Donald Trump’s foreign policy is centered around his motto of “America First,” whether it is in regard to dealing with our allies or adversaries. Trump laid out his foreign policy views of “America First,” in his 2011 book, Time to Get Tough:
I believe that any American foreign policy doctrine should be defined by at least seven principles:
1. American interests come first. Always. No apologies.
2. Maximum firepower and military preparedness.
3. Only go to war to win.
4. Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.
5. Keep the technological sword razor sharp.
6. See the unseen. Prepare for threats before they materialize.
7. Respect and support our present and past warriors.1
Trump wrote this book at a time he was becoming increasingly vocal about America’s foreign policy, specifically in criticizing the foreign policy decisions of Barack Obama. This focus culminated in a Twitter storm in September and October 2012 leading up to the election between Obama and Mitt Romney. His tweets focused on Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan, referring to Obama’s foreign policy as being a “disaster,” a “failure,” and “dangerous.” One tweet from October 11, 2012, read: “Our foreign policy decisions are dumbest in U.S. history.”2 During an October 2012 interview with Fox & Friends, Trump stated:
Our foreign policy is a total disgrace. I guess you would have to say it’s a joke. It’s so bad. So out of control. Nobody has ever seen anything like it. Everything that we’ve touched has turned to garbage . . . We have no foreign policy. This has been the worst foreign policy president in the history of the country. Without question.
And it would appear that going into the presidency one of Trump’s goals has been to dismantle all of Obama’s foreign policy. However, Trump’s criticism of American foreign policy has also focused on State Department diplomats. In his 2016 book Crippled America, he wrote:
The career diplomats who got us into many foreign policy messes say I have no experience in foreign policy. They think that successful diplomacy requires years of experience and an understanding of all nuances that have to be carefully considered before reaching a conclusion . . . Some of these so-called “experts” are trying to scare people by saying that my approach would make the world more dangerous . . . My approach to foreign policy is built on a strong foundation: Operate from strength . . . If we’re going to continue to be the policemen of the world, we ought to be paid for it.3
Trump himself stated when he was asked who he consults about foreign policy on MSNBC’s Morning Joe: “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things . . . I know what I’m doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are. But my primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff.” This attitude toward foreign policy has altered the way foreign leaders interact with the United States, as discussed in a report by the Wall Street Journal: “Increasingly, savvy leaders are bypassing the standard protocols and government processes of American diplomacy to go directly to President Trump himself, according to current and former officials, allies, and foreign-policy experts. North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin are among the heads of state who have cut out the middle layers of aides and agency officials to talk to Mr. Trump.”4
Trump and Europe
Along with many of the other controversies that surround Trump’s presidency is his foreign policy. Critics are arguing that he treats the United States’ allies as if they are enemies and vice versa. Following Trump’s first overseas trip, European Council president Donald Tusk stated that he and Trump don’t “have a common position, a common opinion on Russia.”5 Since becoming president, Trump has placed tariffs on European imports like steel and aluminum, which has resulted in the Europeans placing retaliatory tariffs on American products like motorcycles and orange juice. In an interview on 60 Minutes in October 2018, Trump replied to questions regarding his stance toward U.S. allies:
Donald Trump: I mean, what’s an ally? We have wonderful relationships with a lot of people. But nobody treats us much worse than the European Union. The European Union was formed in order to take advantage of us on trade, and that’s what they’ve done.
Lesley Stahl: But this is hostile.
Donald Trump: And yet, they—it’s not hostile.
Lesley Stahl: It sounds hostile.
Donald Trump: You know what’s hostile? The way they treat us. We’re not hostile.
Lesley Stahl: No, but can’t you deal with—
Donald Trump: We’ve been—we’ve been— . . . the stupid country for so many years.6
In the interview, Trump even questions the advice of Defense Secretary James Mattis on U.S. allies, claiming he knows more about our allies than the four-star general:
Lesley Stahl: Are you willing to get rid of that Western alliance?
Donald Trump: Now, I like NATO, NATO’s fine. But you know what? We shouldn’t be paying almost the entire cost of NATO to protect Europe. And then on top of that, they take advantage of us on trade. They’re not going to do it anymore. They understand that.
Lesley Stahl: Okay, but are, it does seem this, are you willing to disrupt the Western Alliance? It’s been going for seventy years. It’s kept the peace for seventy years.
Donald Trump: You don’t know that. You don’t know that.
Lesley Stahl: I don’t know what?
Donald Trump: You don’t know that.
Lesley Stahl: Is it true General Mattis said to you, “The reason for NATO and the reason for all these alliances is to prevent World War III?”
Donald Trump: No, it’s not true.
Lesley Stahl: What’s not true?
Donald Trump: Frankly, I like General Mattis. I think I know more about it than he does. And I know more about it from the standpoint of fairness, that I can tell you.7
Trump has often acted as though he is alone in making foreign policy decisions, as he even stated he “consults” himself first. Take for instance the breakdown of the relationship between Trump and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, which resulted over a number of issues, including contradictions over North Korea and Trump wanting to increase the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Following his dismissal, Tillerson stated: “It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented ExxonMobil corporation . . . to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, ‘This is what I believe.’”8 Tillerson was then replaced in April 2018 by former CIA director Mike Pompeo, who has been viewed as one of Trump’s most loyal cabinet members—far from contradicting Trump, he is viewed as Trump’s “mouthpiece.” It is almost as important to point out the important role John Bolton, the current national security adviser, has played in Trump’s foreign policy. Bolton, who has been referred to as a “war hawk,” has been a major advocate for regime change in numerous countries, including in the ongoing conflict in Venezuela. Trump even joked in May 2019 that Bolton wants to get him “into a war” in Venezuela.
