Election Intrigue
Posts
🗳️ The Trump Doctrine - pros and cons

🗳️ The Trump Doctrine - pros and cons

Plus: What we'd tell the candidates ahead of tonight's debate

June 27, 2024 • Reading Time: 21 minutes

Hi Intriguer. Do presidential debates matter anymore? Gone are the days when they were the primary way for candidates to introduce themselves to a national audience. The format, the canned responses, the moderators valiantly trying to “use all tools at their disposal to enforce timing and ensure a civilized discussion”… it’s all just very 2000’s.

And it’s not just the US that’s tiring of leader debates - the UK just held several Prime Ministerial debates, which only drew an average of ~6,000 viewers live on YouTube (numbers based on our anecdotal research).

In contrast, the UK’s most popular politics podcast - the Rest is Politics - drew almost ~25,000 YouTube viewers to its live-streamed analysis of the debates right after each actual debate ended (numbers based on their constant reminders of how popular they are).

We’re hoping that dynamic is trans-Atlantic and that you’d rather read about tonight’s US presidential debate and leave sitting through the darn thing to us. We’ll also be recording our reactions to the foreign policy portions of the debate right after it happens.

You can find that on Intrigue’s revamped podcast feed tomorrow (it’s free to subscribe!).

Lastly, if you’re enjoying Election Intrigue, please convince a friend to subscribe. We’ll keep doing this each week for as long as we can, but we need your help getting the word out!

- John Fowler & Kristen Talman from Washington, DC

The Trump Doctrine 1.0

Reminder: To help you distinguish between the facts and our analysis of the facts, we’ll always put our opinions and speculation inside green boxes.

Tonight’s televised presidential debate is the first between two candidates who have both previously been president. That makes this debate unlike any other - both candidates have a record of what they did while in office, which gives us a clearer view of what they might do if elected again.

Earlier this week, we asked former senior US diplomat Richard Grenell what foreign policy might look like during a potential second Trump Administration. He responded that Trump’s 2.0 foreign policy will look very much like his first term, except he’s been around the block, so he’ll be even sharper if he's in the 2025 White House.

So we’re starting by revisiting Trump’s foreign policy while he was in office, and we’ll do the same for Biden’s foreign policy ahead of the second presidential debate on 10 September.

The Trump Doctrine: “America First”

During his inauguration speech in 2017, former President Trump memorably pledged that “this American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”

He then laid out his vision of the US in the world: “We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.”

Here’s what that looked like in practice…

On Iran

Trump had strong views on Iran from the start. It took him some time, but he eventually reversed President Obama’s policy on Iran, pulling the US out of the 2015 nuclear deal (‘JCPOA’) in 2018. This led Tehran to accuse Washington of being an unreliable actor on the world stage.

Trump also imposed more than 1,500 sanctions from 2018 to 2021 and greenlit the ‘drone-whacking’ (our term, but could easily be his) of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020.

Critics would say: Trump’s approach gave birth to the ‘China-Russia-Iran’ anti-American alliance. Sure, Iran is more isolated from the West, but it’s closer than ever to China and Russia. On top of that, Trump gave Iranian hardliners fodder for their position that the US can never be trusted, paving the way for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to step up its support of the three H’s - Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

Advocates would say: The Iran Deal allowed Iran to regroup and rearm in its fight against the West. Trump was trying to force Iran to deal from a position of weakness, or, as Trump himself told the All-In podcast last week: “Iran was broke. They had no money. I slapped sanctions on anyone who even thought about buying oil from Iran. And let me tell ya, I was all set to make a fair deal. I was gonna be best buds with Iran.”

On the Middle East generally

The 2020 Abraham Accords, which saw Israel sign normalization pacts with the UAE and Bahrain, and other Arab nations agree to begin the normalization process, were arguably Donald Trump’s signature foreign policy achievement.

The Accords were Trump’s effort to re-organize the Middle East by putting recognition of Israel at the core of the regional order. Trump gave Arab countries various concessions (for example, recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara) in exchange for their recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

Trump told Fox & Friends in 2020 that the Abraham Accords were “part of a broader diplomatic effort to pressure the Palestinians into negotiating a peace deal.”

