Trump’s Era of International Bullying - The Opinions

Loading summary

Transcript40 lines

[00:01]
Sponsor Voice
This podcast is supported by Saatva. Spring cleaning can be good for your home and your mind. It can boost your mood, sharpen your focus, and fuel productivity. Another way to do all that sleeping well. Voted Best luxury mattress by sleepfoundation.org Every Saatva is handcrafted for a great night's sleep and they cost far less than retail. Save $600 on $1,000 or more at saatva.com NYT.
[00:29]
Podcast Host
This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.
[00:42]
Chris DeMar
My name is Chris demar. I'm the senior International editor at Times Opinion. One of the things my colleagues and I have been watching closely in the first four months of Trump's second term is how world leaders are reacting to this new administration. I wanted to talk about this so called Trump effect with Lydia Polgreen and Nick Kristof, columnists who have reported extensively on America's relationship with the rest of the world. Lydia and Nick, welcome.
[01:10]
Nick Kristof
Hi Nick. Hi Krista.
[01:11]
Lydia Polgreen
Good to be with you.
[01:13]
Chris DeMar
So from my perspective, it looks like there are a few different types of leadership that has emerged in Response to Trump 2.0. There are the emboldened leaders, leaders like Vladimir Putin who are using Trump's foreign policy to advance their own agend, and then there are the defiant leaders, leaders like Canada's Mark Carney who just won a recent election by promising to stand up to Trump. And then there are more kind of opportunistic leaders. I'm thinking about Xi Jinping, who is really seizing this moment to strengthen China's ties in parts of the world that are being negatively impacted by Trump's policies or places that are just feeling very insecure about this moment. So Nick, Lydia, does this taxonomy make sense to you? Does this so called Trump effect line up with what you are seeing in your own reporting?
[02:04]
Nick Kristof
Yeah, well, one of the things that I've been thinking about, Christa, is this sort of cause and effect, right? To what extent is Trump calling the tune or setting the tone? Or to what extent is Trump actually responding to events as they are unfolding and the way that the world is reacting to those events? And I think it's useful to actually think about Russia and Putin in that regard. In some ways, Putin was an outlier before Trump 2.0 in terms of his territorial adventurism, for example, the invasion of Ukraine and really the aspiration to seize the entirety of the country. That's something that Putin had done before Trump came back. The kind of annexations in the west bank that you're seeing from Netanyahu and these other kind of extraterritorial kind of smash and grabs. I've actually been wondering if Trump, in some ways, has been emboldened by the broad either failure to stop or, in the case of Israel, a kind of indifference to the moves that have been happening. It's probably a little bit of both, but I think that we're living in a world that Trump is both shaping but also taking opportunity of himself.
[03:15]
Lydia Polgreen
Yeah, you know, I think that President Trump fundamentally is not particularly ideological. He's a transactional bully. And the truth is that bullying sometimes does work. I mean, he has been able to, in some limited ways, advance American interests. You know, you threaten Panama, and Panama is going to cave and try to transfer management of one of the ports to American interests. You threaten Colombia, and it is going to take people returned from the US and so, you know, in very limited ways, a bully can accomplish things. But I think more fundamentally, what we've seen is Trump really dismantling the entire post World War II architecture and a system that had very much supported American interests. And by abandoning any kind of commitment to human rights, as Lydia suggested, I think that has paved the way for Israel to behave more recklessly in the west bank and in Gaza, for the United Arab Emirates to behave more recklessly in Sudan. Not that it was particularly well behaved before. And so, you know, fundamentally, if the point of foreign policy is to make your country safer, then I think that Trump has, you know, here and there has created some benefits, but overall, we are less safe now. And he has, in particular, by rewarding aggression, in the case of Russia and Ukraine, I think he's created, you know, increased risk of the very worst thing happening, which would be a war in East Asia involving China.
[04:57]
Chris DeMar
How does what's happening now feel different than what happened during Trump's first term to both of you?
[05:05]
Nick Kristof
I mean, to me, I think we're seeing a much more fractured and dangerous world in which there is actually a tremendous amount of territorial adventurism happening, a sense that, you know, any actor can go out and try things. And I think at the same time, we're also seeing a hugely diminished appetite from the Trump administration for using hard American strength. I mean, there was a remarkable report in the Times about the assault on the Houthis that essentially concluded that because they couldn't achieve anything very quickly and because it was costing about a billion dollars a month, Trump essentially decided to pull up stakes and say, you know what? We're just gonna declare victory. So it's a really fascinating mixed message. And the message that you're sending to the world is we're gonna. But if we can't get what we want really quickly, then we're actually just gonna try to package whatever we can and salvage it as a, quote, unquote, win and then move on.
[06:05]
Lydia Polgreen
