Trump's Transactional Foreign Policy Recalibrates Global Alliances

Key Quotes

"Well, the president has had some diplomatic success, but it's a real stretch to claim he's ended eight wars. Many of these were small-scale skirmishes or tensions along a border or just diplomatic disputes with no actual shooting, and in several cases, negotiations had already been going on for some time before Trump came into office."

Greg Myre explains that President Trump's claims of ending eight wars are an exaggeration. Myre clarifies that many of these situations were minor conflicts or ongoing negotiations, not fully resolved wars. This highlights a pattern of Trump taking credit for diplomatic progress that was already underway or involved limited conflict.

"You know, there's still fighting going on in the Congo, Congo and Rwanda. You got Congolese rebels who are still, you know, really pushing. This Thailand and Cambodia, there's questions about, uh, who's firing on who. When I talk to foreign policy pundits, they are very happy that Trump is putting this much bandwidth, administration bandwidth, behind seeking peace in the world, particularly in some of these conflicts that generally historically don't get this much attention from a White House, from an administration."

Greg Myre points out that despite Trump's claims, conflicts persist in regions like the Congo and between Thailand and Cambodia. Myre notes that foreign policy experts appreciate the administration's focus on these less-attended conflicts. This suggests that while Trump may not have fully resolved these issues, his administration's attention is seen as a positive development by some analysts.

"He repeatedly wants to announce peace, uh, and as many people tell me, before peace actually happens. He loves a deal, it's the follow-through that can be a big, more of a challenge."

Franco Ordoñez observes that President Trump prioritizes announcing peace deals over ensuring their lasting success. Ordoñez suggests that Trump's eagerness for a deal can overshadow the critical follow-through required for sustained peace. This indicates a potential weakness in Trump's approach, where the optics of a deal may be more important than its long-term implementation.

"Trump is still pressing for a deal, but virtually all the pressure is on Ukraine. It's being asked to give up a significant territory, about 20% of its land, and make other concessions as well. And it's not clear what Ukraine would get in return, except for an end to the war."

Greg Myre describes the current situation regarding the war in Ukraine, noting that pressure is primarily on Ukraine to make concessions. Myre highlights that Ukraine is expected to cede territory and agree to other terms, with the primary benefit being an end to the conflict. This suggests that Trump's proposed deal may disproportionately benefit Russia by demanding significant territorial losses from Ukraine.

"Maga world has really been pushing, uh, Trump to pull out of, you know, kind of US leadership of this battle. His son, even Donald Trump Jr., in recent weeks, has, you know, been suggesting that the president may walk away from Ukraine and, you know, kind of rethinking, you know, the priority."

Franco Ordoñez reports on the internal political pressure within the "Maga world" to withdraw US support for Ukraine. Ordoñez mentions that Donald Trump Jr. has publicly suggested the president might disengage from the conflict. This indicates that domestic political considerations and the views of key supporters are influencing Trump's foreign policy decisions regarding Ukraine.

"On the one hand, as we've noted, Trump has made an effort to to end conflicts. On the other hand, he's continued to alienate a lot of allies, sometimes with just his comments, sometimes with his threatened or actual tariffs. And one thing that's actually been pretty surprising is his willingness to use the military; he has bombed Iran, bombed the Houthis in Yemen for weeks, he's bombing suspected drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean."

Greg Myre identifies contradictory elements in President Trump's foreign policy approach. Myre notes that while Trump seeks to end conflicts, he also damages relationships with allies through his rhetoric and actions, such as imposing tariffs and conducting military strikes. This suggests a complex and sometimes inconsistent foreign policy strategy that combines de-escalation with assertive military action.

"Trump kind of joked in the beginning of this administration about taking over the Panama Canal, taking over Canada, remember all the jokes about Governor Trudeau, taking over Greenland. But you've started to see, you know, kind of some of those steps taking."

Franco Ordoñez observes that actions taken by the Trump administration reflect a more serious pursuit of territorial influence than initially perceived. Ordoñez notes that what might have seemed like jokes about expanding US control, such as taking over Greenland or the Panama Canal, are now being seen in the context of actual policy shifts. This suggests a pattern of Trump's rhetoric translating into tangible foreign policy objectives.

"We will assert and enforce a Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. And for those of you who might not have been paying attention in high school when we taught the Monroe Doctrine, just remind us."

Greg Myre introduces the concept of a "Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine," indicating a new approach to US influence in the Western Hemisphere. Myre explains that this doctrine, originally established in 1823 to assert American dominance in the Americas and prevent European interference, is being reinterpreted and enforced under Trump. This signifies a renewed emphasis on US hegemony in its traditional sphere of influence.

"I think what's clear from my reporting and talking to those close to the administration, outside and inside the administration, is that it's not just about firing on some drug boats that may or may not be coming towards the United States, but it's something larger that this administration, that this president is looking at regime change in Venezuela and trying to put as much pressure on the current leader, Nicholas Maduro, to leave."

Franco Ordoñez suggests that the military actions in Venezuela are part of a broader strategy aimed at regime change. Ordoñez reports that sources indicate the goal extends beyond interdicting drug boats to pressuring President Maduro to step down. This implies that the intervention in Venezuela is driven by a desire to alter the country's leadership.

"I think with such a big presence of US military in the Caribbean, I don't know how Trump does not do something now. Perhaps there'll be some kind of exit ramp for Maduro, but if Maduro doesn't leave, and you know, right now there's not many indications that he's going to leave, he seems to be calling Trump's bluff, Trump seems to be going to need to do perhaps something."

Greg Myre speculates on the potential for further US military action in Venezuela, given the current deployment. Myre suggests that if President Maduro does not yield to pressure, President Trump may be compelled to take more significant action. This indicates that the current military posture might be a precursor to more direct intervention if diplomatic or coercive efforts fail.