Critics would say: Leaving aside the flawed idea that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority could be pressured into signing a peace deal, Trump misdiagnosed the US interests in the Middle East.

The US’s primary foreign policy focus should be on China and the Asia Pacific; therefore, its Middle East policy should focus solely on maintaining a stable status quo instead of ‘solving the problem.’

Instead, the Abraham Accords destabilized the Middle East (which had been relatively stable) and constrained President Biden’s ability to refocus US foreign policy on core US interests.

Advocates would say: The world was (and is still) broken, and trying the same old failed solutions is the definition of lunacy. Trump put the Middle East on a path to meaningful peace, which is impossible as long as Arab countries deny Israel’s right to exist.

On China

Trump adopted a far more confrontational approach to US-China relations, diagnosing its destructive trade practices as one of the leading causes of “American carnage.”

Trump publicly accused Beijing of widespread intellectual property theft, currency jiggery-pokery, manipulating economic statistics, and maintaining unfair trade practices, including subsidizing domestic industries and erecting import barriers.

The Trump administration wasn’t alone in this—Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia all complained about Chinese unfair trade practices.

In response, Trump slapped tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of imported goods from China, beginning what became known as a ‘trade war.’

Critics would say: Trump was unnecessarily confrontational with China, backing them into a corner. Perhaps he was correct in calling out China’s hypocritical economic policies, but he would have had far better results if he had done this through diplomatic channels. The result of Trump’s approach is a more aggressive, less constructive China, convinced that the US is out to thwart its progress.

Advocates would say: If it weren’t for President Trump, the world would still be pretending as if China wanted to liberalize. Trump saw Xi Jinping for what he is - a dictator determined to remake the world to suit China - and called him out. How do you know Trump was right? His approach to China is now just about the only thing Democrats and Republicans agree on.

On North Korea

Two weeks before Trump was inaugurated, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un decided to test nuclear weapons for “self-defense against the United States.” Kim’s pre-emptive message earned him the unforgettable nickname “Little Rocket Man” and a promise to strike Pyongyang with “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

The US-North Korea relationship reportedly had then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis sleeping in gym clothes, ready at any moment to respond to a North Korean crisis.

But the two leaders' topsy-turvy relationship did thaw, leading to a historic meeting in Singapore and Trump becoming the first sitting president to visit North Korea in 2019.

Critics would say: Trump engaged in a dangerous game of nuclear brinksmanship with an erratic and unpredictable dictator - only luck prevented the situation from escalating. His willingness to threaten Kim only further convinced the North Korean leader that the US was its main adversary, pushing it closer to Russia and Iran as a result.

Advocates would say: Trump met Kim’s reckless threats with strength and formed a new, more stable relationship with him based on a form of mutually assured destruction. Kim only understands strength and weakness, and under Biden, Kim has felt free to form tight bonds with Russia and Iran.

On foreign aid spending

Trump has long had a problem with foreign and military aid. In 2019, he held up $391m in military assistance to Ukraine (long before Russia’s 2022 invasion) but eventually relented to pressure from lawmakers.

Trump publicly demanded NATO countries meet their 2% military spending goals if they wanted the US to come to their aid in the event of a military crisis.

The Trump administration also tried to “steer aid towards friends,” while cutting USAID and the State Department’s humanitarian and development budgets.

Critics would say: Trump’s policy is short-sighted. Even Republican Michael McCaul, who sat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, warned there could be long-term “unintended consequences” of Trump’s approach. And threatening to abandon NATO weakened the alliance and emboldened Putin, which is why the Russian president decided to test Western resolve by invading Ukraine.

Advocates would say: The US has a $1.20T budget deficit; forget long-term strategy, we need to cut spending now. And why should we be spending money overseas when, in years past, 48 out of 50 US states spent fewer federal dollars than Washington sent to other countries? As for NATO, Trump actually wants it to be a stronger, more balanced alliance, saying recently that he will "100%" keep the US in NATO, providing other NATO countries pay their "fair share" and "play fair."

Tonight’s debate and what to look out for

If the above is a snapshot of what Donald Trump’s foreign policy might look like if he were elected again and how his critics would attack him, what can we expect to hear during the debate tonight?

