‘Trump’s Betrayal of America’s Closest Allies Should Be a Wake Up Call for the UK’

At a recent think tank event in Washington, Donald Trump’s foreign policy was described as “domineering, arbitrary, and extractive.” I agree with all those terms, but I would have added a fourth descriptor – “values-free” – in the sense that this administration appears to make no distinction between democracies and autocracies when it comes to making its foreign policy decisions.  

If you are small, weak or dependent on the US in some way, this administration is happy to bully you to try to extract concessions, regardless of whether you are a traditional ally or enemy of the US.  

Thus, we have a situation where the US is willing to impose tariffs on its closest trading partners, its geographical neighbours, and its allies in the transatlantic security alliance, such as Canada, Mexico and the EU, even though this will cause devastating economic harm to all involved, including the US itself.  

Thus, the US is threatening to seize Greenland from Denmark, a NATO ally, by force if necessary. 

‘Israel’s Genocide in Gaza is the Fatal Flaw in Starmer’s European Alternative to Trump and Putin’

If we are to build a broad consensus in Europe against Trump, we need to bring Palestine into equal focus with Ukraine, argues Martin Shaw

Martin Shaw

Thus, the US is threatening to violate a decades old treaty, in order to take back control of the Panama Canal.  

Thus, the US is willing to troll Canadians, about turning their country into the 51^st state of America.  

By contrast, the Trump administration seems willing to offer grace to countries whose leaders are as ruthless and unprincipled as Trump himself. If you have something to sell – like rare minerals, to trade – like new market access, or to offer – like cooperation on immigration, this administration is willing to do business with you, no matter what your human rights or democracy record. 

Thus, Russia is offered the prospect of sanctions relief in return for stopping its war of aggression against Ukraine, whilst Ukraine, the injured party, is likely to be required to accept punitive terms for peace, including the permanent loss of at least 20% of its territory, and perhaps even the replacement of Zelensky’s Government with a more biddable version in Kyiv.  

Thus, Israel is given carte blanche to resume its pounding of Gaza, and to indulge in the notion of expelling Palestinians forever from that territory, so that Trump can move in and develop it as a real estate opportunity. 

Thus, the administration has no qualms in deporting hundreds of illegal immigrants to El Salvador, a country with a dire human rights record, moreover without any due process to verify whether those involved are indeed Venezuelan gang members, as the administration alleges, or genuine asylum seekers with a valid claim for refugee status in the US. 

Thus, the administration’s “best friend” in Europe is Viktor Orban, the authoritarian ruler in Hungary.  

Thus, the administration seems to have little to say about the ongoing democracy crackdowns in Georgia or Turkey.  

Thus, the administration’s main concern with China seems to be the challenge it poses to America’s influence in the Asia-Pacific, rather than its threats to seize Taiwan by force, aggressive actions against American allies such as the Philippines in the South China Seas, or oppressive treatment of its own citizens, including in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet.  

Thus, the administration’s main beef with Iran similarly seems to be its geopolitical challenge to US interests in the Middle East, rather than any concerns about its dire domestic human rights record.  

A Historic Break

This values-free aspect of current US foreign policy is the one that concerns me the most, because it marks a definitive break with decades of bipartisan US foreign policy, largely premised around the notion that US values and interests were intertwined. The promotion of democracy and respect for human rights overseas was seen by most leading Republican and Democrat foreign policy experts as also advancing US national security interests, because free, stable, democratic nations which respected the rule of law, at home and abroad, also made the best trading partners and allies.  

Under Donald Trump, US foreign policy has become a purely transactional proposition, based on a very short-term, short-sighted definition of national interest, where relative power is all that matters.   

This administration is not just uninterested in supporting democracy and human rights overseas, it seems actively opposed to doing so, as it gets in the way of doing business with unsavory regimes. Many of its members seems to have entirely bought the Moscow and Beijing argument that democracy promotion is a form of unwarranted “meddling” in the affairs of other countries.  Some even accuse pro-democracy organisations of being illegitimate extensions of the CIA, carrying out subversive work on a more overt basis.  