Trump has continued to have an unsteady relationship with a number of European leaders. For instance, while Trump has called the German Chancellor Angela Merkel “possibly the greatest world leader,” he has also attacked Merkel and Germany over his attitudes toward NATO. Following the NATO leaders’ summit in 2017, Trump stated: “The Germans are bad, very bad . . . Look at the millions of cars they sell in the US. Terrible. We’ll stop that.”9 He has also heavily criticized Merkel for Germany’s refugee policy: “I think she made one very catastrophic mistake and that was taking all of these illegals (sic), you know taking all of the people from wherever they come from.”10 In an attack on Germany he also tweeted: “The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”11
Trump has had a similar relationship with the leaders of France. Following his first phone call with the former French president François Hollande, Trump told him that France is “beautiful” and how much he “loved France.” Then, in 2017, Trump stated to a group of his supporters during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference that “France is no longer France” due to issues of terrorism. Hollande criticized Trump for these remarks in that it was no way for allies to speak about one another.12 Trump’s relationship with France’s next president, Emmanuel Macron, has also been frayed. While the two leaders at first had a good rapport following Macron’s election in 2017, Trump’s announcement of his intention to withdraw American troops from Syria damaged their relationship. Macron was informed of Trump’s decision by a White House official one day in advance, called and reminded Trump of his pledge to fight alongside the United States’ allies against terrorism, as well as his responsibility to Europe. The next day Trump tweeted his decision, which caused backlash not only from European allies, but also within his own administration.
Trump’s stance toward U.S. allies has drawn criticism from other U.S. politicians, including Mitt Romney. Romney wrote in an op-ed:
Trump’s words and actions have caused dismay around the world. In a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 84 percent of people in Germany, Britain, France, Canada and Sweden believed the American president would “do the right thing in world affairs.” One year later, that number had fallen to 16 percent. This comes at a very unfortunate time. Several allies in Europe are experiencing political upheaval. Several former Soviet satellite states are rethinking their commitment to democracy. Some Asian nations, such as the Philippines, lean increasingly toward China, which advances to rival our economy and our military. The alternative to U.S. world leadership offered by China and Russia is autocratic, corrupt and brutal.
Trump has also been criticized for how his rhetoric toward the United States’ allies has impacted the American population and how it may be changing the American public’s perception of its allies. As discussed by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright in her book Fascism: A Warning:
The commander in chief’s swaggering disregard for how his words are perceived has at times stunned the world, including allies of long standing in Europe and Asia. Our shared interests are so deep that I expect alliance members to continue working with America when possible. However, many of them fear—as I do—that the unilateralist mind-set espoused by Trump will endure in the United States even after the man himself has retired.13
Trump’s presidency is affecting Americans’ views of our allies, and also our allies’ views of the United States. In Western European countries, such as the U.K., Spain, France, and Germany, confidence that the president of the United States “will do the right thing regarding world affairs” is at an all-time low. And while opinions of the United States are still relatively favorable, at 50% in the twenty-five countries surveyed by the Pew Research Center, a majority of those surveyed has no confidence in Trump. In addition, 70% believe that the United States doesn’t really take into account the interests of other countries when making foreign policy decisions.14
Trump and Russia
There is arguably not any country with which Trump’s name graces headlines more than Russia. Trump has continually claimed that he has “nothing to do with Russia,” tweeting in January 2017: “Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA—NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!”15 However, Trump has attempted to create business deals in Russia for decades. Trump even tried striking business deals in Moscow before the collapse of the Soviet Union, as mentioned in his 1987 book The Art of the Deal, in his chapter “Dealing: A Week in the Life”:
A prominent businessman who does a lot of business with the Soviet Union calls to keep me posted on a construction project I’m interested in undertaking in Moscow. The idea got off the ground after I sat next to the Soviet ambassador, Yuri Dubinin, at a luncheon . . . Dubinin’s daughter, it turned out, had read about Trump Tower and knew all about it. One thing led to another, and now I’m talking about building a large luxury hotel, across the street from the Kremlin, in partnership with the Soviet government. They have asked me to go to Moscow in July.16
Although Trump did end up traveling to the Soviet Union, the business deal fell apart, with Trump stating: “In the Soviet Union, you don’t own anything. It’s hard to conjure up spending hundreds of millions of dollars on something and not own.”17 Trump attempted another business deal in Russia in the late 1990s, a plan he discussed with Russian politician Aleksander Lebed in 1997, stating: “We are actually looking at something in Moscow right now . . . Only quality stuff. And we’re working with the local government, the mayor of Moscow, and the mayor’s people. So far, they’ve been very responsive . . .”18 This plan also failed. Trump’s attempts to make business deals in Russia continued into the 2000s, with Trump stating during the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow: “I have plans for the establishment of business in Russia. Now, I am in talks with several Russian companies to establish this skyscraper.”19 Reportedly, Trump’s discussions for building a Trump Tower in Moscow continued until June 2016, following him becoming the GOP presidential nominee.
As president, Trump’s relationship with Russia, and particularly Putin, has come into question. Trump was questioned in an interview on 60 Minutes in October 2018 why he has never publicly criticized Putin, especially given how he criticizes so many other political leaders.
Donald Trump: I think I’m very tough with him personally. I had a meeting with him. The two of us. It was a very tough meeting and it was a very good meeting.
Lesley Stahl: Do you agree that Vladimir Putin is involved in assassinations? In poisonings?
Donald Trump: Probably he is, yeah. Probably. I mean, I don’t—
Lesley Stahl: Probably?
Donald Trump: But I rely on them, it’s not in our country.
Lesley Stahl: Why not—they shouldn’t do it. This is a terrible thing.
