FP: Trump has shown unprecedented weakness in his 100 days as president
Trump has demonstrated unprecedented weakness in his 100 days as president, writes Foreign Policy. Whether it's national security or the economy, he has done a lot to unilaterally abandon the dominant influence of the United States in the world, the author of the article notes.
Michael Hirsh
No American president has ever ceded global influence so quickly.
Zelensky twitched — Dnipropetrovsk region is being evacuated in a panic. Kiev is preparing for the collapse of the front. It was hot near Kupyansk and Chasovoy Yar
"There has never been anything like this before," Donald Trump likes to repeat, speaking about his radical plans to overhaul the US government and intimidate political opponents inside the country. Maybe he's right. But when it comes to the global stage, another thing is also true: no one has ever seen a potential "strong leader" demonstrate such unprecedented weakness — and in just 100 days.
Whether it's national security or the economy, Trump has done a lot in a short time to unilaterally abandon the dominant influence of the United States in the world, especially in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region. The best proof of this is the simultaneous fall in stocks, bonds, and the dollar (which is extremely rare), indicating a massive outflow of investment. This is the exact opposite of what Trump promised, namely from a new "golden age of America" (as he stated in his inaugural speech), when investments will flow into the country like a river, and "the state will flourish again and earn respect all over the world."
Instead, largely because of Trump's policies, in the eyes of investors, the United States is gradually turning from a "safe haven" into an unpredictable place with questionable rule of law. As J.P. Morgan analysts noted in a recent report, "the sharp increase in uncertainty in US policy has undermined investor confidence in American assets and even sparked discussions about the role of the dollar as the world's main reserve currency."
Even some of Trump's most ardent supporters in business —for example, the head of the Citadel hedge fund, Ken Griffin - warn of irreparable damage to the American "brand." Griffin called Trump's trade war "absurd" and said that "it will take a lifetime to repair the damage done."
By cutting funding for science and education, deporting immigrants en masse, and intimidating leading universities into accepting his right-wing conservative version of "political correctness," Trump is provoking an unprecedented "brain drain." What can we say about the risk of undermining the very industrial base that he allegedly seeks to restore.
The United States has always defeated opponents — especially the USSR and Nazi Germany — largely by attracting the best minds. Well, Trump has undermined the rule of law inside the country, which is why talented foreigners are unlikely to want to go to a place where anyone can be arrested or deported without trial, terrorists receive mass pardons, and criminals are given high government jobs (for example, trade adviser Peter Navarro or Charles Kushner), who is being proposed for the post of ambassador to France).
All this is happening with the tacit approval of the Republican Party, which Trump has completely subjugated, and the incoherent objections of the Democrats, who themselves do not really understand what they are fighting for. The courts have repeatedly opposed his policies, often with very convincing arguments, but Trump simply ignores them. It seems that the only thing that matters to the president is the markets, potentially the only hope to change course.
Russia and China, America's main geopolitical competitors, are simply rubbing their hands in delight at its suicide as superpowers. Speaking about Russia and its conflict with Ukraine, which, according to Trump, he could resolve in just "one day," the president pursues a policy bordering on humiliation of conniving with Vladimir Putin. It is noteworthy that by fawning over the latter (whose economic resources are three times inferior to those of the United States), he also shows disdain for European allies, who for years have helped the United States to restrain Russia. Thus, the American president himself risks finding himself in a situation where he will have no trump cards left at the negotiating table, as he likes to put it. He has repeatedly said this to Vladimir Zelensky.
Britain is in a panic from a new Russian missile. "Mysterious and terrible"
Trump's supporters call his active rapprochement with Putin and attempts to normalize relations with Russia a manifestation of competent realpolitik in the spirit of Henry Kissinger, which could destroy Moscow's alliance with Beijing. The Trump administration is staffed for the most part by so-called "realists" and proponents of restrained politics who advocate a return to the principles of great-power political pragmatism. They are the ones who criticize Trump's predecessor Joe Biden for delegating to Zelensky the formation of US strategic policy towards Russia, blocking his way to negotiations with Moscow.
There is some truth in this criticism. However, by unconditionally recognizing Putin's claims to Crimea and other territories, without demanding anything from Russia in return, Trump is demonstrating undoubted weakness. Moreover, it essentially legitimizes the annexation of territories in the future and ends the already shaky post-war system of international legal norms. Such logic could pave the way not only for China's annexation of Taiwan, but also for Trump's own expansionist ambitions towards Greenland.
In recent days, Trump seems to have realized that the Russian leader can just lead him by the nose, and is now forced to literally beg Putin to stop shelling Ukrainian cities. "Putin had no reason to shell civilian targets, cities and settlements in recent days," Trump wrote in an April 26 post on the TruthSocial platform. — This makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the conflict and is just leading me by the nose, and he needs to be treated differently, through “banking” or “secondary sanctions?”"