Yeah, I think of this as, you know, Trump's first term squared or maybe cubed or maybe to the power of a Google, you know, and a couple of examples. So in his first term, President Trump apparently raised the possibility of withdrawing from NATO, but he didn't do it, and NATO survived. And these days, look, in Effect, NATO Article 5. The essence of NATO, I think, is realistically dead. If Russia invaded Estonia tomorrow, the US Would not join other countries in intervening to protect Estonia. That kind of collective security, which has been the foundation of the international system since 1945, I think is, in practice, gone. And likewise, if you think about trade now, in his first term, President Trump was often aggressive on tariffs and trade. This time, he launched a trade war with China that, you know, he. He ended up backing down from because from my point of view, he was losing, that he didn't understand China's relative strength. And so that's one reason why I think we're in a more dangerous situation, that he's more aggressive, that he's got aides around him who, instead of constraining him, empower him. But I should also say that Trump does have this deep aversion to being in wars, and that is healthy considering his appetite for being impetuous and reckless. Lydia mentioned his retreat from Yemen, sort of declaring victory and withdrawing. And I at least count my blessings that Trump, for all his recklessness and lack of understanding about other countries, at least he does seem to want to avoid major wars.
[07:57]
Chris DeMar
So let's talk a little bit about, then, the reaction to this place that we're in globally. A lot of our listeners would be familiar with the kind of examples of behavior like Netanyahu's plans for the IDF in Gaza? Or, Nick, as you've written about the gazification of the west bank and, of course, Putin's war of aggression. Can you each talk about other examples that people may be less familiar with that you're worried about in terms of leadership reacting in this way to the Trump administration?
[08:32]
Nick Kristof
So I think we're living in a world where leaders are doing whatever they can get away with, and those who criticize them could also find themselves in exactly the kind of situation that alleged gang members in El Salvador have found themselves. So the standards are shifting in ways that I think are scary. One situation that has been unfortunately, very much out of the headlines that I think is precisely the kind of thing that you're talking about and is a place that both Nick and I have spent a fair amount of time and that's the Democratic Republic of Congo. In eastern Congo, there is a rebel group that is aligned with and essentially controlled by the government of Rwanda. And they have essentially occupied a huge swath of Congolese territory. And there is, I think, real fear that, you know, what is one of the most protracted and deadliest conflicts in the world could lead to, you know, even more catastrophic territorial war in which Rwanda essentially tries to take a huge chunk of this neighboring country. But again, it's interesting in this case it may be that Paul Kagame, the leader of Rwanda, is just as inspired by Netanyahu as he was by Trump. And I say that because, you know, Rwanda claims, and has long claimed that it needs to have control over areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo in order to protect its security, blaming it on the genocide that happened in Rwanda many years ago. And so it is interesting to see this kind of admixture of how these different authoritarian, leading, aggressive rulers, like who's inspiring who. And I think that what Trump does is create an environment where the country that I think thought of itself as the guarantor of the kind of the rules based international order is now led by someone who is playing with exactly the kinds of tactics, tactics that the United States has always tried to keep at bay. And the catastrophic effects of huge territorial disputes on the African continent, for example, the humanitarian crises that that already creates and could create, could they grow, it's just mind boggling.
[10:46]
Lydia Polgreen
I would just add that I think that the single scariest example where President Trump's policy has empowered a foreign leader's potential transgressions involves Xi Jinping in China. You know, my nightmare over the next 10 years would be a war in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea that involves the US And China and potentially becomes a nuclear exchange. And I think that's unlikely, but possible. And I think it is a little bit more likely now than it was say a year ago. And that's because if you think about what constrains Xi Jinping, you know, I think one was the he looked at Russia and Ukraine and he saw that Russia was really hurt and it paid a real economic price. I think that now it is much less clear that Russia is paying a price for its aggression and indeed that it may succeed. Secondly, I think that it was pretty clear that globally, the US Had a lot of soft power and would bring that to bear on China if it was launched a quarantine or something like that around Taiwan. And the U.S. has, you know, just doesn't care about soft power right now. And so I think that makes it a little bit easier for China to pay badly. You know, I don't know what the odds are that there will be something terrible happening there, but I think they're higher than they were before, and that is really scary.
[12:12]
Chris DeMar
Nick, you had mentioned briefly the UAE in Sudan. That's a situation that I'd be interested in hearing you talk a little bit more about and how that's intensified recently.
[12:23]
Lydia Polgreen
Sure. So it's generally thought that the world's worst humanitarian crisis right now is in Sudan and the war, the civil war. And what the US Both under Biden and under Trump, have referred to as genocide in Sudan is being perpetrated in large part because the United Arab Emirates, our pals, are supporting one of the. One of the military branches there which is engaged in particularly brut attacks. And, you know, countries are normally kind of embarrassed when they are supporting a genocide. And indeed, the UAE tried to hide its military transfers to the rapid support forces, this militia. And then when President Trump was elected, I think the UAE thought, okay, you know, the gloves are off now. It doesn't really matter what we do. We're not going to be called out. And indeed, the rsf, this faction, you know, has elevated its campaign of murder and rape and, you know, basically destroyed Zamzam, one of the biggest camps for internally displaced people around the world. So I think in some ways, the Trump administration has created a permission structure where it is okay for other countries to bully as well, to solve territorial disputes, to move in their interests. You also see this not only when armies behave badly, but I think we created a permission structure to ignore humanitarian concerns. And so when President Trump dismantled USAID, then Britain responded with a 40% cut in aid. France followed with cuts as well. And so we're left with a world where the humanitarian needs are particularly great and where the response has been substantially diminished.
