The Trump administration’s “move fast and break things” approach to foreign policy has been consistent only in its chaos. There have been rapid shifts in America’s approach to high-profile global conflicts: pivoting to negotiations with Russia, promoting a cease-fire in Gaza, and oscillating between threats of military action against Iran and offers of a newly negotiated nuclear deal.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), meanwhile, was shuttered so suddenly that warehouses full of food aid were left to rot. There have been boundary-pushing immigration moves, including the outsourcing of immigration detention to the government of El Salvador. And then there’s the turmoil inflicted on financial markets by the uncertainty of the administration’s trade policy, involving tariffs turned on and off like a light switch at the president’s whims.
So how are we to make sense of the chaos? It’s clear that the second Trump administration is aiming for change—not inertia—in U.S. foreign policy, though the direction of that change is unclear. Still, there are four explanatory models worth considering as we try to explain its choices so far:
Model No. 1: The Return of Realpolitik
Model No. 2: Domestic Politics as Foreign Policy
Model No. 3: A Return to the First Term
Model No. 4: Republican Foreign-Policy Showdown
Written by Emma Ashford, a columnist at *Foreign Policy*
fooz42 on
Trying to hammer the Trump administration into an academic framework is insane. It presupposes there is a rationale. The null hypothesis that there is no coherent strategy or model should be considered.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
2 Kommentare
The Trump administration’s “move fast and break things” approach to foreign policy has been consistent only in its chaos. There have been rapid shifts in America’s approach to high-profile global conflicts: pivoting to negotiations with Russia, promoting a cease-fire in Gaza, and oscillating between threats of military action against Iran and offers of a newly negotiated nuclear deal.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), meanwhile, was shuttered so suddenly that warehouses full of food aid were left to rot. There have been boundary-pushing immigration moves, including the outsourcing of immigration detention to the government of El Salvador. And then there’s the turmoil inflicted on financial markets by the uncertainty of the administration’s trade policy, involving tariffs turned on and off like a light switch at the president’s whims.
So how are we to make sense of the chaos? It’s clear that the second Trump administration is aiming for change—not inertia—in U.S. foreign policy, though the direction of that change is unclear. Still, there are four explanatory models worth considering as we try to explain its choices so far:
Model No. 1: The Return of Realpolitik
Model No. 2: Domestic Politics as Foreign Policy
Model No. 3: A Return to the First Term
Model No. 4: Republican Foreign-Policy Showdown
Written by Emma Ashford, a columnist at *Foreign Policy*
Trying to hammer the Trump administration into an academic framework is insane. It presupposes there is a rationale. The null hypothesis that there is no coherent strategy or model should be considered.