
How Trump Foreign Policy Differs From Biden
Donald Trump's foreign policy differs significantly from Joe Biden's in terms of both approach and execution. Trump favors an "America First" doctrine, emphasizing disengagement from international alliances and agreements he deems unfavorable to U.S. interests. He criticized long-standing partnerships, including NATO, and withdrew the U.S. from key international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, focusing instead on transactional diplomacy and power politics. His policy toward China is confrontational, involving tariffs and economic restrictions aimed at curbing Chinese influence on U.S. trade. Trump’s foreign policy is heavily influenced by his belief in nationalism, often seeking to renegotiate or dismantle international commitments to prioritize U.S. sovereignty and economic strength.
In contrast, Biden’s foreign policy seeks to rebuild and strengthen international alliances, such as NATO, and restore the U.S.'s role in multilateral agreements, including rejoining the Paris Climate Accord. Biden focuses on coalition-building, diplomacy, and a return to traditional U.S. leadership on the global stage. His administration has taken a more cooperative stance on issues like climate change and international security, while continuing to manage strategic competition with China through diplomacy rather than economic confrontation alone. Both leaders, however, share some common ground, particularly in recognizing China as a major geopolitical competitor and emphasizing the need for a strong national defense, though their methods differ greatly.
Trump vs Biden On China
While Vice President Harris is now the Democratic nominee for President, comparing Trump and Biden’s record will be a likely predictor of the Trump-Harris difference on foreign policy. Donald Trump's and Joe Biden's foreign policies toward China would impact the U.S.-China relationship in different ways, with both focusing on competition but using contrasting methods. Trump’s approach to China is largely unilateral and confrontational. During his presidency, he imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, took a hard stance on trade deficits, and restricted Chinese tech companies like Huawei and TikTok. This method of direct confrontation led to strained relations, but also signaled a clear intent to curb China’s influence in the U.S. market. Trump’s policies tend to generate short-term impacts, marked by direct actions and less focus on long-term diplomatic channels.
Biden, on the other hand, emphasizes multilateralism, working with allies through frameworks like the Quad and AUKUS to counter China’s influence. His administration has maintained a strategic focus on competition but pursued a more structured and long-term approach, aiming to "de-risk" supply chains and bolster U.S. technology dominance. Biden’s strategy involves re-establishing diplomatic communication to manage competition and avoid conflict, while simultaneously strengthening alliances to contain China’s rise. Although more predictable and sustainable, Biden's approach could take longer to achieve substantial shifts in U.S.-China relations compared to Trump’s immediate and often forceful actions. Ultimately, Biden’s, and likely Harris’s, method might provide more stability and long-term success, while Trump’s could yield faster, though potentially more volatile, results.
Trump on Foreign Trade Policy – Trade War is Good
Donald Trump’s signature foreign policy approach is to use tariffs as a weapon to protect what he deems are U.S. interests. Trade policy during his presidency was marked by an aggressive use of tariffs, which he argued would boost American manufacturing and reduce the U.S. trade deficit. His administration-imposed tariffs on a wide range of imports from major trading partners like China, the European Union, and Canada. These tariffs targeted products such as steel, aluminum, and various consumer goods. Trump’s reasoning was that tariffs would help U.S. companies compete by raising the cost of foreign imports, thus encouraging more domestic production. However, economists argue that these tariffs also led to higher prices for American consumers and businesses, particularly in industries reliant on imported materials.
As he runs for president again in 2024, Trump has proposed escalating his trade war by introducing even more tariffs. His plans include a 10 percent tariff on most imports and a substantial 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods. Trump believes that increasing tariffs will further reduce the trade deficit and protect American jobs, particularly in manufacturing. He has also suggested shifting federal revenue reliance onto tariffs by cutting income taxes. Trump has also suggested applying a tariff on every imported good, no matter what country it comes from. While Trump’s supporters view tariffs as a tool for economic and political leverage, critics, including many economists, warn that such broad tariff measures could push the U.S. into a recession by driving up prices and disrupting global trade.
During his first term, Trump’s tariffs did lead to some positive outcomes for specific industries, such as steel and semiconductor production, which saw increases in U.S. output. However, the broader impact was mixed, as retaliatory tariffs from other countries hit American exports, particularly in agriculture. This resulted in a need for government subsidies to offset losses for farmers, and the overall effect on jobs was marginal. Studies indicate that while some manufacturing jobs were saved or created, the tariffs ultimately imposed significant costs on consumers and other sectors that rely on imports.