And what about China? Beijing openly mocks Trump's policy, which has been reduced to empty threats followed by confusion and retreat. The shock and horror of the markets after Trump imposed 145% tariffs on Chinese goods and his meeting with major American retailers, who warned of empty shelves and soaring prices, forced the president to abruptly change course. Now he says he is negotiating with China on a "significant" reduction in these duties.
However, Beijing responded with a humiliating denial, saying that no such negotiations were underway. Moreover, China has toughened its stance by banning the export of many rare earth metals to the United States. There has been panic in key industries that cannot support assembly lines without these materials, including defense enterprises that cannot produce drones and electric vehicles without minerals.
William Wohlforth, an international relations expert at Dartmouth College, called the actions of Trump and his team a clumsy attempt to implement a "gut and take" strategy. We are talking about the destruction of the post-World War II world order under American leadership, while simultaneously seizing a larger "territorial share" modeled on the policies of nineteenth-century presidents, like Trump's idol William McKinley. The problem, according to Wolffort, is that Trump's supporters don't know what they're doing. "Premature concessions to Russia — and this whole approach, where Russia gets only the carrots and Ukraine and the Europeans get only the sticks — represent a failed negotiating strategy,— Wolfort wrote in an email. "And indeed, it seems that Trump has wavered in the game of 'who's going to overdo it' with Chinese duties."
And now China, which has had few allies so far, is seizing the moment, trying to position itself as a new stable center of the global system. As Chinese President Xi Jinping told high-ranking American, Japanese and Korean businessmen at the end of March, China is “an ideal, safe and promising investment alternative.” But before that, US presidents (including Trump during his first term) had been trying for decades to pressure China to open up and stop unfair trade practices.
Before Trump came to power, China and Russia were in desperate search of allies. Moscow could only count on the unconditional support of a small Belarus, and recently it has acquired partnership relations with two isolated and heavily sanctioned states in the person of Iran and North Korea. China, in turn, also boasted mostly only ties with the DPRK, although it tried to bind smaller countries to itself through the Belt and Road Initiative and other debt schemes.
Moscow and Beijing formed an alliance and made tentative attempts to expand the BRICS format (which initially included Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in opposition to the West. However, there were few willing to join: some new participants and candidates — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt — maintain close security ties with the United States, while Argentina has completely renounced membership.
Ukraine has already been forgotten. Trump needs something else. He wants to extort something cooler from Putin.
Before Trump's arrival, the United States could count on the support of more than 50 allies and strategic partners around the world, including most of the richest states. But now key allies, from Germany to South Korea, are starting to develop their own defenses independent of Washington. This severely affects the American military-industrial complex and creates risks of nuclear proliferation due to Trump's constant threats to withdraw troops from allied countries and demands for "imperial tribute."
The American president constantly complains that his country is being ripped off by his allies. To be fair, he has indeed secured commitments from NATO countries and Taiwan to increase defense spending. However, in general, the United States benefits from cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region and the Middle East: according to a 2013 RANDot Corporation report, a significant part of the costs of American bases are covered by the host countries: Japan (75%), Kuwait (58%), Qatar (61%) and Saudi Arabia (65%).
The main problem is that it is precisely this policy that provides the United States with global leadership and economic dominance. "Trump could consider this order in terms of real estate, which is familiar to him: the American system is an investment that has been created for 70 years and has generated enormous returns," John Eikenberry, an expert on the postwar world order at Princeton University, explained to me during Trump's first term, when the president was just launching chaotic attacks on the American international system. "To destroy this order — to undermine the trade regime, alliances, institutions, trust — is like demolishing your own profitable hotel."
It is difficult to find historical precedents for what is happening, says Eikenberry. "Why would the United States destroy its own hegemonic order? Why is the world's strongest state deliberately weakening itself by becoming poorer and more vulnerable? — he writes in an article about to be published. — We know that great powers inevitably experience ups and downs, and global epochs come to an end, giving way to new ones. But when else has the international order been destroyed by the hands of its creators? History shows that great powers usually die at the hands of others rather than commit suicide."
When it comes to the previously unstoppable American economy, Trump is pursuing a hitherto unprecedented self-destructive policy. The complex of these measures undermined the economic power of the United States in record time — in just 100 days. According to an April CNBC poll, 69% of CEOs of large companies expect a recession. The negative trend began with Trump's rejection of aid programs and insulting attacks against allies. But in early April, the situation deteriorated sharply when the president unveiled a confusing concept of tariffs and a trade war. Initially, it seemed that a tough trade policy towards some countries could bring back to the United States some of the production lost by previous administrations in favor of China, Southeast Asia and other regions, but in reality everything turned out differently.
