[Senate Prints 116-56]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress } { S. Prt
COMMITTEE PRINT
2d Session } { 116-56
_______________________________________________________________________
THE COST OF TRUMP'S FOREIGN POLICY:
DAMAGE AND CONSEQUENCES
FOR U.S. AND GLOBAL SECURITY
__________
A MINORITY STAFF REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
SECOND SESSION
October 21, 2020
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-275 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio TIM KAINE, Virginia
RAND PAUL, Kentucky EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
TODD YOUNG, Indiana JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TED CRUZ, Texas CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia
Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Letter of Transmittal............................................ v
Executive Summary................................................ 1
Principal Findings........................................... 3
Key Recommendations.......................................... 4
Introduction..................................................... 7
Chapter 1--The Trump Doctrine: Chaos, Neglect, and
Diplomatic Failures............................................ 11
America First?............................................... 11
Foreign Policy by Chaos...................................... 13
Undermining Democratic Values at Home........................ 16
Neglect of Pressing Global Challenges........................ 18
Diplomatic Failures.......................................... 19
Ego-Driven Diplomacy......................................... 23
Trump First.................................................. 25
Conclusion................................................... 28
Chapter 2--The Cost of Going It Alone: America
Withdrawn and Isolated......................................... 29
Abandoning International Commitments......................... 29
Our Closest Allies: Alienated and Abused..................... 34
Navigating and Hedging Against a Less-Engaged United States.. 40
Conclusion................................................... 44
Chapter 3--Empowering Adversaries and Autocrats.................. 47
A Roadmap for Repression..................................... 48
Embracing Autocrats.......................................... 52
Hampering Efforts to Promote Democracy and Human Rights...... 57
Ceding Ground to Adversaries................................. 59
Conclusion................................................... 63
Chapter 4--The World Ahead: Conclusion, Findings,
and Recommendations............................................ 65
Conclusion................................................... 65
Findings..................................................... 65
Recommendations.............................................. 68
(iii)
Letter of Transmittal
----------
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, October 21, 2020.
Dear Colleagues: This report by the Committee's Democratic
staff examines the extensive damage President Trump's foreign
policy has exacted on the United States' international
interests and global security. I thought it important to assess
the impact of President Trump's engagement with the world from
a Congressional perspective, looking at some of the starkest
examples and what his administration's actions have meant for
the American people.
Given the importance of the topic, I directed members of my
staff, Lowell Schwartz, Megan Bartley, and Nina Russell, to
examine President Trump's conduct of foreign policy and the
consequences for U.S. foreign policy and national security. My
staff interviewed dozens of former U.S. officials, many of whom
served in senior positions in the Trump administration. They
also traveled and met with foreign government officials and
foreign policy experts, speaking to individuals from more than
20 countries.
What we found is troubling. President Trump's words and
actions have levied a toll on our foreign policy, the future
prospects for the U.S. role in the world, and the health and
security of Americans.
As democracy is declining and authoritarianism is on the
rise around the world, our diplomats report they cannot
effectively champion human rights or promote good governance,
in part because the power of the President's example undermines
their efforts. Despite his bluster, North Korean nuclear and
missile programs are larger and more capable than before
Trump's presidency. Iran is closer to a nuclear bomb today than
when President Trump took office. This Administration has
neglected pressing global problems, including the COVID-19
pandemic and climate change. The President has repeatedly
bullied and threatened our closest allies and partners, when
what we need are strong coalitions to promote U.S. interests
and address urgent challenges that endanger the health and
security of Americans.
(v)
This report takes stock of these profound challenges facing
us. It also provides practical and timely recommendations for
Congress and future administrations to begin to repair the
damage of four years of ``Trump First.'' We need to rebuild
U.S. foreign policy institutions, mend relations with allies
and partners, and adjust our foreign policy for a new era to
address global challenges. I hope this report can serve as a
roadmap for what needs rebuilding, where the damage lies, and
as a reminder of the consequence of an incoherent, chaotic
foreign policy. For those of us who care deeply about this
country, and the role we play in the world, there is a lot of
work ahead.
Sincerely,
Robert Menendez,
Ranking Member.
Executive Summary
----------
Over many decades, the United States has built up
international influence by using its unrivaled diplomatic,
military, economic, and ideological power. American leaders
combined this power with a foreign policy vision based upon a
robust defense of democratic values. In addition, the United
States forged alliances and built international institutions to
assist in maintaining our domestic and global security, manage
relations with other major economies, and garner political
support for critical U.S. foreign policy objectives. These
efforts enabled the United States to become a global power with
the unique ability to shape and guide international affairs.
The Trump administration has damaged the foundations that
undergird U.S international strength and influence. Under
President Trump, the United States has neglected and
deliberately ignored pressing global challenges, making it a
bystander in international efforts to confront these collective
threats. U.S. national security decisions have been driven by
President Trump's ego, his domestic political considerations,
and his relationships with foreign leaders, not the vital
interests of the United States. He has transformed U.S. foreign
policy into a vehicle for the pursuit of his own personal and
financial interests. President Trump has ignored and neglected
key issues that threaten the United States because they do not
fit into his narrow vision of how the world functions.
To date, the COVID-19 pandemic has claimed more than 1
million lives worldwide, of which more than 215,000 are
Americans. Unlike previous crises, the United States is barely
participating in the global response, much less leading it, and
given Trump's history, few in the international community
expected us to. President Trump has claimed that North Korea is
no longer a nuclear threat, yet its nuclear and missile
programs are larger and more capable than when he took office.
His administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA), with President Trump claiming he would work
to find a ``real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the
Iranian nuclear threat.'' Instead, his approach has resulted in
an Iran that is closer to a nuclear weapon than when Trump took
office, and has left the United States isolated, with no viable
strategy or solution in sight.
Past U.S. presidents sought to showcase the United States
as a model for what a society can achieve when it is based upon
democracy and freedom. President Trump, on the other hand, has
consistently shown disdain for pluralism, human rights, civil
society, the press, and rule of law. His domestic policies,
including family separation, reducing the number of refugees
into the U.S., attacking the rule of law and the freedom of the
press, and failing to stand up for racial equality, have led
U.S. allies to question the values of the United States.
Authoritarian leaders have seized upon the abandonment of these
values, seeing it as an opportunity to consolidate their rule.
Former senior U.S. government officials interviewed by
Committee Democratic staff reported that President Trump's
rhetoric and actions undermined the ability of U.S. officials
to promote or influence democracy abroad. Diplomats reported
that foreign counterparts did not take them seriously when they
tried to raise human rights or adherence to the rule of law.
Others recalled the embarrassment of attempting to promote
freedom of the press abroad, weighed down by ``baggage in
Washington.'' Officials who worked in the Trump administration,
forced to explain ``America First'' around the world, found
there was ``no Trump doctrine,'' but rather, a ``malign neglect
of relationships, indifference to values, [and an] insidious
thematic . . . message . . . me first--I am putting my
interests before yours.''
This report takes stock of the damage President Trump's
foreign policy has inflicted on U.S. and global security, as
well as the immediate and long-term consequences for the safety
and security of the American people. It finds that the state of
the United States in the world hangs in a tenuous balance. Our
allies are weary and alienated; our own diplomats struggle to
uphold the values we have promoted to the world for decades;
and a U.S. president's eschewing of democracy has helped to
fuel autocratic trends abroad.
The report is based in large part on interviews and
discussions with former U.S. and foreign government officials
and foreign policy experts who shared their candid assessments
about foreign policy under President Trump. For over a year,
Committee Democratic staff conducted more than 80 interviews,
including dozens of interviews with U.S. officials who served
in the Trump administration. Committee staff sought a wide
range of viewpoints and regional perspectives, speaking with
officials and experts from nearly 20 countries.
Chapter One finds that, while President Trump may have
termed his approach to foreign policy ``America First,'' in
practice, it should be called ``Trump First,'' with America's
interests overshadowed by the President's own interests and
style. It catalogues how President Trump's foreign policy has
been characterized by chaos, neglect, and diplomatic failures,
rather than a cohesive strategy, and examines the damage these
factors have had on U.S. national security.
Chapter Two shows how President Trump has alienated allies
and isolated the United States from international efforts to
confront global threats. It examines the consequences of
Trump's decisions to undermine decades-long partnerships, which
have historically been force multipliers for U.S. efforts to
achieve national security objectives.
Chapter Three examines President Trump's impact on U.S.
adversaries and autocrats. It shows how autocrats around the
world have seen the Trump administration as an opportunity to
consolidate their power through repressive means, and how U.S.
adversaries have been empowered by a foreign policy that
isolates the United States from its allies, disengages from
multinational organizations, and ignores human rights abuses.
It also recounts how, in a previously undisclosed phone call,
President Trump called Senator Menendez to defend Prime
Minister Orb n.
The report concludes with a series of recommendations aimed
at addressing the damage President Trump has inflicted on U.S.
foreign policy, and to chart a path forward for how the United
States engages with the world. These recommendations focus on
the need to rebuild U.S. foreign policy institutions, uphold
our own democratic values at home, heal U.S. relations with
allies and partners, and adjust our foreign policy for a new
era.
Principal Findings
President Trump's foreign policy has been marked by chaos,
neglect, and diplomatic failures. Former Trump
administration officials admit the President's
impulsive, erratic approach has tarnished the
reputation of the United States as a reliable partner
and led to disarray in dealing with foreign
governments. Foreign officials are often uncertain
about who speaks for the United States. Critical
neglect of global challenges has endangered Americans,
weakened the U.S. role in the world, and squandered the
respect it built up over decades. Sudden
pronouncements, such as the withdrawal of U.S. troops
from Syria, have angered close allies and caught U.S.
officials off-guard. U.S. officials keep their heads
down in the hopes that President Trump won't upend U.S.
policy in a tweet.
President Trump's narrow and transactional view of
international relations has alienated U.S. allies and
partners. U.S. allies have been the targets of
President Trump's transactional approach to foreign
policy and are increasingly asking how the U.S.
approach to international relations differs from that
of Russia and China. The Trump administration's use of
tariffs against allies has led them to halt or
reconsider cooperation with the United States in a
number of critical areas. U.S allies are increasingly
ignoring U.S. objections to their policies because they
believe the United States is deliberately undermining
their interests.
International allies and partners of the United States have
begun to move on, viewing the United States not as the
democratic leader of the free world, but rather as a
destabilizing global force they need to manage.
President Trump's abuse of power in the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy is causing our allies to take steps to
insulate themselves. They are hedging against the
United States by pursuing trade agreements with other
countries to reduce their dependence on the United
States, and forming alternative security partnerships
in case the United States abandons them. They are
pursuing international engagement, including new
multilateral agreements, without U.S. participation or
influence.
The Trump administration's domestic policies, including
separating families at the border, sharply reducing
refugee admissions, attacking the rule of law and free
press, and failing to promote racial equality, have
damaged the United States credibility and standing in
the world. U.S. presidents in the past have sought to
showcase the United States as a model for what a
society can achieve when it is based upon democracy and
freedom. President Trump, on the other hand, through
his rhetoric and domestic policies, has consistently
shown his disdain for pluralism, human rights, civil
society, the press, and rule of law. These policies
have caused traditional U.S. allies to question the
values of the United States, and provided authoritarian
leaders an opportunity to consolidate their power.
Countries with authoritarian and autocratic leaders are
less concerned about violating the human rights of
their citizens because they know the United States
under President Trump will ignore their repressive
activities. Authoritarian leaders in Europe, Asia,
Africa, and the Middle East have seen very little, if
any, pushback from the highest levels of the Trump
administration when they take antidemocratic steps and
suppress dissent. Instead, some of these leaders have
been welcomed to the White House, which enhances their
legitimacy at home. State Department efforts to promote
democracy and human rights are dismissed by foreign
officials because they are completely at odds with
President Trump's own behavior.
Key Recommendations
The United States should restore democracy, rule of law,
human rights, and cooperation with allies, partners,
and multilateral institutions as key principles of U.S.
foreign and national security policy. The U.S. should
reinvest in the alliances and partnerships that are
vital for protecting it from international threats. It
should also re-engage with international institutions
that assist the United States in promoting inclusive
economic growth, democracy, and a stable international
environment.
The United States must confront the serious dangers
Americans and the world face from global threats,
including climate change, pandemics, authoritarianism,
and nuclear proliferation, which the Trump
administration has ignored. The COVID-19 crisis has
been a profound example of the world's
interconnectivity and the need to prevent, confront,
and contain threats. To secure Americans and ensure
domestic prosperity, the United States needs to engage
and lead global efforts to combat global threats.
The United States should achieve bipartisan agreement on
key foreign policy and national security policies, to
alleviate international fears that the United States is
an unreliable partner. The next administration should
seek Congressional approval for its foreign policy
efforts as a way to build lasting bipartisan consensus
for its policies. Although difficult, it would
demonstrate to international partners that U.S.
policies and positions will endure from one
administration to the next.
Congress must reassert its oversight role of the Executive
branch and invest in its capacity to legislate and
oversee U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. system of
government relies on checks and balances, and requires
a robust legislative branch. Congress must be an
effective partner and counterbalance to the Executive
in charting a whole-of-government path forward to
reestablishing the United States as a credible ally and
principled world power.
Congress and the next administration must work together to
revitalize and improve key foreign policy institutions,
such as the State Department, to reflect a commitment
to a 21st-century foreign policy strategy. The U.S.
must build a 21st-century diplomatic corps empowered to
address increasingly complex global challenges, such as
climate change, cybersecurity, and global health
issues. In restoring U.S. global leadership and high
standards of competency and professionalism in its
diplomatic engagements, the U.S. must address long-
standing vacancies at the State Department, promote
more career servants into senior leadership positions
at the Department to provide more stability in foreign
policy across administrations, and increase diversity
at all levels of foreign policy leadership.
Introduction
----------
Foreign policy has been central to the security and
prosperity of the United States from its inception.\1\ Adroit
diplomacy played a critical role in the American Revolution by
securing French support for the American cause, and helped to
ensure a Union victory in the Civil War by keeping European
powers sidelined during the conflict. After World War II, the
United States decided its economic well-being and safety
depended upon forging a new international system that would
rein in conflict and promote positive economic engagement
between world powers. The alliances the United States forged
during this period and the international institutions that
emerged from these alliances have endured long after the
collapse of the Soviet Union.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ George Herring, From colony to superpower: U.S. foreign
relations since 1776, Oxford University Press, 2008.
\2\ John Ikenberry, Liberal leviathan: the origins, crisis, and
transformation of the American world order, Princeton University Press,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until January 2017, alliances and international
institutions formed the backbone of U.S. foreign policy. They
played a vital role in maintaining U.S. security, managing
relations with other major economies, and building political
support for critical U.S. foreign policy objectives. The
unrivaled diplomatic, military, and economic power of the
United States after World War II was another central factor in
protecting the nation.
While there has been a great deal of continuity in the
American approach to the world, the United States has
repeatedly adjusted its policies to account for the rise of new
threats and shifts in global conditions. U.S. foreign policy
has also been altered in response to the American people's
views on the role the United States should have in global
affairs.
On the eve of President Trump's inauguration, it was
becoming increasingly apparent that U.S. foreign policy needed
to adapt to meet and address new and pressing global
challenges. The difficulties in confronting these challenges,
including the rise of populism and authoritarianism and decline
in democracy and freedom around the world, was compounded by an
international environment that was becoming more hostile to
U.S. values and interests.
Emerging Power Competition
Chief among the challenges the United States faced was the
reemergence of great power competition, particularly with
Russia and China. After a sustained period of more positive and
cooperative relations, these countries had become more
threatening and hostile.\3\ Russia and China each seek to
control key global regions vital for U.S. security, including
Europe and the Indo-Pacific.\4\ Russia has been more openly
aggressive, using direct military intervention in attempts to
compel its neighbors to adhere to Russia's policies. This was
seen most visibly in Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008,
illegal occupation of Crimea, and military aggression in
eastern Ukraine starting in 2014.\5\ China is using a different
set of tools in its pursuit of a sphere of influence. It has
sought to limit freedom of navigation in the Asia Pacific with
its assertive claims of sovereignty over the South China Sea
and it has used its increased economic power as leverage to
reward or punish neighboring states.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Thomas Wright, All Measures Short of War: The Contest for the
21st Century & The Future of American Power, Yale University Press (May
23, 2017).
\4\ See U.S. Department of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National
Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the
American Military's Competitive Edge, Jan. 2018.
\5\ See Congressional Research Service, Russia: Background and U.S.
Policy, Aug. 21, 2017.
\6\ This includes through the Belt and Road Initiative, China's
strategy to increase its influence through extensive infrastructure
investments. Congressional Research Service, U.S.-China Relations, Aug.
8, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 2008 financial crisis, Russian and Chinese
leaders have put forward a vision of authoritarianism that they
argue is a superior method for organizing society in comparison
to liberal democracy. They promote their model of authoritarian
capitalism as an option for countries that seek economic
development while preserving their independence from the
strings attached to U.S. development assistance.\7\ This
ideological competition plays out in the global arena through
Russian and Chinese support for their fellow authoritarian
leaders, their efforts to reshape international norms and
institutions in ways more friendly to authoritarian priorities,
and their activities to weaken, corrupt, delegitimize, and
distort the political systems of liberal democracies, including
the United States.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Kevin Rudd, ``The Rise of Authoritarian Capitalism,'' The
New York Times, Sept. 16, 2018; John Lee, ``Western vs. Authoritarian
Capitalism,'' The Diplomat, June 18, 2009.
\8\ Hal Brands, ``Democracy vs. Authoritarianism: How Ideology
Shapes Great-Power Conflict,'' Survival, Oct.-Nov. 2018, at 61-114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The return of great-power rivalry poses a challenge to the
United States, at both a regional and global level. Russia and
China work to weaken global institutions that constrain and
challenge their power and that question the internal legitimacy
of their authoritarian systems. They also use a range of tools,
from inducement to intimidation to military coercion, to alter
the international environment into one more receptive to their
ambitions and less responsive to U.S. values and concerns.
Transnational Challenges
The reemergence of great-power competition makes it more
difficult to address the second set of challenges that faced
the United States in January 2017: transnational and global
problems, including climate change, the risk of pandemics,
terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. All of these challenges
require a high degree of international cooperation and
consensus-building around potential solutions. At a time of
heightened tensions, collaborating to solve collective problems
requires balancing geo-strategic concerns with the urgent need
to address these global challenges. Effective responses require
all hands on deck, including governments, civil society, and
the private sector.
The United States has long recognized the need to work with
strategic competitors to address global challenges. American
cooperation with China and Russia has been critical to mitigate
some of the world's greatest threats in recent decades. After
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Russia supported
U.S. and NATO efforts to remove the Taliban and prevent their
return to power, and China supported several U.S.
counterterrorism efforts through the United Nations Security
Council. A joint agreement in 2014 between China and the United
States, the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases,
helped pave the way for the Paris Agreement on climate
change.\9\ Even in the midst of great-power competition, the
world remains interdependent. This unavoidable interdependence
in a globalized world has its costs but it also creates
opportunities to achieve benefits for multiple countries rather
than none.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The White House, ``U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate
Change,'' Nov. 11, 2014; Joanna Lewis, ``The U.S.-China Climate and
Energy Relationship,'' Chapter in Parallel Perspectives on the Global
Economic Order, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Sept.
22, 2017.
\10\ See, e.g., Anne-Marie Slaughter, foreword to Wayne Porter &
Mark Mykleby, A National Strategic Narrative, Woodrow Wilson Center,
2011; Jim Dwyer, ``A National Security Strategy That Doesn't Focus on
Threats,'' The New York Times, May 3, 2011.
Democracy in Decline Worldwide
A third major factor confronting the United States as
President Trump took office was the decline in the level of
democracy and freedom around the world, including the rise of
populist movements and authoritarianism.\11\ Annual indices
tracking global democracy found that 2019 marked a 14-year
decline, including benchmarks that fared worse than the
previous low in 2010 following the global financial crisis.\12\
These factors create new dynamics for how the United States
chooses to engage with states that are becoming more repressive
and less democratic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The decline in freedom and democracy is demonstrated in
several annual indices that measure global levels of democracy and
freedom. For example, the annual Freedom House report, Freedom in the
World 2020: A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy, found that 2019 was
the 14th consecutive year of decline in global freedom. Freedom House,
Freedom in the World 2020: A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy, Mar.
2020. See also ``Global democracy has another bad year: But popular
protests show potential for democratic renewal,'' Daily Chart, The
Economist, Jan. 22, 2020; V-Dem Institute, Autocratization Surges--
Resistance Grows: Democracy Report 2020; Chapter 3.
\12\ Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2020, Mar. 2020; Democracy
Index 2019: A year of democratic setbacks and popular protest, The
Economist Intelligence Unit, Jan. 2020, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decline in global freedom and democracy has several
consequences for U.S. foreign policy, and in turn, for U.S.
security and safety. The United States historically has found
democratic states to be more reliable and trustworthy
international partners.\13\ Thus, a decline in the quantity of
democratic states limits the number and effectiveness of
potential partners with which the United States can pursue
common interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For example, in a 1993 speech to the United Nations, President
Clinton announced that the United States' ``overriding purpose must be
to expand and strengthen the world's community of market-based
democracies. During the Cold War we sought to contain a threat to the
survival of free institutions. Now we seek to enlarge the circle of
nations that live under those free institutions. For our dream is of a
day when the opinions and energies of every person in the world will be
given full expression, in a world of thriving democracies that
cooperate with each other and live in peace.'' President William J.
Clinton, Address to the UN General Assembly, Sept. 27, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic backsliding also undermines the effectiveness of
international institutions based upon democratic principles,
such as NATO and the EU. Backsliding in Turkey and Hungary has
troubling implications for NATO, which was founded upon the
defense of democratic principles. The EU faces a similar
challenge with Hungary, now classified by Freedom House as an
electoral authoritarian regime, which as an EU member gets to
fully participate in all EU decision making.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Celeste A. Wallander, ``NATO's Enemies Within: How Democratic
Decline Could Destroy the Alliance,'' Foreign Affairs, July/Aug. 2018;
Norman Eisen & James Kirchick, ``Yes, Russia is a threat to NATO. So
are the alliance's anti-democratic members,'' The Washington Post, July
11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the decline in the number of democratic states and
the rise of more authoritarian ones provides Russia and China
with new partners for their efforts to expand their
influence.\15\ For example, in Eastern Europe and the Balkans,
long-standing Russian efforts to discredit democracy reinforce
the effects of major infrastructure investments from China in
cultivating potential partners.\16\ In offering no-strings-
attached financial aid and weapons, both China and Russia
dilute U.S. leverage to press for human rights and rule-of-law
reform.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Bruce Jones & Torrey Taussig, Democracy & Disorder: The
Struggle for Influence in the New Geopolitics,Brooking Institute (Feb.
2019).
\16\ Andrea Kendall-Taylor & David Shullman, ``How Russia and China
Undermine Democracy: Can the West Counter the Threat?'' Foreign
Affairs, Oct. 2, 2018.
\17\ Id.
Scope of the Report
The objective of this report is not to conduct a systematic
review of the Trump administration's conduct of U.S. foreign
policy, nor to examine how President Trump has approached every
international crisis during his presidency.
Instead, this report seeks to take stock of the damage
President Trump's foreign policy has done to U.S. and global
security, as well as the immediate and long-term consequences
this has had on the safety and security of the American people.
It examines some of the starkest examples of how President
Trump's approach to foreign policy has resulted in a chaotic
process, and how abrupt decisions, which take close allies by
surprise have thrown our alliances into disarray. It also
reviews how President Trump's hostility toward multilateral
alliances has left the U.S. withdrawn and isolated from
combatting pressing global challenges. Finally, it reviews the
effect of President Trump's rhetoric, actions, and inaction on
authoritarian regimes and autocratic leaders.
The report, a culmination of interviews and discussions
Democratic Committee staff conducted with dozens of U.S. and
foreign government officials and foreign policy experts over
more than a year, finds that the state of the United States in
the world hangs in a tenuous balance. Our allies are weary and
alienated; our own diplomats struggle to uphold the values we
have promoted to the world for decades; and a U.S. president's
eschewing of democracy has helped to fuel autocratic trends
abroad.
