I have made no secret of my skepticism or, in some cases, outright disapproval of some of President Trump’s foreign policy moves. Consequently, the following should not be construed as approval of what we might call the “Trump Doctrine” on my part. In his latest WSJ column Walter Russell Mead reflects on Mr. Trump’s policies and observes that they’re actually working pretty well:
Wars in the Middle East, war in Ukraine, terror attacks from Washington to Sydney—2025 has been a rough year. With the Trump administration breaking every rule in the diplomatic playbook and generally upending long-established pillars of American foreign policy, it’s been both a confusing and an exhausting 12 months.
The question as we approach the end of the first year of Donald Trump’s second term is whether the president’s revolutionary foreign policy is making the U.S. and the world better off.
There are certainly grounds for concern. Administration policy toward China tacks between what many observers think is colossal recklessness (imposing tariffs of 145% on a powerful economy that can retaliate harshly) to what others see as stupefying obsequiousness (clearing advanced computer chips for export and allowing TikTok to stay open on favorable terms). The Trump approach to Vladimir Putin so far has vexed American allies without ending the war.
The frenetic nature of Trump tariff policy angers foreign governments and throws sand in the gears of commerce. From Congo to Cambodia, the rush to collect peace agreements, however superficial or short-lived, risks making American diplomacy look ridiculous while conflicts smolder unresolved. A miasma of corruption and suspicion hangs over the whole process as both adversaries and allies conclude that American support can be bought or at least rented.
These are only some of the substantive criticisms that seasoned observers level against Mr. Trump’s emergent foreign policy. But even if one takes all the critiques at face value, that doesn’t resolve the question of whether the global geopolitical situation is, from an American standpoint, in better or worse shape than it was a year ago.
Here, the news is surprisingly positive. First, the rout of Iran and the dismantling of some of its key regional allies reinforced the American position in the Middle East and undercut Chinese and Russian power and prestige. That China and Russia were neither willing nor able to protect their Iranian friends has had (and will continue to have) helpful effects worldwide.
In addition, despite the strains that Trump-era diplomacy has placed on both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific ties, U.S. allies in Europe and Asia show signs of reviving strategic awareness and activism. Jolting our allies out of their deep slumber so they can again be useful partners is fundamental to America’s fortunes in the next stage of global politics.
He continues by pointing out that European countries will putatively assume primary responsibility for “Ukrainian survival”, that the Japanese are more hawkish than they’ve been in some time, and that the Trump Administration’s actions have illustrated China and Russia’s limited abilities to counter us in the Western Hemisphere.
I think there’s a lot of “rosy scenario”-ism in his remarks. Will our NATO allies actually take primary responsibility for Ukrainian survival? Will the Japanese accept real military risk? Is Iran’s “rout” durable or a temporary setback? Will events turn out as well as Dr. Mead seems to think? We’ll see.
I wanted to point out the risks and difficulties of the “Trump Doctrine”. For the last 35 years at least U. S. foreign policy has been predicated on continuing U. S. hegemony. To that end we have allowed or even encouraged our allies to be weak—militarily dependent, politically complacent, and strategically reactive. Unfortunately, over that period we have not undertaken the political, economic, or diplomatic actions necessary to ensure that remains a reality. We have not maintained the unchallenged economic primacy needed to maintain military primacy. I haven’t agreed with it but that it has been the prevailing doctrine is unquestionable.
My concern is not that the Trump administration is dismantling the old doctrine of American hegemony, but that neither it nor its critics have articulated what doctrine replaces it.
When the Trump presidency ends there will still be plenty of pundits who continue to assume that hegemony without the ability or even the inclination to take the actions that would be necessary to maintain it—practically the entire foreign policy and military establishments. Will they continue down the path on which President Trump is breaking trail or will they attempt to resume the status quo ante? I think the latter. Can we actually return to international norms and agreements after ignoring them? That is precisely the mercurial quality of our foreign policy that makes even our putative allies skeptical about us.
What I’m still missing is a coherent picture, either from President Trump or the remaining Cold Warriors of America’s place in the world. I honestly have no idea what anybody thinks is going to happen or even what they want to have happen.
