The Trump Doctrine now takes its place in American history.
Trump joins presidents who adopted broad world policies that
became identified with them. President
James Monroe warned that Europe should stay out of the Americas, creating the Monroe Doctrine. President Harry Truman pledged U.S. support
to governments opposing authoritarians, creating the Truman Doctrine
(though probably repealed by Trump).
Both Monroe and Truman based their doctrines on the growing American
power. The Trump Doctrine recognizes the
limits of American power. It has become
known thanks to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the accidental model of transparency
even about the most sensitive government planning.
The Trump Doctrine has two priorities: defending the
American “homeland” and preparing for a potentially military confrontation with
China. These are Trump’s basics drawn from
Project 2025, a conservative manifesto that he had denied even knowing about.
“China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of
a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while
simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing
scenario,” is Hegseth’s
description of the core of the doctrine.
This strategy explains policies that Trump has pursued from
the outset of his presidency. The U.S.
prepares to meet a “threat” from China, but it acts now to fulfill a “scenario”
of security.
First, defend the 50-state homeland by increasing the buffer
around it. Add Canada and Greenland to
create a new, expanded homeland, allowing the U.S. to defend against attack
from the north. Owning territory
provides greater security than a mere alliance like NATO.
The original America First
movement in 1940-41 preached that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were
satisfactory buffers, but the new America First supplements them with
territory. The aspirations and values of
other nations must be overridden to put this plan in place.
Second, casting any doubt aside, the Trump Doctrine makes
clear that the U.S. would use military force to protect Taiwan from a Chinese
attempt to seize it. It makes clear that
the principal threat to American security comes from China. While this may be accurate, all measures
short of a military buildup seem to have been ruled out.
What about the rest of the world? Europe, the Middle East and East Asia
defenses would largely be left to regional powers. The U.S, would help them against threats from
Russia, Iran or North Korea, but only within the limits of its resources after
dealing with its top two priorities.
Though American policy would call these regional powers
“allies,” their dependence on the U.S. for weapons and intelligence would make
them something more like the “satellites” that surrounded the Soviet Union and
which Putin seeks to recreate.
Trump’s attempt to take over key elements of Ukraine’s
economy in return for past American help against the Russian invasion is a
prime example of this approach. Trump
wields the power of tariffs, weapons supply, and intelligence capability to
force compliance. He even demands that foreign
suppliers to the U.S. drop their DEI programs.
Because his demands affect the sovereign powers of other
nations, his Doctrine could encounter strong resistance. Sensing any willingness by them to make
concessions, he increases his demands.
Leaders may try personal flattery, but can end up appeasing him to avoid
retaliation. History reveals that
appeasement fails to yield satisfactory results.
Canada’s Prime Minister Mark
Carney shows he understands that appeasement will not work. Measures to cut tiny Fentanyl flows or a
trickle of illegal immigration have only led to greater U.S. demands. Carney is taking a tougher line with Trump
and is trying to rally Canadians to a sense of unity that will preserve the
nation.
Britain and France are willing to defend Ukraine, though
some other Europeans remain addicted to taking a free ride whether provided by Europe
or the U.S. If those two countries plus
Germany and Poland form a core response, they must make some voluntary
sacrifices instead of those demanded by Trump.
Ukraine already is making sacrifices for its survival.
Instead of a free world dominated by the U.S., a series of
interlocking accords are likely to gradually develop. A variety of alliances focusing on military
planning, arms production, trade and intelligence could grow, though the U.S.
would remain a needed partner.
Given the obvious flaws in American intelligence security, a
new version of Five Eyes
could include Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand plus Germany, which has
sought to participate. A deeper trade relationship with Europe could bring
Canada a form of associate status with the EU and participation in the
Anglo-French military “coalition of the willing.”
Moves toward greater self-reliance by otter countries could
require costly adjustments, but so would the Trump Doctrine.
The U.S. might reverse its policy, but trust in it has been
deeply damaged. Its cast-off friends
cannot take any more risks and must create their own future.