Chapter 1
The Trump Doctrine: Chaos, Neglect,
and Diplomatic Failures
----------
There is no question that President Trump has brought a
markedly different approach to foreign policy than previous
administrations. Termed ``America First'' by President Trump,
this approach is supposedly defined by putting the interests of
the American people first. In practice, however, there is
little evidence that this is the driving force. As numerous
interviews confirmed, and as the events of the last four years
have shown, President Trump's brand of foreign policy is
characterized by chaos, driven by ego and personal interests,
and heavily influenced by catering to a political base on
domestic issues. It has also notably neglected a host of
critical international threats, with tragic consequences, and
left a string of diplomatic failures in its wake. The result is
few measurable achievements, and considerable damage to U.S.
interests.
Today, North Korea remains a nuclear threat, Iran is closer
to a nuclear bomb, and U.S. efforts to support a democratic
transition in Venezuela are frozen. Respect for the United
States has dropped precipitously around the world. American
foreign policy has been run like a wayward vessel--not
following a charted course, but subject to abrupt shifts and
near-collisions at the whims of a reckless captain. While there
are Americans who share the President's desire to be less
engaged in the world, Americans are less safe when the United
States is less respected and its leadership is seen as
capricious and untrustworthy.
America First?
President Trump contends that his ``America First'' foreign
policy ``will always put the interests of the American people
and American security above all else.''\18\ The term ``America
First'' is meant to capture President Trump's view that the
United States is in decline and that previous administrations
allowed other nations to take advantage of the United States--a
position he has more or less espoused for decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``Transcript: Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Speech,'' The New
York Times, April 27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump's approach is grounded in three key ways he
views the world: the United States is overextended abroad, the
global economy disadvantages the United States, and
authoritarian leaders are sympathetic friends.\19\ He has been
highly critical of U.S. military alliances, believing the
United States is overextended and ``subsidiz[ing] the armies of
other countries.''\20\ He has also argued that the United
States is disadvantaged by the structure of the global economy.
Trump has generally opposed trade agreements and supported
using tariffs to protect U.S. industry and punish economic
malfeasance by other countries.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., Thomas Wright, ``Trump's team of rivals, riven by
distrust,'' Foreign Policy, Dec. 14, 2016.
\20\ The White House, ``The Inaugural Address: Remarks of President
Donald J. Trump, As Prepared for Delivery,'' Jan. 20, 2017.
\21\ See, e.g., Thomas Wright, ``Trump Takes Allies Back to 19th
Century Global Order,'' Brookings, Mar. 21, 2017; The White House,
``The Inaugural Address: Remarks of President Donald J. Trump, As
Prepared for Delivery,'' Jan. 20, 2017; Jim Tankersley & Mark Landler,
``Trump's Love of Tariffs Began in Japan's 80's Boom,'' The New York
Times, May 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump's views on foreign policy coincided with a
growing sense of disillusionment among a significant segment of
the American population about the U.S. role in world. This
populist backlash reflected a number of factors, including
perceptions about the unequal distribution of benefits the
American people receive from our global engagement, and what
many saw as major failures in U.S. foreign policy. Among other
things, the Iraq War and the lack of progress in Afghanistan
eroded and undermined the American people's confidence in the
current course and direction of U.S. policy.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., Nikolas K. Gvosdev, ``Misconnecting with the U.S.
Public: Narrative Collapse and U.S. Foreign Policy,'' Interim Report of
the project on U.S. Global Engagement, Carnegie Council, Dec. 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration supporters argue Trump's foreign policy
takes into account the views of many Americans whose opinions
on foreign affairs have been neglected. For example, some argue
that his approach to the world is a necessary corrective to
``the uncomfortable truth that visions of benevolent
globalization and peace-building liberal internationalism have
failed to materialize leaving in their place a world that is
increasingly hostile to American values and interests.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Nadia Schadlow, ``The End of American Illusion,'' Foreign
Affairs, Sept./Oct. 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While President Trump may have termed his approach to
foreign policy ``America First,'' in practice, his policy
should be called ``Trump First.'' Interviews with former Trump
administration officials confirm what has been widely reported
in the press: Trump's approach is driven more by his own whims
and ego than a sense of commitment or duty to pursue American
interests. One former senior U.S. official compared President
Trump's administration to a ``royal court'' where ``everyone is
jockeying for favor''; instead of a ``functioning cabinet, he
has courtiers.''\24\ In this official's view, there is ``no
Trump doctrine, no Trump government or administration''; the
only constants in White House decision-making are ``Trump's
impulsive, convulsive, intuitive approach, and the fact that,
if something's important, he has to do it himself.''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Interview of Former Assistant Secretary of State, May 2019.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond an ego-driven approach, Trump's foreign policy has
been characterized by:
Chaos instead of process;
Domestic policies that undermine the democratic principles
the U.S. espouses to the rest of the world;
Neglect of key global threats;
Diplomatic failures; and,
Efforts to advance his own personal and political
interests.
This chapter will examine each of these in turn, along with
the consequences for U.S. national security.
Foreign Policy by Chaos
As has been well-documented, Trump's governing style has
been marked by chaos, abrupt and inconsistent decision-making,
and an often dysfunctional process, which is also true of his
foreign policy.\26\ One former senior U.S. official put it this
way: ``The Trump administration does not have a foreign policy
strategy. There is often total misalignment between Trump's
instincts and the policy those in his administration want to or
are trying to carry out. There is only the veneer of
process.''\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See, e.g., Greg Jaffe, ``A dangerous confusion at the heart of
Trump's foreign policy,'' The Washington Post, June 21, 2019; Simon
Tisdall, ``Trump's new world disorder: competitive, chaotic,
conflicted: With John Bolton dismissed, Taliban peace talks a fiasco
and a trade war with China, US foreign policy is ever more unstable and
confrontational,'' The Guardian, Sept. 14, 2019; Thomas Wright, ``A
bigger foreign policy mess than anyone predicted,'' The Brookings
Institution, Jan. 2, 2020; Daniel Drezner, The Toddler in Chief: What
Donald Trump Teaches Us about the Modern Presidency (2020), at 68.
\27\ Interview of Former Senior U.S. Official, Apr. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the beginning of the Administration, there has been
confusion about who in the U.S. government represents the
President's views, and whether there is agreement within the
administration on them. Indeed, when the Trump administration
unveiled its first National Security Strategy (NSS), it laid
out principles such as the need to ``lead and engage in
multinational arrangements'' and the important role allies and
partners play in ``magnifying our power''--views diametrically
opposed to those often expressed by President Trump.\28\ The
document labeled Russia as a ``revisionist power'' that seeks
``spheres of influence'' in Europe and is antithetical to U.S.
values and interests.\29\ Yet, on unveiling the strategy,
President Trump spoke about building a ``great partnership''
with Russia and China and went into detail recounting recent
cooperation between the United States and Russia foiling a
terrorist attack.\30\ Some wondered if President Trump
disagreed with his own national security strategy, or just
hadn't read it.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ President Donald Trump, National Security Strategy of the
United States of America, Dec. 2017, at 4, 40.
\29\ Id. at 25.
\30\ President Donald Trump, Remarks by President Trump on the
Administration's National Security Strategy, Dec. 18, 2017.
\31\ See, e.g., Daniel Vajdich, Opinion, ``Trump Should Abide by
His Own National Security Strategy,'' Foreign Policy, Jan. 24, 2018;
Interviews of Multiple Former Senior Officials, May and June 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former officials reported that, the lack of real process
led to poorly vetted results. One former U.S. official said:
``[former Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson said there was an
interagency process. It was he and [former Secretary of Defense
Jim] Mattis having breakfast.''\32\ For example, when Trump
announced in June 2018 that the U.S. would suspend joint
military exercises with South Korea, there was ``no paper, no
pros and cons, no analysis of consequences.''\33\ Indeed,
coverage of the decision noted that it surprised ``allies,
military officials, and lawmakers from his own Republican
Party.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State, May
2019.
\33\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State, May
2019. See also Josh Smith & Phil Stewart, ``Trump surprises with pledge
to end military exercises in South Korea,'' Reuters, June 12, 2018.
\34\ Steve Holland et al., ``In surprise summit concession, Trump
says he will halt Korea war games,'' Reuters, June 11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump also famously seeks to foment competition
within his team. He would ask three people to do the same
thing, or write a version of the same speech--and no one knew
which speech he would choose to read.\35\ This infighting by
design, particularly in the early days of the Administration,
only added to the policy-making chaos; it also incentivized
staff to self-censor in order to be included in briefings.\36\
Trump was known for not paying close attention to policy, but
would undermine those not doing what he wanted them to.\37\
Former U.S. officials reported that many would hope the issue
or region they covered would stay ``under the radar,'' so as
not to get noticed by Trump--and potentially upended in a
tweet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Interview of Former Senior Director, National Security
Council, May 2019.
\36\ Id.
\37\ Interview of Former U.S. Official, Feb. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most public aspect of President Trump's chaotic
approach is also how allies, and even parts of the U.S.
government, often learned of major decisions. ``Abrupt,''
``disruptive'' ``reckles[s],'' ``unpredictable,'' and
``erratic'' are among the adjectives used to describe Trump's
sudden pronouncements, often through Twitter, to announce a new
policy or shift.\38\ President Trump's sudden pronouncements
have left foreign leaders struggling to take him seriously--not
merely because he professed his ``love'' for Kim Jong-un, but
because his tweets and statements often directly contradict or
upend the official U.S. government position, or are later
reversed.\39\ Even those in the U.S. government who are
responsible for implementing the President's announcements have
often been in the dark on what Trump intended or how to carry
out his policy whims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Jeffrey Prescott, ``Trump Doesn't Deserve Any Credit for
His Disruptive Foreign Policy: There's no substance behind arguments
that the U.S. president is using his unpredictability to the country's
advantage,'' Opinion, Foreign Policy, Mar. 14, 2019; Jackson Diehl,
``Trump's foreign policy has devolved into chaos,'' Opinion, The
Washington Post, Sept. 16, 2018; Glenn Thrush & Mark Landler, ``Bold,
Unpredictable Foreign Policy Lifts Trump, but Has Risks,'' The New York
Times, Apr. 20, 2017.
\39\ See, e.g., Philip Rucker & Josh Dawsey, `` `We fell in love':
Trump and Kim shower praise, stroke egos on path to nuclear
negotiations,'' The Washington Post, Feb. 25, 2019; Jessica Taylor,
``Trump Tweets Give a Glimpse Into Foreign Policy Approach,'' NPR, Dec.
28, 2016; Frida Ghitis, ``This Is What Happens When Trump Makes Foreign
Policy by Tweet,'' Politico, Jan. 14, 2019; Shawn Snow & Leo Shane III,
``Trump says tweet serves as `notification' to Congress that US may
`quickly & fully strike back' against Iran,'' Military Times, Jan. 5,
2020; Emily Birnbaum, ``Trump tests Twitter policies with Iran
threats,'' The Hill, Jan. 7, 2020; Jack Nassetta, ``Want to influence
Trump's foreign policy? Just reply to his tweets,'' The Week, Aug. 14,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following box demonstrates some of the President's
announcements that have taken U.S. officials by surprise, did
not reflect official U.S. policy, or were ultimately not
carried out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNPREDICTABLE FOREIGN POLICY BY TWEET
Jan. 2018: Trump tweeted that his ``Nuclear Button'' is ``much bigger & more ............
powerful'' than that of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.\40\
May 2018: Announced that he would work with Chinese leader Xi to save Chinese jobs ............
and help ZTE (a Chinese company).\41\
July 2018: Threatened Iranian President Rouhani: ``NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED ............
STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT
HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE.''\42\
Dec. 2018: Announced U.S. withdrawal from Syria through a tweeted video.\43\ ............
Jan. 2019: Threatened to economically ``devastate'' Turkey if it harms the ............
Kurds.\44\
May 2019: Tweeted that he was unconcerned by North Korea having ``fired off some ............
small weapons'' because of his ``confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his
promise.''\45\
May 2019: Threatened a 5% tariff on Mexico unless they stop ``illegal migrants ............
coming through Mexico, and into our Country.''\46\
June 2019: Announced the withdrawal of the threatened tariffs on Mexico.\47\ ............
Aug. 2019: Denied American involvement in a mysterious explosion at an Iranian space ............
center. Included a high-resolution image that some thought was a classified image
from his morning intelligence briefing.\48\
Jan. 2020: Threatened 52 Iranian cultural sites.\49\ ............
Jan. 2020: Threatened Iran that the U.S. military will "quickly & fully strike back, ............
& perhaps in a disproportionate manner," if the country attacks Americans, and
claimed that the tweet served as a notification to Congress\50\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Donald Trump, Jan. 2, 2018, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948355557022420992.
\41\ Donald Trump, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/995680316458262533?lang=en.
\42\ Donald Trump, July 22, 2018, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666.
\43\ Donald Trump, Dec. 19, 2018, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1075528854402256896?lang=en.
\44\ Donald Trump, Jan. 13, 2019, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1084584259510304768.
\45\ Donald Trump, May 25, 2019, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1132459370816708608.
\46\ Donald Trump, May 30, 2019, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1134240653926232064.
\47\ Donald Trump, June 7, 2019, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137155056044826626?s=20, https://
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137155057667989511?s=20.
\49\ Donald Trump, Jan. 4, 2020, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112?ref--
src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1213593975732527112%7Ctwgr%5E&ref--url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alja
zeera.com%2Fnews%2F2020%2F01%2Ftrump-tweets-international-law-200107064935688.html.
\50\ Donald Trump, Jan. 5, 2020, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160.
The President's sudden announcement in December 2018 that
the U.S. would withdraw troops from Syria demonstrates the
consequences of governing by chaos. President Trump effectively
upended U.S. official policy in one phone call, and then
announced it on Twitter in a series of convoluted tweets.\51\
The move was made over the recommendations of his advisors, and
was a reversal of the policy that administration officials had
just reiterated to U.S. allies.\52\ As a result, U.S. troops
were left vulnerable to ``unreliable'' militias as they sought
to withdraw.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Karen DeYoung et al., ``As Trump withdraws U.S. forces from
northern Syria, his administration scrambles to respond,'' The
Washington Post, Oct. 13, 2019.
\52\ Mark Landler et al., ``Trump to Withdraw U.S. Forces From
Syria, Declaring `We Have Won Against ISIS,' '' The New York Times,
Dec. 19, 2018; Anne Gearan et al., `` `They screwed this whole thing
up': Inside the attempt to derail Trump's erratic Syria withdrawal,''
The Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2019. Following Trump's strategy shift in
Syria, McGurk wrote a letter to Pompeo saying, ``I just reassured all
of our coalition partners that this is the U.S. government's policy. I
can't be the face of the reversal.'' Interview of Former Senior U.S.
Official, Apr. 2019.
\53\ Karen DeYoung et al., ``As Trump withdraws U.S. forces from
northern Syria, his administration scrambles to respond,'' The
Washington Post, Oct. 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite an attempt by the President's advisors to engage in
the traditional policymaking process across the national
security agencies, including developing an agreed-upon policy
and talking points, when President Trump spoke with Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an on December 14, 2018, he
essentially threw the talking points out the window.\54\ By the
end of the call, Trump had effectively pledged to Erdo?an that
the U.S. was getting out of Syria. ``OK, it's all yours. We are
done,'' Trump reportedly said.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Matt Lee & Susannah George, ``Trump call with Turkish leader
led to US pullout from Syria,'' AP, Dec. 21, 2018,; Interview of Former
Senior U.S. Official, Apr. 2019.
\55\ Jeremy Diamond & Elise Labott, ``Trump told Turkey's Erdogan
in Dec. 14 call about Syria, `it's all yours. We are done','' CNN, Dec.
24, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only hours earlier, the United States had reassured allies
that no such thing would occur. The team was stunned.\56\
Trump's announcement led to the resignation of Defense
Secretary Jim Mattis and Special Presidential Envoy for the
Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL) Brett McGurk.\57\ Key officials, including the
commander of U.S. Central Command, acknowledged they had not
been notified in advance.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Interview of Former Senior Official, Apr. 2019.
\57\ Matt Lee & Susannah George, ``Trump call with Turkish leader
led to US pullout from Syria,'' AP, Dec. 21, 2018; Shannon Van Sant,
``U.S. Envoy To The Coalition Against ISIS Resigns Over Trump's Syria
Policy,'' NPR, Dec. 22, 2018; Paul Sonne, ``Mattis resigns after clash
with Trump over troop withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan,'' The
Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2018.
\58\ Rebecca Kheel, ``Top general says he wasn't consulted before
Trump announced Syria withdrawal,'' The Hill, Feb. 5, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump's December 2018 Syria announcement was also
characteristic of his approach because it was not the final
word. After a number of shifts, walk-backs, subsequent
announcements, and pushback, Trump's pledge to withdraw became
effective in October 2019, nearly a year later.
Undermining Democratic Values at Home
President Trump's 2017 National Security Strategy said,
``America's commitment to liberty, democracy, and the rule of
law serves as an inspiration for those living under
tyranny.''\59\ This statement expresses the traditional view
America has of itself, a beacon of liberty to all those living
under oppression. President Trump has presented an entirely
different vision of America to the world, including one that
sees moral equivalence between groups promoting white
nationalism and white supremacy and those seeking racial
equality.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ President Donald Trump, National Security Strategy of the
United States of America, Dec. 2017, at 4.
\60\ See Jonathan Karl & Jordyn Phelps, ``Trump's failure to
condemn white supremacy at debate part of well-established pattern,''
ABC News, Sept. 30, 2020; Rachael Levy, ``Who Are the Proud Boys? Trump
Tells Far-Right Group to `Stand Back and Stand By,' '' The Wall Street
Journal, Sept. 30, 2020; James Hohmann, ``The Daily 202: False moral
equivalency is not a bug of Trumpism. It's a feature.'' The Washington
Post, Aug. 16, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump administration's domestic policies, including
family separation, immigration raids, limiting the number of
refugees who can come into the U.S., attacking the rule of law
and the freedom of the press, and failing to stand up for
racial equality while appearing to coddle white supremacists
have had a profoundly negative impact on the United States'
credibility and standing in the world.\61\ U.S. presidents in
the past have sought to showcase the United States as a
positive model for what a society can achieve when it is based
upon democracy and freedom. President Trump, on the other hand,
has consistently shown disdain for pluralism, human rights,
civil society, the press, and rule of law. These policies have
caused traditional U.S. allies to question the values of the
United States, and provided authoritarian leaders an
opportunity to consolidate their power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Richard Wike et al., ``U.S. Image Plummets Internationally
as Most Say Country Has Handled Coronavirus Badly,'' Pew Research
Center, Sept. 15, 2020; Dan Balz, ``America is at a low ebb, shaken by
multiple blows, and Trump adds to the distress,'' The Washington Post,
May 31, 2020; Alex Ward, ``How the world is reacting to Trump's family
separation policy,'' Vox, June 20, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple foreign officials of countries with which the U.S.
is closely allied emphasized to Committee staff that when the
U.S. struggles with fundamental democratic principles, it only
helps Russia and China make a stronger case for their systems.
A former Foreign Service Officer said, ``Our international
partners aren't all seeing this as an anomaly. Many see it as
proof that they were right all along.''\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Interview of Former Foreign Service Officer, Apr. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a former Acting Assistant Secretary of State observed,
the United States has ``always stood proud and acknowledged our
mistakes''--but ``now, so it would seem, not only do we
compromise on values--we clearly now don't even believe in
them.''\63\ Foreign governments are saying `` `Yeah, we know
who you really are.' ''\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State, July
2019.
\64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump's disdain for traditional U.S. values and
priorities will have a long-lasting legacy. His attacks on
freedom of the press are just one example. As a report by the
Committee to Protect Journalists showed, between January 2017
and May 2019, 26 countries enacted or introduced laws or rules
restricting online media and journalistic access in the name of
preventing ``fake news.''\65\ The leaders of Poland, Hungary,
Turkey, China, the Philippines, and Cambodia are among those
who have cited Trump and ``fake news'' as they criticize and
restrict the press in their countries.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Leonard Downie Jr. & Stephanie Sugars, The Trump
Administration and the Media: Attacks on press credibility endanger US
democracy and global press freedom, Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ), Apr. 16, 2020, https://cpj.org/reports/2020/04/trump-media-
attacks-credibility-leaks.php (citing Sarah Repucci, Vice President for
Research and Analysis, Freedom House).
\66\ Id.
Neglect of Pressing Global Challenges
One the most notable features of President Trump's foreign
policy is his neglect, perhaps intentional, of pressing global
problems, including the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and
global forced migration. Under President Trump, the United
States has severely curtailed its domestic efforts to slow our
emission of greenhouse gases, and the United States has
completely abandoned the Paris Climate Agreement. In the face
of an unprecedented crisis of global migration, the United
States has retreated from our humanitarian obligations and
international cooperation and dealt a grave blow to the
international system set up to manage displaced people.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See generally Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democratic
Staff, Global Forced Migration: The Political Crisis of Our Time, June
18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result of these policies is that the United States has
become a bystander, as dangerous threats to the American people
have emerged overseas and struck the United States. The most
pressing example of this is COVID-19, the worst global pandemic
the world has faced in over a century. Despite the stark,
urgent wording of the Trump administration's 2018 National
Biodefense Strategy, pandemic preparation and coordination were
a low priority for the Trump administration.\68\ Previous
administrations understood that international efforts to
monitor and combat health threats abroad are a central element
in protecting the United States from pandemics. The Trump
administration, in contrast, sought to cut funding for the key
U.S. and international organizations involved in monitoring and
preparing for an infectious disease outbreak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See The White House, ``The potential to cost thousands of
American lives, cause significant anxiety, and greatly impact travel
and trade,'' National Biodefense Strategy, Sept. 8, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of leading international efforts to confront the
virus, the Trump administration has deliberately undermined
them, particularly through the United States' announced
withdrawal from the World Health Organization.\69\ The result
has been a chaotic international response to the pandemic that
has harmed U.S. efforts to manage the health impacts of the
pandemic and has set back efforts to restore the American
economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ U.S. Department of State, ``Update on U.S. Withdrawal from the
World Health Organization, Sept. 3, 2020; Zachary Cohen et al., ``Trump
administration begins formal withdrawal from World Health
Organization,'' CNN, July 8, 2020; Zachary Cohen, ``Republicans urge
Trump not to terminate relationship with World Health Organization,''
CNN, June 15, 2020; see also Lara Jakes, ``Despite Big Promises, U.S.
Has Delivered Limited Aid in Global Virus Response: The State
Department and U.S.A.I.D. have spent a fraction of the humanitarian
assistance that Congress approved in March to help curb the
coronavirus,'' The New York Times, June 7, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every budget under the Trump administration has called for
cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC).\70\ In 2018, the CDC was forced to scaled back work in
39 countries to prevent and respond to future epidemics.\71\
Also in 2018, the Administration diverted funds from the CDC,
NIH, and FEMA to pay for the increased number of detained
children due to the Trump administration's policy of separating
children from their parents at the southern border.\72\ In July
2019, the Trump administration recalled the last remaining CDC
official in China, leaving an intelligence vacuum when COVID-19
emerged, and President Trump disbanded the global health
security team on the NSC, which, in previous administrations,
coordinated U.S. pandemic strategy and preparation.\73\
According to a previous director of the organization,
disbanding the office ``left an unclear structure and strategy
for coordinating pandemic preparedness and response.''\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ In 2017, President Trump's first budget proposal called for a
17 percent cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
budget. In 2018, he called for a 19 percent cut; in 2019, a 10 percent
cut, and in 2020, a 9 percent cut to the CDC. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS): CDC, ``Congressional Justification of
Estimates for Appropriation Committees,'' for FY 2018-FY 20201; see
also Emily Baumgaertner, ``Trump's Proposed Budget Cuts Trouble
Bioterrorism Experts,'' The New York Times, May 28, 2017.
\71\ Ashley Yeager, ``CDC to Drastically Cut Efforts to Prevent
Global Disease Outbreaks: The agency's plan to scale back work in 39
foreign countries could hamper its ability to rapidly respond to future
epidemics,'' The Scientist, Feb. 1, 2018.
\72\ Caitlin Dickson, ``Exclusive: With more immigrant children in
detention, HHS cuts funds for other programs--like cancer research,''
Yahoo News, Sept. 18, 2018; Camila Domonoske, ``Trump Administration
Transferred $9.8 Million From FEMA To ICE,'' NPR, Sept. 12, 2018.
\73\ Marisa Taylor, ``Exclusive: U.S. axed CDC expert job in China
months before virus outbreak,'' Reuters, Mar. 22, 2020; Editorial,
``Reviving the US CDC,'' The Lancet, May 16, 2020; Josh Michaud et al.,
``The U.S. Government and Global Health Security,'' Kaiser Family
Foundation, Dec. 17, 2019, https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/
issue-brief/the-u-s-government-and-global-health-security/; Lena H.