Economists are particularly concerned that Trump’s expanded tariff plans could worsen inflation, which remains elevated since 2021. With studies estimating that households could face additional costs of up to $2,350 annually from a universal 10 percent tariff, the burden would fall disproportionately on lower-income families. Despite these concerns, Trump remains steadfast in his belief that tariffs are an essential tool for rebalancing U.S. trade and protecting American industries.
Trump’s foreign trade policy would also be marked by a more confrontational stance toward geopolitical conflicts. His administration would likely use trade policy as a tool to address conflicts with nations like Russia and Iran, employing aggressive negotiations, sanctions, and unilateral actions to advance U.S. economic interests. In line with his "America First" agenda, Trump would expand efforts to support domestic industries, including agriculture and manufacturing, through tax cuts, subsidies, and protectionist measures. Central to his strategy would be holding trade partners accountable for perceived violations and unfair practices, ensuring compliance with trade agreements through tariffs and other enforcement mechanisms.
Trump Economic Policy
Donald Trump’s economic plan for his potential second term centers on aggressive measures aimed at tackling inflation, reducing the national debt, and boosting domestic energy production. He has promised to cut taxes, eliminate inflation, and increase U.S. energy output through policies such as "drill, baby, drill," which he claims will drive down energy and electricity prices by half within 12 to 18 months. Trump also vows to eliminate taxes on tips and Social Security while proposing to pay off the national debt, despite adding at least $5 trillion to it during his presidency.
A major focus of Trump’s economic agenda is lowering the cost of living and addressing inflation, which he blames on the current administration. He plans to cut government regulations and initiate broad tax cuts, including lowering corporate taxes even further. Trump also supports the mass deportation of immigrants, which he argues will help stabilize the labor market, though some economists warn this could exacerbate inflationary pressures by reducing the available workforce.
Trump's plan to tackle the national debt and inflation relies heavily on increasing domestic energy production and scaling back government regulations. However, his economic agenda has drawn criticism for lacking detailed plans on how he will achieve these ambitious goals. While his supporters believe that Trump's policies will create jobs and boost U.S. manufacturing, critics argue that the tax cuts and reliance on tariffs could worsen the national debt and increase costs for American consumers.
Trump on Defense and NATO
Trump's defense strategy involved questioning the US's role in NATO. He criticized member nations for not meeting defense spending targets and suggested reducing US involvement if European allies didn't increase their contributions, signaling a shift in US commitment to NATO's collective defense.
During his presidency, Trump authorized a significant increase in the U.S. defense budget, highlighted by the creation of the Space Force, a new branch of the military aimed at addressing growing competition in space. He emphasized the need for an updated missile defense strategy and advocated for the construction of a U.S. missile defense shield modeled on Israel’s Iron Dome. Additionally, Trump sought to reduce the U.S. military presence overseas, negotiating a deal with the Taliban to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
Trump's 2024 defense platform shows little difference from 2020. He intends to focus on increasing troop pay, strengthening the defense industrial base, and modernizing the nuclear deterrent. Trump's platform emphasizes expanding a national missile defense "dome" and removing "woke" Democrats from the national security ranks. Tensions in civil-military relations have been notable. Trump clashed with his second Joint Chiefs Chairman, Mark Milley, over events like January 6, 2021, and the Lafayette Square incident. While Trump criticized military leadership (calling for Milley's execution), he didn't fire many generals or admirals, and his comments didn’t seriously harm recruitment or retention—COVID-19 was a bigger issue. His stated desire to replace not just political appointees, but all of the senior DoD GS employees could be a serious blow to the apolitical and Constitutionally bound professionals currently in place. A professional, non-political military remains vital, and it would be a blow to democracy if that were compromised under future leadership.
Immigration and Border Security
Immigration was a hallmark of Trump’s presidency, and he continues to campaign on promises to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. His plans include mass deportations modeled after past U.S. operations and invoking the Alien Enemies Act to bypass legal processes in deporting cartel and gang members. Trump also plans to resume construction of a border wall, a project initiated during his first term and reinstate policies like the “Remain in Mexico” program and Title 42, which allows for the expulsion of migrants on public health grounds.
