I was startled by Janan Ganesh’s speculation at Financial Times on what Donald Trump’s foreign policy would be like should he be elected for a second time. There’s one thing I think he gets absolutely correctly:
Elsewhere, expect more continuities than ruptures. This is because, on protectionism, on Iran, on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Joe Biden hardly deviated from Trump in the first place. Even his detachment from Saudi Arabia on ethical grounds has given way to the more transactional approach of his predecessor.
There are actually two points combined in that brief passage. First, that what is notable about U. S. foreign policy is the continuity from administration to administration rather than the differences but, second, that President Trump tended to use a highly transactional approach.
Beyond that I have few insights into the workings of Trump’s mind and no real sense of what his second term foreign policy might be. Will he, as Mr. Ganesh avers, “jilt” Ukraine? Reduce the scope of sanctions against Russia? Moderate our opposition to China? I have no idea.
Something unmentioned by Mr. Ganesh is that I think it’s almost a certainty that if he were re-elected President Trump would dispatch the National Guard to our southern border as some of the Republican presidential aspirants have been saying. The situation there is pretty dire, it’s well within his authority, and there is no prospect for an additional term to stay his hand. I also think the “stay in Mexico” policy for asylum-seekers would be revived.
As with most everything else, I don’t think Trump has any principles on this or discrete policy views. He will want whatever he thinks is best for him personally. That will manifest – as it did last time – in terms of him wanting to please supporters and bolster his self-image, which is well understood at this point.
So, I would expect him to continue to oppose entering into new conflicts like attacking Iran. We will continue to not care about what other countries do internally. He will demand a quid pro quo for Ukraine’s support and allies generally, and since there is no obvious quid pro quo to be had, I’d expect him to greatly reduce support for Ukraine if not eliminate it. He will talk a big game with China, but I doubt he will do anything drastic that might upset the economy. Anything else, he probably won’t give a flying eff about.
What would the National Guard do? If you want to have people stay in Mexico you need to change the rules and SCOTUS already said you cant do that. You need a change in the law.
Steve
I was reminded recently of Trump’s stated interest in purchasing Greenland; I can see him revisiting that. That idea apparently originated with Tom Cotton, almost certainly due to the national security concerns over Russia in the Arctic, but the presence of rare earth and other minerals would make it economically attractive and for Trump it certainly appealed to the idea of making a big real estate deal. I think the issue with Trump will always be highly influenced by the people around him and a large concern is who would want to serve in his second term?
@steve, I don’t know where you’re getting that idea from any SCOTUS opinion. The Supreme Court ruled in Bidan v. Texas (2022) that Biden was not required to continue Trump’s Remain in Mexico because the statute gives the President discretion whether or not to return an alien. The law clearly states that the President “may” return an alien to a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, it doesn’t say “must.”
Biden doesn’t do anything about immigration enforcement because he doesn’t want to, not because he can’t.
https://apnews.com/article/asylum-limits-biden-border-c118ee7190c58f85bcf5db1e2a270429#
This, the requirement that those seeking asylum must fill out a request, and other stuff, and/or stop in anther country before coming to US. I think it is being appealed but dont know results. If Biden doesnt care why would they do this?
Steve
Steve
That’s refers to a decision of Judge Tigar of the Northern District of California, whose ruling was stayed by the Ninth Circuit. I suspect we know where this is going by the last paragraph in that article:
“Tigar also ruled against the Trump administration’s efforts to limit asylum to people who don’t apply for protection in a country they travel through before coming to the U.S. The Supreme Court eventually allowed that.”
It is correct that foreign policy through changes in administration often brings more continuity then abrupt changes, but on Ukraine in 2024, may qualify for an exception.
Because today the UK papers, including the Guardian and the Telegraph are reporting the UK defense minister is proposing to send UK troops to be “trainers” and “advisors” in Ukraine. Given the backdrop of increasing calls in this country recommending US “advisors” to go to Ukraine (e.g. Michael Kofman as remarked here a couple of weeks ago, Foreign Affairs last week), it looks remarkably like the drumbeat on F16 this spring (and the NATO escalated what was previously a red line).
If troops and advisors go on the same schedule as F16’s, I wouldn’t be surprised if the defining issue next fall is to continue to escalate Ukraine to a “big war” or extricate NATO from the conflict.