The world has a lot to lose from a second Trump presidency

The foreign policy stakes of this year's election are high.

Putin and Trump in 2019. (Mikhail Klimentyev/AFP via Getty)

---

🚨 This all-free, five-edition week of PN is made possible by paid subscribers 🚨 If you aren’t one already, please sign up to support our independent journalism.

---

The return home last Thursday of three Americans who had been imprisoned in Russia as part of a seven-country prisoner swap constituted a major diplomatic success for the Biden administration — one that President Biden attributed to the constructive and friendly relations he has with many world leaders.

"The deal that made this possible was a feat of diplomacy and friendship. Multiple countries helped get this done,” Biden said. “So for anyone who questions whether allies matter, they do. They matter. Today is a powerful example of why it's vital to have friends in this world.”

The president’s remarks were clearly a not-so-subtle shot at Donald Trump, who during his first term feuded with NATO and was laughed at by the United Nations while he tried to draw the US closer to autocrats like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Orbán. Trump, for his part, responded to news of the prisoner deal with a sulky Truth Social post in which he couldn’t even muster up a word of thankfulness.

Biden reportedly finalized the prisoner swap just an hour or so before he announced his withdrawal from the presidential race. Since that announcement on July 21 and his subsequent endorsement of VP Kamala Harris (who also played a key role in the swap negotiations), much of the ensuing conversation about this fall’s Harris-Trump matchup has focused principally on domestic issues, like reproductive rights and border security.

But as last Thursday illustrated, the result of November’s election will also have drastic implications for US foreign policy and the world — especially if Trump is in a position to resume his project of realigning US foreign and domestic policy with the world’s worst strongmen.

Harris has already signaled a somewhat different line than Biden on Middle Eastern policy, one that could create more daylight between the US and Israel, particularly with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The US’s post-war, generations-long support of Israel seems now to be drawing down. Harris would be in a good position to lead a multilateral effort to start a peace process à la the Camp David Accords of 1978, a process designed to build toward Palestinian statehood while maintaining a firm stance on Iran and the militant groups Iran sponsors.

---

A note from Aaron: Working with great contributors like Scott and Bradley takes resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please support PN by becoming one.

---

Harris’s election would also preserve the US’s role as leader of the free world and impress upon allied democratic countries (as well as aspiring ones) that the US will remain a reliable international partner. Her pragmatism also suggests she will engage adversaries where possible on matters of mutual security interest, and she may lead a new set of global climate negotiations, which young Americans consistently rank as among the most important initiatives facing all countries.

If Trump wins, however, we can expect a whole cascade of unexpected upheavals that would prove enormously costly for the US and our allies. International institutions would weaken, good-faith diplomacy would be compromised, progress on strengthening alliances would falter, and security-building measures across the globe would be fatally undermined. To help the case on behalf of Democrats campaigning for office at every level — presidential, congressional, and state — we should pay careful attention to these enormous global stakes with serious consequences for domestic politics. 

Let’s start with the incalculably costly toll that Republican control of the executive branch would have on our alliances.

Weakening NATO

NATO figures as one of the most substantial foreign policy issues this cycle. Most Americans are now too young to remember why this collective security alliance was formed in the late 1940s, never mind the critical role it played in securing a lasting peace in Europe during the Cold War. Far too much discussion of NATO concerns member countries allegedly shirking their funding commitments to the organization, or Trump’s claim — which has never been substantiated — that a “major” European leader all but admitted to his country being a NATO “free rider.” 

It's likely that a second Trump administration would engage in a unilateral security strategy that would withdraw funding from NATO and backtrack on its commitment to Euro-Atlantic security by calling into question the need to aid members on the eastern front that are vulnerable to future Russian aggression. At the same time, Trump would surely reduce if not cut the flow of weaponry and other military aid to Ukraine, leaving that country to fend for itself, or worse, face humiliating negotiations from a position of weakness, leading to loss of territory and even its sovereignty. 

How Comer and company learned to love Russian disinformation

Trump has already more than hinted at this. For example, at a February rally in South Carolina, he was clear that he would encourage Russia to attack NATO members who failed to pay for their own security. Here is Trump recalling comments he claimed to have made at a NATO summit: “I said: ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ … ‘No, I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.’” 

This now-infamous claim gets traction in Trump’s base because it is entirely congruent with his incessant anti-government polemics. In fact, NATO is now a 32-member-strong Euro-Atlantic security alliance that facilitates massive deterrence capabilities relative to a territorially aggrandizing Russia. More than that, NATO is composed of true allies of the United States, almost all of them with a firm Western orientation — liberal and democratic, their institutions honoring the rule of law, the separation of powers, non-corrupt judiciaries, competent civil services, not to mention open and competitive market economies. NATO (as well as EU) countries are anything but opportunistic allies, but instead are countries with deep and enduring commitments to the values and institutions at the heart of the West’s aspirations toward peace, order, and stability. 

There’s a reason Finland and Sweden recently joined NATO, and why Ukraine aspires to as well. Western institutions and values are durable only if they are backstopped by strong military power and substantial political resolve that can only be forged in a large alliance structure with longstanding treaty commitments.

But to sharpen even further Americans’ sense of what the West and its institutions represent and what they have achieved, consider the alternative. 

