US foreign po­li­cy: What's next?

Donald Trump's actions in Venezuela and his threats to annex Greenland dominate the news agenda. There is inevitably constant speculation about the next moves his administration might take. Trump 2.0 seems like a wild and unpredictable ride even when judged against his first four years in office.

Are there however any clues about his current intentions if we look back to the years between 2017 and 2021? In a new study of the first Trump administration’s foreign policy just published by Edinburgh University Press Eddie Ashbee of EGB and Steven Hurst from Manchester Metropolitan University argue that Trump was held back in his first term. “We can” Eddie Ashbee argues “draw a parallel with elementary Freudianism. During the Trump 1.0 years, the commands made by Trump’s political id were constrained. They now have free rein”.

What held back his instincts first time around? It was partly, the authors claim, the staffing of the first administration which often had to depend on veteran Republicans. It was also however, and at this point the book draws upon policymaking theory, that established US foreign policy in some arenas (such as US-China policy) was very weakly embedded and its fragility opened the way for change. In other arenas, however, and relations with Russia were a case in point where existing policy had much deeper roots that precluded the substantial changes that Trump had initially sought.

What does all this mean for the here and now? According to Eddie Ashbee: “The capture of Venezuelan President Maduro and his wife was, in terms of politics and policy, low hanging fruit. Whatever reservations there might be about the means that were employed Maduro had few backers within either the US or Europe. In contrast, the remaking of Venezuela and the taking of Greenland are certainly within the bounds of possibility but they will face much more entrenched opposition and will require the expenditure of far more political capital.”

Link to book