Sun, ``Top White House official in charge of pandemic response exits
abruptly,'' The Washington Post, May 10, 2018; Natasha Bertrand et al.,
``America's national security machine stares down a viral threat''
Politico, Mar. 12, 2020.
\74\ Beth Cameron, ``I ran the White House pandemic office. Trump
closed it,'' Opinion, The Washington Post, Mar. 13, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the crisis, U.S. support for countries in need of
resources and expertise to protect their citizens and help
bring an end to the global pandemic has been scattered and
inconsistent.\75\ The United States has been largely absent
from international efforts to marshal a coordinated
response.\76\ The Trump administration sat out a May 2020 EU-
led summit that raised $8 billion for vaccine research, and
torpedoed a strong G7 response by insisting the novel
coronavirus be called the ``Wuhan'' virus in the official
statement.\77\ Unlike global crises of the past, the United
States is not leading the global response or setting the
example for other countries to follow, but lagging far behind
in its own efforts to contain and combat the virus, and one of
the leading global drivers of cases and deaths from COVID-
19.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See Lara Jakes & Pranshu Verma, ``At U.S.A.I.D., Juggling
Political Priorities and Pandemic Response,'' The New York Times, Sept.
13, 2020.
\76\ See, e.g., Lara Jakes, ``Despite Big Promises, U.S. Has
Delivered Limited Aid in Global Virus Response: The State Department
and U.S.A.I.D. have spent a fraction of the humanitarian assistance
that Congress approved in March to help curb the coronavirus,'' The New
York Times, June 7, 2020.
\77\ See William Booth et al., ``The world came together for a
virtual vaccine summit. The U.S. was conspicuously absent,'' The
Washington Post, May 4, 2020; John Hudson & Souad Mekhennet, ``G-7
failed to agree on statement after U.S. insisted on calling coronavirus
outbreak `Wuhan virus,' '' The Washington Post, Mar. 25, 2020.
\78\ As of October 15, 2020, the United States had the most deaths
and cases of any country in the world, the 11th highest number of cases
per 100,000, and the 2nd-highest number of new cases and number of
deaths in the last 7 days. Coronavirus Map: Tracking the Global
Outbreak, The New York Times (last visited Oct. 15, 2020, 11:36pm).
Diplomatic Failures
Despite his signature bluster, President Trump's limited
international engagements have been marked by diplomatic
failures and ineptitude that have damaged U.S. credibility.
Diplomatic initiatives that could have improved U.S. national
security have failed--for example, addressing long-standing
foreign policy challenges such as North Korea's nuclear and
missile capabilities, and the instability and humanitarian
crisis caused by the regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.
Despite bipartisan and widespread support in Congress and
among U.S. allies and international institutions for some
objectives sought by the administration, Trump's efforts
resulted in failure, undermined by a lack of a clear strategy,
unrealistic expectations of what could be achieved, and
inconsistent attention. Yet, when faced with these failures,
the President, instead of recalibrating his approach, claims
victory and seeks to distract the public from what has
occurred.
North Korea: All Bluster, No Breakthrough
Early on in his presidency, Trump set his sights on North
Korea as the ``deal'' that he would bring to fruition. After
more than a year of heated rhetoric, military-saber rattling,
and insults, in March 2018, President Trump agreed to meet with
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in Singapore. Several months
after the summit, President Trump stated that North Korea--
despite having taken no steps to roll back its programs--was
``no longer a nuclear threat.''\79\ Although multiple working-
level meetings occurred in 2018 and 2019, by late 2019, it had
become clear that the Trump administration's diplomatic
initiative with North Korea was falling apart.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Veronica Stracqualursi & Stephen Collinson, ``Trump declares
North Korea `no longer a nuclear threat,' '' CNN, June 13, 2018.
\80\ Julia Masterson & Kelsey Davenport, ``North Korea, United
States Issue Threats as Deadline Approaches,'' Arms Control
Association, Dec. 11, 2019, https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2019-12-
11/north-korea-denuclearization-digest; Choe Sang-Hun, North Korea Says
U.S. Sought More Talks, but Calls It a `Trick,' The New York Times,
Nov. 11, 2019. Ryan Hass, ``Trump did not solve the North Korea problem
in Singapore--in fact, the threat has only grown,'' The Brookings
Institution, Aug. 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negotiations collapsed for several reasons. First, the
Trump administration never had a strategy or plan for how to
convert international economic pressure into diplomatic gains,
or how establishing better relations with North Korea would
lead to denuclearization. On even the most basic questions,
such as the meaning of ``denuclearization,'' it failed to
undertake the rigorous and consistent diplomacy necessary to
reach an agreement with North Korea on exactly what this term
constituted. Second, the Trump administration consistently
oversold what North Korea had agreed to.
Third, the Trump administration failed to make clear,
either internally or with its negotiating partners, what
concessions the United States was willing to make if North
Korea started the denuclearization process. Fourth, the
administration failed to adequately consult with allies,
including the Republic of Korea and Japan, about its diplomacy,
creating challenges for building a sustainable diplomatic
approach. Finally, when it became clear that a quick break-
through on denuclearization was unrealistic, President Trump
lost interest in the negotiations. Instead, he simply declared
the problem had been solved.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Veronica Stracqualursi & Stephen Collinson, ``Trump declares
North Korea `no longer a nuclear threat,' '' CNN, June 13, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.-DPRK denuclearization diplomacy essentially has been
frozen since February 2019, when Trump and Kim's Hanoi summit
ended without an agreement.\82\ In spite of President Trump's
misleading rhetoric, North Korea's nuclear and missile programs
are larger and more technically capable than when he took
office, and they pose a direct nuclear threat to the U.S.
homeland as well as our allies and partners.\83\ While the
international sanctions regime remains in effect, many
countries blame both the United States and North Korea for the
breakdown in negotiations. And some, such as China and Russia,
are enforcing international sanctions against the DPRK less
rigorously, including by allowing North Korea to evade
sanctions through ship-to-ship transfers of oil and coal in
their waters, and failing to enforce UN Security Council
Resolutions on forced labor.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Ankit Panda and Vipin Narang, The Hanoi Summit Was Doomed From
the Start, Foreign Affairs, Mar. 5, 2019.
\83\ See, e.g., Summary of North Korea WMD Threats, Nuclear Threat
Initiative, https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/ (last
visited Oct. 2020); Jon Herskovitz, ``How Kim Jong Un Keeps Advancing
North Korea's Nuclear Program,'' The Washington Post, Oct.12, 2020.
\84\ David Brunnstrom, China appears to relax North Korea
sanctions: report to U.S. Congress, Reuters, Nov. 14, 2018; United
Nations Security Council, Report of the Panel of Experts Established
Pursuant to Resolution 1874, S/2020/151, Apr. 13, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unilateral U.S. steps pursued during President Trump's
slap-dash diplomacy, often without prior consultation, such as
suspending military exercises, have also created additional
risk for the Peninsula and alliance pressures. The legitimacy
of Kim Jong-un's rule over North Korea and his international
standing have been enhanced through his summits with President
Trump, and have provided Kim an enhanced ability to maintain
his brutal hold over the North Korean people.
Venezuela: Sanctions Without Strategy
The Trump administration has also squandered an opportunity
to capitalize on a bipartisan consensus and international
support for a strong response to the authoritarian regime of
Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, which has created a humanitarian
crisis that has forced more than 5 million Venezuelan migrants
and refugees to flee their homeland.\85\ In early 2019,
Democratic and Republican members of Congress supported the
Trump administration's decision to join a diplomatic coalition
of more than 50 countries in recognizing the president of the
Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the Interim
President of Venezuela.\86\ Yet rather than harness this
formidable diplomatic coalition to advance shared objectives,
the Trump administration has increasingly adopted a go-it-alone
approach that has undermined the effectiveness of U.S. policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ ``Venezuela Refugee and Migrant Crisis,'' International
Organization for Migration, http://bit.ly/3a0Qyrj (last visited Sept.
28, 2020).
\86\ ``Strong Support Message from US Congress for Guaido, Present
at Trump's State of the Union Speech'' Merco Press, Feb. 5, 2020,
http://bit.ly/36WR73s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Trump administration initially used targeted
sanctions effectively to address the Maduro regime's
criminality, it has become increasingly clear that these
actions were not part of a broader diplomatic strategy to
alleviate Venezuela's crisis.\87\ U.S. sanctions are an
incredibly effective tool when matched by similar actions by
partners in Europe and the Western hemisphere and leveraged to
forge a diplomatic solution to a protracted political crisis.
However, by 2019, the Trump administration had come to rely on
sanctions as the sole instrument of its foreign policy toward
Venezuela. In January 2019, the Trump administration imposed
sectoral sanctions across the Venezuelan oil industry, starting
with state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A.
(PDVSA).\88\ This was followed by sanctions on a Venezuelan-
Russian bank and a holding company affiliated Russian oil giant
Rosneft.\89\ In mid-2020, against a backdrop of dwindling
targets, the Trump administration resorted to sanctioning
individual Iranian tankers and their captains for transporting
gasoline to Venezuela.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ These actions, which including sanctioning 100 officials for
their involvement in human rights abuses, corruption, and criminality,
sent an important message to the international community about the need
to hold Maduro accountable. Additional sanctions limited the Maduro
regime's ability to drown Venezuela in debt as it pilfered state
coffers to pay for its expansive corruption schemes. See Congressional
Research Service, Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions, Aug. 20, 2020.
\88\ Congressional Research Service, Venezuela: Overview of U.S.
Sanctions, Aug. 20, 2020.
\89\ Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury
Sanctions Russia-based Bank Attempting to Circumvent U.S. Sanctions on
Venezuela, Mar. 11, 2019, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-
releases/sm622; Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury,
Treasury Targets Russian Oil Brokerage Firm for Supporting Illegitimate
Maduro Regime, Feb. 18, 2020, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-
releases/sm909.
\90\ Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury
Sanctions Five Iranian Captains Who Delivered Gasoline to the Maduro
Regime in Venezuela, June 24, 2020, https://home.treasury.gov/news/
press-releases/sm1043; Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice,
``U.S. Seizure of Three Websites Used by Iranian Front Company that Was
Shipping Fuel on Four Tankers to Venezuela,'' Aug. 28, 2020, https://
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-seizure-three-websites-used-iranian-front-
company-was-shipping-fuel-four-tankers-venezuela.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although these targets were appropriate at a tactical
level, a larger message had emerged: the Trump administration
had no strategy and relied on sanctions as a public
demonstration of U.S. resolve, despite an inability to
articulate a clear goal for U.S. policy in Venezuela or how its
sanctions advance U.S. foreign policy objectives. Additionally,
repeated rounds of U.S. sanctions have not been matched by
similar sanctions by governments in Canada, Europe, or Latin
America, highlighting the Trump administration's inability to
coordinate effective multilateral diplomacy and diminishing the
impact of U.S. efforts.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See Moises Rendon, ``Are Sanctions Working in Venezuela?''
Center for Strategic & International Studies, Sept. 3, 2019, https://
www.csis.org/analysis/are-sanctions-working-venezuela.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, Venezuela's humanitarian crisis has
pushed more than 5 million Venezuelan refugees and migrants to
flee abroad, marking the second largest displacement crisis in
the world, behind Syria.\92\ As the crisis has accelerated, the
international community has failed to keep pace. While the
United States has played a critical role as the largest
international donor responding to the Venezuelan crisis, the
Trump administration has failed to marshal a coordinated
international humanitarian response and provide protections to
vulnerable Venezuelan migrants and refugees.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ ``Venezuela Refugee and Migrant Crisis,'' International
Organization for Migration, http://bit.ly/3a0Qyrj (last visited Sept.
28, 2020).
\93\ Teresa Welsh, ``Virtual Venezuela Pledging Conference Raises
2.79B'' Devex, May 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most glaring omission from the Trump administration's
policy is its unwillingness to designate Venezuela for
Temporary Protected Status and regularize the status of an
estimated 200,000 Venezuelan nationals currently in the United
States.\94\ It also has shuttered U.S. land borders to asylum
seekers, leaving many Venezuelans stranded in dangerous regions
of Mexico.\95\ These refusals have ignored a moral obligation
to victims of the Maduro regime. Moreover, these actions
undermine U.S. foreign policy objectives to encourage countries
across Latin America and the Caribbean to provide millions of
Venezuelan refugees and migrants with protection and legal
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Press Release, Washington Office on Latin America, Trump
Administration's Inaction on TPS Puts Venezuelans at Risk, Apr. 15,
2020, https://www.wola.org/2020/04/trump-administration-inaction-tps-
venezuela-migrants/.
\95\ Molly O'Toole, ``Venezuela, Now a Top Source of U.S. Asylum
Claims, Poses a Challenge for Trump,'' Los Angeles Times, June 5, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States also has been unable or unwilling to
leverage other governments' support for humanitarian access,
and shown tepid interest in mobilizing greater assistance from
other government donors. In May 2020, when presidents, foreign
ministers, and senior UN officials held a donors conference
that raised $2.7 billion to respond to the Venezuelan crisis,
the Trump administration had no discernible leadership role and
was represented by a mid-level official from the U.S.
Department of State.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ European Extended Action Service, ``International Donors
Conference in Solidarity with Venezuelan Refugees and Migrants, List of
Participants,'' https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/list--of--
participants.pdf (last visited 9/28/20); see also Teresa Welsh,
``Virtual Venezuela Pledging Conference Raises 2.79B'' Devex, May 27,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump administration's inability to help Interim
President Guaido break through the stalemate with the Maduro
regime is characteristic of other Trump diplomatic initiatives.
The administration relied on the misguided belief that economic
sanctions alone would facilitate a democratic transition, and
it underestimated the willingness of its adversaries to sustain
themselves under pressure. It engaged in reckless rhetoric
rather than prioritizing multilateral diplomatic pressure.\97\
The Administration's policy on Venezuela also points to the
vacillating nature of President Trump's attention span. When it
appeared the Maduro regime was faltering and it would be an
easy win for the Trump administration, the President was
actively engaged.\98\ However, as soon as it was clear the
administration's goal would not be an easy ``win,'' Trump
changed course, questioning his own administration's strong
support for Guaido.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See, e.g., Brian Ellsworth, ``Trump Says U.S. Military
Intervention in Venezuela `an Option;' Russia Objects,'' Reuters, Feb.
3, 2019; Sonam Sheth, ``Trump Said It Would Be `Cool' to Invade
Venezuela Because the Country Is `Really Part of the United States,'
According to John Bolton's New Book,'' Business Insider, June 18, 2020.
\98\ See. e.g., ``Strong Support Message from US Congress for
Guaido, Present at Trump's State of the Union Speech'' Merco Press,
Feb. 5, 2020, https://en.mercopress.com/2020/02/05/strong-support-
message-from-us-congress-for-guaido-present-at-trump-s-state-of-the-
union-speech.
\99\ Anne Gearan et al., ``A frustrated Trump questions his
administration's Venezuela strategy,'' The Washington Post, May 8,
2019.
Ego-Driven Diplomacy
Another key element of Trump's brand of foreign policy is
the direct linkage between his personal relationships with
foreign leaders and the resulting treatment of that leader's
country. It has not been lost on foreign leaders that
flattering the President may increase the chances of positive
foreign policy outcomes. While personal relationships between
leaders always play a role in foreign policy, no other U.S.
President has tied foreign policy decisions so directly to
whether a foreign leader is willing to play to his ego.
U.S. officials who have met with Trump comment that he
appears ``needy, insecure, and hyper-personal.''\100\ Officials
noted that his ego needs constant attention, which exacerbates
his difficult relationship with European allies. European
allies are less willing to flatter and cater to him, unlike
authoritarian leaders like President Erdogan of Turkey and
Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. Trump also
views himself as a uniquely agile and capable international
negotiator, and his constant need to re-enforce this impression
is one explanation for his efforts to reach international
agreements that have eluded previous presidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State, May
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sought to
establish strong diplomatic relations through flattery early
on. He was the first foreign leader to meet with Trump,
arranging a hasty meeting just a week after the election, and
quickly laid on the praise, calling President Trump a
``trustworthy leader'' and later praising Trump's golf
game.\101\ The move was tactical: Japan was nervous about its
relationship with the United States, which is critical to its
security, and Abe's approach was the result of intensive study
by the Japanese to figure out what made him tick.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Steve Holland & Kiyoshi Takenaka, ``Japan's PM Abe meets
Trump, says confident can build trust,'' Reuters, Nov. 16, 2016; Dan
Merica, ``World leaders have a go-to tactic with Trump: Flattery, and
lots of it,'' CNN, May 4, 2017. Abe said of Trump, ``My scores in golf
is not up to the level of Donald at all, but my policy is never up,
never in, always aiming for the cup.'' Id.
\102\ Michael Crowley, `` `Absolutely Unprecedented': Why Japan's
Leader Tries So Hard to Court Trump,'' Politico Magazine, May 24, 2019.
See also Steve Holland & Kiyoshi Takenaka, ``Japan's PM Abe meets
Trump, says confident can build trust,'' Reuters, Nov. 16, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian President Vladimir Putin, no stranger to such
tactics, praised Trump as ``bright and talented'' in 2015
during the Republican presidential primary.\103\ South Korean
President Moon Jae-in said that Trump deserved a Nobel Peace
Prize for getting North Korea to agree to come to the
bargaining table in 2018.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Jeremy Diamond & Greg Botelho, ``Putin praises b'right and
talented' Trump,'' CNN, Dec. 15, 2015.
\104\ Song Jung-a, ``Trump deserves Nobel Peace prize, says South
Korea president,'' Financial Times, Apr. 30, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It remains an open question as to whether such efforts have
paid off. Despite all of Abe's efforts, Japan did not receive
the steel exemptions it sought in a trade deal--while others,
such as Mexico and Australia--did.\105\ As former Obama
administration national security official noted, ``[w]ith Mr.
Trump everything is personalized, but it is also
transactional.''\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See Edward Luce, ``Tickling Trump: World leaders use
flattery to influence America,'' Financial Times, May 4, 2018.
\106\ Edward Luce, ``Tickling Trump: World leaders use flattery to
influence America,'' Financial Times, May 4, 2018 (quoting Tom
Donilon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the absence of flattery clearly has a
detrimental effect. Trump's rocky relationship with German
Chancellor Angela Merkel is demonstrative. Trump has personally
attacked Merkel on a number of occasions, and when she visited
Washington, Trump was filmed ignoring calls to shake her hand
in the Oval Office.\107\ Trump previously had called Merkel a
``catastrophic leader'' and the ``person who is ruining
Germany.''\108\ He also denigrated his former Democratic
opponent Hillary Clinton as ``America's Angela Merkel.''\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Rick Noack, ``What's with Trump and female world leaders?''
The Washington Post, Nov. 30, 2017.
\108\ Id.
\109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump's personal dislike of Chancellor Merkel may
be partially behind shifts in U.S. policy that negatively
affected Germany's economic and security interests, including
repeatedly threatening auto tariffs.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Silvia Amaro, ``Trump's tariffs on European autos could
potentially be `very damaging,' '' CNBC, June 25, 2018; Jack Ewing and
Ana Swanson, ``Trump May Punt on Auto Tariffs as European Carmakers
Propose Plan,'' The New York Times, Nov. 11, 2019; Jacob Pramuk,
``Trump says he is serious about slapping tariffs on European cars if
he cannot strike a trade deal,'' CNBC, Jan 21, 2020; see also Susan B.
Glasser, ``How Trump Made War on Angela Merkel and Europe: The German
Chancellor and other European leaders have run out of patience with the
President,'' The New Yorker, Dec. 17, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout President Trump's diplomacy, one thing has been
clear: personal flattery seems to improve a country's chances
of desirable outcomes. That fact has significant consequences
for U.S. foreign policy: it leads to volatility, and sets an
improper precedent for the conduct of international relations.
Trump First
President Trump is the first president in modern history to
bring into the White House a cascade of financial interests
around the world, and to retain them while serving in office.
In just his first two years in office, he earned $73 million
from Trump Organization interests in foreign countries.\111\
His refusal to divest from those interests or provide any
meaningful details about his investments and liabilities has
led to considerable concern that his actions as president, and
in particular, toward certain foreign leaders or countries, may
be influenced either directly by his financial stakes, or
indirectly through past relationships or other leverage.
Although he holds financial interests and has potential active
conflicts around the world, President Trump's engagement with
Turkey and Saudi Arabia has drawn considerable scrutiny, as did
his attempt to host the G7 summit at a Trump Organization
property in Miami.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Grace Panetta, ``Trump earned $73 million in revenue from
foreign business deals during his first two years in office, according
to a review of the president's tax returns,'' Business Insider, Sept.
28, 2020.
Questionable Motivations
Before becoming president, Trump acknowledged having a
``conflict of interest'' due to his private business interests
in Turkey, including Trump Towers Istanbul.\112\ President
Trump's relationship with Turkish President Erdogan has been
marked by a series of interactions that have led many to
question Trump's motivations. After being personally lobbied by
Erdogan, President Trump told the Treasury Department and
Justice Department to look into the impact of U.S. sanctions on
a Turkish state-owned bank, Halkbank, accused by U.S. federal
prosecutors of one of the largest Iranian sanctions violations
in U.S. history.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Richard C. Paddock et al., ``Potential Conflicts Around the
Globe for Trump, the Businessman President,'' The New York Times, Nov.
26, 2016; Donald J. Trump, Interview with Breitbart News Daily, Dec. 1,
2015, starting at minute 1.01.
\113\ Joe Light, ``Trump Ordered Review of U.S. Sanctions on
Turkey's Halkbank,'' Bloomberg, Nov. 25, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump also suddenly announced the U.S. withdrawal of troops
from Syria--something long sought by Turkey and opposed by most
U.S. national security officials, as well as U.S. allies--
following a one-on-one call with Erdogan. After U.S. officials
walked back the withdrawal, Trump again pledged to follow
through after another private conversation with Erdogan.
Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin
Salman may be driven in part by past business practices, and in
part through close ties with his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Throughout Trump's presidency, there have been questions about
prior Saudi investments, the basis for the Administration's
unusual siding in a Gulf Cooperation Council rift in 2017,
willingness to turn a blind eye following the murder of U.S.
resident Jamal Khashoggi, and other events.
In India, where President Trump had more active real estate
ventures than in any other country during his presidency, his
travel, as well as his son's, led to questions about whether
U.S. foreign policy was being mixed with private commercial
gain.\114\ Unavoidably, every time President Trump made a
detour or a stop at a property abroad from which he receives a
financial benefit, the question had to be asked: was he there
to promote his own business and boost struggling properties? It
is a shadow that has hung over his presidency, and hampered
U.S. diplomatic efforts to chide foreign governments about
mixing personal financial gain with official conduct of foreign
policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ See Annie Gowan, ``Trump Jr. to give foreign policy speech
while on `unofficial' business trip to India,'' The Washington Post,
Feb. 19, 2018; ``Trump Jr.'s foreign policy speech in India boosts
concerns,'' AP, Feb. 23, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another dubious episode, President Trump initially
decided to host the 2020 G7 summit of world leaders at his own
resort, Trump Doral National Miami.\115\ Although he then
revised the location to Camp David in response to public
outcry, before deciding to delay the summit until after the
November 2020 election, his clear disregard for the appearance
of a conflict of interest was on display, to the world.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Toluse Olorunnipa & David A. Fahrenthold, ``Trump has awarded
next year's G-7 summit of world leaders to his Miami-area resort, the
White House said,'' The Washington Post, Oct. 17, 2019.
\116\ Sarah Westwood, ``Trump postpones G7 summit until after US
election,'' CNN, Aug. 10, 2020; Maggie Haberman et al., ``Why Trump
Dropped His Idea to Hold the G7 at His Own Hotel,'' The New York Times,
Oct. 20, 2019; Aaron Rupar, ``Trump's move to host the G7 at his Doral
resort takes self-dealing to new levels,'' Vox, Oct. 17, 2019.