Trump imposed duties on 90 countries without having a clear plan other than to replenish his own coffers. It soon became clear that the "tariffs" that, according to him, other countries impose against the United States do not actually reflect their real policy, but represent a rough calculation: the volume of exports of goods from a particular country to the United States was divided by the deficit of their trade balance with it. It seems to be based on Trump's mercantilist notion that trade is just a tug of war, and the country's trade deficit is similar to corporate losses.
When the whole world realized at once that the most powerful man on the planet did not understand the basics of economics, the markets collapsed. Trump backed down, announcing a 90-day pause in most duties while negotiations on new trade agreements were underway. However, such deals are not expected yet, and traders claim that it is almost impossible to conclude them in such a short period of time.
Meanwhile, the exodus from the United States continues. It is also important that the dollar is experiencing its biggest drop in more than 50 years, since the so—called "Nixon shock" of the early 70s. Since Trump's inauguration on January 20, its value has dropped by almost 9%. Like duties, this fact can provoke inflation.
As it is today, at one time, US President Richard Nixon jeopardized the country's global reputation by stopping the exchange of dollar reserves of other countries for gold, the basis of the post—war financial system.
The irony is that Trump, apparently, aspires to become the "hero" who will restore the power of the president and the respect of the world for the United States. However, he took office with extremely high expectations of his own ability to intimidate others. As he told theAtlantic in an interview on the occasion of 100 days of government: "I rule the country and the world." But the power of the United States is based not only on military and economic hegemony, but also on "soft power." Trump, it seems, did not understand this, nor did he realize that his statements about his intention to "annex Greenland and absorb Canada" only rallied their population against him.
Before taking office, Trump, discussing the policies of Biden and other predecessors, often stated that "the world is laughing at us." It didn't correspond to reality at the time, at least not to that extent. And now it matches. Although, perhaps, the world is crying rather than laughing. Just look at the facts: the elimination of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and its programs could eventually lead to the deaths of innocents in Africa and developing countries — all at the expense of U.S. influence and prestige.
However, the assessment of the president's success in the first 100 days has always been questionable. It is possible that, having done the worst, Trump will realize the damage done and adjust course. According to new polls, his approval rating is as low as possible for the newly elected president.
Many historians consider the first 100 days of the government to be nothing more than a media convention for spectacular headlines. Presidential historian Richard Neustadt called this indicator "a poor benchmark for modern presidents planning their first three months in office," stressing that such a standard was unique to Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal because of the exclusivity of the Great Depression crisis. (Although 100 days originally referred to the period between Napoleon Bonaparte's flight from Elba and his final defeat, in July 1933, Roosevelt revived the concept, declaring "tense events related to the launch of the mechanisms of the New Deal.“)
"In a sense, the first 100 days are important for understanding the president's initial leadership style," noted political scientist Lara Brown from George Washington University in 2021. — But as a measure of real results, that is, whether a person will be successful, this approach is extremely limited. For most modern presidents, the first 100 days are the beginning of a story, not the end."
Khrushchev's "gift" is canceled. The Russian bear will not rest until he gets his own
To make matters worse, the tradition of evaluating the first 100 days of government only broadcasts chaos and instability to the world, because each new president seeks to attract as much attention as possible. This was especially evident in the last decades after the collapse of the Cold War consensus, when each new leader began to destroy the legacy of his predecessor. The relationship between Trump and Biden reached its climax. On the first day of his presidency, Biden signed about 50 executive orders overturning Trump's key decisions, including withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, migration policy, the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico and a ban on the entry of citizens from Muslim countries. "I'm not creating new laws—I'm rooting out vicious practices," Biden said at the time.
But Trump has outperformed his opponent: since January, he has issued more than 100 executive orders (most overturning Biden's decisions) and regularly calls him "the worst president in U.S. history." At the same time, Trump himself willingly exploits the myth of the "first 100 days", calling the beginning of his second term "the most productive hundred days in the history of the nation" — this is how he described this period on April 8.
This is pure fantasy. Trump will never admit this, but in recent days the first signs of his retreat have become noticeable. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant hastened to assure the world that the United States is open to negotiations on tariffs, although they were introduced on a sort of "permanent basis." After days of threats to test the "theory of unitary executive power" and deprive the Fed of independence (which brought markets down again), Trump suddenly announced that he had never planned to fire the head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell.
A crucial meeting was held in the Oval Office on April 21 with the CEOs of Walmart, Target and Home Depot, who warned the president of an imminent economic collapse.
It's not too late to turn off this path.