[14:24]
Chris DeMar
Well, I'm glad you brought up the UK Because I wanted to talk a little bit about what's happening in that government in the context of a kind of opportunistic response to the Trump administration's actions. Last week, Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer reached what the White House called a historic trade deal. And the announcement was full of theatrics, including a televised call. And it really began back in late February when Starmer handed over an invitation from King Charles to Trump.
[14:56]
Lydia Polgreen
This is a letter from His Majesty the King. It's an invitation for a second state visit. This is really special.
[15:06]
Chris DeMar
So I guess the question is, is this a good way to deal with Trump? Is it politically risky for Starmer to take the approach that he has with the Trump administration?
[15:18]
Nick Kristof
I mean, I think it may be risky, but it's also pretty pathetic that we essentially have world leaders treating the President of the United States like a toddler who needs to be placated with a shiny toy. The latest shiny toy, of course, being a $400 million plane that the government of Qatar is apparently donating, whatever that means, to the United States. I think there's something really sinister and frankly, pathetic about this way of operating in the world. But I think it also becomes the COVID for something very, very potentially dangerous, because it means that the government of the United States, rather than thinking about its broad interests and, you know, peace and security in the world, is really catering to the venal and, frankly, childish desires of one very immature man.
[16:12]
Lydia Polgreen
I once visited a museum in North Korea that was filled with gifts to the Kim dictators, and it was this incredible monument to the idea of a personality cult. And, you know, I spent much of my career kind of mocking personality cults. They were funny. And then all of a sudden, you see cabinet meetings in the U.S. that sound, frankly, a lot like North Korean cabinet meetings. Because of your leadership, sir, I believe we're making the military great again.
[16:42]
Chris DeMar
I want to thank you for stand standing up to the Chinese Communist Party and fighting for our main streets, for our workers, and for those that make things in America.
[16:52]
Podcast Host
Your first 100 days has far exceeded.
[16:55]
Chris DeMar
That of any other presidency in this country ever. You are overwhelmingly elected by the biggest majority.
[17:04]
Lydia Polgreen
I want to thank you for your vision, for your leadership, for giving me the hundred busiest days of my life and most exciting and most.
[17:14]
Podcast Host
Thank you for your leadership, and thank.
[17:15]
Lydia Polgreen
You for everything you're doing. Very good.
[17:18]
Chris DeMar
Thank you, Marco.
[17:19]
Lydia Polgreen
But I think the politics have it cut both ways, because Mark Carney clearly benefited by standing up to Trump, and Trump seems to have respected that. And so I think it's really hard for other leaders to figure out just what to do and how to handle Trump. But as with universities in America, I don't think that simply caving and rolling over has been particularly effective.
[17:42]
Nick Kristof
Well, and it's interesting because you can tell that Trump has a not even grudging admiration for Claudia Schambaum in Mexico, for example. You know, I think she has a pretty mixed record in terms of giving in on some things, but, you know, talking tough on others. And, you know, there's another word for that, which is just diplomacy, right? I mean, you know, where you agree on hard things, hard unpopular things, quietly, and then you trumpet the big successes. And to me, one of the, this is one of the mysteries of Donald Trump, because on one level, it seems like he's spending an awful lot of time on things that just don't seem critical to American interests. He cares a lot about the Kennedy Center. He cares a lot about the design of the Rose Garden and things that just given that we're facing a world on fire, things that just seem so, so, so trivial. But then at the same time, I mean, I think what we're witnessing this week with Trump in the Middle east and meeting with the leader of Saudi ar, United Arab Emirates, the new interim president of Syria, and there is this kind of off the cuff, it seems, sort of shoot from the gut, we're just gonna do it. Quality, for example, in saying something like, I think we're gonna lift these sanctions on Syria. I mean, that's the kind of thing that clearly is necessary in order for Syria to have a chance to rebuild. And that a previous, perhaps more cautious and deliberative administration like the one that we just had, I think would be much, much more careful and it would much longer time. So whether or not you agree with the process by which Trump, you know, sort of reaches that decision. And I think similarly, we've seen what this kind of call it vigorous action can produce in terms of getting the last living dual citizen hostage held by Hamas released. And, you know, I think it remains to be seen if the Trump administration will in fact reach an agreement to end the slaughter in Gaza that somehow excludes lose the Israeli government that is perpetrating that slaughter. But I think that there is something, I guess I would just use the word vigorous about the way that these events are unfolding. And you compare them with the actions of the Biden administration, and it's hard not to kind of think, wow, were some of these things possible had that administration taken a tougher stance?
[20:14]
Chris DeMar
Being an American out in the world can feel different at different moments depending on what's going on in our country and in other countries. You two are out talking to people in different countries all the time. How does it feel to you today? And are there Any conversations that have stuck with you that you've had in the course of your reporting or your lives that kind of reflect that feeling. And this moment as an American, it's really fascinating, right?