Encouraging Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections
President Trump has openly requested and courted the direct
interference of foreign powers in U.S. elections.\117\ When his
requests become public, he has shown no contrition for his
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Lucien Bruggeman, `` `I think I'd take it': In exclusive
interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on
opponents,'' ABC News, June 13, 2019; Peter Baker & Eileen Sullivan,
``Trump Publicly Urges China to Investigate the Bidens,'' The New York
Times, Oct. 3, 2019; Josh Dawsey, ``Trump asked China's Xi to help him
win reelection, according to Bolton book,'' The Washington Post, June
17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The clearest example of President Trump's use of U.S.
foreign policy for his own gain was his withholding of U.S.
security assistance to Ukraine unless the country launched an
investigation into former Vice President Biden, at the time, a
potential campaign opponent.\118\ (He has also asked China for
a similar investigation, reportedly tying aspects of the U.S.-
China trade deal to his own electoral prospects.)\119\
Withholding the assistance to Ukraine ran counter to the fact
that it helped a key U.S. ally in the region, to counter
Kremlin aggression. It seemed to disregard the fact that
Ukraine's armed forces were fending off Russian forces and
needed that assistance for equipment and other security
needs.\120\ It ignored that U.S. national security agencies had
determined that such assistance directly supported U.S.
national security interests.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See, e.g., House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, Dec. 2019.
\119\ Peter Baker & Eileen Sullivan, ``Trump Publicly Urges China
to Investigate the Bidens,'' The New York Times, Oct. 3, 2019; Josh
Dawsey, ``Trump asked China's Xi to help him win reelection, according
to Bolton book,'' The Washington Post, June 17, 2020
\120\ See U.S. Department of Defense, ``DOD Announces $250M to
Ukraine,'' June 18, 2019. Funds were aimed at providing supporting
training and operational needs, including ``the defensive capacity and
survivability of Ukraine's Land and Special Operations Forces'' by
providing ``sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and
counter-artillery radars.'' Id.
\121\ See House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, The
Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, Dec. 2019, at 69-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump-Ukraine scandal showed in stark terms President
Trump's willingness to use U.S. foreign policy for his own
benefit--namely, to improve his prospects in the 2020
presidential election. Though the Senate acquitted him in
February 2020, the impeachment process brought to the forefront
the President's tactics, including in a now-infamous July 25,
2019, phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian
President Zelensky, in which Trump asked Zelensky to ``do us a
favor though,'' referencing Biden.\122\ It also showed that his
administration (and Congressional Republicans) were willing to
defend Trump's tactics as ``normal'' execution of foreign
policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, July 25, 2019,
President Trump and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, Declassified Sept.
24, 2019, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/
2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf; House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, Dec. 2019.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
International Views of the United States under Trump
Not surprisingly, President Trump's chaotic approach,
undermining of democratic values, indifference to pressing
challenges, and injecting of his own interests into foreign
policy, have contributed to steep declines in how the U.S. is
viewed and respected around the world.
Survey data of global public opinion reflect a sharp
decline in international views of the United States and
President Trump. Among key U.S. allies, Pew Research Center
found a significant decline in the share of respondents saying
the United States respects its people's personal freedom in a
2018 survey, down 35 percentage points from a decade
earlier.\123\ This mirrors a 50 percent decline since 2016 in
the world's trust and confidence in the United States.\124\ In
several countries, the share of the public with favorable views
of the United States is as low as it has been at any point
since Pew began polling on the topic almost two decades
ago.\125\ President Trump's personal ratings are also extremely
low--he received the lowest confidence ratings among five world
leaders, below both Putin and Xi--and the highest marks for
``no confidence'' in Pew's Summer 2020 Global Attitudes Survey,
which conducted surveys in 13 countries.\126\ Among the 13
nations surveyed, a median of just 15% say the United States
has done a good job dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, the
lowest rating given to any nation on the survey.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Richard Wike et al., ``Trump's International Ratings Remain
Low, Especially Among Key Allies,'' Pew Research Center, Oct. 1, 2018,
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/10/01/trumps-international-
ratings-remain-low-especially-among-key-allies/.
\124\ Kevin Drew, ``U.S. Suffers Greatest Global Decline in
Trust,'' US News, Jan. 15, 2020.
\125\ Richard Wike et al., ``U.S Image Plummets Internationally as
Most Say U.S. Has Handled Coronavirus Badly,'' Pew Research Center,
Sept. 15, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-
plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-
badly/.
\126\ Id.
\127\ Id.
Conclusion
Over the last four years, President Trump has chipped away
at the United States' international strength and influence.
President Trump's chaotic decision-making has debilitated U.S.
diplomacy. International partners have found it difficult to
work with the United States because they cannot rely on the
Trump administration for stable and predictable decision-
making. He has neglected and deliberately ignored pressing
global challenges. U.S. national security policy decisions
during his administration have been driven by his ego and his
relationship with foreign leaders, not the vital interests of
the United States. And he has turned U.S. foreign policy into a
vehicle for his own personal and financial interests.
Perhaps the most damaging aspects of President Trump's
tenure have been his attacks on the democratic institutions of
the United States. Overseas, these attacks have called into
question the stability of the United States and made
traditional U.S. allies wonder whether the United States still
represents the values of liberty and democracy.
Chapter 2
The Cost of Going It Alone:
America Withdrawn and Isolated
----------
President Trump's ``America First'' foreign policy has
alienated allies and isolated the United States from
international efforts to confront global threats. President
Trump has turned his back on years--and, in some cases,
decades--of U.S. efforts, undertaken alongside our closest
allies, to build multilateral solutions to complex global
challenges.
To date, the administration has withdrawn from more than 10
international and multilateral agreements that coordinate
critical global efforts tackling nuclear proliferation,
terrorism, climate change, and forced migration. These
withdrawals--coupled with the Trump administration's failure to
offer any alternative strategy to confront these threats--have
left the United States vulnerable, weakened global efforts to
mitigate and combat these threats, and deeply angered U.S.
allies and partners.
Under President Trump, the U.S. relationship with
longstanding allies has been marked by insults, bullying, and
threats, with the United States even labeling some allies as
threats to national security. Although many allies and partners
initially tried to influence President Trump, and mitigate his
damaging tendencies, many have begun to move on.\128\ Some are
starting to view the U.S. not as the democratic leader of the
free world, but a destabilizing global force they need to
manage. They continue to pursue international engagement, such
as by brokering and implementing multilateral agreements, but
without the United States at the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ According to Ivo Daalder, the President of the Chicago
Council on Global Affairs and former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, this
happened by the end of the 2018: ``The allies spent all of 2017 trying
to figure out how they could entice him into more of a traditional
relationship, and they collectively absolutely failed. By 2018, they
were starting to realize this was the real Trump.'' Susan B. Glasser,
``How Trump Made War on Angela Merkel and Europe,'' The New Yorker,
Dec. 17, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, while the Trump administration claims that beating
up on allies and threatening actions that penalize other
countries will help Americans' bottom lines, the reality shows
otherwise. A short-sighted trade policy, empty threats, and
vacillating positions have shown our allies that Trump doesn't
always mean what he says, and left Americans waiting for the
results that Trump promised.
Abandoning International Commitments
Strong international institutions, led by a capable and
confident United States, have been at the core of a successful
U.S. foreign policy for decades. None of the significant global
challenges the United States faces, ranging from a global
pandemic, destabilizing conflicts, the threat of terrorism, and
the proliferation of nuclear weapons, can be met successfully
by any one nation acting alone. Yet President Trump, whether
out of sincere belief or political convenience, is content to
ignore this reality.
Since in office, President Trump has withdrawn or reneged
on a series of agreements and commitments with nations around
the world, including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), Paris Climate Agreement, Global Compact on Migration,
and the World Health Organization, among others.
Yet, instead of making America stronger or increasing our
leverage, these withdrawals have kept the United States away
from the negotiating table, absent from discussions that will
shape American lives and interests in the coming decades. The
U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), as
the COVID-19 pandemic rages across the globe, sent a clear
message that the United States is uninterested in collective
action to confront global crises. It also threatens to exclude
Americans from the benefits of international efforts to find
and distribute a vaccine, as well as other potential elements
of a coordinated international response to the worst pandemic
in a century. As public health experts note, U.S. research and
response efforts for global pandemics as well as cancer, HIV/
AIDS, polio, and others, are closely intertwined with the
WHO.\129\ Withdrawal creates an uncertain future for joint
efforts to stay ahead of future global health threats and
protect the world's population, including Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ See, e.g., Matthew M. Kavanagh & Mara Pillinger, ``Leaving
the WHO Will Hurt Americans' Health,'' Foreign Policy, July 7, 2020.
The United States Versus Its Allies
One of the hallmarks of the Trump administration's foreign
policy has been its ``maximum pressure'' campaign against Iran.
As part of this effort, President Trump withdrew from the
JCPOA, terminating commitments made along with close allies
(the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the European Union),
as well as Russia, China, and Iran.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Donald J. Trump, ``Remarks by President Trump on the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action,'' The White House, May 8, 2018. The
agreement was also unanimously approved by the UN Security Council in
UN Resolution 2231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump argued that by withdrawing, the United
States would be in a better position to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon, and ``would assemble a broad
coalition of nations'' to achieve that aim.\131\ The Trump
administration also argued that getting rid of the JCPOA would
improve the United States' ability to combat Iran's regional
aggression.\132\ However, by unilaterally withdrawing from the
deal, the United States upended a delicate balancing act to
which other nations and U.S. allies had linked critical
security interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ The White House, Fact Sheets, ``President Donald J. Trump is
Ending United States Participation in an Unacceptable Iran Deal,'' May
8, 2018.
\132\ White House, Fact Sheets, ``President Donald J. Trump is
Ending United States Participation in an Unacceptable Iran Deal,'' May
8, 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-
donald-j-trump-ending-united-states-participation-unacceptable-iran-
deal/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictably, decisions to withdraw the United States from
hard-fought and carefully negotiated agreements and
arrangements aimed at addressing some of the hardest-to-solve
global challenges, including Iran's nuclear program and climate
change, were met with disappointment and condemnation by U.S.
allies and partners.
All the other participants in the JCPOA opposed the U.S.
withdrawal.\133\ Former U.K. Conservative Party leader William
Hague urged Trump not to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal,
saying it would ``broadcast a message that Washington does not
honor its word.''\134\ A U.K. Labour spokesperson called the
JCPOA withdrawal a ``reckless, senseless and immoral act of
diplomatic sabotage.''\135\ The European Union issued a
statement that said, ``As we have always said, the nuclear deal
is not a bilateral agreement and it is not in the hands of any
single country to terminate it unilaterally.''\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ The other parties to the JCPOA were China, Russia, the United
Kingdom, France, and Germany.
\134\ ``Ripping up Iran nuclear deal would be a great error, says
William Hague,'' Express, May 8, 2018.
\135\ ``Iran nuclear deal: UK won't walk away, says Boris
Johnson,'' BBC, May 9, 2018.
\136\ European External Action Service, European Union, ``Iran
deal: EU remains committed to the continued implementation of the
nuclear deal, Mogherini says,'' May 8, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the U.S. withdrawal, European leaders sought to
maintain the deal, but their efforts have been continuously
undermined by Trump administration rhetoric and actions.\137\
While the sanctions that President Trump has imposed since
withdrawal have taken a severe economic toll on Iran, there is
no indication that they are part of a serious or viable
diplomatic strategy that could once again lead to a peaceful
resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem. In addition, as a
result of the United States walking away from the JCPOA, other
international actors such as Russia and China gained increased
influence over the future of multilateral efforts toward
Iran.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ See, e.g., Loveday Morris, ``E.U. leaders rally behind
tattered Iran deal, ignoring Trump's call to ditch it,'' The Washington
Post, Jan. 10, 2020; Samantha Pitz and Ryan Fedasiuk, ``International
Support for the Iran Nuclear Deal,'' Arms Control Association, May 9,
2018, https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-05-09/international-
support-iran-nuclear-deal.
\138\ See Emily Tamkin, ``Why Russia is the big winner of the Iran
deal fallout,'' The Washington Post, May 8, 2019; Farnaz Fassihi and
Steven Lee Myers, ``Defying U.S., China and Iran Near Trade and
Military Partnership'' The New York Times, May 11, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving the deal unilaterally itself was unwise in its own
right, but leaving it without any kind of serious multilateral
diplomatic strategy in place left both the United States
isolated and Iran emboldened. European parties to the
agreement, such as France, repeatedly expressed interest in a
broader framework to address Iran's ballistic missiles, malign
regional activities, and the sunsets in the JCPOA.\139\ The
Administration, however, completely wasted this opportunity to
build a coalition, deliberately undermining other countries'
collective efforts to constrain Iran's destructive ambitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ See, e.g., ``French President Emmanuel Macron for broader
Iran deal,'' Deutsche Welle, May 9, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the U.S. withdrawal, Iran has moved closer to
developing a nuclear weapon: in July 2019, the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iran had increased
its stockpile of low-enriched uranium.\140\ One week later,
Iran announced it was increasing uranium enrichment
capacity.\141\ In November 2019, Iran announced it was working
on a new centrifuge.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ See Ryan Pickrell, ``Iran announces its second nuclear deal
violation in a week as it threatens to enrich weapons-grade uranium,''
Business Insider, July 7, 2019.
\141\ See id.
\142\ See ``Iran announces more violations of nuclear deal,'' CNBC,
Nov. 4, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional evidence of the profound failure of the Trump
administration's approach was demonstrated by a series of votes
and actions at the UN in August 2020. First, the United States
sought to extend the UN arms embargo against Iran, which was
set to expire in October 2020.\143\ European states agreed on
the desirability of extending the embargo but hoped to find a
compromise with China and Russia, who could veto a resolution
if they did not agree with it. The Trump administration ignored
these concerns and barreled ahead with a vote to indefinitely
extend the arms embargo.\144\ The result was a stunning defeat.
Among the 15 countries on the UN Security Council, including
close U.S. allies, whose historical cooperation had been
integral in constraining Iran's nuclear program, the U.S.
position received only one additional vote--from the Dominican
Republic.\145\ Britain, France, and Germany all voted against
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Lara Jakes, ``U.S. Heads to United Nations to Demand
`Snapback' of Sanctions Against Iran: Without European support, it is
not clear how the United States alone would enforce U.N. sanctions to
punish Iran for violating the 2015 nuclear deal that world powers are
trying to save,'' The New York Times, Aug. 19, 2020; Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State, ``Remarks to the UN Security Council on the Iran
Arms Embargo,'' Washington, DC, June 30, 2020.
\144\ Matthew Lee, ``Pompeo: US to call UN vote on Iran arms
embargo extension,'' AP, Aug. 5, 2020.
\145\ Edith M. Lederer, ``UN soundly defeats US demand to extend
arms embargo on Iran,'' AP, Aug. 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, despite having already withdrawn from the JCPOA, the
United States sought to end the nuclear deal entirely by
insisting that the United States retained the power to
``snapback'' certain United Nations sanctions in response to
Iranian noncompliance with the deal. Even before it was
formally announced, this maneuver was rejected by 13 members of
the UN Security Council, with Britain, Germany, and France
writing in a joint letter that ``[a]ny decisions and actions
which would be taken based on this procedure or on its possible
outcome would also be devoid of any legal effect.''\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Michelle Nichols, ``Thirteen of 15-member U.N. Security
Council oppose U.S. push for Iran sanctions,'' Reuters, Aug. 21, 2020;
Kelsey Davenport, ``Nations Rebuff U.S. on Iran,'' Arms Control Today,
Sept. 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vote and rebuff of months-long diplomatic efforts by
the U.S. demonstrated, by some accounts, the ``depth of U.S.
isolation.''\147\ Following the vote, Secretary Pompeo accused
the United States' European allies of ``sid[ing] with the
ayatollahs.''\148\ As one foreign diplomat said, ``The
Americans were actually being over the top in their
ridiculousness.''\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Julian Borger, ``Iran sanctions: nearly all UN security
council unites against `unpleasant' US,'' The Guardian, Aug. 21, 2020.
\148\ Statement of Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, Press
Availability, Aug. 20, 2020.
\149\ Julian Borger, ``Iran sanctions: nearly all UN security
council unites against `unpleasant' US,'' The Guardian, Aug. 21, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The end result of the Trump administration efforts was
total defeat. All paths to extend the UN arms embargo against
Iran, a bipartisan goal of Congress, appear blocked and the
JCPOA remains in effect. The maneuver also deepened U.S.
international isolation on Iran policy, and may have
permanently damaged long-standing UN efforts to curtail Iran's
nuclear program, and further cements allied skepticism and
disdain for President Trump's unilateral use of sanctions.
Part of the Problem, Not the Solution
On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced his intention to
withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate
Agreement.\150\ Two and half years later, on the earliest date
legally possible, the U.S., the second-largest emitter of
greenhouse gases in the world, initiated the year-long process
of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.\151\ In doing so, it
rescinded the commitment made along with every other country to
reduce emissions to mitigate the increase in global
temperatures, and ceded control of the issue to China and other
countries.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ President Donald Trump, ``Statement by President Trump on the
Paris Climate Accord,'' June 1, 2017.
\151\ Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, ``On the U.S.
Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,'' U.S. Department of State, Nov.
4, 2019.
\152\ Christina Nunez, ``China Poised for Leadership on Climate
Change After U.S. Reversal,'' National Geographic, Mar. 28, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Trump has made a clamitous decision. It's calamitous for the
planet . . . by choosing to withdraw from this landmark climate
agreement, Mr. Trump is telling the world that he intends to
fix problems alone.''
--Former French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe
Allies and foreign leaders sought, unsuccessfully, to keep
the U.S. in the agreement.\153\ Swedish Deputy Prime Minister
and Minister for Environment and Climate Isabella Lovin called
it a ``very negative signal for global cooperation.''\154\
Former Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka tweeted, ``It is a
shame that the US is isolating itself in a matter so important
to the whole planet.''\155\ French President Emmanuel Macron
called the move ``an actual mistake'' and called on the French
people to ``Make our planet great again.''\156\ Former French
Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said ``Trump has made a
calamitous decision. It's calamitous for the planet . . . by
choosing to withdraw from this landmark climate agreement, Mr.
Trump is telling the world that he intends to fix problems
alone.''\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ See, e.g., Anne-Sylvaine Chassany et al., ``EU leaders seek
to charm Trump over climate deal,'' Financial Times, May 25, 2017; see
also Yoichi Funabashi, ``In America's absence, Japan takes the lead on
Asian free trade,'' Opinion, The Washington Post, Feb. 22, 2018.
\154\``Trump's climate agreement withdrawal `deeply regrettable':
Swedish Deputy PM,'' The Local SE, June 2, 2017, https://
www.thelocal.se/20170602/trumps-climate-agreement-withdrawal-deeply-
regrettable-swedish-deputy-pm.
\155\ Dominik Jon, ``Pm Sobotka Joins Global Chorus Of Condemnation
Against Trump Climate Agreement Withdrawal,'' Czech Radio, June 2,
2017, https://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/pm-sobotka-joins-
global-chorus-of-condemnation-against-trump-climate-agreement-
withdrawal
\156\ Carla Herreria, ``French President To U.S. Scientists: Come
Work With Us On Climate Change,'' Huffington Post, June 1, 2017.
\157\ Romina Mcguinness, ``French PM blasts Trump's decision to
pull US out of Paris climate accord as `calamitous,' '' Express, June
2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. absence, however, has not diminished the resolve
of other countries to press forward. President Trump's
announced plan to pursue a ``better deal,'' meanwhile, was not
achieved and there is no evidence that any effort went into
realizing this pledge. Moreover, world leaders made it clear
that another deal was both unrealistic and unfounded. At a June
2018 meeting co-hosted by Canada, China, and the EU, more than
30 countries agreed that ``the Paris Agreement is irreversible
and is not to be renegotiated,'' providing another marker of
the United States' isolation on the issue.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ European Commission, ``Ministerial on Climate Action: Chairs'
Summary'' Brussels, Belgium, June 21, 2018, available at https://
ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/news/20180621--moca--en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration's abandonment of international efforts
to combat climate change leaves Americans even more vulnerable
to the devastating effects of climate change.\159\ As an
unprecedented number of fires rage on the West Coast in 2020,
and insurance companies are beginning to balk at insuring those
in coastal flooding zones vulnerable to rising sea levels,
President Trump offers little in the way of solutions and fails
to acknowledge any sense of responsibility to help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ In September 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
led by Trump appointees, released a report which found that climate
change threatens U.S. financial markets due to the impact of wildfires,
storms, droughts, and floods on insurance and mortgage markets.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Market Risk Advisory Committee,
Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System: Report of the
Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee, Sept. 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conversations with Committee staff, foreign officials
acknowledged that these withdrawals, particularly the
withdrawal from the JCPOA, will make countries think twice
before reaching future agreements with the U.S. As Richard
Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in
2020, ``For friends and allies, the possibility of withdrawal
can leave them to question their decision to place their
security in American hands.''\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Richard Haass, ``Trump's foreign policy doctrine? The
Withdrawal Doctrine,'' Opinion, The Washington Post, May 27, 2020.
Our Closest Allies: Alienated and Abused
President Trump has eschewed traditional U.S. foreign
policy relationships, which emphasized enhancing and preserving
the longstanding ties between allied countries, rooted in
shared values, security, and aspirations. Instead, his
transactional approach seeks to elicit something from the other
side, regardless of the long-term consequences, and uses
insults and bullying tactics along the way. As a former U.S.
Ambassador to Canada put it, Trump's method rests on two key
questions: ``What can I get from the other country? And, what
are their pain points to make them give it to me?''\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Interview of Former U.S. Ambassador, May 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``What can I get from the other country? And, what are their
pain points to make them give it to me?''
--Former U.S. Ambassador, on Trump's approach
Supporters have argued that Trump's transactional approach
enables the President to strike deals for the United States
that provide concrete results for the American people.\162\
But, characterized by short-sightedness, Trump is content to
rip up agreements that protect global and U.S. interests alike,
even if it means fraying the foundational fabric of U.S.-
multilateral alliances. He has made steep tariff threats,
weaponized economic tools, and blindsided foreign governments
with announcements of unilateral U.S. policy changes--toward
countries long considered close allies and partners.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ See, e.g., Leon Hadar, ``The Limits of Trump's Transactional
Foreign Policy,'' The National Interest, Jan. 2, 2017.
\163\ See, e.g., Thomas Wright, ``Trump's Foreign Policy is No
Longer Unpredictable,'' Foreign Affairs, Jan. 18, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``We are sticking out our foot to trip our allies.''
--Former Senior U.S. official
As a former senior official who served in the Trump
administration put it to Committee staff, ``We are sticking out
our foot to trip our allies.''\164\ Another former senior
official observed that the Trump administration takes a
punishment-based approach, saying, ``Everything in this
administration is about sticks, with no carrots.''\165\
Canadians, Germans, and others have expressed disbelief that
the United States is using tools on them usually reserved for
rogue regimes, not allies. As one foreign official told
Committee staff, ``You can't deal with us as though we are
North Korea.''\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State, July
2019.
\165\ Interview of Former U.S. Ambassador, June 2019.
\166\ Interview of Foreign Official, Mar. 2019.
Canada: A National Security Threat?
President Trump's preferred method of using tariffs as a
stick has had the unusual consequence of declaring close U.S.
allies, such as Canada, to be deemed a national security
threat. In March 2018, he did just that, invoking national
security authorities to impose steel and aluminum tariffs
against the United States' northern neighbor, close security
partner, and principal trade partner.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Ana Swanson, ``Trump to Impose Sweeping Steel and Aluminum
Tariffs,'' The New York Times, Mar. 1, 2018. Congress created the
Section 232 process in the Trade Act of 1962 to ensure that U.S.
imports do not cause undue harm to U.S. national security.
Congressional Research Service, Section 232 Investigations: Overview
and Issues for Congress, Apr. 7, 2020. 1986 was the last time a
president imposed trade restrictions under Section 232. Congressional
Research Service, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, June
3, 2020. The U.S. and Canada have long-standing mutual security
commitments and maintain close intelligence and law enforcement ties
and have engaged in a variety of initiatives to strengthen border
security and cybersecurity in recent years. See Congressional Research
Service, Canada-U.S. Relations, June 14, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian officials were outraged by Trump's action.
Canada's then-Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland called it
``absurd.''\168\ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called it
``inconceivable'' that Canada could be a national security
threat, and emphasized, ``This decision by the U.S.
administration will hurt Canadians. It will hurt Americans. And
we regret that deeply.''\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Brian Mann, ``Canada Responds To Tariffs,'' NPR, June 2,
2018.