Donald Trump: Of course they shouldn’t do it . . .20
However, Trump has long praised Putin, even prior to his presidency. During an interview with Larry King in 2007, Trump stated: “Look at Putin—what he’s doing with Russia—I mean, you know, what’s going on over there. I mean this guy has done—whether you like him or don’t like him—he’s doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia, period.”21 In his 2011 book, Time to Get Tough, Trump wrote:
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, of whom I often speak highly for his intelligence and no-nonsense way, is a former KGB officer . . . Putin has big plans for Russia. He wants to edge out its neighbors so that Russia can dominate oil supplies to all of Europe. Putin has also announced his grand vision: the creation of a “Eurasian Union” made up of former Soviet nations that can dominate the region. I respect Putin and the Russians but cannot believe our leader allows them to get away with so much—I am sure that Vladimir Putin is even more surprised than I am. Hats off to the Russians.22
Trump tweeted in 2013, prior to the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow: “Do you think Putin will be going to the Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow—if so, will he become my new best friend?”23 Following his decision to run for president in 2015, Trump stated: “I think I’d get along very well with Vladimir Putin. I just think so.”24 Trump also commented that Putin was a better leader than Obama. In an interview on Morning Joe, Trump stated when discussing allegations that Putin had ordered the killings of journalists: “He’s running his country and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country. I think our country does plenty of killing also.”25 As president, Trump has continued to praise Putin. Trump even met with Putin in Finland in July 2018, during which the two leaders spoke alone for two hours with only two translators and no aides. To some it has seemed as if Putin has something on Trump. In the steel dossier that was circulating among journalists, it was suggested that: 1) He was indebted to Russian banks to the tune of $600 to $800 million; and 2) It was rumored that there were comprising images of Trump from an earlier trip to Russia with Russian prostitutes partaking in “golden showers.” To better understand Trump’s relationship with Putin, it is important to have an understanding of Putin and how Putin may continue to interact with Trump.
Vladimir Putin: A Mini Political Personality Profile
While President Vladimir Putin has not designated himself President for life, he is behaving as if he believes he is indispensable to the leadership of his country and the Russian-speaking peoples. Putin is driven by a strong need for power and control. Since becoming president in 2000, he has engineered elections to perpetuate his rule; quelled opposition and critics with imprisonment, exile, or death; and mercilessly suppressed the rebellion in Chechnya. A brutal, ruthless dictator masquerading as a principled democrat, Putin is determined to defend his power—so long as it does not damage his international image and reputation. To achieve these two conflicting goals, Putin relies on his legal training and extremely calculating nature to fabricate meticulous pseudo-legal justifications for his actions.
In his autobiography, Putin describes himself as selfless and indifferent to power—governed instead by patriotism and a desire to serve his country. But his actions say otherwise. Reflecting his high self-esteem and drive for power, Putin appears to believe that only he can lead the former superpower. Putin has been at the helm since 2000 and sees himself and Russia as one and the same. Putin created a political machine to ensure the survival of his rule for decades. In 2008, when he “stepped down” as president, his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, increased the presidential term to six years. Medvedev then resigned after one term, paving the way for then–Prime Minister Putin to regain the presidency in 2012, with the possibility of retaining power until 2024.
From childhood on, Putin has been intensely ambitious, setting his sights on becoming a KGB spy and staying doggedly focused on the path to achieve this. Putin explains that he was drawn to this career by the realization that “one spy could decide the fate of thousands of people”—reflecting his narcissistic dreams of glory. Bullied in school, in response to any insults or criticism, Putin immediately responded viciously to his tormentors. This was an early example of narcissistic dynamics—an exaggerated defense overcompensating for his underlying insecurity. Putin was also incapable of handling criticism from teachers, openly expressing outrage at being reprimanded. Now, as president, Putin continues to react intensely to criticism, as any oligarch or journalist who criticizes or opposes him could find themselves in prison or dead.
Putin is obsessed with masculinity, size, strength, and power, as evidenced by bare-chested photos of him with guns, and with a tranquilized tiger. These arranged stunts and photos convey the image of Putin as fearless, powerful, and in control. It also is notable that these photo shoots increased dramatically in 2008 when Putin became prime minister and was replaced by Medvedev. It appears this was a carefully calculated move to remind the Russian people and the world who was really in charge. Putin’s preoccupation with size and strength is overcompensation for his underlying insecurity—which may be over his small stature and his need to prove he cannot be pushed around. Standing 5’6”, he was often bullied as a kid and picked on for his slight build.
While Putin has publicly acknowledged that he does not want to restore the former Soviet Union, he does appear to view himself as a modern-day czar leading the Russian-speaking people. (A portrait of Peter the Great is prominently displayed in his office.) He thus finds threats to his crumbling empire intolerable. So when Ukraine turned to the European Union, and the prospect of the West settling into his backyard became a genuine possibility, Putin acted quickly to forestall further erosion of his empire. He seized Crimea first and then orchestrated violence and unrest in southern and eastern Ukraine.
The quintessential narcissist, Putin is consumed with his image and how others perceive him. As evidenced by the extravagance of the Olympic Games in Sochi, Putin yearns to be respected as a first-tier world leader and he understands that to earn this respect, his actions must appear reasonable and legitimate.
However, Putin’s two goals are difficult to pursue simultaneously. On the one hand, Putin yearns to be viewed as a respected world leader. On the other hand, “Putin the Great” views any potential loss of influence as an intolerable threat to Russian preeminence. Putin has continuously demonstrated his willingness to defend his power and influence at any cost. He believes the loss of Ukraine would be a death knell for his Russian empire, yet his aggressive, destabilizing actions threaten to oust him from the community of respected world leaders. At present there are no other military or political leaders of note in Putin’s leadership circle to constrain him; it is truly a leader-dominant society.
Putin’s ruthless brutality was plainly exhibited in his handling of the situation in Chechnya in 1999. The western Russian province had become ungovernable with Chechen rebels executing attacks in major Russian cities. When then–Prime Minister Putin was named acting president after the resignation of President Boris Yeltsin, Russian forces had begun to bring the Chechen situation under control. However, instead of implementing an armistice Putin embarked on a plan of total warfare with large-scale combat operations. Putin indicates in his autobiography that he equated the loss of the Chechen conflict with the collapse of Russia. This outlook would also underlie his brutal response to the short-lived uprising in Georgia.
Putin’s tendency to see a challenge to his control in such apocalyptic terms can be traced back to his time serving as a KGB officer in Dresden, East Germany, when he was witness to the fall of the Berlin Wall. This signified the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union and the country’s subsequent demise in what Putin understood to be a consequence of Moscow’s inaction, “a paralysis power.” It appears that, in his view, had there been decisive action, the USSR could still be around today. It is this bitter memory that prompted such swift action with Ukraine to forestall further erosion of his empire. He would not let Ukraine fall as the Soviet Union had.