Trump has also committed to ending birthright citizenship and limiting asylum applications, focusing instead on a merit-based immigration system that prioritizes U.S. labor. He has vowed to expand his travel bans to include more countries, particularly those associated with terrorism, and roll back temporary protected status for several nations.
Russia–Ukraine
Trump’s stance on the ongoing war in Ukraine emphasizes a swift resolution, though he has been vague on the details. He has often praised Vladimir Putin, calling him “savvy” and “genius,” while also condemning the invasion of Ukraine as a “mistake.” Trump has challenged the current bipartisan support for Ukraine, stating that he would reconsider U.S. military aid and calling for European nations to bear a greater financial burden in the conflict.
As president, Trump took a mixed approach to Russia, maintaining sanctions on Moscow while also seeking closer diplomatic ties. He withdrew the U.S. from several key arms control treaties with Russia, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing violations by Russia. His administration was marked by controversies over alleged Russian interference in U.S. elections, leading to his first impeachment inquiry over withheld military aid to Ukraine.
Trump on Climate Change
Trump has consistently expressed skepticism about climate change, withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement during his presidency and pledging to do so again if reelected. He has vowed to dismantle key elements of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provides incentives for clean energy production, instead favoring policies that bolster the fossil fuel industry. Under Trump’s leadership, environmental regulations were slashed to facilitate energy production, particularly through oil and gas drilling.
Trump’s energy strategy is centered on achieving total energy independence for the U.S., focusing on increasing domestic fossil fuel production, expediting drilling permits, and supporting nuclear energy development. He also advocates for the construction of additional oil pipelines and vows to eliminate Biden-era restrictions on natural gas exports, positioning the U.S. as a leader in global energy markets.
Conclusion
Donald Trump's foreign policy, centered around his "America First" doctrine, brought both innovation and disruption to America's global role. On the positive side, his administration emphasized strategic competition with China, revitalized NATO by pushing allies to increase defense spending, and brokered important agreements such as the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. However, Trump's unpredictability, reliance on tariffs, and withdrawal from key international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal created uncertainty and alienated traditional allies. In the long run, while his policies may have rebalanced certain aspects of trade and security, they also risked diminishing America's leadership in multilateral institutions and strained its diplomatic relationships. The lasting impact of Trump's foreign policy will likely be a more self-reliant but diplomatically isolated America, grappling with how to maintain global influence in an increasingly multipolar world. Ultimately, alienating allies and partners and creating global hostility through trade wars is likely to radically reduce the prestige and influence of the United States and allow a competitor to fill the void of a shrinking America.
Trump’s approach seems overly aggressive, short-term in results, and openly hostile towards friends as well as enemies. A strong hand against rivals is welcome given the underwhelming deterrent effects the U.S. has demonstrated since the end of the Cold War. In some ways, being erratic improves deterrence as unpredictability can cause rivals to hesitate. The downside undoubtedly outweighs the benefit as few business or national leaders gravitates towards disorder. Order is boring, but most effective.
A strong, balanced approach is crucial in foreign policy. It's important to push when necessary, as Trump did with NATO, but not to the point of abandonment. We need to keep our allies close, especially with the rise of partnerships between China, Russia, and Iran. Overly aggressive actions against China and in the Middle East could be detrimental. A patient and mature non-zero-sum approach is the key to successful foreign relations. We must maintain our strong, reliable, and civilized reputation on the world stage.
End Notes
1. Agrawal, Ravi. "Who Is Influencing Trump's Foreign-Policy Views?" Foreign Policy. August 26, 2024. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/26/trumps-foreign-policy-influencers/.
2. Chen, Dingding, and Xinrong Zhu. "Biden vs Trump: Who Would Have a Bigger Impact on China-US Relations?" The Diplomat. December 12, 2023. https://thediplomat.com/2023/12/biden-vs-trump-who-would-have-a-bigger-impact-on-china-us-relations/.
3. Munson, Lester. "How Trump’s Foreign Policy Would Differ from Biden's." Asia Times. February 28, 2024. https://asiatimes.com/2024/02/how-trumps-foreign-policy-would-differ-from-bidens/.
4. FP Staff. "Does Trump Have a Foreign-Policy Vision?" Foreign Policy. April 23, 2024. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/23/does-trump-have-a-foreign-policy-vision/.
If y
Kommentare