\169\ Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, ``Justin Trudeau's
speech in response to Donald Trump's tariff announcement,'' May 31,
2018; Brian Mann, ``Canada Responds To Tariffs,'' NPR, June 2, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked President Trump
how Canada could be a national security threat to the United
States, President Trump invoked the War of 1812.\170\ (Trump
said to Trudeau, ``Didn't you guys burn down the White
House?'').\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ Jordan Weissman, ``When Justin Trudeau Asked How Canada Could
Be a National Security Threat to the U.S., Trump Brought Up the War of
1812,'' Slate, June 6, 2018.
\171\ Id. This did happen in the War of 1812, but it was the
British who torched Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In retaliation, Canada filed an appeal with the WTO and
imposed tariffs on more than $16 billion worth of American
products.\172\ The dispute threw the G7 Summit in 2018 into
``disarray.''\173\ Following the summit, Trudeau made clear
that Canada would protect its interests, prompting one of
President Trump's top trade advisers to accuse Trudeau of
trying ``to stab [President Trump] in the back on the way out
the door,'' and remarked there was a ``special place in hell''
for leaders like Trudeau--a comment for which he subsequently
apologized.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ The tariffed products included soup, beer, toilet paper,
whiskey, ketchup, lawn mowers, yogurt, and dishwasher detergent.
``Canada hits US with retaliatory tariffs: `We will not back down':
Country announced taxes on items including ketchup, lawnmowers, whiskey
and yoghurt amounting to $12.6bn,'' The Guardian, June 29, 2018. See
also Brian Mann, ``Canada Responds To Tariffs,'' NPR, June 2, 2018.
\173\ ``G7 summit ends in disarray as Trump abandons joint
statement,'' BBC, June 10, 2018.
\174\ Comments of Peter Navarro, Fox News Sunday, June 10, 2018;
Alan Rappaport, ``Navarro Apologizes for `Special Place in Hell'
Comments About Trudeau,'' The New York Times, June 12, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the United States ultimately removed tariffs on
steel and aluminum imports from Mexico and Canada during the
final phase of United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)
negotiations, the damage had already been done to U.S.-Canada
relations.\175\ Polling of the Canadian public confirms what
SFRC Democratic staff heard from current and former diplomats
and officials. Seventy percent of Canadians reported an
unfavorable view of the United States in 2020, a record high
from when the Pew Research Center started tracking such
responses in 2000.\176\ Canadian confidence in the U.S.
president to do the right thing regarding world affairs was
down to 20% in 2020, compared to 83% in 2016.\177\ When
Canadians were asked by Pew to describe the United States in
one word, after common words like ``Trump'' and ``President,''
the next most used words were ``chaos,'' ``confused,''
``bully,'' and ``disappointing.''\178\ As a former U.S.
Ambassador to Canada told Committee staff, ``Trump is causing
existential damage to the U.S.-Canada relationship.''\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ Congressional Research Service, Section 232 Investigations:
Overview and Issues for Congress, Apr. 7, 2020.
\176\ Richard Wike et al., ``U.S Image Plummets Internationally as
Most Say U.S. Has Handled Coronavirus Badly,'' Pew Research Center,
Sept. 15, 2020; Shannon Schumacher & J.J. Moncus, ``The U.S. in One
Word: Canadians Say `Trump,' Mexicans Point to `Money' and `Work,' ''
Pew Research Center, Apr. 6, 2020.
\177\ Richard Wike et al., ``U.S Image Plummets Internationally as
Most Say U.S. Has Handled Coronavirus Badly,'' Pew Research Center,
Sept. 15, 2020; Richard Wike et al., ``Trump Ratings Remain Low Around
Globe, While Views of U.S. Stay Mostly Favorable: Little trust in
Trump's handling of international affairs,'' Pew Research Center, Jan.
8, 2020.
\178\ Shannon Schumacher & J.J. Moncus, ``The U.S. in One Word:
Canadians Say `Trump,' Mexicans Point to `Money' and `Work,' '' Pew
Research Center, Apr. 6, 2020.
\179\ Interview of Former U.S. Ambassador, May 2019.
Weaponizing Tariffs for Non-Trade Issues with Mexico
President Trump has also sought to use the threat of
tariffs against another strategic economic partner, Mexico,
currently the United States' largest trading partner, with
trading between the countries amounting to more than $600
billion.\180\ Relations between the United States and Mexico
have grown closer over the past three decades, making
significant progress from the time when the two countries were
called ``distant neighbors.''\181\ In the wake of 9/11, Mexican
and U.S. security services built a strong mutually beneficial
relationship, including the sharing of sensitive
counterterrorism information.\182\ U.S.-Mexican relations
before President Trump entered office were in what one expert
deemed the ``best shape they have ever been in,'' with
intensive economic, social, and security connections and
cooperation between the two governments and societies.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ Ken Roberts, ``It's Official: Mexico Is No. 1 U.S. Trade
Partner For First Time, Despite Overall U.S. Trade Decline,'' Forbes,
Feb. 5, 2020; U.S. Census Bureau, ``Top Trading Partners--December
2019,'' Foreign Trade, 2019, https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/
statistics/highlights/top/top1912yr.html.
\181\ Franklin Foer, ``Mexico's Revenge,'' The Atlantic, May 2017;
Andrew Martinez, ``Distant Neighbors: The massive misunderstandings
that plague the relationship between the United States and Mexico,''
Slate, Apr. 14, 2009
\182\ Franklin Foer, ``Mexico's Revenge,'' The Atlantic, May 2017.
\183\ Dan Restrepo et al., ``Preserving and Strengthening the U.S.-
Mexico Relationship,'' Center for American Progress, Jan. 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S.-Mexico relationship has benefited from a barrier
between the normal commercial disputes that occurred between
the economically intertwined countries, and other, non-trade
issues, such as migration and security. Before Trump, it was
understood that it would be damaging if commercial and trade
disputes were allowed to contaminate other parts of the
relationship. Trump, on the other hand, has directly mixed
migration and trade policy together, which has hurt all aspects
of U.S-Mexican relations.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Interview of Former U.S. Ambassador, June 2019. Seven former
U.S. ambassadors to Mexico who served Democratic and Republican
administrations wrote a letter expressing concern about the Trump
administration's approach. Open letter from former U.S. ambassadors to
Mexico (John Negroponte, James Jones, Jeffrey Davidow, Antonio Garza,
Carlos Pascual, Earl Anthony Wayne and Roberta Jacobson), June 5, 2019;
Frederick Kempe, ``Trump is playing a risky game by weaponizing US
economic power with tariffs,'' CNBC, June 8, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2019, Trump surprised Mexico and members of his own
Cabinet by announcing via Twitter a tariff on goods imported
from Mexico that would increase steadily unless Mexico stopped
the flow of migrants into the United States.\185\ Trump then
extended his demands against Mexico beyond immigration,
insisting Mexico stop an ``invasion'' of drug dealers and
cartels.\186\ In response to President Trump's tweet, Mexican
president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador wrote him a letter,
urging him to engage in diplomatic dialogue.\187\ Obrador said
that he did not want confrontation and that Mexico was doing as
much as possible to stem the flow of migrants ``without
violating human rights.''\188\ He wrote that people do not
leave their homes unless it is truly necessary, and posed a
poetic plea to President Trump to consider those who seek,
through effort and work, to live free from misery: ``The Statue
of Liberty is not an empty symbol.''\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ @realDonaldTrump, ``On June 10th, the United States will
impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico,
until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our
Country, STOP. The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal
Immigration problem is remedied,...at which time the Tariffs will be
removed. Details from the White House to follow.'' May 30, 2019,
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1134240653926232064. See
also Tracy Wilkinson, ``Mexico begins trying to talk its way out of
Trump's latest tariff threat,'' Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2019,
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-us-mexico-tariffs-lobbying-
trade-20190603-story.html.
\186\ President Donald J. Trump, Statement from the President
Regarding Emergency Measures to Address the Border Crisis, The White
House, May 30, 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/
statement-president-regarding-emergency-measures-address-border-
crisis/.
\187\ Letter from President of Mexico Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador
to President Donald Trump, May 30, 2019, available at https://
lopezobrador.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/30-05-2019-Carta-al-
presidente-Trump.pdf (English translation: https://embamex.sre.gob.mx/
eua/index.php/en/recent/1543-letter-to-president-trump).
\188\ Ana Swanson, ``Trump's Tariff Threat Sends Mexico, Lawmakers
and Businesses Scrambling,'' The New York Times, May 31, 2019.
\189\ Letter from President of Mexico Andres Manuel Lpez Obrador to
President Donald Trump, May 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump's threat subsided a month later when the
two countries announced an agreement on migration, but it did
not erase the sting.\190\ Under pressure from the Trump
administration to stop the flow of migrants from Central
America to the U.S. southern border, Mexico's protection of
vulnerable migrants has suffered. Mexico's National Guard used
brutal force to turn back a migrant caravan at its southern
border, and Mexican immigration authorities and police have
failed to protect asylum seekers from violent crime in Mexico's
northern border region since tens of thousands have been pushed
back by U.S. policies.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration. U.S. Department of State, June
7, 2019.
\191\ See, e.g., Maureen Meyer & Gina Hinojosa, ``Mexico's Human
Rights Landscape During President Lpez Obrador's First Year in
Office,'' WOLA, https://www.wola.org/analysis/mexico-human-rights-
lopez-obrador/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well before President Trump's tariff threats, the U.S.-
Mexico relationship had already suffered severe consequences.
The President's insistence that Mexico pay for a border wall,
inflammatory rhetoric on migration and insults against
Mexicans, along with his repeated attempts to end Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) took a considerable
toll.\192\ Security cooperation between the two countries
dropped following President Trump's inauguration, and priority
U.S. extradition requests declined during Trump's first two
years.\193\ After a ``testy'' call in 2018 with then-President
Enrique Pena Nieto in which Trump refused to drop his
unsuccessful attempts to get Mexico to pay for the wall, Pena
Nieto cancelled plans for his first visit to the White
House.\194\ As Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to
the United States said of Trump: ``His relationship with Mexico
isn't strategically driven. It's not even business; it's
personal, driven by motivations and triggers, and that's a huge
problem. It could end up with the U.S. asking itself, `Who lost
Mexico?' ''\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ See, e.g., Jesus Velasco, ``The Future of U.S.-Mexico
Relations: A Tale of Two Crises, Center for the United States and
Mexico Baker Institute for Public Policy, Aug. 2018; Monica Verea,
Anti-Immigrant and Anti-Mexican Attitudes and Policies during the First
18 Months of the Trump Administration, Norteamerica, Revista Academica,
Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.22201/
cisan.24487228e.2018.2.335. Fareed Zakaria, ``Trump is destroying three
decades of hard work with Mexico,'' Opinion, The Washington Post, June
6, 2019.
\193\ CRS, Mexico: Background and U.S. Relations, May 12, 2020, at
18; Interview of Former U.S. Ambassador, June 2019.
\194\ Philip Rucker et al., ``After testy call with Trump over
border wall, Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House,'' The
Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2018.
\195\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A former U.S. ambassador posited that the real question for
Mexico in dealing with the United States is: What does good
behavior get you?\196\ The former ambassador noted that Mexico
has more trepidation now because it does not know what the
Trump administration will do.\197\ Mexican public opinion
reflects that reality. Mexican public confidence in the U.S.
president has hovered in the single digits under Trump's
presidency, down approximately 40 points from 2009-2017.\198\
When the Mexican public was asked to describe the United States
in one word, after words such as ``money'' and ``work,'' the
next most commonly mentioned words included ``discrimination,''
``racism,'' and, simply, ``bad.''\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Interview of Former U.S. Ambassador, June 2019.
\197\ Id.
\198\ ``Confidence in the U.S. President,'' Global Indicators
Database, Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/
database/indicator/6/country/MX (updated Mar. 2020).
\199\ Shannon Schumacher & J.J. Moncus, ``The U.S. in One Word:
Canadians Say `Trump,' Mexicans Point to `Money' and `Work,' '' Pew
Research Center, Apr. 6, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/
2020/04/06/the-u-s-in-one-word-canadians-say-trump-mexicans-point-to-
money-and-work/.
A Strained Relationship: Germany
Perhaps no other close U.S. relationship has experienced
greater strain than the one between the United States and
Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel, who forged a close
relationship with President Obama, has been the recipient of
repeated scorn and attacks by President Trump.\200\ While
Merkel can clearly withstand a few petty insults, it is an open
question whether the U.S.-German relationship will continue to
suffer after Trump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ See, e.g., Soraya Sardhaddi Nelson, ``Obama Calls German
Chancellor Angela Merkel `His Closest Ally,' '' NPR, Nov. 17, 2016.
Carl Bernstein, ``From pandering to Putin to abusing allies and
ignoring his own advisers, Trump's phone calls alarm US officials,''
CNN, June 30, 2020; Jake Lahut, ``Trump was `near-sadistic' in phone
calls with female world leaders, according to CNN report on classified
calls,'' Business Insider, June 29, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Germans have maneuvered carefully to maintain strong
commercial and defense ties, although President Trump's
penchant for treating Germany as a distant foe rather than a
close ally continues to put those ties to the test. He pulled
U.S. forces from Syria with no warning to Germany, despite
Germany's role as a NATO ally that has provided longstanding
support for the U.S.-led coalition against ISIL.\201\ He also
imposed or threatened steep tariffs on European products, and,
most recently, pursued a dramatic partial withdrawal of U.S.
troops from a country that has been home to one of the largest
U.S. military contingents since World War II. These unilateral
moves have chipped away at the longstanding sense of trust and
cooperation. As the U.S. later prepared to withdraw troops from
Syria, U.S. Special Representative for Syria Engagement James
Jeffrey asked Germany for ground troops to partially replace
U.S. soldiers (which Germany declined to do).\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ Alexandra Ma, ``French President Macron dunked on Trump for
pulling out of Syria without telling his NATO allies,'' Business
Insider, Nov. 7, 2019.
\202\ Ben Knight, ``US calls for German ground troops in Syria,''
Deutsche Welle, July 7, 2019; ``Syria: Germany rejects US demand for
ground troops,'' Aug. 7, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While even close allies have conflict and disagreement,
what sets these moves apart is that the U.S. acted without
consultation or prior warning--treating a close ally as it
might any other country, or worse, an adversary. As Norbert
Rottgen, the head of the foreign affairs committee in the
German parliament, put it, the ``troop withdrawal from northern
Syria constitutes another abrupt and destabilizing foreign
policy move by the United States.''\203\ Regarding the tariffs,
Merkel said ``the measures carry the threat of a spiral of
escalation that will result in damaging everyone.''\204\ One
German parliamentarian in the Social Democratic Party said of
the U.S. troop withdrawal from Germany, ``capriciousness and
pressure'' could not be ``the basis for working together in
partnership.''\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ James McAuley & Rick Noack, ``Withdrawal of U.S. troops from
northern Syria angers, worries Europeans,'' The Washington Post, Oct.
7, 2019.
\204\ Ana Swanson, ``White House to Impose Metal Tariffs on E.U.,
Canada and Mexico,'' The New York Times, May 31, 2018.
\205\ ``German defense minister: Planned US troop withdrawal
`regrettable,' '' Military Times, Aug. 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before President Trump, allies had come to expect
consultation on key decisions, particularly those related to
defense or sanctions policy. President Trump, on the other
hand, has gone out of his way to ignore allies' concerns.
Navigating and Hedging Against a Less-Engaged
United States
U.S. inconsistency under President Trump has led U.S.
partners and allies to try to diversify risk and hedge against
the United States. U.S. partners and allies continue to hope
the United States will return to its previous role in world
affairs, but they are preparing for a world without U.S.
leadership, or where other global powers compete for the lead
role. Many are making these short-term and long-term decisions
knowing they run counter to U.S. desires, but they feel they
have no choice but to attempt to protect themselves and pursue
their own national interests independent of an erratic,
unreliable, and often counterproductive United States under
President Trump.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ Interview of Former U.S. Ambassador, June 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the U.S. has torn up agreements and issued threats, some
countries have developed backup plans in case relations with
the United States do not work out. As a former senior U.S.
official put it, ``Trump has demonstrated that everything is
reversible, so other countries feel they need to find their own
way.''\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ Interview of Former Assistant Secretary of State, May 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Kingdom's engagement in various degrees of
hedging is remarkable given the ``special relationship''
between it and the United States. In July 2019, Britain
declined to join a U.S. naval coalition in the gulf following
Iran's seizure of a British-flagged ship.\208\ Instead, Britain
said it sought to create a European-led group. Jeremy Hunt,
U.K. Foreign Secretary at the time, told Parliament of the
prospective European naval group: ``It will not be part of the
U.S. maximum pressure policy on Iran because we remain
committed to preserving the Iran nuclear agreement.''\209\
Then-Foreign Secretary Hunt also called for Britain to
``decisively increase'' its defense spending to cope with
future threats from all over the globe, including the danger of
an ``accidental'' U.S.-Iran war.\210\ The move would have been
unthinkable a few years earlier, but demonstrated how much the
ground had shifted due to the U.S. withdrawal on JCPOA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ Greg Myre, ``U.K. Says It Won't Join The U.S. In Maximum
Pressure Campaign Against Iran,'' NPR, July 22, 2019.
\209\ Id.
\210\ Gordon Rayner & Con Coughlin, ``Jeremy Hunt `wants to double
defence spending' as he calls on UK to project more hard power,'' The
Telegraph, May 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another form of allied hedging is increasing investments in
a country's own defense, partly to show the U.S. they are
committed to defense spending, but also because Trump might not
be a passing phase. U.S. allies are increasingly worried about
their security dependence on the U.S. and looking for ways to
defend themselves if the United States further withdraws from
the world. As Committee staff heard from foreign officials,
some countries are working to ensure that they do not end up
with systemic dependence, unable to defend themselves without
U.S. assistance. As European allies in particular eye a second
term Trump presidency warily, Europe could chart a more
independent course, further diminishing U.S. influence. Some
countries are waiting, expectantly, for when and if the U.S.
re-engages. For example, Committee staff heard from officials
in the Asia-Pacific region they are holding the door open for
U.S. re-engagement. Meanwhile, U.S. allies in Europe are trying
to manage and preserve the trans-Atlantic alliance and
multilateral organizations. A former senior official emphasized
to Committee staff that the idea that the United States is an
outside power, like Russia and China, is a real problem for
U.S. allies.\211\ Experts and officials in Europe have begun to
imagine what was once unthinkable: in ten to twenty years, the
transatlantic alliance might not be there, and there might also
be nothing to replace it.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State, May
2019.
\212\ Interviews of Foreign Think Tank Experts, Mar. 2019.
Circumventing U.S. Unilateral Actions
The Trump administration's unilateral actions are also
causing allies to take steps to insulate themselves and reduce
their vulnerability to U.S. economic influence.\213\ European
countries were incensed by U.S. re-imposition of sanctions and
addition of new sanctions on Iran following Trump's May 2018
withdrawal from the JCPOA.\214\ In response, they developed a
special purpose vehicle, termed the Instrument in Support of
Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), to allow certain transactions with
Iran to move forward without any connection to the dollar or
other nexus U.S. jurisdiction.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ Fareed Zakaria, ``The dollar won't always be king of
currency. Other countries want to topple it,'' The Washington Post,
June 13, 2019.
\214\ Stephanie Zable, ``INSTEX: A Blow to U.S. Sanctions?''
Lawfare, Mar. 6, 2019, https://www.lawfareblog.com/instex-blow-us-
sanctions.
\215\ Congressional Research Service, Iran Sanctions, July 23,
2020. At a February 2019 conference convened by the United States to
build greater international support for U.S. efforts to pressure Iran,
Vice President Pence called the effort ``an ill-advised step that will
only strengthen Iran, weaken the EU, and create still more distance
between Europe and the United States.'' James Shotter et al., ``Mike
Pence attacks European allies on `ill-advised' Iran strategy,''
Financial Times, Feb. 14, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite Trump administration opposition, nine European
countries have joined INSTEX.\216\ On March 31, 2020, INSTEX
completed its first transaction, for over $500,000 worth of
medical equipment.\217\ INSTEX is a costly signal from Europe
to the United States that it is prepared to pursue greater
independence in its foreign policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ ``Six more countries join Trump-busting Iran barter group:
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden sign up to
Instex mechanism that sidesteps US sanctions,'' Reuters, Nov. 30, 2019.
\217\ ``Europe's trade system with Iran finally makes first deal,''
AP, Mar. 31, 2020; Laurence Norman, ``EU Ramps up Trade System with
Iran Despite U.S. Threats: Officials believe the export of medical
equipment using the EU's trade mechanism will be the first of
many,''The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, since President Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA,
China has continued engagement with Iran's economy, despite the
threat from re-imposed U.S. sanctions. China and Iran are
reportedly negotiating a long-term strategic agreement that
would provide for vast amounts of investments by China in
Iran's economy.\218\ In contrast, companies in other countries,
including Japan and South Korea, have curtailed economic ties
with Iran in order to avoid U.S. sanctions that could restrict
their access to the U.S. market.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ Alam Saleh et al., ``Iran's Pact with China Is Bad News for
the West,'' Foreign Policy, Aug. 9, 2020.
\219\ See, e.g., Julian Ryall, ``South Korea responds angrily to
Iran threats over frozen assets,'' Deutsche Welle, July 23, 2020;
Garrett Nada & Alex Yacoubian, ``Iran and Japan Struggle Over Ties and
Trade,'' The Iran Primer, U.S. Institute of Peace, updated Dec. 20,
2019, https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2019/dec/17/iran-and-japan-
struggle-over-ties-and-trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Trump's presidency, the European Union has also
sought to boost the role of the Euro in international
transactions and its use as a reserve currency to challenge the
dominance of the dollar.\220\ U.S. foreign policy has long been
underpinned by the status of the U.S. dollar as the dominant
global currency.\221\ The success of U.S. sanctions depends on
the U.S. dollar as the dominant currency for global trade.\222\
As some observers have noted, it should serve as a warning sign
for the United States that there are growing efforts to
transform dissatisfaction with a dollar-dependent system into
action.\223\ U.S. economic and financial diplomacy depends in
part on trust that the United States will champion fair and
cooperative rules, meaning that it is poised to be a casualty
of President Donald Trump's ``America First'' approach.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ Francesco Guarascio, ``EU pushes for broader global use of
euro to challenge dollar,'' Reuters, Dec. 5, 2018.
\221\ 221 See Congressional Research Service, The Dollar and the
U.S. Trade Deficit, Feb. 14, 2020.
\222\ See Stephanie Zable, ``INSTEX: A Blow to U.S. Sanctions?''
Lawfare, Mar. 6, 2019, https://www.lawfareblog.com/instex-blow-us-
sanctions; Ben Bernanke, ``The dollar's international role: An
``exorbitant privilege''?'' The Brookings Institution, Jan. 7, 2016,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/01/07/the-dollars-
international-role-an-exorbitant-privilege-2/.
\223\ See Stephanie Zable, ``INSTEX: A Blow to U.S. Sanctions?''
Lawfare, Mar. 6, 2019.
\224\ Christopher Smart, ``The Future of the Dollar--and Its Role
in Financial Diplomacy,'' Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Dec. 16, 2018, https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/12/16/future-of-
dollar-and-its-role-in-financial-diplomacy-pub-77986.
Re-enforcing Fears About U.S. Unpredictability
Trump's actions have also caused many allies to question
the long term reliability of the United States as an
international partner. After the unilateral actions of the
George W. Bush administration, many international actors feared
the United States was unbound by the law and rules of the
international system, despite the outsized U.S. role in
developing these norms. These concerns have multiplied under
President Trump, leaving many wondering if they can ever trust
the United States again. As one foreign policy expert abroad
told Committee staff, President Trump is an illustration of the
instability and partisanship of the U.S. political system.\225\
By this line of thinking, the United States went from Bush to
Obama to Trump--what's next?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ Interview of Foreign Think Tank Expert, Mar. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flip-flops from one administration to the next are not new.
U.S. allies clearly remember that President George W. Bush
withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol to curb
greenhouse gas emissions and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty with Russia.\226\ Since President Reagan, every change
in party in the White House reverses or re-implements the
harmful Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City policy),
which restricts access and funding for abortion services.\227\
While foreign officials acknowledged that they have become
accustomed to some shift in positions when there are changes in
the U.S. presidency, many noted that the unreliability under
Trump has been remarkable. Allies have been able to count on
the U.S. to consult or notify them before making significant
changes. Now, however, they never know when the President will
suddenly change his mind or reverse a prior approach, and, like
members of his administration and the public, they learn of
groundbreaking developments via President Trump's tweets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State, May
2019; Stefan Kornelius et al., ``Merkel: Europe must unite to stand up
to China, Russia and US: German chancellor also shares views on Brexit
and climate crisis in interview,'' The Guardian, May 15, 2019; Julian
Borger, ``Bush kills global warming treaty,'' The Guardian, Mar. 29,
2001.
