Consider This from NPR - Is there a Trump Doctrine for Foreign Policy?

Episode Date: February 7, 2025

A lot of labels have been applied to Trump's foreign policy approach. America First, Isolationist, transactional, imperialist, protectionist. "I'm a nationalist and a globalist" he told the Wall Street Journal during his first term. In his inaugural address last month, Trump made comments suggesting his foreign policy will be characterized by restraint, saying, in part, success should be defined by the "wars we never get into."Yet in the same address, he also said, the United States will take back the Panama Canal. In his first campaign, Trump ran on the idea that the cycle of the United States intervening in the Middle East should come to an end. And on Tuesday of this week, he said that the U.S. will "take over" the Gaza Strip, after relocating the Palestinians, who live there.Trump has promised a new approach to American foreign policy. Is there a Trump Doctrine? And what is it?For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.orgEmail us at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Here's a question that's sometimes hard to answer. What is President Trump's foreign policy? Is it one that is governed by restraint? Maybe if you go by his inaugural address. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end and perhaps most importantly the wars we never get into. Or maybe it will be defined by expansion. He has threatened to take over Greenland, make Canada the 51st state.

He has plans for Panama too. As he mentioned in, yes, that very same inaugural address. China is operating the Panama Canal and we didn't give it to China. We gave it to Panama and we're taking it back. Maybe the answer to what defines Trump's foreign policy is rooted in his criticism of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which helped him win the Republican nomination way back in 2016. This destructive cycle of intervention and chaos

must finally, folks, come to an end. Come to an end, come to an end. We've spent at last count six trillion dollars in the Middle East and our roads have potholes all over. Our highways are falling apart. Our bridges are falling. Our tunnels are no good. Our airports are horrible like third world countries. We got to start spending on ourselves.

And that might convince you that Trump wants to avoid nation building in the Middle East until you listen to his press conference on Tuesday at which he said the U.S. will, quote, take over the Gaza Strip after relocating the Palestinians who live there. I do see a long-term ownership position and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East and maybe the entire Middle East. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said the plan would not involve U.S. taxpayer dollars, and she said the president had not committed to U.S. boots on the ground, but when pressed, He did not rule out American troops in Gaza last night. Are you doing that now?

I am saying that the president has not committed to that just yet. It's a plan that underscores what is undeniable about Trump's foreign policy. It is a break with the status quo. Levitt put it this way. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. President Trump is an outside-of-the-box thinker and a visionary leader who solves problems that many others, especially in this city, claim are unsolvable. Consider this. Trump has promised a new approach to American foreign policy.

Is there a Trump doctrine? What is it? ["The New York Times"] From NPR, I'm Scott Detro. Valentine's Day is on the horizon and NPR's All Songs Considered has you covered with a mix of lesser known love songs for that special someone in your life.

You don't make your wife playlists? Well, not anymore. I sealed the deal. Robin. Robin, Robin, Robin. She's not... Mr. Robin. She is not... We're going to discuss this later. Hear new episodes of All Songs Considered

every Tuesday, wherever you get podcasts. It's Consider This from NPR. A lot of labels have been applied to Trump's foreign policy approach. America First, isolationists, transactional, imperialist, protectionists. I'm a nationalist and a globalist, he told the Wall Street Journal during his first term. To help sort this all through, I am joined by Emma Ashford. She's a senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center Foreign Affairs think tank welcome Thanks for having me. All right

So let's try to sort all of this out and let's start with this Trump has talked throughout his political career about the end of nation-building the Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said the US should not try to solve every problem in the world and That point of view would seem like a really big break from the hawkish neoconservative foreign policy that has defined the Republican Party for decades. But then at the same time, you've got Trump saying he wants to take over the Gaza Strip. How do you make sense of that disparity?

I mean, I think this was a problem we had all the way through the first Trump term. He would often say one thing, it would get walked back by his advisors within a couple of hours, it would turn out he meant something a little different. So, you know, it's important not to get too bogged down in any one specific issue.

I think when it comes to Trump's bigger foreign policy, people have often been very willing to sort of paint him as a come home America isolationist. He's gonna withdraw the US from the world. But that's not what we've seen in practice. What we've seen in practice is that Trump, as you say, doesn't want to do nation building. He doesn't want to reshape the world or transform it in America's image. But he's perfectly happy to use force or tariffs when he thinks it will get him

what he wants. So I think what's confusing everyone is that he's falling somewhere between these extremes that we often think about, which is like America is the indispensable nation running the world and America doing nothing. He's somewhere in the middle doing his own thing. Do you see like, how would you define in a couple of sentences what the Trump foreign policy approach is right now?