[20:43]
Nick Kristof
Because I think if you go as an American journalist to another country, particularly if it's a developing country, a poorer country, and I think there is a mix of fascination, perhaps even longing to someday go to the United States, and also maybe some resentment of American policy and the way that it plays out. I have to say that that for me, that a lot of the encounters that I've had since Trump was reelected really reflect a kind of diminishment of America's role in the world and a diminishment of the perception of the importance of American actions. I mean, I've spent the last, better part of the last year writing about global migration. And, you know, historically, the United States was the most desirable destination for migrants everywhere. The most ambitious people in the world wanted to come to the United States because that's where all of the opportunity was seen to be. And it's just been very striking to see how quickly that has changed and how quickly people are thinking about different futures elsewhere. And under the Trump administration, it's not surprising that people would not want to come here, risk being kidnapped by ICE and disappeared to some sort of gulag in El Salvador. And I think that that is, to me, the sort of prevailing feeling is this either irrelevance or indifference. And that really changes the valence of what it is to be an American walking through the world.
[22:13]
Lydia Polgreen
It was, I think there was enormous unpopularity of Americans and it was kind of embarrassing to be an American back in the peak of the Iraq war. But I think one difference is that back then, Europeans or others would think that you might well be a, you know, if they didn't read my columns, at least that you might actually be a supporter of that, you know, of the government then and now support for President Trump is so class based that in general, if somebody is educated in the professions in journalism, then there's much more of an assumption that they're a fellow sufferer. And that's not, obviously not a perfect alignment. But I think it's more true now than it was in past periods when there were unpopular American governments. So there's more of a sense of we're all in this mess together, almost an assumption of that at international gatherings. I've joined.
[23:10]
Chris DeMar
So when do you think that this moment sort of ends? What will we need to see before this kind of Trump effect really loses its power across the globe and the world stops reacting to what the United States is doing right now.
[23:24]
Nick Kristof
Well, I think that the global system has been in trouble for a very long time, right? I mean, the, you know, United States, I'm sorry, the United Nations Security Council, you know, has been as much an impediment to achieving any sort of lasting, desirable global outcomes for a very long time now. There has been a need to open up the global system to more countries having greater say in how these big international institutions are run and the need for the US to allow and hopefully manage at least softly, in its favor. That process, I think, has been with us for a long time. And there have been a variety of efforts, from the G20 to reforms of the World bank and the IMF and other things that would create a kind of more inclusive global system that would make the world less dependent on a handful of big jockeying powers, and that multiple presidents are responsible for not investing in that effort. And I sure as hell know that Donald Trump is not going to invest in it. So the moment where there could have been a more sort of natural, peaceful, elegant sharing of power in a way that would have preserved and protected American interests while reducing the burden on the United States to act as the world's policeman, be the guarantor of safety and all that kind of thing, that moment has passed. And I don't think that that moment will come again because you'll never have an America that sits atop the global order in quite the way that it did. So the question that I'm asking myself and that I often talk to the kinds of people that I talk to, is what sort of global order is likely to emerge in a post Trump era, given that we've missed that opportun, I think it's too soon to say I'm going to be watching not just what China does and what Russia does, but I'm going to be watching what Brazil does, what India does. How does Turkey operate in this new world? How strong is the EU as it responds? So I think that this multipolarity offers opportunities, but it's going to take a while for the United States to find a way to live easily within what that new world looks like.
[25:46]
Lydia Polgreen
Like, the question that I, you know, I talk to a lot of Europeans and others about is, can we recover what we had before? Can we rebuild this? And I think the consensus is that we're never going to be able to fully get back what we had, that it's going to be decades before Canada trusts us again the way it once did. NATO will be hard to to recover, but, but you know, I must say, I mean, I remember during the Iraq War how much hostility there was to the us how it just seemed it was going to be so difficult. And then President Obama did actually manage to restore a lot of that. So I think the system has taken a real hit. I think it'll take a long time to recover. We're not going to recover fully, but I don't think that it's all over yet either.
[26:39]
Chris DeMar
Lydia and Nick, this has been a totally fascinating conversation. I'm really grateful to you both for being here and taking the time to talk through all of this with us. Thank you very much for joining.
[26:50]
Lydia Polgreen
Great to be with you.
[26:51]
Nick Kristof
Thanks so much. Krista.
[27:11]
Podcast Host
If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Vishaka Darba, Christina Samulewski, and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin, Alison Bruzek, and Annie Rose Strasser. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Saburo and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Margelocker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The executive producer of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.