\227\ President Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City
policy on January 23, 2017, just days after taking office Kaiser Family
Foundation, ``The Mexico City Policy: An Explainer,'' Jan. 28, 2019,
bit.ly/3pXAnka; Planned Parenthood Global, Assessing the Global Gag
Rule: Harms to Health, Communities, and Advocacy, Jan. 23, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a former senior State Department official told Committee
staff, other countries are right to have newfound concerns with
U.S. unpredictability.\228\ The damage caused by a withdrawal
from a singular body or agreement goes beyond the immediate
implications for that set of issues: withdrawing from
international agreements has broader implications.\229\ And
other countries watching the U.S. swing from one position to
the next are taking note. As the same U.S. official noted,
``there's no telling what's on the back end.''\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ Interview of Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, July
2019.
\229\ Id.
\230\ Id.
Navigating U.S. Disarray
President Trump's erratic policies have also forced
countries to adopt creative workarounds to manage the
unpredictability and maintain good relations with a volatile
president who eschews traditional forms of communication and
channels. Foreign governments seeking to navigate U.S. policy
have adopted a number of strategies, ranging from flattering
the President to working through his immediate family. These
strategies also highlight the breakdown of traditional U.S.
diplomatic interactions and the sidelining of professional
diplomats who normally manage U.S. foreign relations.
As a former senior official who served in the Trump
administration told Committee staff, foreign counterparts have
frequently used nontraditional channels of diplomacy, bypassing
the normal channels, because there are only a couple people in
the Trump administration who actually know what is going
on.\231\ Foreign officials confided in U.S. officials in the
Trump administration that they were trying in vain to find a
whisperer or policy advisor who was a clear conduit to the
President.\232\ It often proved futile, as officials came and
went, and fell in and out of favor with him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ Interview of Former Senior U.S. Official, July 2019.
\232\ Interview of Former Assistant Secretary of State, May 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A common strategy is cultivating relationships with Trump
family members like Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law
and senior advisor. The Mexican government reportedly pursued a
strategy of ignoring President Trump's tweets and relying
instead on information from Kushner.\233\ The Mexican
government even awarded Kushner one of the country's highest
honors, the Order of the Aztec Eagle, for his ``significant
contributions in achieving the renegotiation of the new
agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada.''\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ Erin Banco & Asawin Suebsaeng, ``Mexican Officials Have a
Trick for Navigating Trump: Ignore the Tweets and Go to Jared: As the
president threatened to inflict economically painful tariffs, his son-
in-law made more diplomatic overtures,'' The Daily Beast, June 12,
2019.
\234\ Erin Banco & Asawin Suebsaeng, ``Mexican Officials Have a
Trick for Navigating Trump: Ignore the Tweets and Go to Jared: As the
president threatened to inflict economically painful tariffs, his son-
in-law made more diplomatic overtures,'' The Daily Beast, June 12,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one former senior U.S. official told Committee staff,
``Jared is conducting amateur foreign policy and he moonlights
extensively, without any expertise, and the results have
severely damaged our national interests.''\235\ It was reported
that officials in at least four countries--United Arab
Emirates, China, Israel, and Mexico--had privately discussed
ways they could manipulate Jared Kushner by taking advantage of
his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties, and
lack of foreign policy experience.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Interview of Former Senior U.S. Official, July 2019.
\236\ Shane Harris et al., ``Kushner's overseas contacts raise
concerns as foreign officials seek leverage,'' The Washington Post,
Feb. 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another strategy is avoiding engagements with President
Trump, working instead with lower-ranking officials. As a
Politico piece summarizing interviews with foreign diplomats
noted, a White House visit had gone from ``the ultimate prize''
to ``something to be avoided.''\237\ Some cited the visit by
the Finnish President Sauli Niinisto, which became an awkward
joint press conference when Trump turned it into ``a rally-
style tirade against the Ukraine scandal whistleblower and the
media.''\238\ According to one State Department official, when
foreign embassies and leaders meet with President Trump,
``every single one walks out disappointed.''\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ Ryan Heath, ``Foreign diplomats brace for 4 more years of
Trump: US president's reelection would be a geopolitical earthquake,''
Politico, Jan. 3, 2020.
\238\ Id.
\239\ Id.
Conclusion
Today, the United States is more isolated and less trusted
by other global actors. Trump has demonstrated to the world
that everything that the United States does is reversible and,
therefore, countries may need to find their own way.
Withdrawing from existing international arrangements also
undermines our allies' sense of stability and increases
unpredictability in the global environment.
The President's version of diplomacy--part bullying, part
shaming, part stick--contains little incentive for cooperation.
Countries that have invested time and energy in partnerships
have been as equally burned as those who have thumbed their
nose at our demands. U.S. diplomats and foreign officials have
remarked that the United States has made it ``harder to be
friends.'' Countries have seen that the United States may not
be a trusted partner, and even close allies can be relegated to
treatment more closely resembling that of an adversary,
regardless of shared security, borders, or values. As a former
Assistant Secretary of State who served in the Trump
administration put it, ``the moorings have been
detached.''\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ Interview of Former Assistant Secretary of State, May 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump's maxim when it comes to important international
agreements has amounted to ``repeal, and don't replace.'' While
some have tried to hold a place for the United States to
return, it is clear that it will need to reengage with besieged
multilateral institutions, reestablish trust with our abused
allies, and assert a consistent global approach if the world is
to once again view the United States as a serious and
responsible power.
241Some Americans may be content to see a President play
tough with foreign leaders. But the full costs of alienating
close allies remain to be seen. Will close partners, such as
those who came to the U.S. defense in the wake of 9/11, be as
eager and committed to come to our defense again? Will other
countries take the political risk of engaging and negotiating
with the United States after it has abandoned so many
international agreements?\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ See Joshua Keating, ``Why Would Any Country Trust America
Again? Thanks to Trump, any agreement made with a U.S. president is
likely to be broken by the next one,'' Slate, May 24, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. foreign policy moving forward will need to recognize
that other international actors will be skeptical of the
staying power of the United States and it will take time to
rebuild U.S. alliances and partnerships.
Chapter 3
Empowering Adversaries and Autocrats
----------
President Trump has empowered U.S. adversaries by isolating
the United States from its allies, disengaging from
multinational organizations, and ignoring or downplaying human
rights abuses. Autocrats around the world have seized the
opportunity to consolidate their power through repressive
means. Under President Trump, it has become clear that the
United States will not push back when authoritarian leaders
expel an academic institution, carry out a judicial power grab,
or assassinate a U.S.-based journalist.
Despite leading the most powerful and influential democracy
in the world, President Trump has undermined efforts to promote
democracy and defend human rights, at home and abroad.\242\ He
appears to dislike the give-and-take of the democratic process
and instead admires displays of strength that demonstrate power
and crush dissent. He has been hostile to and critical of
democratic leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and appears more
willing to say positive things about authoritarian leaders like
Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-un.\243\ Trump has
rewarded leaders such as Erdogan and Orban with military
support, Oval Office meetings, and lavish praise, despite their
increasingly anti-democratic policies.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ See, e.g., John Bellinger & Richard Fontaine, ``To Strengthen
Trump's National Security Approach, Promote Human Rights,'' Lawfare,
Jan. 10, 2018, https://www.lawfareblog.com/strengthen-trumps-national-
security-approach-promote-human-rights; Thomas Carothers & Frances Z.
Brown, ``Can U.S. Democracy Policy Survive Trump?'' Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, Oct. 1, 2018.
\243\ See, e.g., Philip Rucker, `` `Dictator envy': Trump's praise
of Kim Jong Un widens his embrace of totalitarian leaders,'' The
Washington Post, June 15, 2018; Nahal Toosi, ``It's `Dictator Day' at
the U.N.--with Trump in the middle: From Bolsonaro to Sisi to Erdogan,
the early speaking lineup at the U.N. General Assembly is replete with
autocratic leaders,'' Politico, Sept. 24, 2019; Domenico Montanaro, ``6
Strongmen Trump Has Praised--And The Conflicts It Presents,'' NPR, May
2, 2017.
\244\ Deirdre Shesgreen et al., `` `A big fan': Trump welcomes
Turkey's Erdogan despite bipartisan concern over Syria attack,'' USA
Today, Nov. 13, 2019; Aime Williams & Valerie Hopkins, ``Trump praises
Hungary's Orban in White House visit,'' Financial Times, May 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump administration has accelerated the decline in
global freedom in three ways. First, his domestic attacks on
U.S. democratic institutions and constitutional principles have
provided a roadmap and given cover to autocrats' efforts to
roll back civil liberties and domestic checks on their power.
As President Trump deployed military force against peaceful
anti-racism protesters in front of the White House, our allies
and proponents of democracy responded in horror, while
governments with poor human rights records celebrated.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ Uki Goni et al., `` `Trump is tearing apart America': how the
world sees the US protests: The racial tensions in the US have
emboldened both President Trump's allies and his enemies,'' The
Guardian, June 7, 2020 (``I think Americans are not aware, or don't
have the experience, to realise what it means for the military to be
out on the streets in charge of domestic security,'' said a survivor of
an Argentine death camp); Ciara Nugent & Billy Perrigo, `` `The Edge of
an Abyss.' How the World's Newspapers Are Responding as the U.S.
Descends Into Chaos,'' Time, June 2, 2020; Oliver Holmes & Daniel
Boffey, `` `Abuse of power': global outrage grows after death of George
Floyd: Protests spread to Sydney and Paris, as diplomats question use
of force in US,'' The Guardian, June 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, President Trump has embraced autocratic rulers and
belittled democratic leaders. This has legitimized the rule of
some of the world's most brutal dictators and undermined
efforts by U.S. allies to counter autocratic tendencies.
Third, President Trump has diminished the role that
supporting democracy and defending human rights plays in U.S.
foreign policy.\246\ President Trump has replaced a foreign
policy that champions U.S. values with one focused primarily on
short-term self-interest. This desire for ``quick wins'' has
come at a cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ See, e.g., John Bellinger & Richard Fontaine, ``To Strengthen
Trump's National Security Approach, Promote Human Rights,'' Lawfare,
Jan. 10, 2018, https://www.lawfareblog.com/strengthen-trumps-national-
security-approach-promote-human-rights; Thomas Carothers & Frances Z.
Brown, ``Can U.S. Democracy Policy Survive Trump?'' Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, Oct. 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four years of President Trump's foreign policy have
weakened the United States' ability to push back against
Chinese and Russian efforts to gain influence on the world
stage. The Trump administration's disdain for multilateral
organizations has accelerated China's efforts to gain
leadership in key international institutions, moving them in a
direction more favorable to Chinese interests. China has worked
hard to present itself as championing ``multilateralism, the
United Nations, the World Health Organization, free trade and
international cooperation,'' while undermining these
organizations from within.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ Wang Yi, State Councilor and Foreign Minister, People's
Republic of China, Speech, Special Video Conference of China and Latin
American and Caribbean Countries' Foreign Ministers on COVID-19, July
23, 2020.
A Roadmap for Repression
As discussed in Chapter 1, the domestic policies of the
Trump administration have damaged the international credibility
and standing of the United States. The illiberal policies of
the Trump administration have had another profound effect: they
have provided an example to autocratic states for their own
repressive policies. Two important illustrations include how
Trump's attacks on freedom of the press and the rule of law
have been emulated by autocratic governments.
Breaking Democratic Norms: the ``Fake News'' Refrain
One of President Trump's frequent refrains is that the
media broadcasts and publishes ``fake news.''\248\ This goes
hand-in-hand with Trump's repeated attacks on the media and
individual reporters who cover him.\249\ As a January 2019
analysis by the Committee to Protect Journalists showed, from
the summer of 2015 when Trump announced his candidacy for
president until the end of 2018, Trump sent more than 1,300
tweets that were ``critical, insinuating, condemning, or
threatening'' about the media.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ See, e.g., Committee to Protect Journalists, The Trump
Administration and the Media, Apr. 16, 2020, https://cpj.org/reports/
2020/04/trump-media-attacks-credibility-leaks/.
\249\ Four hundred of Trump's tweets referred to more than 100
individual journalists at 30 news organizations. Committee to Protect
Journalists, The Trump Administration and the Media, Apr. 16, 2020,
https://cpj.org/reports/2020/04/trump-media-attacks-credibility-leaks/.
In 2016, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl, who conducted Trump's first
interview as president-elect, said Trump admitted to her, shortly
before the 2016 election, that Trump's goal in attacking the press is
to reduce their credibility: ``He said, `You know why I do it? I do it
to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative
stories about me, no one will believe you.' '' Jon Levine, ``Lesley
Stahl: Trump Said He Wants to `Discredit' the Media `So No One Will
Believe' Negative Stories (Video),'' The Wrap, May 22, 2018, https://
www.thewrap.com/lesley-stahl-trump-target-media-discredit-bad-stories/.
See also Joel Simon & Alexandra Ellerbeck, ``The president's phantom
threats: Trump so far has failed to follow through on his promised
press assault. Could it still come?'' Columbia Journalism Review,
Winter 2018, https://www.cjr.org/special--report/president-threats-
press.php.
\250\ Stephanie Sugars, ``From fake news to enemy of the people: An
anatomy of Trump's tweets,'' Committee to Protect Journalists, Jan. 30,
2019, https://cpj.org/2019/01/trump-twitter-press-fake-news-enemy-
people/. Interestingly, Trump did not use the ``fake news'' refrain
until after he was elected president. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump's rhetoric and threats toward the media have
influenced how other leaders deal with their own domestic
press.\251\ As a spokeswoman for Reporters Without Borders
noted, ``authoritarian regimes all over the world can now take
full advantage of Trump's war with the media by discrediting
mainstream news coverage and calling it `fake news.' ''\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ See, e.g., Spencer Feingold, ``'Fake news' and Trumpian
rhetoric echo around the world: President Trump's rhetoric has been
used to justify human-rights abuses, attacks on the press and more,''
Salon, Nov. 27, 2018.
\252\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Fake News'' Refrain
Syria, Feb. 2017: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used the
term ``fake news'' to try to discredit Amnesty INternational's
2017 report on torture and mass hangings in military prisons.
Cambodia, Mar. 2018: At a ceremony, Cambodian Prime Minister
Hun Sen pointed out New York Times' journalists in the crowd
and noted the paper had been given ``fake news'' awards by
Trump. He then warned that if The Times' reporting was not
suitable positive, ``the Cambodian people will remember your
faces.''
Indonesia, Jan. 2019: President Joko Widodo called a report on
missing ballot boxes for the upcoming election: ``a hoax'' and
``fake news.''
Tunisia, April 2019: Then-Prime Minister Youssef Chahed noted
the threat of fake news, calling it ``the number one enemy of
our country.''
A former U.S. Assistant Secretary who served in the Trump
administration told Committee staff, ``I never heard the word
`fake news' in Africa before Trump. African heads of state now
talk about fake news.''\253\ In March 2017, the Cambodian
government justified attacks on journalists by saying that
Trump rightly, like them, felt that ``news published by
[international] media institutions does not reflect the real
situation.''\254\ A former Obama administration official
described the undermining effect of President Trump's attacks
on the media: ``The fact that the president is willing to
attack the media so explicitly and so directly makes it harder
to point out and to stand up for those attacks in other parts
of the world, including China.''\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ Interview of Former Assistant Secretary of State, May 2019.
\254\ Samuel Osborne, ``Cambodia threatens foreign news media
citing Donald Trump's example: `Freedom of expression must respect the
law and the authority of the state' spokesman warns,'' The Independent,
Mar. 1, 2017.
\255\ David Nakamura, ``As China blocks U.S. media, Trump denounces
the same companies on Twitter,'' The Washington Post, June 9, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump's attacks on the media, according to a former State
Department official, also ``legitimize the threat environment
for journalists.''\256\ Trump's own repeated attacks on
journalists provide cover for foreign leaders to threaten
journalists, such as President of the Philippines Rodrigo
Duterte's threats and politically motivated prosecution of
journalist Maria Ressa.\257\ At a photo opportunity with
President Putin, Trump said about the media, ``[G]et rid of
them. Fake news is a great term, isn't it? You don't have this
problem in Russia but we do.''\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State, May
2019.
\257\ Id.; Philippine Journalist Maria Ressa: `Journalism Is
Activism,' '' NPR, Aug. 6, 2020.
\258\ Since Putin became president, twenty six journalists have
been murdered many of them investigative reporters examining
governmental abuses. Julian Borger, ``Trump jokes to Putin they should
`get rid' of journalists,'' The Guardian, July 28, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump's attacks on journalists also provide an excuse for
foreign leaders to censor and intimate domestic critics. For
years, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban closed space for
civil society and pro-democracy advocates, and undermined the
independent media.\259\ Orban's government has picked up
Trump's rhetoric of fake news, using it as weapon to attack any
reporting on his rollback of democracy and civil society in
Hungary.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ Zack Beauchamp, ``It happened there: how democracy died in
Hungary: A new kind of authoritarianism is taking root in Europe--and
there are warning signs for America,'' Vox, Sept. 13, 2018. By 2017, 90
percent of all media in Hungary was owned by the government or an ally
of Orban's Fidesz party. Id.
\260\ Andraw Gergely & Veronika Gulyas, ``Orban Uses Crisis Powers
for Detentions Under `Fake News' Law,'' Bloomberg, May 13, 2020;
Vlagyiszlav Makszimov, ``Hungarian PM Orban accuses EPP of spreading
fake news,'' Euractiv, May 5, 2020, https://www.euractiv.com/section/
future-eu/news/hungarian-pm-orban-accuses-epp-of-spreading-fake-news/;
Benjamin Novak, Hungary Moves to End Rule by Decree, but Orban's Powers
May Stay: Legislation to drop the state of emergency prompted by the
coronavirus was seen by some as effectively codifying Prime Minister
Viktor Orban's extended authority,'' The New York Times, June 16, 2020.
Rule of Law
The rule of law is one of the fundamental principles of
American democracy and foreign policy. It is based on the idea
that all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to
the law and that the laws the legislative branch passes must be
underpinned by the powers laid out in the U.S. Constitution. At
its heart is the idea that every person is equally subject to
the laws of a society.\261\ The United Nations emphasizes the
importance of rule of law to international peace and security
and political stability, to economic and social progress and
development, and to protection of people's rights and
fundamental freedoms.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ See, e.g., ``Overview--Rule of Law: US Courts Educational
Program,'' Federal Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-
resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law (last visited Sept.
24, 2020).
\262\ ``What is the Rule of Law,'' United Nations, https://
www.un.org/ruleoflaw/what-is-the-rule-of-law/ (last visited May 28,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For decades, U.S. foreign policy has sought to promote the
rule of law as a vital mechanism to promote democracy, serve as
a check on government overreach, and strengthen protections for
human rights. The United States promotes the establishment of
the rule of law in other countries, such as by training foreign
lawyers and judges.
President Trump, far from promoting the rule of law, has
shown astounding contempt for it. He has tried to influence
judicial proceedings by attacking judges, calling on
prosecutors and judges to reward his friends and punish his
enemies.\263\ He has obstructed and questioned the fundamental
legitimacy of Congressional oversight and Special Counsel
Mueller's inquiry.\264\ He has sought to stretch executive
privilege beyond its recognized limits, using it in an attempt
to shield him and anyone in the White House from
accountability.\265\ He has attacked U.S. elections and even
questioned the peaceful transfer of power, a fundamental pillar
of democracy.\266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ See, e.g., @realDonaldTrump, `` `Sotomayor accuses GOP
appointed Justices of being biased in favor of Trump.' @IngrahamAngle
@FoxNews This is a terrible thing to say. Trying to `shame' some into
voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called
me a `faker'. Both should recuse themselves,'' Feb. 24, 2020, https://
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1232155591537254400;
@realDonaldTrump, ``There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the
forewoman in the Roger Stone case. Look at her background. She never
revealed her hatred of ``Trump'' and Stone. She was totally biased, as
is the judge. Roger wasn't even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of
justice. Sad to watch!'' Feb. 25, 2020, https://twitter.com/
realDonaldTrump/status/1232395209125707776; @realDonaldTrump, ``There
are a lot of CRIMINALS in the Caravan. We will stop them. Catch and
Detain! Judicial Activism, by people who know nothing about security
and the safety of our citizens, is putting our country in great danger.
Not good!'' Nov. 21, 2018, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
1065359825654169600.
\264\ See Letter from Pat A. Cipollone to Rep. Jarrold Nadler,
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, May 15, 2019; Paul
Rosenzweig, ``Trump's Defiance of the Rule of Law,'' The Atlantic, June
3, 2019.
\265\ See Richard Lempert, ``All the president's privileges,'' The
Brookings Institution, Dec. 19, 2019.
\266\ Joshua Chaffin, ``US election in danger: Trump seeks to
undermine legitimacy of vote,'' Financial Times, Sept. 30, 2020; ``US
election: Trump won't commit to peaceful transfer of power,'' BBC,
Sept. 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nationalist conservative governments in Central Europe
have also seen Trump's rhetoric and conduct as a vote of
support for their own attempts to enhance their power at the
expense of the judiciary.\267\ In Poland, for example, the
government has been seeking for years to exert control over its
judicial branch.\268\ The European Union has repeatedly
expressed concern about the erosion of the rule of law inside
the country and threatened to punish the Polish government if
it pushed through attempts to enshrine executive control over
the judiciary.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ See, e.g., Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2019:
Democracy in Retreat, 2020, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-
world/2019/democracy-retreat; Al Jazeera, ``Hungary's PM Orban endorses
Trump's re-election bid,'' Sept. 21, 2020.
\268\ Marc Santora and Joanna Berendt, ``Poland Overhauls Courts,
and Critics See Retreat From Democracy,'' The New York Times, Dec. 20,
2017; ``In Poland, the rule of law is under ever greater threat,''
Opinion, Financial Times, Feb. 9, 2020
\269\ See Press Release, European Parliament, ``Rule of Law in
Poland: concerns continue to grow among MEPs'', May 25, 2020, https://
www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20200520IPR79509/rule-of-law-
in-poland-concerns-continue-to-grow-among-meps; Alicja Ptak, ``EU's top
judge warns Poland over overhaul of judiciary'' Reuters, Jan. 9, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Department, as is customary, put out a series of
statements in support of the rule of law and expressing concern
about attacks on the rule of law in Poland.\270\ Despite this,
President Trump has praised the Polish government and, early in
his administration, visited Poland, during which he gave a
speech that was seen as supportive to the conservative
government.\271\ Committee staff heard from a U.S. human rights
advocate that the perception in Poland is ``if Trump's on your
side, things should be okay'' and there is no need to worry
about what the State Department says.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ U.S. Department of State, 2018 Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices: Poland, Section 1-E: Denial of Fair Public Trial,
March 13, 2019, https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-country-reports-on-
human-rights-practices/poland/; U.S. Department of State, 2017 Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices: Poland, Section 1-E: Denial of Fair
Public Trial, April 20, 2018. https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-
country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/poland/. Interview of Senior
Staff Member, International Human Rights Organization, July 2019.
\271\ Christian Davies et al., ``Trump says west is at risk, during
nationalistic speech in Poland,'' The Guardian, July 6, 2017.
\272\ Interview of Senior Staff Member, International Human Rights
Organization, July 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some observers contend that respect for the rule of law is
declining in many EU member states, with the World Bank's
Worldwide Governance Indicators showing deterioration of rule
of law in 17 EU member states from 2009 to 2018.\273\ Concerns
about rule of law persist and have increased toward Poland,
Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Malta.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ See, e.g., Ian Bond & Agata Gostynska-Jakubowska, ``Democracy
and the Rule of Law: Failing Partnership?'' Centre for European Reform,
Jan. 20, 2020, https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/
2020/democracy-and-rule-law-failing-partnership.
\274\ Congressional Research Service, Memo for Committee Staff,
Aug. 26, 2020.
Embracing Autocrats
It is no secret that President Trump appears to have a
profound affinity for dictators and autocrats. He praises
authoritarian leaders such as Vladimir Putin of Russia,
Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, and Kim Jong-un of North
Korea, even going so far as to defend their repressive anti-
democratic methods for holding power.\275\ President Trump on
numerous occasions has sided with Putin's account and dismissed
Russian interference in U.S. elections, despite the unambiguous
findings by the U.S. intelligence community and Special Counsel
Robert Mueller that the Russians did so.\276\ Trump said in
February 2019 that he believed North Korean dictator Kim Jong-
un's claim that he did not have prior knowledge of the
mistreatment of Otto Warmbier, an American college student who
died days after being released, in a coma, from 17 months in
captivity.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ See Chris Cillizza & Brenna Williams, ``15 times Donald Trump
praised authoritarian rulers,'' CNN Politics, July 2, 2019.