If I were advising Donald Trump, here’s what I’d tell him:

Key line: “If I had been president these last four years, none of this would have happened.”

On Israel and Gaza: Make clear you are Israel’s best friend. Biden has a Gaza problem on his left wing, so paint him as indecisive and unable to end the conflict. But remember, you need to win suburban women in swing states, and they (along with most people) are horrified by the civilian death toll in Gaza. Appear empathetic, or failing that, just say you’ll end the conflict.

On China: Remind everyone you broke the Washington groupthink by calling China out. If Democrats were in charge, China would still be eating the US’s lunch. While Biden has been tough on China, tell people that Xi Jinping respects you, and you’ll get a much better “deal” than Biden ever could.

On Russia, North Korea, and Iran: Attack Biden for letting them collaborate in plain sight because he’s too weak to impose consequences. Tell Americans that you would divide and conquer by threatening Iran and North Korea to stop it or else. Remind Americans that you can strike a great deal with Putin to end the war in Ukraine. Americans overwhelmingly dislike Putin, so please swear on The Art of the Deal that you won’t say he’s your friend.

If I were advising Joe Biden, here’s what I’d tell him:

Key line: “Asking Trump about foreign policy is like asking the arsonist how to put out the fire.”

On Israel and Gaza: Remind everyone you have a 40-year record of supporting Israel, but friends are honest with each other. Trump would give carte-blanche to Israel’s radical right wing, which would make things far worse across the region. Only you can deliver the hard truths that are in Israel’s long-term interest.

On the Ukraine war and military spending: Now more than ever, it’s vital to show what America stands for in the world. Attack Trump for ushering in a ‘might-makes-right’ global order, undoing 80+ years of American-forged ‘rules-based’ global order. Say that Trump would give Ukraine to Russia and ask what’s next… Taiwan to China?

On China: Appear fair and balanced by crediting Trump for calling out China’s unfair practices, but then remind everyone that you’ve actually been far tougher on China than he was. If Americans really want to make China play by the rules, it is strong actions, not fiery words, that will get it done. Oh, and try to avoid relating everything to Scranton, Pennsylvania; I think people are sick of it.

Let’s see if I’d make a good campaign adviser…
- John

The Harris Poll x Intrigue

Our exclusive poll this week reveals that US adults are content with the attention paid to foreign policy by both elected officials and candidates seeking an elected position.

So, we dove into the history books to see how often presidential candidates talked about foreign policy on the debate stage (see below).

Think today’s presidential debate will whiplash the figures back to pre-2020? We’re betting yes (hence the newsletter!).

Credit: Foreign Policy, based on 109 out of 124 debates

Cabinet Picks

Since Trump became the Republican nominee for president, speculation has spread across Washington about who he’ll choose to fill key roles, including Vice President, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor. Every week, we’ll dive into a few of the names floating around and what their track record shows.

Potential VP: Doug Burgum

A quick glance at Doug Burgum’s personal Twitter over the past month would lead the casual onlooker to think the tech millionaire was already campaigning as Trump’s VP pick.

Burgum has positioned himself as a foreign policy expert for the middle class and middle America, saying that if you ask a “North Dakota farmer for the price of soybeans in Brazil, they’ll know,” in a sit-down interview with Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.
Burgum has been the most outspoken on China, saying the US is in a Cold War with Beijing. Doubling down, the deep-pocketed, once tech CEO, Burgum, said, “China is the number one threat to our country,” at the first presidential debate, saying, “We [US] need anti-ship missiles on Taiwan.”
Drill, baby, baby. Hailing from a resource-rich state, Burgum’s main foreign policy outlook has been on energy security, arguing that America produces, manufactures, and distributes oil cleaner than anyone else and has said the US is in an “unstable place because of energy policy.” If VP, he’s said he’ll “prioritize American energy over foreign-made energy.”

Potential National Security Advisor: Robert O’Brien

Robert C. O’Brien, eyeing another term as national security advisor, a role he held from 2019 to 2021, wrote a glowing review of Trump’s foreign policy in Foreign Affairs last week, saying that the 45th President brought back a strongman ethos to the White House and didn’t go around apologizing for “alleged sins.”