Trained as a lawyer, Putin understands full well the commitments Russia made in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum—to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for relinquishing their significant nuclear arsenal. This is why Putin has been carefully crafting a justification for occupation of Crimea as “absolutely legitimate” and a response to the “official request” for help from Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, whom he considers to characterize the legitimate president. He has been careful to characterize the present occupying forces as “local militias” who do not answer to Moscow. Most recently, the newly appointed and compliant Crimean Parliament has unanimously voted for a referendum for Crimea to split from Ukraine and rejoin Russia—a move that Europe, the U.S., and the new Ukrainian president characterized as unconstitutional. Clearly arranged by Putin, the referendum appears to be another pseudo-legal justification for his aggressive land grab, as Putin has stated that he cannot “ignore calls for help” and will “act accordingly, in full compliance with international law.” This is a remarkable example of “Putin speak”—justifying his aggression as a necessary response to what he calls the “rampage of reactionary, nationalist, and anti–Semitic forces” going on in Ukraine. It is this reversal of reality that has led Merkel to conclude that Putin is “living in another world.”
It is the political personality of Putin described above that colors his response to sanctions from the West—he has not flinched and he will not be bullied. In fact, Putin could actually capitalize domestically on Western sanctions by citing these as the cause of any future Russian economic woes. Putin refuses to be pushed around or controlled—he will be the one in control. It appears Putin has a deep-seated need to not capitulate to outside attempts at controlling him. In the face of control and criticism, he cannot be seen as backing down. Putin may only respond to force and likely adheres to the Leninist maxim: If you strike steel, pull back; if you strike mush, keep going.
Putin has been fostering cleavage in the U.S.-European alliance and is not deterred by the fragmented Western response. In responding to Putin’s current and future actions, it is imperative that there be a unified voice from the West. The U.S. cannot assume a unilateral leadership role, as it is too easy for Putin to single out one country and demonize it. He did this in a March 18, 2014, speech, saying, “Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law” and “have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right.” He also argues that Crimea’s separation from Ukraine follows the Kosovo precedent, but that the U.S. and Western Europe regard it as “some special case.” Putin critically states, “One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests.”
Putin has a remarkable capacity to accuse his adversary of exactly what he is doing. Consider the following backward logic: “[The West and the U.S.] act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle, ‘If you are not with us, you are against us.’ To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organizations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.” Putin cites Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as situations where the U.S. and the West ignored the UN Security Council. In effect, Putin makes the United States the main aggressor and portrays himself as righteously defending the Russian-speaking people. This has played well in Russia where Putin has enjoyed a surge in popularity.
Putin will continue to try to create splits in the western alliance through economic blackmail. If he is successful in maintaining the fractures, he will continue to surge forward. Putin will only be deterred from his forward march if he meets a strong and steely response from a unified West.
Trump and the Middle East
IRAQ
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump stated repeatedly that the United States should “take Iraq’s oil as the spoils of war.” Whether Trump actually believed this is possible or not, or if it was just another one of his countless rhetorical phrases to appeal to his base, “taking Iraq’s oil” would involve not only a continued invasion of Iraq, but as many legal experts pointed out would be a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Trump has defended his statements, citing concern that Iraq’s oil could fall under the control of the Islamic State.26 However, Trump’s rhetoric of the “spoils of war” began before 2016, in which he argued that the United States should take Iraq’s oil before Iran did. In Time to Get Tough, in a section titled “To the Victor Go the Spoils,” he wrote:
We’ve spent blood and treasure defending the people of the Middle East, from Iraq to Kuwait to Saudi Arabia and the small Gulf states. And if any country in the Middle East won’t sell us their oil at a fair market price—oil that we discovered, we pumped, and we made profitable for the countries of the Middle East in the first place—we have every right to take it . . . We should take the oil. And here’s why: because the Iraqis won’t be able to keep it themselves. Their military . . . is incompetent, and the minute we leave, Iran will take over Iraq . . . If we protect and control the oil fields, Iraq will get to keep a good percentage of its oil—not to mention its independence from Iran—and we will recoup some of the cost of liberating the Iraqis . . . Call me old school, but I believe in the old warrior’s credo that “to the victor go the spoils.” In other words, we don’t fight a war, hand over the keys to people who hate us, and leave. We win a war, take the oil to repay the financial costs we’ve incurred, and in so doing, treat Iraq and everybody else fairly.27
Even as president, Trump reportedly brought up the issue of Iraq’s oil twice to the Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi, which caused issues among members of his administration. Former national security adviser H. R. McMaster was described as saying to Trump: “We can’t do this and you shouldn’t talk about it. Because talking about it is just bad . . . It’s bad for America’s reputation, it’ll spook allies, it scares everybody.”28 Former secretary of defense James Mattis also had to publicly state that the United States has no intentions “to seize anybody’s oil.” Iraq was also one of the countries Trump targeted in his Muslim travel ban.
SYRIA
Trump’s stance on Syria has been divided by his changing views of the Syrian regime under Bashar al-Assad and the U.S. effort to combat the Islamic State. During his presidential campaign, Trump suggested he would not involve the United States in the Syrian civil war. In an interview on The O’Reilly Factor, Trump said to Bill O’Reilly: “Iran and Russia are protecting Syria and it’s sort of amazing that we’re in there fighting ISIS in Syria so we’re helping the head of Syria Bashar al-Assad who is not supposed to be our friend although he looks a lot better than some of our so-called friends.” As president, Trump initially condemned the Assad regime for chemical weapons attacks on Syrian civilians, including ordering military strikes against Assad targets in response to the 2017 Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and the 2018 Douma chemical attack, but he has since appeared to have backtracked on his position. In his tweet from the end of 2018, announcing the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, Trump wrote: “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.”29 Trump’s tweet signaled to many that he may no longer have any intention of opposing Assad’s regime, which has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own civilians. As for the Islamic State, Trump has maintained a strong position against the terrorist organization. Even calling for actions during his presidential campaign that many pointed out amounted to war crimes under the Geneva Convention, Trump said: “You have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. . . . When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.”30 Despite backlash from some of his supporters, Trump maintained U.S. involvement in both Iraq and Syria to combat the Islamic State. While Trump declared in December 2018 that “we have won against ISIS,” followed by his tweet that the U.S. would be withdrawing from Syria, the Islamic State has continued to carry out terrorist attacks not only in the Middle East, but in western countries.
ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
Throughout his presidency, and even prior, Trump has demonized the Obama administration for their handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, boasting that as a businessman he could get the “deal of the century” and have the Israelis and Palestinians agree to a peace plan. Since coming into office, Trump has met with both the Israeli leadership, President Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Palestinian leadership, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. In December 2017, Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced plans to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump has also recognized Israel’s claim of sovereignty over the Golan Heights. As for his “deal of the century,” the Trump administration has continued to push back the release of the peace plan. The Palestinian Authority under Abbas has already started making efforts to ensure that major Arab countries oppose the peace plan, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, according to the Lebanese newspaper, Al Akhbar, Saudi Arabia offered Abbas $10 billion to accept Trump’s peace plan. Abbas reportedly declined the deal, stating it would “mean the end of my political life.”31
SAUDI ARABIA
In Time to Get Tough, Trump wrote: “Saudi Arabia funnels our petro dollars—our very own money—to fund terrorists that seek to destroy our people, while the Saudis rely on us to protect them!”32 Trump echoed a similar sentiment during his campaign, focusing on Saudi Arabia paying for the cost of American troops stationed in the country and arguing for the U.S. to halt the sales of oil unless Saudi Arabia provided ground troops for fighting the Islamic State. However, while initially critical of Saudi Arabia, Trump has defended the United States’s relationship with the country as president. Trump continued to defend his strong ties with Saudi leadership even following international outcry over the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Turkey. While a number of countries placed arms embargoes on Saudi Arabia, the United States did not, with Trump stating: “If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries, and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States.”33 And while the State Department condemned the murder, Trump defended Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, stating the prince told him that he knew nothing about the murder. Even following a CIA conclusion that Saudi Arabia’s leadership, including the crown prince, knew of the attack, Trump has maintained his position. In November 2018, Trump further suggested that even if the crown prince had lied to him, it is something he could live with, stating: “We do have an ally, and I want to stick with an ally that in many ways has been very good . . . I don’t know. Who could really know? But I can say this, he’s got many people now that say he had no knowledge.”34 Trump also declined to listen to the tape of the murder provided by Turkish president Erdogan, saying: “Because it’s a suffering tape, it’s a terrible tape. I’ve been fully briefed on it. There’s no reason for me to hear it. . . . It was very violent, very vicious and terrible.” Trump’s support of Saudi Arabia is perhaps best explained by comments he made to supporters at a rally in Wisconsin in April 2019: “They have nothing but cash, right? They buy a lot from us, $450 billion they bought . . . You had people wanting to cut off Saudi Arabia . . . I don’t want to lose them.”35
IRAN
Trump has long focused on Iran as an “enemy” of the United States and the “biggest terrorist supporter” in the world. During his presidency, his main focus with Iran has been the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the “Iran Deal,” which was negotiated under the Obama administration.36 The deal, which was agreed upon by Iran, the United States, France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the European Union, pressures Iran to eliminate and reduce parts of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations. While Trump has said from the beginning that the deal was “terrible,” he stated in 2015 he would attempt to enforce it. However, he later in 2016 focused on his plan to dismantle the deal, which he eventually did with the United States’ withdrawal from the agreement in May 2018. In 2019, Trump has also labeled the branch of the Iranian armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, a terrorist organization.37 This is the first time in U.S. history that the military of another country has been labeled a terrorist organization. While some of his supporters have applauded his stance toward Iran, declaring that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization contradicts widely held academic definitions of terrorist organizations as being non-state actors. Tensions between Iran and the United States continue to increase under Trump’s administration. While members of Trump’s administration have pushed for possible military action against Iran, Trump himself has seemed to waiver. Following accusations that Iran both attacked two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and shot down a U.S. drone in June 2019, Trump ordered an airstrike against Iran. However, he reportedly called off the attack after planes had been dispatched.
Trump and his administration have largely been accused of overlooking Africa in their foreign policy. A number of times Trump has been accused of making racist comments about African countries, including reportedly saying in 2017 that once Nigerians come to the United States they will never “go back to their huts.” In 2018, Trump reportedly also asked why the United States would want immigrants from “all these shithole countries,” referring to African countries, as well as Haiti.38 This comment sparked backlash from numerous African countries, including the government of Botswana, which called the comments “reprehensible and racist.” The government of Botswana also summoned the U.S. ambassador to Botswana to clarify if Trump considered their country to be one of the “shithole countries.”39 The statement also drew criticism from the African Union, with Ebba Kalondo, the group’s spokeswoman, stating: “Given the historical reality of how many Africans arrived in the United States as slaves, this statement flies in the face of all accepted behavior and practice . . . particularly surprising as the United States of America remains a global example of how migration gave birth to a nation built on strong values of diversity and opportunity.”40 Trump, as noted in the “Permission to Hate” chapter, has also faced criticism for sharing white supremacy theories about South Africa.
