Donald Trump understands certain kinds of power. He loves military parades and ostentatious displays of dominance. He called Putin’s “surprise” invasion of Ukraine “genius,” has privately praised China’s indoctrination camps for Uighurs and has adopted a “shock and awe” strategy to dismantling what he views to be his opposition within the Federal government. He only seems to respect power, has no appreciation for nuance or compromise, and seems to see virtually every interaction as a zero-sum, winner-take-all battle for dominance. In other words, he’s a bully.
The recent tariff “war” with Mexico and Canada is a case in point. He threatened to use his favorite economic weapon to extract concessions from critical allies and trading partners. Those concessions appear to have been vastly less significant than the economic damage (to both sides) he was threatening, but enough for him to achieve his goal: the ability to claim victory. Again, the exercise of power over others seems to be one of his driving motivations. He won the battle and I’m sure feels vindicated for having picked it.
What he does not seem to understand is the concept of “soft power.” Diplomacy is a complex dance of balancing interests: weighing cost vs. benefit, developing relationships and trust, and ultimately seeking long-term advantages for one’s country. In the post-war period, America’s approach has been to recognize the value of both carrot and stick. Sometimes we play hardball: with sanctions, military displays and support and behind-the-scenes pressure campaigns. But often the “carrot” approach works just as well and has a lot of side benefits. Working toward mutual benefit not only brings economic benefits as trade makes both parties richer through economic growth and dynamism but is also an investment in relationships that can make America safer in the long run.
The difference is one of perspective. A short-term, tactical approach prioritizes victory in each individual interaction with little regard for the long-term effect. This makes sense if your motivation is personal gratification and immediate political reward. But if you are driven by a desire to make America stronger and more prosperous in the long term, this approach is counterproductive. America’s strength has been as much the result of our strategic use of “soft power” than it is in our ability to use our hard power to bully counterparties to extract one-off rewards. Those battles aren’t difficult to win because America is such a significant military and economic force. But there’s a reason most presidents have viewed them as a last resort: they understand that an uncooperative, adversarial America is an isolated America. And an isolated America is poorer and less safe.
China has been taking a page from our playbook in recent years. Through the “belt and road” initiative and other efforts to invest in developing countries, China has sought to increase their influence throughout the world. Some of this is to secure raw materials that they need, but it’s also clearly intended to counter America’s longstanding campaign of developing “soft power.” Because of this, China is positioned to take advantage of a power vacuum if America chooses to withdraw from the world.
This will undoubtedly be worse for the world, as I strongly believe America’s approach has been more generous, humane and ultimately beneficial for the nations we’ve supported than has China’s usurious economic “support.” But we may leave such nations with little choice than to accept China’s help instead. The consequences of a less engaged, less reliable America will be a stronger, more influential China. Beyond the moral consequences of weakening organizations like USAID, this is the strategic folly of such a move.
But even worse is Trump’s approach to our allies. We’re not even a month into his presidency and he’s picked fights with Panama, Canada, Mexico, Denmark and Europe in general (I’m sure I’ve forgotten others). Even if he doesn’t follow through on seizing Greenland or the Panama Canal and backs down on his 25% tariff threats once he gets a “win” he can brag about on Truth Social, damage has been done. These allies will continue to learn the lesson of his first term: America is an unreliable ally. We can no longer be trusted to come through for our friends, as we have demonstrated a willingness - even an eagerness - to abuse them. Some extra troops on our Southern border seems a very small compensation for such damage to these critical relationships. It’s also wrong. Countries like Canada and Denmark have supported us in our time of trouble. The only nation to have ever invoked Article 5 of NATO is the USA, after September 11, and our NATO allies came to our defense in supporting our fight against terrorists. By picking unprovoked fights with our neighbors and allies, we may be winning individual battles but we’re losing the war. We’re undoing decades of hard work by competent diplomats, soldiers and other Federal employees who have been working to make the world a safer, more stable place for America to be a part of. This administration’s complete lack of respect for this work is despicable on many levels and does not put America first.
Edit: around the time I posted this, The Dispatch published an excellent article along similar lines. And so did, of all places, National Review.
Edit 2: David Frum also has an excellent piece on this in The Atlantic.