\276\ See John Bowden, ``Trump's evolving remarks on Russian
election interference,'' The Hill, June 1, 2019; Anne Gearan & Karoun
Demirjian, ``Trump dismisses new report on 2016 election interference
as his allies continue to pursue theories it debunks,'' The Washington
Post, Aug. 19, 2020; Jonathan Lemire & Zeke Miller, ``Like old pals,
Trump, Putin make light of election meddling,'' AP, June 28, 2019;
``Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,''
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Jan. 6, 2017.
\277\ Josh Dawsey, `` `He tells me he didn't know': Trump defends
Kim Jong Un over death of Otto Warmbier,'' The Washington Post, Feb.
28, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``He tells me he didn't know about it, and I take him at his
word.''
--Trump on Kim Jong-un and the death of Otto Warmbier
``Maybe he did and maybe he didn't!''
--Trump on whether Crown Prince Mohammed
bin Salman knew of the plan to kill Jamal Khashoggi
``President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his
denial today.''
--Trump on whether Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election
At the same time, Trump has criticized, attacked, and
demeaned the leaders of democratic countries that have
historically been our most steadfast allies. Canadian Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau has endured a constant stream of
insults from Trump, who accused him of being ``very dishonest
and weak'' and of making up ``false statements.''\278\ In July
2019, President Trump issued a volley of insults at then-
British Prime Minister Theresa May, calling her ``foolish'' and
saying her Brexit plan had been a disaster because she ignored
his advice.\279\ Trump also has called German Chancellor Merkel
a ``catastrophic leader'' and the ``person who is ruining
Germany.''\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ Dan Bilefsky & Catherine Porter, ``Trump's `Bully' Attack on
Trudeau Outrages Canadians,'' The New York Times, June 10, 2018.
\279\ Rowena Mason et al., ``Trump lashes out at `foolish' May as
crisis over ambassador grows: US commerce secretary pulls out of trade
talks as president calls envoy `very stupid,' '' The Guardian, July 9,
2019.
\280\ Rick Noack, ``What's with Trump and female world leaders?''
The Washington Post, Nov. 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The juxtaposition of Trump's conduct toward authoritarian
versus democratic leaders is not lost on global audiences. The
rest of the world has noted President Trump's abandonment of
the United States' traditional support for democracy and
observed that the President sees no inherent difference between
the conduct of authoritarian and democratic states.\281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ See Jonathan Chait, ``Trump Is Failing at Governing But
Winning at Authoritarianism,'' NY Mag Intelligencer, May 20, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump's affinity for authoritarian leaders dovetails with
his tendency to ignore and downplay human rights violations and
rollbacks of democracy. Countries with authoritarian,
autocratic, or otherwise unsavory leaders know they can
disregard with impunity human rights and the rule of law
because President Trump prizes his personal relationship with
them. An Assistant Secretary of State who served in the Trump
administration told Committee staff, ``People like Erdogan and
Orban feel a lot freer to be dictators because we embrace
them.''\282\ After all, President Trump complimented Chinese
leader Xi Jinping on becoming president for life; he
complimented North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un; he
congratulated Russian president Putin on his reelection despite
his staff including in his briefing materials a plea: ``DO NOT
CONGRATULATE.''\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ Interview of Former Assistant Secretary of State, May 2019.
\283\ Carol Leonnig et al., ``Trump's national security advisers
warned him not to congratulate Putin. He did it anyway,'' The
Washington Post, March 20, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following case studies illustrate the consequences of
President Trump's approach to authoritarian leaders and how it
has further enabled them to consolidate their rule.
Saudi Arabia: No Consequences for Brutal Repression
U.S.-Saudi relations for decades have reflected deep
economic, diplomatic, energy, and security cooperation along
with profound concerns about Saudi Arabia's governance and
human rights record.\284\ The Trump administration has swung in
one direction, ignoring and excusing brutal and barbaric human
rights violations while pursing arms sales and close ties with
the Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ See ``U.S.-Saudi Arabia Relations,'' Council on Foreign
Relations, Dec. 7, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An early indication of President Trump's decision to pursue
a close relationship with Saudi Arabia was his decision to make
the country his first overseas visit.\285\ Since World War II,
presidents have chosen a North American neighbor such as Canada
or Mexico, or a European democratic ally such as Great
Britain.\286\ In bucking this tradition and choosing Saudi
Arabia, Trump sought to emphasize U.S. economic and defense
ties with the Gulf. Yet he ignored any concerns about human
rights abuses or authoritarianism. The personal and sometimes
financial relations of President Trump and his son-in law Jared
Kushner with Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (MBS), the Crown
Prince, have also hovered in the background of the President's
desire to establish close ties early in his presidency.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ Karen DeYoung, ``First stop on Trump's first official trip
overseas signals Saudi Arabia's importance,'' The Washington Post, May
19, 2017,
\286\ Eliza Mackintosh, ``How Trump's first foreign trip compares
with past presidents,'' CNN, May 20, 2017.
\287\ See David D. Kirkpatrick et al., ``The Wooing of Jared
Kushner: How the Saudis Got a Friend in the White House,'' The New York
Times, Dec. 8, 2018; Mohammad Bazzi, ``The heart of the US-Saudi
relationship lies in the Kushner-prince friendship,'' Financial Times,
Mar. 10, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extent of President Trump's willingness to excuse any
level of human rights abuse was demonstrated by his reaction to
the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist, U.S.
resident, and columnist for The Washington Post. On October 2,
2018, Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul
and never re-emerged.\288\ On October 6, Turkish investigators
concluded Khashoggi was killed by a 15-member team of Saudi
agents while inside the consulate.\289\ The U.S. government
reportedly later reached a similar conclusion, including that
Khashoggi was killed on the orders of Crown Prince bin
Salman.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ Joyce Lee & Dalton Bennett, ``The assassination of Jamal
Khashoggi,'' The Washington Post, April 1, 2019.
\289\ Id.
\290\ Shane Harris et al., ``CIA concludes Saudi crown prince
ordered Jamal Khashoggi's assassination,'' The Washington Post, Nov.
16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump did not publicly acknowledge the U.S.
government's conclusion that Khashoggi killing was authorized
by the Saudi government. Instead, he went out of his way to
repeatedly defend the Crown Prince.\291\ On November 20, 2018,
President Trump issued a statement, ``On Standing with Saudi
Arabia,'' in which he speculated that maybe the Crown Prince
had knowledge of Khashoggi's killing--or ``maybe he
didn't!''\292\ Over the ensuing months, not only did the Trump
administration fail to condemn the Crown Prince for Khashoggi's
killing, it worked assiduously to remove his ``pariah status''
and rehabilitate his global image.\293\ Two months after
Khashoggi's death, Trump was exchanging pleasantries with the
Crown Prince at the Group of 20 (G20) summit and was
encouraging U.S. business to invest in Saudi Arabia.\294\ Six
months later, his administration pushed through $8 billion in
arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE),
over the strenuous objections of Congress, and despite
increasing ties between the countries and China.\295\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ Joyce Lee & Dalton Bennett, ``The assassination of Jamal
Khashoggi,'' The Washington Post, April 1, 2019; Shane Harris et al.,
``CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi's
assassination,'' The Washington Post, Nov. 16, 2018.
\292\ Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with
Saudi Arabia, Nov. 20, 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-
statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-standing-saudi-arabia/.
\293\ Aaron David Miller & Richard Sokolsky, ``Opinion: Trump And
Pompeo Have Enabled A Saudi Cover-Up Of The Khashoggi Killing,'' NPR,
Oct. 2, 2019.
\294\ David Herszenhorn. ``Trump praises Saudi crown prince,
ignores questions on Khashoggi killing,'' Politico,'' June 29, 2019;
Sonam Sheth and John Haltiwanger, `` `I saved his a--': Trump boasted
that he protected Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after Jamal
Khashoggi's brutal murder, Woodward's new book says,'' Business
Insider, Sept. 10, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-
woodward-i-saved-his-ass-mbs-khashoggi-rage-2020-9.
\295\ Sonam Sheth and John Haltiwanger, `` `I saved his a--': Trump
boasted that he protected Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after
Jamal Khashoggi's brutal murder, Woodward's new book says,'' Business
Insider, Sept. 10, 2020; see also Nicolas Parasie & Robert Wall,
``Russia and China Target Middle East Arms Deals,'' The Wall Street
Journal, Apr. 6, 2019.
Hungary: Embraced in the White House
Since 2010, Prime Minister Orban has overseen Hungary's
democratic backsliding. The Obama administration grew critical
of the Hungarian government over these concerns, despite
Hungary's status as a member of the EU and NATO.\296\ As a
result, the Obama administration did not engage in high-level,
bilateral meetings, and sought to support press freedom through
grants to independent media outlets and support to civil
society groups.\297\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\296\ See Joanna Kakissis, ``In Trump, Hungary's Viktor Orban Has a
Rare Ally in the Oval Office,'' NPR, May 13, 2019.
\297\ See Patrick Kingsley, ``Hungary's Leader Was Shunned by
Obama, but Has a Friend in Trump,'' The New York Times, Aug. 15, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump administration, in contrast, has set aside prior
U.S. concerns about the state of democracy in Hungary and
embraced the Orban government. The Administration claims that
its strategy of working with Orban is to prevent him from
forging closer ties with China and Russia. Yet the result has
been the opposite. Russian influence in Hungary during the
Trump administration has grown as Orban has pursued his
``Eastern Opening'' foreign policy approach, cultivating
economic cooperation with Russia and China and seeking to
position Hungary for a more multipolar world order.\298\
Hungary's ``Eastern Opening,'' which started before Trump
became president, has included the movement of Russian money
into Hungary, intelligence sharing, increasing commercial ties
and a decision to move the Moscow-based International
Investment Bank (IIB) to Budapest.\299\ Observers have
expressed concerns that this arrangement poses
counterintelligence and economic security threats to Hungary,
NATO, and the EU.\300\ Additionally, Hungary has considerable
ties to Russia in the energy sector: Russia provides all of the
natural gas imported by Hungary, accounting for nearly one
third of the country's primary energy supply.\301\ In 2018,
Hungary denied a U.S. request to extradite two Russian arms
dealers accused by the U.S. of conspiring to sell Russian-made
military grade weapons including anti-aircraft missiles. The
Orban government instead sent them back to Russia.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ Congressional Research Service, Memorandum: Hungary:
Political and Economic Environment and U.S. Relations, June 24, 2019.
\299\ International Investment Bank (IIB) Press Release,
``International Investment Bank headquartered in Budapest will focus on
further sustainable development of member states economies and
integration,'' June 25, 2019. Andras Racz, ``A foot in the door?
Russia's International Investment Bank moves to Hungary,'' European
Council on Foreign Relations, Mar. 18, 2019,'' Financial Times, Mar.
26, 2019; Interview of Senior Staff Member, International Human Rights
Organization, July 2019.
\300\ Andras Racz, A foot in the door? Russia's International
Investment Bank moves to Hungary, European Council on Foreign
Relations, Mar. 18, 2019. See also Congressional Research Service,
Memorandum: Hungary: Political and Economic Environment and U.S.
Relations, June 24, 2019.
\301\ Congressional Research Service, European Energy Security:
Options for EU Natural Gas Diversification, Feb. 26, 2020.
\302\ U.S. Department of State, Hungary: Lyubishin Extradition,
Nov. 27, 2018; see also ``U.S. says Hungary refuses to extradite
suspected Russian arms dealers,'' Reuters, Nov. 27, 2018; Michele
Kelemen, ``Trump Welcomes Hungary's Authoritarian Prime Minister,
Viktor Orban, At White House,'' NPR, May 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orban's ``Eastern Opening'' foreign policy approach also
includes deepening ties with China. Hungary has ignored U.S.
warnings about the national security dangers presented by
Chinese telecommunications companies, allowing Huawei to build
its largest service center in Europe outside of Budapest.\303\
Further, Hungary's proposed $3 billion high-speed rail link
between Budapest and Belgrade is reportedly financed in large
part by China's export-import bank, with a consortium of
Chinese and Hungarian companies expected to perform the
construction.\304\ China views the proposed railway as an
important means for transporting Chinese goods into Central
European markets.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ See Michele Kelemen, ``Trump Welcomes Hungary's Authoritarian
Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, At White House,'' NPR, May 13, 2019;
``Hungary Sees Huawei as Strategic Partner Despite Security Concerns,''
Reuters, Apr. 9, 2019. See also Congressional Research Service,
Memorandum: Hungary: Political and Economic Environment and U.S.
Relations, June 24, 2019.
\304\ Jonathan Gorvett, ``Hungary Ponders Pitfalls of Chinese Rail
Line,'' Asia Times, Apr. 14, 2019. See also Congressional Research
Service, Memorandum: Hungary: Political and Economic Environment and
U.S. Relations, June 24, 2019.
\305\ See Congressional Research Service, Memorandum: Hungary:
Political and Economic Environment and U.S. Relations, June 24, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last three years, Hungary's retreat from democracy
and embrace of authoritarian practices has continued. After
years of noting Hungary's downward trend, in 2019, Freedom
House concluded that Hungary was only a partially free country,
placing it in the same category as Pakistan and Zimbabwe, and
marking the first time an EU country has been designed ``partly
free'' by Freedom House.\306\ This was based in part on the
``sustained attacks on the country's democratic institutions by
Prime Minister Orban's Fidesz party, which has used its
parliamentary supermajority to impose restrictions on or assert
control over the opposition, the media, religious groups,
academia, NGOs, the courts, asylum seekers, and the private
sector since 2010.''\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ Freedom House, Democracy in Decline: Freedom of the World
Report, 2019.
\307\ Freedom House, Democracy in Decline: Freedom of the World
Report, 2019, at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump ignored all these concerns and has embraced
Orban. The capstone was an official White House meeting between
the two leaders, the first White House visit by a Hungarian
prime minister since 2005.\308\ The visit prompted delegates
from the opposition coalition in Hungary to travel to
Washington, DC, to meet with Congress and speak up against
repression under Orban. At the time of Trump's meeting with
Orban, Hungarian human rights lawyer Marta Pardavi expressed
concern about her country's direction, citing Orban's attacks
on groups like hers, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, which
provides legal services for asylum-seekers and for
Hungarians.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ Layla Quran, ``Why Trump is meeting the Hungarian prime
minister Bush and Obama shunned,'' PBS, May 13, 2019.
\309\ Michele Kelemen, ``Trump Welcomes Hungary's Authoritarian
Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, At White House,'' NPR, May 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an Oval Office press conference following the meeting,
President Trump ignored a question about democratic backsliding
in Hungary, and praised Orban as a tough but respected leader.
Before the Trump-Orban White House meeting, the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
led a bipartisan letter to President Trump expressing concerns
about the erosion of democracy in Hungary, Hungary's embrace of
Russia, and the implications for U.S. interests in Central
Europe if President Trump did not raise these concerns.\310\ In
an Oval Office press conference following the meeting,
President Trump ignored a question about democratic backsliding
in Hungary, and praised Orban as a tough but respected
leader.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ Letter from Senators Robert Menendez, James Risch, Marco
Rubio, and Jeanne Shaheen to President Trump, May 10, 2019, https://
www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/menendez-risch-rubio-
shaheen-express-concern-for-democratic-erosion-in-hungary-ask-trump-to-
raise-issues-with-orban.
\311\ Michele Kelemen, ``Trump Welcomes Hungary's Authoritarian
Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, At White House,'' NPR, May 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Trump-Orban meeting, President Trump called
Ranking Member Menendez--an extremely rare occurrence.
President Trump told Senator Menendez that he had received the
letter from him and Chairman Risch, just met with Orban, and
thought that Senator Menendez had got it all wrong. President
Trump told Senator Menendez that Orban is a ``good guy'' and
Hungary was agreeing to buy a lot of U.S. military equipment.
``The President's actions have . . . limited our ability to
promote or influence democracy.''
--Former Senior U.S. Official
Hampering Efforts to Promote Democracy
and Human Rights
President Trump has also empowered those seeking to tighten
autocratic grips on power by weakening U.S. efforts to promote
democracy and transparency around the world. In addition to
embracing autocratic rulers, President Trump has attacked and
weakened U.S. anticorruption tools and refused to support
critical anti-corruption efforts. And, regardless of the
official messages that U.S. diplomats carry to their foreign
counterparts, they cannot overcome the example President Trump
sets through his own bully pulpit.
As a former senior U.S. official told Committee staff:
Democracy promotion is relevant to other countries
either because they need our help to resolve problems
within their democracies, or they understand how
important democratic practice is to us and recognize
that we will limit our engagement with countries that
do not match our values. The President's actions have,
over time, undermined both, and therefore limited our
ability to promote or influence democracy.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ Interview of Former Senior U.S. Official, Sept. 2020.
President Trump has long disparaged the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, a post-Watergate 1977 U.S. law that bars payoffs
to foreign officials by companies, as a ``horrible law'' and
wanted to repeal it once in office.\313\ He repeatedly sought a
nearly 40 percent cut to a U.S. government program dedicated to
fighting global corruption.\314\ One of the first significant
pieces of legislation that President Trump signed rescinded a
key U.S. tool for combatting corruption abroad: an SEC rule to
prevent bribery, which required oil and gas companies to
disclose payments made to other governments.\315\ Trump also
withdrew the U.S. from the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (EITI), an international effort to fight corruption
in oil, gas, and mineral extraction.\316\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\313\ Jeanna Smialek, ``Trump Tried to Kill Anti-Bribery Rule He
Deemed `Unfair,' New Book Alleges: The president asked administration
officials to help kill the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, according to
a new book from two Washington Post reporters,'' The New York Times,
Jan. 15, 2020. See also Renae Merle, ``Trump called global anti-bribery
law `horrible.' His administration is pursuing fewer new
investigations: The Justice Department has touted record fines,
including a $3.9 billion penalty against Airbus announced Friday,'' The
Washington Post, Jan. 31, 2020.
\314\ In FY2019 and FY2020, President Trump sought slashes to the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), which
combat weak rule of law and widespread corruption by strengthening law
enforcement capacity. FY2020 Congressional Budget Justification,
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, https://
www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/FY--2020--CBJ.pdf. See
also Congressional Research Service, Countering Corruption Through U.S.
Foreign Assistance, May 27, 2020.
\315\ 315 Steven Mufson, ``Trump signs law rolling back disclosure
rule for energy and mining companies,'' The Washington Post, Feb. 14,
2017; Trevor Sutton, ``The Trump Administration's Dangerous
Indifference to Corruption,'' Center for American Progress, Apr. 24,
2017.
\316\ Julia Simon, ``U.S. withdraws from extractive industries
anti-corruption effort,'' Reuters, Nov. 2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump also failed to stand up for
internationally-backed anti-corruption efforts, including in
Guatemala. In August 2018, Guatemalan President Morales
declared he was abolishing the International Commission against
Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), which supported corruption
probes that resulted in the indictment of Guatemala's former
president and vice president; the prosecution of dozens of
prominent government officials; the ouster of more than a dozen
corrupt judges and thousands of police officers; and the
detention of powerful drug traffickers.\317\ The CICIG has
previously received strong bipartisan support and was
investigating Morales for corruption.\318\ In stark contrast to
previous administrations, the Trump administration was largely
silent about Morales' move against the CICIG.\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\317\ Griff Witte et al., ``Around the globe, Trump's style is
inspiring imitators and unleashing dark impulses,'' The Washington
Post, Jan. 22, 2019; WOLA, ``Fact Sheet: the CICIG's Legacy in Fighting
Corruption in Guatemala,'' Aug. 27, 2019, https://www.wola.org/
analysis/cicigs-legacy-fighting-corruption-guatemala/.
\318\ Mary Beth Sheridan, ``How U.S. apathy helped kill a
pioneering anti-corruption campaign in Guatemala,'' The Washington
Post, June 14, 2019.
\319\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee staff heard from former U.S. diplomats who served
in the Trump administration that U.S. diplomats on the ground
saw first-hand how President Trump's actions undermined the
U.S. government's ability to promote democracy. ``They just
didn't take us seriously anymore,'' said one former Foreign
Service Officer, on her interactions with her foreign
counterparts.\320\ ``It was hard to lobby the Somali government
for free, fair, more representative electoral process and for
human rights when Trump and Tillerson were saying that human
rights weren't important.''\321\1 As a former U.S. official
told Committee staff, ``Promotion of human rights and
democratic values are not being carried out with the same vigor
by our diplomats, partly because the example the U.S. is
setting undermines their credibility on these issues, partly
because the administration does not care about these issues,
partly because there are not ambassadors in relevant
positions.''\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ Interview of Former Foreign Service Officer, Apr. 2019.
\321\ Id.
\322\ Interview of Former Director, National Security Council, July
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Promotion of human rights and democratic values are not being
carried out with the same vigor by our diplomats.''
--Former U.S. Official
Some diplomats have had Trump's rhetoric thrown back at
them.\323\ A former senior U.S. official told Committee staff,
``It is difficult to raise human rights in meetings with
foreign counterparts when the President could contradict you at
any point. You don't want to drop the hammer on someone for
democracy or human rights issues, and then have Trump say,
`He's my buddy.' That hurts the State Department.''\324\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\323\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State, May
2019.
\324\ Interview of Former Senior U.S. Official, May 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, as a former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico
recounted, Mexican officials were not subtle in communicating
that the United States could no longer lecture them on
conflicts of interest, given the ways that the Trump
administration was short-circuiting processes and institutions
in favor of direct access to the White House and President
Trump's family.\325\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\325\ Interview of Former U.S. Ambassador, June 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``They just didn't take us seriously anymore,'' said one former
Foreign Service Officer, on her interactions with foreign
counterparts.
It is also harder--if not impossible--for the U.S. to
credibly promote values like transparency and good governance
given President's Trump behavior as well as that of other
senior administration officials. As one former Assistant
Secretary of State told Committee staff, ``How do you tell a
country to be more transparent about its finances when your
President isn't releasing his tax returns? It sends a very bad
signal and is having an impact.''\326\ Another former Acting
Assistant Secretary of State put it this way: ``Our diplomats
go in to make demarches on anti-corruption, rule of law, or
freedom of the press, and they know the person they are talking
to is quietly laughing at them on the inside over the hypocrisy
of the message. It is embarrassing to go in with a demarche
when you have all of that baggage in Washington.''\327\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\326\ Interview of Former Assistant Secretary of State, May 2019.
\327\ Interview of Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State,
Sept. 2020.
Ceding Ground to Adversaries
Both Russia and China recognize the strategic opportunity
presented by the disarray of the Trump administration and its
chaotic approach to foreign policy, and are eager to capitalize
on U.S. wavering to expand their global influence.\328\ When
the United States withdraws from diplomatic agreements and is
absent from multilateral fora, when the United States abandons
its allies and partners, and when the United States walks away
from upholding democratic principles, it creates opportunities
for China and Russia to advance their interests at the expense
of both the United States and a sustainable liberal
international order. Diminished U.S. credibility and leadership
on human rights has allowed China to build a coalition at the
United Nations that has enabled genocide in Xinjiang and
defended China's actions in Hong Kong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ See Bobo Lo, ``Global Order In The Shadow Of The Coronavirus:
China, Russia And The West: It's time to rethink global governance and
its priorities,'' Lowy Institute, July 29, 2020, https://
www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/global-order-shadow-coronavirus-
china-russia-and-west#--ftn13.
Providing Openings to China
The growing power of China at the United Nations and the
United States' unwillingness to stand up to Chinese human
rights abuses has been apparent in a series of clashes at the
UN over Xinjiang. In 2018, the United States withdrew from the
UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), citing ``political bias,''
particularly towards Israel, noting there had been more
resolutions passed against Israel than North Korea, Iran, and
Syria combined.\329\ The byproduct of the United States'
withdrawal is that China is able to more easily build a
coalition of ``like-minded'' countries to defend its repressive
actions.\330\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ Nikki Haley, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United
Nations, and Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, ``Remarks on the UN
Human Rights Council,'' U.S. Department of State, June 19, 2018.