Trump and China
As president of the United States, Trump’s relations with the People’s Republic of China have resulted in a trade war between the two countries. However, Trump’s attitude toward China, specifically his belief that China is an enemy of the United States, has been a long-held conviction. In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump wrote:
Our biggest long-term challenge will be China. The Chinese people still have few political rights to speak of . . . Our China policy under presidents Clinton and Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese regime by incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but it’s clear that the Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride . . . Why am I concerned with political rights? I’m a good businessman and I can be amazingly unsentimental when I need to be. I also recognize that when it comes down to it, we can’t do much to change a nation’s internal policies. But I’m unwilling to shrug off the mistreatment of China’s citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it clear that China’s current government has contempt for our way of life.41
From 2011 to 2013, Trump tweeted numerous times that China was America’s enemy. In his 2011 book Time to Get Tough, while criticizing Obama’s foreign policy, Trump again paints China as an enemy of the United States:
There are four Chinese people for every American. China’s population is massive, and its economic power is huge and growing. China is now the second-largest economy in the world. We are building China’s wealth by buying all their products, even though we make better products in America. I know. I buy a lot of products . . . I buy American whenever I can. Unfortunately, a lot of times American businesses can’t buy American products because, with the Chinese screwing around their currency rates, American manufacturers can’t be competitive on price . . . The Chinese cheat with currency manipulation and with industrial espionage—and our alleged commander in chief lets them cheat.42
Trump echoed his accusation of currency manipulation by China during his presidential candidacy. And while Trump inveighed that American businesses should be buying American products, data collected regarding various Trump products, like his apparel, household goods, hotel items, and beverages, from 2007 to 2016, were largely made in other countries. Twelve countries to be exact, including China, Bangladesh, Honduras, Vietnam, the Netherlands, Mexico, India, Turkey, Slovenia, Germany, Indonesia, and South Korea.43
Following the November 2016 election, Trump accepted a congratulatory phone call from the Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen. This marked the first time contact was made between Taiwanese leadership and a U.S. president (or president-elect) since 1979, sparking backlash from China for violating the “One China Policy.” And while in 2016, Trump stated he did not feel bound by the traditional American acceptance of the “One China Policy,” by February 2017 he reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to the policy during a phone call with Chinese president Xi Jinping.44
Trump and the Philippines
President Trump has formed a relationship with the president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte. Duterte, who once called Obama a “son of a whore” who could “go to hell,”45 believes that the relationship between the Philippines and the United States has improved because of Trump, describing Trump as a “good friend” who “speaks my language.”46 In the past Duterte has been noted for such controversial language as comparing himself to Adolf Hitler and joking with his troops that rape is an acceptable tool of war. Trump has applauded Duterte’s efforts in combating drugs in the Philippines, which has included thousands of extrajudicial killings. In a 2017 phone call with Duterte, Trump stated: “I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem. Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing and I just wanted to call and tell you that.” During this phone call Trump also discussed North Korean leader Kim Jong-un with Duterte:
Donald Trump: What’s your opinion of him, Rodrigo? Are we dealing with someone who [is] stable or not stable?
Rodrigo Duterte: He is not stable, Mr. President, as he keeps on smiling when he explodes a rocket . . . He is laughing always and there’s a dangerous toy in his hand, which could create so much agony and suffering for all mankind.
Donald Trump: Well he has got the power but he doesn’t have the delivery system. All his rockets are crashing. That’s the good news . . . We have a lot of firepower over there. We have two submarines—the best in the world—we have two nuclear submarines—not that we want to use them at all. I’ve never seen anything like them but we don’t have to use this but he could be crazy so we will see what happens.
Rodrigo Duterte: Every generation has a mad man—in our generation it is Kim Jong-un—you are dealing with a very delicate problem.
Donald Trump: We can handle it.
One of Trump’s last remarks to Duterte during the phone call was: “Just take care of yourself, and we will take care of North Korea.”
Trump and North Korea
Prior to announcing his presidential candidacy in 2015, Trump has had a history of voicing his opinion on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), especially in 1999 before he first attempted to run for president. In an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press in 1999, Trump said:
First, I’d negotiate. I would negotiate like crazy and I’d make sure we tried to get the best deal possible . . . The biggest problem this world has is nuclear proliferation. I mean we have a country out there, North Korea, which is sort of wacko. Which is not, it’s not a bunch of dummies and they are going out and they are developing nuclear weapons. And they are not doing it because they are having fun doing it, they are doing it for a reason. And wouldn’t it be good to sit down and really negotiate something and I do mean negotiate. Now, if negotiation doesn’t work you better solve the problem now than solve it later. And you know Tim and every politician knows it, but no one wants to talk about it. Jimmy Carter who I really like, I mean he went over there and was so soft, these people were laughing at him.47
Trump made a similar comment that year in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, adding that the United States shouldn’t rule out any options against North Korea, which he characterized along with Russia as “unstable,” including military strikes.48 In his 2000 book The America We Deserve, Trump further explained his views not only on North Korea but the Kim family:
Look at our policy toward North Korea, an outlaw, terrorist state run by a family of certifiable loons. If these guys don’t scare you, you’ve been playing too many interactive games. North Korea has an army of goose-stepping maniacs, and they’re building nuclear bombs while most of the population is starving to death. Think it through. What does it mean when the leadership of a country spends money on weapons instead of food for a starving population? Remember, starving populations have toppled more than one regime. If the North Korean rulers are exposing themselves to this kind of risk, you can be sure they’re not building these weapons just for the hell of it. They’re going to use them if they can.
We discovered this arms-building plan a couple of years ago. What did we do? We offered to build the North Korean government two light-water nuclear reactors and supply them with heating oil if they’d promise to be good. Am I the only one who thinks it might make more sense to disarm the North Korean nuclear threat before it shows up in downtown Seattle or Los Angeles?49
Now, with Trump as president of the United States, there is concern that the United States will stumble into an inadvertent war with Kim Jong-un. This is particularly worrisome when one considers that both Trump and Kim are unseasoned in crisis decision-making, and both are under extreme stress now. Declaring it had nuclear weapons in 2003, the DPRK has conducted six nuclear tests since 2006. They have been developing a long-range missile program in parallel, intensifying under Kim Jong-un’s leadership, with a total of fourteen solid-fuel rocket tests with twenty-one missiles since February 2017. In July, North Korea successfully launched a solid-state intercontinental ballistic missile which they claimed “could reach anywhere in the world.” (United States defense experts estimated that it could reach targets in this country, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Denver.) In August 2017 President Trump escalated the war of words, warning that “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” But a trio of missiles was test-fired on that August 26. In an act of further defiance, on August 29, an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) was fired over Japan.