I mean, I think Trump himself gave us the best description of his policy years ago, and it was America first. Now, I'm not always sure that he ends up getting the best deal he can because he construes US interests very narrowly. But I think, I mean, if you look at what he was demanding from Canada, if you look at what he was demanding on Greenland, right, he wanted border enforcement from the Canadians and the Mexicans. They want basing access in Greenland.

They want the Danes to give the folks in Greenland more autonomy. His staff, his national security advisor says that his Gaza comments were designed to bring Arab states to the table with solutions. So I think a lot of what he tries to do is tries to push other states to give him what he wants, what he thinks are in a medicate interests. I don't think he always gets that right, but it's a very clear frame for his foreign policy. Soterios Johnson Is transactional deal making a key throughline then like this, this extreme premise setting that might lead to something different?

Kirsten K? I think so. Certainly, unlike previous administrations, he's much less focused on ideas and norms and values, right? It's really not about, you know, America as the leader of some liberal world order. It's about concrete interests like migration or trade. And that was very much the Biden foreign policy of democracy versus autocracy. That's how we frame just about everything. This is very different. Absolutely. I mean, and I think one of the most interesting speeches of the last couple of weeks has been

the, actually an interview that Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave to Megyn Kelly in which he talked about, you know, the U. the US operating in a multipolar world. It's not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was an anomaly. There was this time when America could do everything, could solve every problem, and that we have left that time period. I can't think of a stronger contrast with Biden than that statement. So now more than ever, we need to remember that foreign policy should always be about

furthering the national interest of the United States and doing so to the extent possible, avoiding war and armed conflict. Emma, one of the reasons we wanted to talk to you is because you are somebody who does favor a more restrained US foreign policy. And as we talked about, this is something that Trump talked a lot about and campaigned on the first time around. But then when you look at the actions it took, there was an escalation of tension with Iran, an increase in military spending, he vetoed efforts to end US involvement

in Yemen, other examples. Do you think this time could be different when you look at those end results and decisions? I genuinely do think that, you know, people in DC always say personnel is policy. I genuinely do think that people in DC always say personnel is policy. I genuinely do think that the different personnel this time are going to play a role. If only because they are more willing, I think, to let Trump express his own opinions. If you look back at the first administration, what you see is all these folks like General John Kelly or Jim Mattis actively and openly, I think, saying that they were there to help Trump

talk some sense into him, curb his wildest impulses. There is none of that this time. All of Trump's advisors are very much on board with what he says. And a number of them also have just very interesting experiences and thoughts of their own in foreign policy. I think you can't underestimate JD Vance, for example. There is an actual veteran of the war on terror on this ticket, and that does shape,

I think, how the administration thinks about nation building and wars of conquest. Vance has been very clear that he thinks Iraq and Afghanistan were huge mistakes. Yes, and there are some folks in the new administration who I think want to take a much harder line on Iran. We saw the Trump administration say they're going to go back to maximum pressure on Iran, but I don't think we're necessarily headed for conflict in that case. Last time around, there were huge fears that John Bolton and others would push the president into a war with Iran. This time, it really does seem like the pressure is a means to an end.

It's deal making. It's trying to find a nuclear deal with Iran, whether they can do it or not, totally different question. But I don't think the plan here is to get in some kind of conflict. Matthew 16 You know, as somebody who thinks that the US would be well served by a break with the foreign policy of the last administration, what are you, as somebody who would like to see a shift like that, most hopeful about when it comes to the changes that Trump is at least saying he's trying to make? Look, I mean, this is very difficult because I think we all know that the president, you know, maybe he does some things that are good and then he does 10 things that are bad and it might outweigh that.

I do think, though, that what has become increasingly clear in recent years is that US foreign policy probably needs some kind of complete upheaval. If we look at every administration for the last 15 years, they all came into office looking for some kind of change, right? We were going to pull back from Afghanistan under Obama. We were going to be this gentler superpower under Biden. None of it really panned out. We kept getting dragged back into the Middle East.

We've never managed to effectively pivot to Asia. And so I think one of Trump's biggest virtues is that he seems to be someone who is willing to just break with the status quo, even if he doesn't necessarily have a good idea of what is going to replace it. But I do think in terms of if you want wholesale change in US foreign policy, this administration probably offers a better chance for it, whether it's things like some grand bargain in the Middle East, or you know, getting

the U.S. to pull back somewhat from European security and getting Europeans to step up in their own defense, right? These are areas where I think you could see progress in this administration that you just couldn't under Biden. That's Emma Ashford with the Stimson Center. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. This episode was produced by Connor Donovan. It was edited by Courtney Doerning and Nadia Lantzi. Our executive producer is Sammy Yannigan. As we wrap up the week, a thank you to our Consider This Plus listeners who support the show. If that's not you, it could be. Supporters

also hear every episode without sponsored messages. You can learn more at the link in our episode notes. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Scott Detro. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Consider This sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.