Elon Musk recently described the National Endowment for Democracy, the premier US body established by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to promote democratic institutions and values around the world, as a “viper’s nest of radical left Marxists, who hate America”, and an “evil and criminal organization.” This might come as news to the numerous Republican Members of Congress who have served on the board of the NED and some of its subsidiary organisations, including current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the current US Ambassador to the UN, former Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, former Presidential candidate Senator Mitt Romney, and current Republican Senators Lindsay Graham, Tom Cotton, Dan Sullivan, and Joni Ernst.  

As part of its gutting of USAID, Marco Rubio’s State department has ended the entire category of programming aimed at supporting democracy promotion and civil society. The administration  has also cut off funding and suspended all the staff at the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and other US government-funded media outlets which provided factual information and news to hundreds of millions of people around the world living in societies without a free press.  

At the international level, the administration has cut off funding to the UN Human Rights Council, withdrawn itself from membership if that body, and announced a review of all other US funding for the United Nations and its various agencies. 

This is all, of course, on top of the numerous actions the administration has taken domestically, which many would argue are undermining US democracy at home – such as defying court rulings, clamping down on free speech in universities, bullying law firms which take up cases against the administration, firing officials which try to resist unlawful executive orders, gutting bodies tasked with regulating business, auditing government activity and fighting corruption, tightening control over election administration, and intimidating opponents on social media. 

The net effect of all these actions has been to kneecap and demoralize democracy activists and human rights defenders around the world, leaving them even more exposed than ever to brutal retaliation by their host authorities. 

It also emboldens authoritarian leaders to think they can get away with even more repression, not least because they can try to justify their actions by pointing to some of what the Trump administration is doing in America. For example, I don’t believe the timing of Erdogan’s crackdown in Turkey is coincidental.  

Furthermore, as one Republican foreign policy expert deeply opposed to this administration’s policies recently lamented to me, it also leaves the international field wide open for others to exploit.  “Realism is shortsighted. When America disengages, or shuns its allies, others fill the gap.” 

Some defenders of this administration argue that behind the scenes, there are many traditional Republican voices deeply uneasy about what is happening, and trying to rein in the worst of its actions. I don’t doubt that is the case, but, so far, their efforts have been so ineffectual as to be meaningless. No prominent Republican has been willing to put their careers on the line to make a principled stand.  

It’s wishful thinking to hope this is going to change any time soon. America’s allies have no choice but to deal with the reality before them – that America is no longer the champion of the free world, and can also no longer be trusted as their most important security partner.     

‘Welcome to Soviet America’

The return of Donald Trump to the White House has exposed the need for major reform of the US political and constitutional system

AC Grayling

This shocking turn of events in a little over two months has been a devastating wake up call for most democracies. In Europe, this has led to a welcome jolt out of complacency, and renewed efforts to increase spending on defence so that they are less reliant on the US. Canadians, under new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, have taken the tack of plucky defiance, very publicly pushing back against Trump’s claims to take their country, and threatening to impose tariffs of their own.  

These countries seem to have come to the conclusion that the short-term pain of a rupture with the US is better than a slow death, in which they are each forced into submission, or picked off one by one. There is also some strength in numbers, if they work together.   

The UK, under Keir Starmer, seems wedded to the idea that it can still ride the EU and US horses at once, even though these seem now to be galloping rapidly away from each other. Government Ministers, such as Defence Secretary Healey on the Today programme recently, are bending over backwards to avoid criticising Trump in public. So much so, that it in fact risks alienating our other partners, such as Canada, or the EU, who might wonder whose side we are actually on.   

On one level, this effort is quite valiant, since the UK’s security interests are critically intertwined with the US, and it will take years, if not decades, to establish more independent capabilities. Responsible leadership requires trying to avoid a precipitous rupture. Anyone who cares about Ukraine should also be grateful that Starmer’s Government is still trying to keep communication lines open to Trump, even at the cost of a political backlash, given Trump’s unpopularity.  

But, on another level, it may be just be naïve clutching at straws. Ever since Brexit, the UK has faced the unwelcome prospect it might one day have to make a choice between closer alignment with the US or the EU.  Thanks to Donald Trump, this moment is rapidly approaching. A marriage can usually survive the odd argument over who does what, and how. It comes under severe strain when one party dallies with rivals. It can rarely survive a fundamental disagreement over core values.   

It’s precisely that divergence on core values which poses the hardest question for the UK.