One cannot understand and estimate North Korean political behavior without putting it in the context of the Kim dynasty. The founding father of the modern state of North Korea, Kim Il-sung, was a larger-than-life figure. A heroic guerilla fighter who rose to power under the patronage of Stalin, he was given almost godlike stature by his son, Kim Jong-il; in his first position as director of propaganda and agitation he was responsible for burnishing the image of his father. The charismatic Kim Il-sung was responsible for developing the doctrine of juche (self-reliance) and the goal of reunification of the Korean peninsula. As he aged, he wisely designated his son as successor, and for the last twenty-five to thirty years of his life, Kim Jong-il was running the day-to-day government under the public face of his father’s heroic image.
But Kim Jong-il was not a heroic guerrilla fighter, not the charismatic founder of his nation, and not an ideology creator. It is always difficult psychologically to succeed a successful father. But to be the son of God, as he was depicted, is an overwhelming, impossible challenge. Nevertheless, Kim fostered the myth of continuity between father and son. Having led the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since 1980, Kim Jong-il had a finely tuned set of political antennae, and was always able to pull back from the edge and avoid conflict. Convinced that a nuclear shield was necessary for defensive purposes, Kim continued to develop both a nuclear capability as well as weaponizing them with increasingly sophisticated and powerful rockets. Demonstrating no empathy for his starving people, Kim regularly called for sacrifices from them, while lavishing 40% of the budget on the military and weapons research.
Unlike his father, Kim Jong-il did not designate a successor until he suffered a major stroke in August 2008. Then he designated his third son, Kim Jong-un, as successor. The aggressive acts by the DPRK—the attack on a South Korean frigate, leading to forty-six deaths, and the military shelling of Yeonpyeong Island—were probably designed to prove Kim Jong-un’s chops with the DPRK military. He was soon to be promoted to general. His tutelage was cut short by Kim Jong-il’s death on December 11, 2011. In vivid contrast to his father, Kim Jong-un was not seasoned and is inexperienced in crisis management.
Moreover, Kim Jong-un, no longer appreciating the continuing guidance and criticism of his uncle and regent Jang Song Thaek, had him killed in 2013. In 2014 he killed his relatives as well, including grandchildren, and in February 2017 ordered his half-brother Kim Jong-nam assassinated in Malaysia with the nerve agent VX.
When President Trump is under extreme stress and subject to heavy criticism, as has often been the case, his tendency is to go on the offensive. Despite President Trump’s bellicose words, Kim Jung-un continues his provocative escalation. The death of Otto Warmbier, the twenty-two-year-old student at the University of Virginia who returned home in a coma after a year and half of detention by North Korea, led to pressures for a strong response from President Trump. Trump later responded to the controversy surrounding Warmbier’s death, saying that when he questioned Kim about it: “He tells me he didn’t know about it and I will take him at his word . . . I don’t believe that he would have allowed that to happen. It just wasn’t to his advantage. Those prisons are rough, rough places and bad things happen.” Trump also stated, referring to Kim as a “friend,” that Kim “feels very badly” about what happened.50 In April 2019 it was reported that Trump may have approved of a $2 million payment in 2017 to North Korea to cover the medical care of Warmbier.
On July 4, 2018, an ICBM was successfully tested, capable of reaching Alaska. This led Kim Jong-un to state that the conflict between North Korea and the U.S. had entered a new phase. On July 28 another ICBM test traveled 2,300 miles, capable of reaching Chicago. Kim Jong-un declared this demonstrated the DPRK now has the capability of mounting a surprise attack. The successful testing of a hydrogen bomb will make Kim Jong-un more confident in his deterrent capabilities. North Korea’s accelerating progress toward nuclear-armed intercontinental missiles could offer President Trump an irresistible opportunity to demonstrate his strong, bold leadership in international affairs, and deflect attention from the domestic chaos.
This is reminiscent of President Nixon under the stress of Watergate, when concern was raised about his unilateral control of the nuclear codes, and provisions were made to guard against rash decision-making. There is heightened concern of stumbling into inadvertent war, as both Kim Jong-un and President Trump, neither experienced in crisis management, seem to be locked in a mutually provocative spiral.
President Trump eagerly and unilaterally, in the sense of without consultation with our allies or without being staffed out with the Department of State and Defense, accepted Kim Jong-un’s invitation to a summit meeting. While response to the first summit, which occurred in June 2018 in Singapore, was relatively positive, the manner in which President Trump approaches negotiation is apparently based on his individualistic style of decision-making as he functioned in his role as CEO of a major real estate company. In the months following the first summit, when Trump was asked whether he believed he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, he responded: “Everyone thinks so, but I would never say it.”51 Later on, Trump stated that the prime minister of Japan nominated him for the award, a claim never confirmed by the prime minister. However, according to a report from a Japanese newspaper, Japan only nominated Trump for the award after the White House requested them to do so.52 Trump also continued to boast about this relationship with Kim Jong-un following the first summit. At a rally in West Virginia, Trump stated: “I was really tough and so was he, and we went back and forth. And then we fell in love, okay? No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.”53
While Trump’s first summit meeting with Kim was met with a positive response, the second summit in February 2019 in Vietnam ended abruptly and without any resolution. The summit ended during the second day of negotiations, even prior to the scheduled lunch and agreement signing, over a disagreement regarding the lifting of current sanctions against North Korea. While Kim wanted all international sanctions lifted in exchange for the dismantling of the Yongbyon nuclear complex, Trump would not agree to lifting sanctions unless an entire inventory of nuclear weapons was provided, as well as the dismantling of other sites outside of Yongbyon. In regard to the quick end to the summit, Trump stated: “Sometimes you have to walk.”54 In April 2019, North Korea’s vice foreign minister stated on North Korean state media that “if the United States fails to reestablish its position within the timeline we gave, it will see truly undesired consequences.”55
In fact, the negative results of the second summit between Trump and Kim prompted Kim to hold a similar summit with Vladimir Putin. Russia reportedly extended the invitation for a summit over a year ago, but it was not until the breakdown in talks between Trump and Kim in February 2019 that Kim finally agreed to meet with Putin. The purpose of the summit was to set up Russia as an intermediary between North Korea and the United States, with Kim believing that current intermediaries to Trump, including the current U.S. secretary of state Michael Pompeo, were not properly representing North Korea’s message. Putin stated of the summit: “We are all pleased with the outcome of the talks—both I and my colleagues. Chairman Kim Jong-un is a fairly open person, leading a free discussion on all issues that were on the agenda,” and that “Chairman Kim Jong-un himself asked us to inform the American side about his position.”56 Another sign of the failing relationship between Kim and Trump is the Pentagon’s announcement on May 8 that North Korea has halted the war dead program. The program, which was a sign of improved relations between the two countries following the first summit, focused on the returning of the remains of U.S. servicemen killed during the Korean War. In 2018, fifty remains were returned to the United States. There are most likely a great deal more remains, as 7,700 of the 36,000 American servicemen who died during the war are still unaccounted for, and roughly 5,300 of those were lost in North Korea. It is important, as with Putin, to understand not only the relationship between Kim and Trump, but the psychology of Kim and how he may continue to react toward Trump and the United States.