Ukraine needs help. Republicans won't provide it.

Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China represent the antithesis of the West — in terms of politics and also the economy. Authoritarian in nature, ruled by a cadre of governing elites with the aid of government-enriched oligarchs, Russia over the past 30 years has gestured that it might become Western; China never so signaled, but the West (however naïvely) expected eventual political liberalization as capitalism took root in that rapidly developing country.

The US needs to find ways to deal with an anti-Western China that is wont to projecting its own problems onto the world, much like Putin’s Russia also does. Over just the past three years, the US and Europe have skillfully managed to do just this. The key is to stand firm on Russia while engaging China in ways that hasten progress on common problems — like terms of trade, Ukraine, the climate crisis and North Korea — while also engaging European partners to confront China on its exploitation of open markets and its abuse of human rights. In addition — and this is the next big problem on the horizon for world leaders — the US must manage the Taiwan situation. 

In each of these areas, a deft approach is absolutely required — one that displays discerning judgment and deploys adroit strategy on an issue-by-issue basis. Grandstanding denunciations are of no use whatsoever, and certainly not in the case of China by declaring a trade war, as Donald Trump would most likely do. 

Since 2022, when Xi sided with Russia on Ukraine, China quickly lost friends and economic partners around the world. But what’s the larger context? It’s China’s domestic predicaments. China’s economic growth has been slowing, and it faces massive domestic challenges — among the most important are a declining working-age population, rising unemployment and stagnating incomes. These challenges have nothing to do with the West, and everything to do with China’s inability to manage its astonishing success over some forty-plus years.

From anti-anti-Putin to openly pro-Putin

Some geopolitical analysts stress that Russia and China are now partnering on matters both economic and political in ways they never have, and that’s partly true. Whether that partnership is capable of consolidating a new anti-Western bloc that can rival the West — which is all the talk these days — is a much different proposition. The United States can and must make sure that such a project does not succeed, while also creating opportunities for China, and ultimately Russia, to at least become productive members of a stable and secure international order. 

Republicans, however, look poised to enable a China-Russia bloc as they denounce the liberal economic and political order and validate authoritarian coordination across the globe. Europe, we can now safely say, will not abide such a strategy, and that would leave China and Russia with few substantial allies. Pulling in Iran, North Korea, and India does not give this anti-Western project much at all; the first two of these countries are among the world’s most isolated with little to offer by way of trade, influence, and resources, and the third — the world’s largest democracy with an increasingly diverse market for both consumer goods and exports — is inclined more toward the West both politically and economically.

As for Russia, there is nothing to be gained in fawning over Putin, nor in handing him territorial prizes and condoning his brutal suppression of dissent at home. Putin’s Russia is unquestionably in decline as it self-isolates, hemorrhages human capital, and continues to lose markets for what few basic commodities it exports (oil, natural gas, rare earths).

Yet Trump has repeatedly praised Putin since the invasion of Ukraine and has recently even claimed that if elected again in November, he could end the war in a day and would do so before even taking office. These comments are nothing short of thinly veiled code for giving Putin what he wants — which is exactly why Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky has characterized such an approach as “very dangerous.”

In terms of global trade, anything less than full support and engagement with US trade partners in Europe, Asia, and beyond within the framework of Western-dominated institutions would contribute to a walling off of major economies in the mistaken pursuit of self-sufficiency. This would effect a swift contraction of global economic activity. Britain post-Brexit is the clearest example of this disastrous course. Our greatest fear is that in such a situation, the ground would be well prepared for a major military confrontation with China. For guidance here, we would do well to consider the interwar years of the early 20th century, when nations refused to trade with each other, abandoned the coordinating mechanisms of earlier eras (such as the gold standard), and when some nations found cause to embrace a new governing ideology — national socialism.

Enormous benefits accrue to countries that respect the rule of law, honor international agreements, and cooperate in the building of strong institutions. The lift required takes enormous time and energy, and the big benefits often go unnoticed. Many Americans today may not grasp what’s on the other side — how emerging dangers like propaganda and the unchecked powers of AI sow cynicism and resignation, which can only prove fatal for domestic and international institutions at a most critical time for many countries.

Major power conflicts can only be avoided with carefully crafted plans that combine measures to secure and protect advantages gained (alliances) through the unceasing work of diplomatic engagement, such as we saw with the recent prisoner swap with Russia. Of utmost importance is pursuing such efforts with strong and committed allies that share democratic norms of accountability, transparency, and separation of powers. Absent such a framework, and within an alternative one defined by fear mongering, headline-grabbing denunciations and cheap military grandstanding, foreign policy becomes a very dangerous undertaking that can quickly spiral out of control. Now more than ever, the US and its allies can ill afford that path.  

In sum, a second Trump presidency would not only prove itself (once again) incompetent, but would do considerable harm by severely impacting the weakest and most vulnerable the most. Recklessness and pitiful projections of masculinized power reflect not the least understanding of how America’s true strength has been achieved, nor how with good leadership it can be preserved.

---

That’s it for today

We’ll be back with a special Tuesday edition tomorrow. If you appreciate this post, please support Public Notice by signing up. Paid subscribers make this newsletter possible.

Thanks for reading.

---