A (19:36)
All right, that is it for the left and the writer saying, which brings us to my take. The Don Roh Doctrine started to come into focus in December when the administration released its National Security, or nss, document. While the doctrine focuses on the Western Hemisphere, it is designed to fit into the larger NSS about global relations. After all, our desire to take over Greenland has a deep impact on Denmark and Europe. Our wish to have a greater influence in Latin America is in part driven by the goal of keeping China, Russia and Iran out, and so on. So what's happening in the Western hemisphere is not just about what's happening in the Western hemisphere. Yet the last few weeks have called into question how committed the administration really is to its underlying ideas, both globally through the NSS and more specifically to the purported Donroe Doctrine. On the one hand, I have to say I nod along to about 75% of the goals defined in the NSS. It's only 33 pages long and it's easy to read enough yourself if you want to click the link in today's episode description or newsletter. The Trump administration rightly identifies the Western hemisphere as the most critical priority for the us. It rightly de emphasizes the importance of the Middle east for energy and national security in the mid-2020s. It rightly rejects the imposition of our own values on other nations as a mandatory condition to do business, and it rightly calls for a more diplomacy forward peace through strength approach that avoids dragging us into military quagmires. Perhaps most critically, the administration's concern about China, the power it has amassed, and the importance of protecting Taiwan are all well founded. The entire strategy unapologetically declares allegiance to our own national interests, and it speaks plainly about the self interested nature of all sovereign nations without ornamental diplomatic non sequiturs. I felt strongly enough about these ideas that a few weeks ago when Senior Editor Will Kabak penned the take about nss, I used the staff Dissent section to defend Trump's prioritization of Latin America and the Western Hemisphere. I wrote this I believe the Trump administration's focus on Latin America is warranted. I'd agree. Threats from China, Russia and Iran are more serious, threats of kinetic warfare and cyber intrusions. But but economic instability, mass migration and the import of narcotics and gang activity are also national security concerns. The immediacy of those threats from Latin America is apparent and I think more urgent. Plus, the very actors will identify as China and Russia are making inroads in Latin America. This isn't an accident. They recognize the region as an open door to increase their influence in the Western Hemisphere, making it all the more important. We focus here. Further, I think in order to make Will's argument, you'd have to show that the preceding policies, those deployed by Biden, Trump won or Obama actually worked. Have our past policies toward China, the Middle east and Russia deterred those nations, prevented war, stopped trade imbalances, and if not, is it really fair to frame a reset as a wrong turn? So that's what I wrote in December. Yet on the other hand, my issues with the portion I don't agree with are pretty significant. The 25% I'm not nodding my head along to is so contradictory and so incoherent that it doesn't seem like a genuine doctrine at all. And unfortunately, the actions of the last few weeks have contradicted the already contradictory document in some meaningful ways. For starters, the NSS emphasizes that the US Must reject the ill fated concept of global domination for itself and should prioritize commercial diplomacy to strengthen our own economy and industries using tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tool. Which of the following actions feels closer to those Kidnapping Venezuela's despotic leader in a blaze of airstrikes and extraditing him to the United States or landing a trade deal with major cooperative bloc of Latin American countries because Europe, a transnational collective the NSS decries, is violating national sovereignty, seems to be doing a better job of following through on Trump's stated principles, given that they just struck a major trade deal with a bloc of Latin American countries elsewhere, the NSS says we seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories. It adds, specific to the Middle east that the key to success is accepting the region, its leaders and its nations as they are while working together on areas of common interest. Yet we are imposing ourselves forcefully on our historical allies in other regions, demanding Greenland accept the US as their new leader and owner or face military incursion, a pretty significant democratic and social change. Even more difficult to parse is that the very same document openly criticizes the trajectory of Europe based on its immigration policies and offers a thinly veiled threat to our alliance with the continent unless it moves in a direction that we want. The NSS states that Europe's migration policy, censorship, suppression of political opponents, and cratering birth rates call into question whether it will be a reliable ally in 20 years. Trump seems to be generally following a guidance of tolerance and mutual opportunity in much of the Middle east, seeking out investment opportunities and enhancing relationships with Arab countries that have very different governments and cultures from ours. But even there, he's selective. Would Iranians say that the United States is accepting its leaders as they are while Trump is threatening to bomb the country based on how it treats protesters, or on the heels of the US destroying its nuclear arsenal? Regardless of whether you think supporting the Iranian protesters or striking Iran's nuclear facilities is right or wrong, the guidance behind the strategy is clearly inconsistent. In other words, adversaries won't have our democratic or social norms imposed on them except when they do. But but allied nations need to do what we say, lest we abandon them. Europe must close its borders to migration. Denmark must hand over Greenland. The United Kingdom must give up its efforts to thwart hate speech online because that pursuit violates our notion of speech norms. The NSS even calls for preventing the reality of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance so we won't impose our will on the world, and we will invite nations into our sphere of influence who want to be there. But we won't allow Ukraine to join NATO, which is obviously who this is in reference to, even when it wants to. This is all without even touching on the lip service paid to energy dominance. While we ignore and abandon the most innovative forms of energy or promises to commit ourselves to merit above all else except for immigrants who don't get to come here to work and innovate if they can out compete American workers in the Western Hemisphere, the NSS also calls for enlisting partners and expanding our influence. Does the administration suppose we'll have a lot of success enlisting new allies while we are overthrowing the presidents of other nations, threatening to bomb Colombia, promising to take Greenland, and openly emphasizing the importance of doing all of this for oil and military advantages? These actions don't make a lot of sense to me in light of the nss, which I'll repeat, is a document I broadly supported when I first read it. Again, whether you support the goals outlined in the NSS or not, they are sometimes contradictory and the actual actions of the administration don't fit into the Don Road doctrine. We're supposed to think the administration is carrying out the Trump administration's actions, not its words provide the best insight into what this doctrine actually is. And as best I can tell, Trump doesn't really have a doctrine. His actions are governed by a combination of the personal relationships he forms with world leaders, his view that he is only restrained by his own mind and morality, and the competing interests of the cabinet level people in his orbit, that is Marco Rubio, JD Vance, and Stephen Miller. Trump sees himself as the CEO of the United States and other countries, has competing businesses whom he can cut or build ties with on a whim without much regard for how a what you have done for me lately attitude works different when running a nation than a business. This is why when we covered Trump's capture of Maduro, I said, quote, this should be the final nail in the coffin for any notion of a Trump doctrine on foreign policy. End quote. As a result of all of this, we're forcing regime change in South America, chasing oil and mineral interests, threatening sovereign nations with military force, playing police in the Middle east, taking credit for peace agreements that haven't actually ended wars, and trying to bend Europe to our will. The framing might differ from past administrations and in many cases sound more compelling this time dressed up in an America first isolationist narrative. And maybe the Trump administration truly will reshape the world over the next three years. But so far the doctrine of actions sure does ring familiar. All right, that is it for my take. There are two staff dissents today, which I guess means I did a good job. I'm not sure Managing Editor Ari Weitzman and Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead, so I'm going to pass it over to them and I'll be back for your questions answered. This is Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead with the staff dissent. I share Isaac's assessment that the Trump administration's actions and policy within the Western Hemisphere itself have been inconsistent. However, I disagree with both Ari and Isaac on the motivations underpinning Trump's policy. I think the Trump administration is returning.