\330\ See Dave Lawler, ``The 53 Countries Supporting China's
Crackdown on Hong Kong,'' Axios, Jul. 3, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, China has amassed sufficient support for its
actions and policies in Xinjiang, hampering the ability of the
UN to address the issues in a substantial way.\331\ It also
recently received support from 53 countries for its new,
abusive national security law for Hong Kong, while only 27
criticized it.\332\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\ Lindsay Maizland, ``Is China Undermining Human Rights at the
United Nations?'' Council on Foreign Relations, July 9, 2019; Sheena
Chestnut Greitens et al., ``Understanding China's `preventive
repression' in Xinjiang,'' Lawfare, Mar. 1, 2020; Sophie Richardson,
``China's Influence on the Global Human Rights System,'' Global China:
Assessing China's Growing Role in the World, The Brookings Institution,
Sept. 2020.
\332\ Dave Lawler, ``The 53 Countries Supporting China's Crackdown
on Hong Kong,'' Axios, Jul. 3, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2019, more than 20 ambassadors wrote to the UNHRC
calling on China to refrain from the arbitrary detention and
restrictions on freedom of movement of Uyghurs and other Muslim
and minority communities in Xinjiang.\333\ The United Kingdom,
Canada, and Germany joined the letter, but not the United
States.\334\ In response, China marshaled 37 countries to write
four days later in support of its policies in Xinjiang.\335\
The pro-China letter commended China's ``remarkable
achievements in the field of human rights,'' and was signed by
countries with poor human rights records, including Saudi
Arabia, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Belarus, and
Myanmar.\336\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\333\ Roie Yellinek & Elizabeth Chen, ``The ``22 vs. 50''
Diplomatic Split Between the West and China Over Xinjiang and Human
Rights,'' The Jamestown Foundation, Dec. 31, 2019, https://
jamestown.org/program/the-22-vs-50-diplomatic-split-between-the-west-
and-china-over-xinjiang-and-human-rights/.
\334\ Tom Miles, ``Saudi Arabia and Russia among 37 states backing
China's Xinjiang policy,'' Reuters, July 12, 2019. Catherine Putz,
``Which Countries Are For or Against China's Xinjiang Policies? Last
week, two coalitions sent competing letters to the UN Human Rights
Council criticizing or backing China's Xinjiang policies,'' The
Diplomat, July 15, 2019, https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/which-
countries-are-for-or-against-chinas-xinjiang-policies/.
\335\ Tom Miles, ``Saudi Arabia and Russia among 37 states backing
China's Xinjiang policy,'' Reuters, July 12, 2019.
\336\ ``37 countries defend China over Xinjiang in UN letter,''
Channel News Asia, Jul. 13, 2019, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/
asia/37-countries-defend-china-over-xinjiang-in-un-letter-11716668; Tom
Miles, ``Saudi Arabia and Russia among 37 states backing China's
Xinjiang policy,'' Reuters, July 12, 2019. In 2020, the total number of
signatories in support of China to 50. Roie Yellinek & Elizabeth Chen,
``The ``22 vs. 50'' Diplomatic Split Between the West and China Over
Xinjiang and Human Rights,'' The Jamestown Foundation, Dec. 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a dozen United Nations Special Rapporteurs issued an
unprecedented and devastating assessment of the Chinese
government's counterterrorism law in November 2019, showing the
way the law is being used to justify gross violations of basic
rights and freedoms in Xinjiang, China's diplomacy enabled by
the lack of U.S. leadership has rendered these international
institutions unable to act.\337\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\337\ UN Special Rapporteur, Comments on the Effect and Application
of the Counter-Terrorism Law of the People's Republic of China, the
2016 Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Implementing Measures, Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights, OL CHN 18/2019, Nov. 1, 2019,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Terrorism/SR/OL--CHN--18--
2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar story of dueling statements at the UNHRC played
out in 2020: 27 countries signed a statement criticizing
China's national security law for Hong Kong and its abhorrent
policies in Xinjiang.\338\ The United States was, once again,
not a signatory. And, again in an echo of the July 2019 events,
Cuba led 53 countries in signing a joint statement supporting
China's actions in Hong Kong.\339\ The signatories in support
of China included at least 40 countries that have signed onto
China's Belt and Road infrastructure project, and many of the
African signatories are trying to renegotiate debt payments to
China amid sharp COVID-related downturns.\340\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\338\ Julian Braithwaite,UK Ambassador to the WTO and UN in Geneva,
``UN Human Rights Council 44: Cross-regional statement on Hong Kong and
Xinjiang,'' June 30, 2020, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/un-
human-rights-council-44-cross-regional-statement-on-hong-kong-and-
xinjiang. The full list of countries that signed the statement
criticizing China was: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Canada,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, Japan,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the U.K. Id.
\339\ Dave Lawler, ``The 53 countries supporting China's crackdown
on Hong Kong,'' Axios, July 3, 2020.
\340\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Harper, who served as the U.S. representative to the
UNHRC from 2014 to 2017, says America's absence is one major
reason why the balance tipped so dramatically in China's favor,
noting that for countries who decide to side with China,
``there's no detriment . . . because the U.S. isn't at the
table.''\341\Meanwhile, as China has become the third-largest
contributor to the UN regular budget and second-largest
specifically to UN peacekeeping missions, China is starting to
steer allocation of the UN budget away from human rights,
including recent efforts to cut funding for key human rights
positions as well as the Human Rights Up Front initiative.\342\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ Id.
\342\ Colum Lynch, ``At the UN, China and Russia Score Win in War
on Human Rights,'' Foreign Policy, Mar. 26, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one former senior State Department official observed,
the Trump administration's attempted bullying of the
international community before the U.S. withdrawal from the
UNHRC demonstrated a lack of understanding of diplomacy. The
U.S. negotiating position was effectively ``Do what we say or
we leave.''\343\ The former official pointed out that ``[o]f
course autocrats' response to that was, ``Great!''\344\ In a
remarkable twist in the story of U.S. withdrawal from the
UNHRC, then-Ambassador Nikki Haley decided to lay the blame for
the U.S. withdrawal on NGOs, asserting that human rights groups
like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were no
different from Russia and China.\345\ Nearly 20 human rights
organizations sent a letter in response protesting Haley's
attempt to deflect blame.\346\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\343\ Interview of Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, July
2019.
\344\ Id.
\345\ Stephanie Murray, ``Nikki Haley casts blame on NGOs for U.S.
withdrawal from rights council,'' Politico, June 20, 2018.
\346\ See, e.g., Joint NGO letter to Ambassador Haley, June 22,
2018, available at https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/
AMR5186752018ENGLISH.pdf. Brent Griffiths, ``NGOs to Nikki Haley: Not
our fault U.S. left U.N. Human Rights Council,'' Politico, June 24,
2018.
Failing to Promote Democratic Values Abandons a Critical Policy
Tool for Countering Russian and Chinese Influence
The Trump administration, while allegedly seeking to
position U.S. foreign policy to compete with Russia and China,
has in fact unilaterally disarmed a critical weapon in the
``arsenal of democracy:'' our values in the competition between
democracy and authoritarianism.\347\ This competition, based
upon the ideas around which societies organize themselves, and
between the forms of government they adopt, is critical for
U.S. global leadership and influence. While the United States
has long stood for the promise and success of democracy--a
``shining city on a hill,'' as President Reagan, channeling
John Winthrop, so memorably put it--China and Russia are now
seeking to show the allure of authoritarian political
systems.\348\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\347\ President Donald Trump, National Security Strategy of the
United States of America, Dec. 2017.
\348\ Hal Brands, ``Democracy vs. Authoritarianism: How Ideology
Shapes Great-Power Conflict,'' Survival, Oct.-Nov. 2018, at 61-114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump administration's unwillingness to promote or
defend democratic values, at home or abroad, and its embrace of
a transactional foreign policy have damaged U.S. efforts to
combat authoritarian powers in three ways. First, neglecting
the ideological component of the competition provides powers
like China and Russia with an opportunity to promote their
systems at the United States' expense. In the past, promoting
human rights and democracy has been a powerful tool in
successful U.S. efforts to contain and defeat hostile
powers.\349\ The Trump administration's abandonment of
democratic values limits the United States ability to draw a
stark contrast between a society governed by liberal democracy
and the repressive authoritarian systems of China and Russia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\349\ During other global struggles with authoritarian powers, the
United States sought to distinguish its foreign policy from the pure
power politics that other states practiced. U.S. efforts to promote
democratic values weakened communist leaders' hold on their own people
and played an important role in ending the Cold War. See, e.g., Lowell
Schwartz, Political Warfare against the Kremlin: U.S. and British
Propaganda Policy at the Beginning of the Cold War, Palgrave Macmillan,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the United States absent, China has shown itself to be
more than ready to step in to support anti-democratic actions
in other countries. For example, after the U.S. and the EU
withdrew support for the Cambodian July 2018 general election
following the dissolution of the main opposition party, jailing
of critics, and shuttering of dissenting media outlets, China
supported the ``election,'' providing equipment including
ballot boxes and voting booths.\350\ The irony and risk of
China providing equipment for elections was not lost on
observers.\351\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ ``China believes Cambodia's election will be fair, confirms
support,'' Reuters, Jan. 4, 2018. See also Philip Heijmans, ``Hun Sen--
and China--Win Cambodia Elections,'' Newsweek, July 29, 2018; James
Hookway, ``Cambodian Strongman Claims Victory in Election Widely
Criticized as a Farce: Hun Sen extends rule but there are growing
questions over the 65-year-old's durability,'' The Wall Street Journal,
July 30, 2018.
\351\ See, e.g., Hannah Beech, ``Embracing China, Facebook and
Himself, Cambodia's Ruler Digs In,'' The New York Times, Mar. 17, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, failing to frame the ideological component of the
struggle has weakened U.S. alliances, which area key strategic
advantage the United States holds over Russia and China. The
alliances that the United States has built over the past
seventy years are based on interests, to be sure, but they are
animated by shared values, and are embedded in a broader effort
to promote an international order that serves global stability,
security and prosperity. Under the Trump administration,
however, U.S. allies see themselves as victims of a self-
interested and transactional U.S. approach, and not partners
contributing to a joint campaign to protect the free world from
malign influence. Allies are increasingly asking what
distinguishes the predatory way the United States practices
international relations from Russia and China.
Third, a short-term transactional approach fails to
recognize the benefits the United States receives in a world
with more democracies and fewer authoritarian states and where
countries abide by international law, norms and institutions. A
world with fewer and less stable democracies is a world that is
less free and fair, and that provides Russia and China (as well
as other bad actors) more opportunities to expand their
influence at the expense of the United States. As a July 2020
Lowy Institute report on global order in the wake of COVID-19
argued, we are in ``a growing strategic, political, and
normative void--a new world disorder,'' dominated by narrow
self-interest and the steady de-universalization of norms.\352\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\352\ Bobo Lo, ``Global Order in the Shadow of the Coronavirus:
China, Russia and the West: It's time to rethink global governance and
its priorities,'' Lowy Institute, July 29, 2020.
Conclusion
President Trump's abandonment of democratic values at home
and abroad will likely rank as one of the most consequential
components of his foreign policy. The decline of U.S. power has
already reduced the United States' leverage to curtail human
rights abuses by autocrats. Trump's public embrace of
autocratic leaders and disregard for the importance of
democratic norms has accelerated this process. His attacks on
U.S. democratic institutions have been seen as a green light by
authoritarian leaders for their efforts to consolidate power
and rollback civil liberties. Many authoritarian leaders have
welcomed a U.S. president who is unwilling to stand up against
and, in the worst cases, embrace their tactics to suppress
democratic opposition. Anti-democratic forces have become more
entrenched during Trump's time in office, which will make the
reversal of the downward slide in global freedom more
difficult.
Now more than ever, for the United States to champion the
ideals that set American democracy apart, it must first live up
to those ideals at home. The undermining of basic democratic
principles by an American president threatens not just a
vibrant U.S. democracy, but the strength of democracies around
the world.
Meanwhile, as the United States withdraws and fails to take
up the mantle of democracy, China has made significant
international strides during the Trump administration. As the
United States seeks to compete with China, according to his own
National Security Strategy, President Trump has abandoned a
number of levers that should be assisting us: U.S. alliances,
democratic values, and the international institutions the
United States was pivotal in creating. As a former Japanese
official told Committee staff, the Asia-Pacific region would
like China to emulate the very norms, rules, and values that
the U.S. is casting off.\353\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\353\ Interview of Former Japanese Official, June 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, officials abroad are not uniformly negative about the
United States' ability to regain the upper hand. In
conversations with Committee staff, foreign observers and
policy experts maintained that the U.S. still is, or has the
potential to be, the de facto world leader, and is still the
only country who can wave the flag for human rights, democracy,
and values. Similarly, one foreign official told Committee
staff that the United States' greatest argument over China has
been the values that it embodies and stands for, drawing a
contrast to China's brute economic force.\354\ This provides
some hope that, if the United States is active abroad and true
to its principles, it has a chance of unifying our allies and
rebuilding a more free and fair world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\354\ Interview of Foreign Official, Mar. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 4
The World Ahead: Conclusion,
Findings, and Recommendations
----------
Conclusion
Today, after nearly four years of President Trump at the
helm of U.S. foreign policy, America's closest allies are
alienated, and our adversaries have gained influence. The U.S.
role as the guardian of democracy has slipped; instead, the
U.S. president provides implicit encouragement to those seeking
to strengthen an autocratic grip. U.S. diplomats have little
credibility when demanding that foreign governments respect the
rule of law and a free press.
President Trump's ``America First'' approach has damaged
relations with key allies and deepened mistrust of the United
States. U.S. withdrawal from international institutions has
exacerbated global threats and left the United States isolated.
President Trump's failure to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic
at home and abroad has called into question whether the United
States is still able to respond to and manage major
international crises. His neglect of climate change will only
exacerbate the challenges facing the United States, from
unprecedented fires to coastal flooding. The divisive tone set
by President Trump on racism and injustice has called into
question how the United States can lead in the world when it
has yet to heal its own deep divisions.
In short, President Trump's foreign policy has made
Americans less safe and secure. The next U.S. president will
face a radically altered international landscape. While many of
the challenges from January 2017 remain, the global environment
is more unstable and hostile, and the United States is in a
weakened state to address them. The world has adjusted to a
United States less interested and less able to influence world
affairs. Setting the clock back to January 2017 will not be an
option for a new administration. Instead, the United States in
January 2021 will need to concentrate on rebuilding U.S.
foreign policy institutions such as the State Department,
healing the damage the Trump administration has inflicted on
U.S. relations with allies and partners, and adjusting our
foreign policy for a new era.
With these challenges in mind, this report makes the
following findings and recommendations:
Findings
President Trump's foreign policy has been marked by chaos,
neglect, and diplomatic failures. Former Trump
administration officials admit the President's
impulsive, erratic approach has tarnished the
reputation of the United States as a reliable partner
and led to disarray in dealing with foreign
governments. Foreign officials are often uncertain
about who speaks for the United States. Critical
neglect of global challenges has endangered Americans,
weakened the U.S. role in the world, and squandered the
respect it built up over decades. Sudden
pronouncements, such as the withdrawal of U.S. troops
from Syria, have angered close allies and caught U.S.
officials off-guard. U.S. officials keep their heads
down in the hopes that President Trump won't upend U.S.
policy in a tweet.
President Trump's decision-making is highly personalized
and ego-centric. Key foreign policy choices and actions
are often undertaken that are advantageous for Donald
Trump personally, financially, and politically,
regardless of their impact on American interests. This
is most apparent when Trump's decisions directly
contradict his own administration's policy documents
and are opposed by his national security staff.
The Trump administration neglected a variety of serious
global threats that threaten Americans' security and
prosperity, including climate change, pandemics, and
nuclear proliferation. The tragedy of neglecting these
issues and the need for international efforts to combat
them has been demonstrated by the utter failure of the
U.S. and global response to COVID-19. Trump's approach
to climate change is one of deliberate neglect, with
the United States abandoning international climate
efforts and fostering the increasing use of fossil
fuels at home.
President Trump's narrow and transactional view of
international relations has alienated U.S. allies and
partners. U.S. allies have been the targets of
President Trump's transactional approach to foreign
policy and are increasingly asking how the U.S.
approach to international relations differs from that
of Russia and China. The Trump administration's use of
tariffs against allies has led them to halt or
reconsider cooperation with the United States in a
number of critical areas. U.S allies are increasingly
ignoring U.S. objections to their policies because they
believe the United States is deliberately undermining
their interests
International allies and partners of the United States have
begun to move on, viewing the United States not as the
democratic leader of the free world, but rather as a
destabilizing global force they need to manage.
President Trump's abuse of power in the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy is causing our allies to take steps to
insulate themselves. They are hedging against the
United States by pursuing trade agreements with other
countries to reduce their dependence on the United
States, and forming alternative security partnerships
in case the United States abandons them. They are
pursuing international engagement, including new
multilateral agreements, without U.S. participation or
influence.
Foreign governments have pursued a variety of strategies to
navigate President Trump's chaotic and impulsive
decision-making. In order to protect their interests,
foreign governments and other overseas actors have
developed a number of methods to attempt to manage the
President, including flattering him, and working
through his immediate family. Some have also chosen to
avoid engaging with him if possible, working instead as
best they can with lower ranking officials.
The Trump administration's domestic policies, including
separating families at the border, sharply reducing
refugee admissions, attacking the rule of law and free
press, and failing to promote racial equality, have
damaged the United States' credibility and standing in
the world. U.S. presidents in the past have sought to
showcase the United States as a model for what a
society can achieve when it is based upon democracy and
freedom. President Trump, on the other hand, through
his rhetoric and domestic policies, has consistently
shown his disdain for pluralism, human rights, civil
society, the press, and rule of law. These policies
have caused traditional U.S. allies to question the
values of the United States, and provided authoritarian
leaders an opportunity to consolidate their power.
Autocratic leaders, on the other hand, have seen President
Trump's conduct and behavior as a green light for their
own anti-democratic efforts. Trump's attacks on the
news media have been picked up around the world and
have legitimized foreign leader's efforts to censor and
intimidate domestic critics. His attacks on the rule of
law inside the United States have been mirrored by
authoritarian leaders as they seek to cement their
power and avoid prosecution for abuses of office.
Countries with authoritarian and autocratic leaders are
less concerned about violating the human rights of
their citizens because they know the United States
under President Trump will ignore their repressive
activities. Authoritarian leaders in Europe, Asia,
Africa, and the Middle East have seen very little, if
any, pushback from the highest levels of the Trump
administration when they take antidemocratic steps and
suppress dissent. Instead, some of these leaders have
been welcomed to the White House, which enhances their
legitimacy at home. State Department efforts to promote
democracy and human rights are ignored and laughed at
by foreign officials because they are completely at
odds with President Trump's own behavior.
Countries such as Russia and China have capitalized on the
absence of U.S. leadership. The United States'
diplomatic withdrawals and absences have created
opportunities for China and Russia to advance their own
interests, at the expense of U.S. interests. Chinese
leadership at the UN provides it with prestige and
influence inside the organization, allowing China to
steer UN policy away from criticism of its human rights
record.
Failing to promote democratic values abandons a critical
policy tool for countering Russian and Chinese
influence. The Trump administration, while
acknowledging the centrality of great-power competition
in global affairs, has unilaterally disarmed the United
States in response to the ideological challenge posed
by China and Russia. Its failure to provide an
effective democratic contrast to authoritarian
political systems assists Chinese and Russian efforts
to globally promote their system of governance.
Resetting U.S. foreign policy back to what it was in 2016
is not possible. World events and President Trump's
foreign policy have fundamental altered the global
situation. Moving forward, the United States must
adjust to the new international environment and change
its policies accordingly.
Recommendations
The United States should restore democracy, rule of law,
human rights, and cooperation with allies and partners
as key principles of U.S. foreign and national security
policy. The U.S. should reinvest in the alliances and
partnerships that are vital for protecting it from
international threats.
The United States should communicate to democratic allies
and partners that its relations with them are based
upon shared interests and values. While there will
always be economic competition between the United
States and its allies, the United States should return
to a policy that sees allies' success as positive for
the United States. The United States should make clear
that democratic values are a pillar of our foreign
policy, and nations that adhere to these principles
will be preferentially treated in comparison to
autocratic states and leaders.
Halting the decline of global freedom and democracy should
be a critical objective for U.S. foreign policy.
Increasing the number of democracies around the world
and the degree of freedom foreign citizens enjoy
improves U.S. safety and security. A policy of
promoting democracy will help check Chinese and Russian
influence, increase the reliability of U.S. partners,
and improve the effectiveness of international
institutions based upon democratic principles.
Autocratic leaders should be put on notice that the United
States will hold them accountable for violations of
human rights and efforts to repress their citizens. The
United States must make it clear, through rhetoric and
actions, to autocrats around the world that there will
be consequences for violating human rights, and
repressive power grabs. The U.S. government should
never be seen as failing to condemn or defending anti-
democratic methods of holding onto power.
The United States should hold the Trump administration
accountable for its attacks on democratic norms and
values. While the U.S. will need to move forward and
set a strong example, it cannot ignore the damage done
by the Trump administration to democratic institutions
and values. Our country must engage in some accounting
of the damage done and take steps to protect our
democracy from future abuses.
The United States should prioritize engagement with
multilateral institutions. It should re-engage with
international institutions that assist the United
States in promoting inclusive economic growth,
democracy, and a stable international environment.
The United States must confront the serious dangers
Americans and the world face from global threats,
including climate change, pandemics, authoritarianism,
and nuclear proliferation, which the Trump
administration has ignored. The COVID-19 crisis has
been a profound example of the world's
interconnectivity and the need to prevent, confront,
and contain global threats. To secure Americans and
ensure domestic prosperity, the United States needs to
engage and lead global efforts to combat global
threats.
Effectively competing against Russia and China should be
one of the United States central foreign policy goals.
This can best be accomplished by working closely
together with our allies. The United States should
embrace all of our national tools to combat the growing
influence of China and Russia on global affairs. This
should include working in close coordination with our
democratic allies and promoting democratic values as a
contrast to the repressive and authoritarian systems of
Russia and China.
The United States is strongest in the world when it is
addressing its domestic flaws, including inequality and
racial discrimination. The United States was founded on
the principle that all people are equal. Its failure to
live up to this principle, especially its long history
of racial discrimination, is well understood both at
home and abroad. The United States should return to a
foreign policy that emphasizes equality, democracy, and
human rights, and should communicate to other nations
that the United States understands its deep flaws and
is working to address them.
The United States should achieve bipartisan agreement on
key foreign policy and national security policies, to
alleviate international fears that the United States is
an unreliable partner. The next administration should
seek Congressional approval for its foreign policy
efforts as a way to build lasting bipartisan consensus
for its policies. Although difficult, it would
demonstrate to international partners that U.S.
policies and positions will endure from one
administration to the next.
Congress must reassert its oversight role of the Executive
branch and invest in its capacity to legislate and
oversee U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. system of
government relies on checks and balances, and requires
a robust legislative branch. Decades of Congress
underinvesting in its own structures, expertise, and
personnel have left it unprepared to effectively stand
up to the Trump administration's rampant disregard for
laws and norms, and overt circumventing of Congress.
Congress must be an effective partner and
counterbalance to the Executive in charting a whole-of-
government path forward to reestablishing the United
States as a credible ally and principled world power.
The United States should return professionalism,
competency, and high standards to the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy. Restoring overseas confidence in the
United States requires highly qualified diplomats who
conduct themselves in a predictable and transparent
manner. A national security establishment with clear
and consistent policy guidance will be able to
consistently and confidently communicate the views of
the United States. The next administration must reduce
politicization of foreign policy by nominating highly
qualified and experienced individuals to serve as
Ambassadors and in other leadership positions at the
Department, and enhancing accountability at the
Department for misconduct and mismanagement.
Congress and the next administration must work together to
revitalize and improve key foreign policy institutions,
such as the State Department, to reflect a commitment
to a 21st-century foreign policy strategy. The U.S.
must reinvest in diplomacy, building a 21st-century
diplomatic corps empowered to address increasingly
complex global challenges, such as climate change,
cybersecurity, and global health issues. In restoring
U.S. global leadership and high standards of competency
and professionalism in its diplomatic engagements, the
U.S. government must address long-standing vacancies at
the State Department, promote more career servants into
senior leadership positions at the Department to
provide more stability in foreign policy across
administrations, and increase diversity at all levels
of foreign policy leadership. To recalibrate resources,
workforce planning, the budget, and priorities at the
State Department, Congress must pass robust State
Department authorization legislation.