Kim Jong-un: A Mini Political Personality Profile
Unlike Kim Jong-il, who was designated as successor some thirty years before his father’s death and held significant positions in his father’s government—indeed probably running North Korea for the last fifteen years of his father’s life—Kim Jong-un, who is his father’s third son, was only designated as successor after Kim Jong-il suffered a stroke in August 2008. Indeed, there had been great uncertainty as to who would succeed Kim Jong-il. The initial favorite of the Kim sons was the eldest, Kim Jong-nam, who faced a great deal of public embarrassment in 2001 after being caught trying to enter Japan with a fake Dominican Republic passport in order to visit Tokyo’s Disneyland. Kim Jong-il’s second son Kim Jong-chul was reportedly passed over due to being considered “too effeminate,” a euphemism for being gay.
Kim Jong-un has had virtually no experience, but nevertheless was named Kim Jong-il’s successor. Despite no military experiences, he was named a four-star general in the People’s Army, deputy chairman of the military commission of the Workers’ Party, member of the party’s Central Committee, and deputy chairman of the party’s military commission in 2010. It is widely speculated that North Korea’s attack on the South Korean frigate in March 2010, and the more recent artillery shelling of Yeonpyeong, are indications that Kim Jong-un had to earn his stripes with the North Korean military, and that Kim Jong-il was helping to build the credentials of his son.
His father was well seasoned, and while there have been provocative actions for two decades and frequent belligerent rhetoric, he always showed restraint and pulled back from the brink. In vivid contrast, Kim Jong-un is unseasoned and inexperienced, and we cannot be confident of the degree to which he is exerting control of his wisdom and judgment. Especially with the climate in South Korea having changed under President Park Guen-hye, who came to office in 2008 vowing to end the decade-long “sunshine policy” of her two predecessors. There is widespread support in South Korea for a strong response to North Korea’s provocations, but there is a significant possibility of one side or another going too far and precipitating conflict.
Recognizing his son’s youth and inexperience, Kim Jong-il appointed Choe Ryong-hae and his sister’s husband Jang Song-thaek as co-regents. It is not clear how disabled Kim Jong-il was from his stroke in terms of his leadership functioning. What is clear is that Jang Song-thaek was exercising close control over the leadership of Kim Jong-un and probably was the source of increasing resentment by him. When Kim Jong-il died at the end of 2011, never having fully recovered from his stroke, the influence of the uncle began to decline toward the end of 2012. We can infer that Kim Jong-un was feeling increasingly confident of his own leadership, and resenting the control of his uncle. Moreover, the relationship between Kim’s aunt Kim Kyong-hui and her husband became estranged, and she was apparently accusing him of forming a plot. Following the arrest and execution of Jang’s two deputies in November 2013, he was secretly detained until his staged public arrest and then executed in December of that year. Reports later came out that following the execution of his uncle, Kim Jong-un ordered the execution of not only Jang’s followers, but his extended family as well. Thus, he had fully consolidated his power with the elimination of the challenges or constraints to his leadership.
The first recorded nuclear test for North Korea was in 2006, with Kim Jong-il fully in charge. The second test, which occurred in 2009 after Kim Jong-il’s stroke, may have represented the military’s commitment to a long-planned operation. Despite active warnings against another test by China, Russia, European nations, and the United States, the third test occurred in February 2013 after Kim Jong-il’s death, when Kim Jong-un was in place as his successor. This came after the decline of Kim Jong-un’s uncle Jang Song-thaek’s influence at the end of 2012. Ongoing decisions in the nuclear program were now solely in the hands of Kim Jong-un.
Trump’s Followers and Foreign Policy
While Trump’s foreign policy decisions have appeared to some as being almost chaotic, with his stances toward various countries changing continually, in many ways his foreign policy has focused on appeasing his base. Trump declared that as president he would keep “America First,” especially in terms of foreign policy decisions, and for the most part he has maintained that promise. From berating the United States’ European allies over NATO to starting a trade war with China and even supporting regimes that have been cited for numerous human rights violations because “they have money,” Trump is only focused on American money and preserving his image to his base. And many of his foreign policy decisions have been supported not only by his base, but by non-followers as well. Trump has long declared that he is a president against humanitarian interventions and it is a position that many Americans, both Republican and Democrat, agree on. In the study, Worlds Apart: U.S. Foreign Policy and American Public Opinion, conducted by the Eurasia Group Foundation (EGF), the organization found that most Americans do not want the United States to become entangled abroad. Whether or not someone is a Trump supporter, or even supports his foreign policy decisions, his actions represent a larger portion of American public opinion than most other U.S. politicians.57