Summary5 min read

Podcast Summary: "Trump’s Era of International Bullying"

The Opinions by The New York Times Opinion, hosted by Chris DeMar, delves into the profound impact of President Donald Trump's second term on global leadership and international relations. Released on May 15, 2025, this episode features insightful discussions with esteemed columnists Lydia Polgreen and Nick Kristof, who dissect the nuances of Trump's foreign policies and their cascading effects worldwide.

1. Understanding the "Trump Effect" on Global Leadership

Chris DeMar introduces the concept of the "Trump effect," categorizing world leaders' responses into three distinct groups: emboldened, defiant, and opportunistic. He posits that Trump's administration has reshaped international dynamics, prompting varied reactions from global leaders.

Chris DeMar [01:12]: “There are the emboldened leaders, leaders like Vladimir Putin who are using Trump's foreign policy to advance their own agendas, and then there are the defiant leaders, leaders like Canada's Mark Carney who just won a recent election by promising to stand up to Trump.”

Nick Kristof engages with this taxonomy, exploring whether Trump is the primary catalyst or merely capitalizing on existing global shifts.

Nick Kristof [02:04]: “I think we're living in a world that Trump is both shaping but also taking opportunity of himself.”

2. Trump's Foreign Policy: A Transactional Bully

Lydia Polgreen characterizes Trump as a "transactional bully," emphasizing his lack of ideological commitment and how his aggressive tactics have both advanced and undermined American interests.