O’Brien was often Trump’s first phone call in the morning and last in the evening. Once floated as a VP pick, he’s a Trump loyalist known for alienating himself from other National Security Council colleagues to curry favor.
While Trump has complained that other advisors have put their own agendas before his, O’Brien has always toed the White House line, calling Trump the best boss he’s ever had. Some people expect Trump to prioritize this kind of loyalty over other qualities should he win again— O’Brien’s comments will be music to Trump’s ears.
In 2023, special counsel Jack Smith subpoenaed O'Brien as part of his probe into the former president's handling of classified documents.

We’re calling it now: Even if the role isn’t National Security Advisor, given O’Brien’s continued loyalty, he’s a lock for a senior position in a Trump White House.

Potential Secretary of State: Richard Grenell

Richard Grenell is a career diplomat who can’t stop talking about his eight years at the United Nations. Or so it felt during a live briefing earlier this week with Mark Halperin, during which Grenell highlighted his international experience in an apparent bid for a gig as Trump’s Secretary of State.

Grenell got his start in main-stage global politics at the United Nations, serving as the US spokesman in New York during the George W. Bush administration. He says this taught him how to work with China and Russia.
As the US special envoy for the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue, Grenell collected a Rolodex of Balkan contacts, which has come in handy post-Trump 1.0 administration as he secures business deals with the former president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, launching a luxury resort off the coast of Albania and a hotel in Belgrade.
As ambassador to Germany, Grenell ruffled feathers when he said he wanted to empower European conservative leaders. This remark led the German foreign ministry to seek ‘further clarification’ from the US.
While he was acting US intelligence chief in 2020, Grenell declassified a host of documents related to the Russia probe. The move received applause from Trump but caused problems at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), with top officials being fired. Grenell said he acted in the spirit of “transparency.”

Grennell is outspoken on X, where he has 1.2m followers.

Where in the world is…

President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump will be in Atlanta prepping notes for their 9 pm EDT debate start time.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in Washington attending a meeting with the UN Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for Gaza, Sigrid Kaag, and hosting an LGBTQI+ event.
Doug Burgum, Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, Elise Stefanik, and Ben Carson, all rumored to be top VP picks, will be in Atlanta for a watch party fundraiser following the debate.
Vice President Kamala Harris will head to Las Vegas after the presidential debate for a campaign event.
Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell will meet with the Philippines’ Ambassador to the US, Jose Manuel Romualdez, at the Department.

Papers of the world

Ukraine hits back, a strike heard around the world

Last Sunday, Ukraine struck Sevastopol, Crimea, with American ATACMS missiles, killing six people and injuring another 150 as missile debris fell on a beach nearby. And while Crimea isn’t Russia according to most countries, Moscow considers it part of its territory.

Here’s how the world papers reported the incident —

🇷🇺 North Korea calls the US the main sponsor of terrorism after Ukraine strikes Crimea - Tass, Moscow, Russia

Intrigue’s take: Putin was just in Pyongyang paying his respects to Kim Jong Un, who will no doubt delight in seeing his regime’s views echoed across Russia by a significant paper.

🇦🇪 US gives Ukraine permission to use American weapons in Russia - The National, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Intrigue’s take: The UAE paper offered a straightforward headline, but the choice to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine the “Ukraine crisis” caught our eye.

🇫🇷 War in Ukraine: deadly strikes in annexed Crimea and Kharkiv - France 24, Paris, France

Intrigue’s take: The French paper used the word “annexed” to refer to Crimea’s status rather than the less clear formulations we’ve seen (see below).

🇨🇦 Ukrainian drones and missiles kill six in Russia and Crimea, fresh bombing of Kharkiv leaves one dead - The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Canada

Intrigue’s take: With an on-the-ground Associated Press media feed, the Globe and Mail has left its Ukraine reporting to the wires.

SPOTTED IN DC

Credit: X

Paris Hilton was spotted in Washington yesterday (Wednesday) to testify before Congress’ House Ways & Means Committee about her experience in a youth residential treatment facility as a teen. For all the DC press who jetted off to Atlanta and missed the 2000s American pop culture icon, we say, That’s Not Hot.

What we’re reading

Poll