Lydia Polgreen [03:15]: “President Trump fundamentally is not particularly ideological. He's a transactional bully... But overall, we are less safe now.”

She critiques Trump for dismantling the post-World War II international architecture, leading to increased aggression from nations like Israel and the UAE, and heightening the risk of large-scale conflicts, particularly with Russia and China.

3. Contrasting Trump's Second Term with His First

The conversation shifts to the distinctions between Trump's first and second terms. Nick Kristof highlights a more fractured and perilous global landscape, noting diminished U.S. resolve in utilizing hard power effectively.

Nick Kristof [05:05]: “We're seeing a much more fractured and dangerous world... [Trump] decided to pull up stakes and say, you know what? We're just gonna declare victory.”

Lydia Polgreen echoes this sentiment, describing Trump's current approach as an escalation of his initial term's policies, further eroding collective security mechanisms like NATO.

Lydia Polgreen [06:05]: “NATO Article 5... I think is, in practice, gone... we're less safe now.”

4. Case Studies: Global Reactions to Trump's Policies

Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda

Nick Kristof brings attention to the ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, exacerbated by Rwandan aggression. He underscores how Trump's leadership style emboldens authoritarian rulers, destabilizing regions and fueling humanitarian crises.

Nick Kristof [08:31]: “The catastrophic effects of huge territorial disputes on the African continent... it's just mind boggling.”

Sudan and UAE Involvement

Lydia Polgreen sheds light on Sudan's humanitarian crisis, attributing the intensification of violence to the UAE's support for oppressive factions. She criticizes the Trump administration for creating a permissive environment that allows such abuses to flourish.

Lydia Polgreen [12:22]: “President Trump has created a permission structure where it is okay for other countries to bully as well... we are less safe now.”

US-UK Trade Deal and Diplomatic Relations

The episode further explores the recent trade deal between the U.S. and the UK, highlighting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's strategic engagement with Trump. Nick Kristof criticizes this approach as pandering to an "immature man," risking broader geopolitical interests.

Nick Kristof [15:17]: “There's something really sinister and frankly, pathetic about this way of operating in the world.”

5. Diminished Global Perception of the United States

Nick Kristof discusses the declining allure of the United States as a destination for migrants, attributing this shift to Trump's harsh immigration policies and diminished soft power.

Nick Kristof [20:43]: “Historically, the United States was the most desirable destination for migrants everywhere... under the Trump administration, it's not surprising that people would not want to come here.”

Lydia Polgreen adds that the current American political climate fosters a sense of shared adversity among international peers, creating an implicit solidarity against the Trump administration's actions.

Lydia Polgreen [22:12]: “It's more of a sense of we're all in this mess together, almost an assumption of that at international gatherings.”

6. The Future of the Global Order Post-Trump

Looking ahead, Nick Kristof contemplates the emergence of a multipolar world order, where the U.S.'s predominant role is waning. He emphasizes the need for global institutions to become more inclusive, a process undermined by Trump's administration.

Nick Kristof [23:23]: “What sort of global order is likely to emerge in a post Trump era... it's going to take a while for the United States to find a way to live easily within what that new world looks like.”

Lydia Polgreen concurs, expressing skepticism about fully restoring pre-Trump alliances and systemic structures, noting that rebuilding trust will be a protracted endeavor.

Lydia Polgreen [25:45]: “The system has taken a real hit. I think it'll take a long time to recover. We're not going to recover fully, but I don't think that it's all over yet either.”

Conclusion

The episode underscores the transformative and often destabilizing influence of Trump's second term on international relations. Through the insights of Lydia Polgreen and Nick Kristof, listeners gain a comprehensive understanding of the challenges posed by Trump's foreign policies, the shifting global power dynamics, and the uncertain path forward for the United States on the world stage.

Notable Quotes:

Chris DeMar [01:12]: “There are the emboldened leaders... the defiant leaders... the opportunistic leaders.”
Lydia Polgreen [03:15]: “But overall, we are less safe now.”
Nick Kristof [05:05]: “We're seeing a much more fractured and dangerous world...”
Nick Kristof [08:31]: “It's just mind boggling.”
Nick Kristof [15:17]: “There's something really sinister and frankly, pathetic about this way of operating in the world.”
Nick Kristof [20:43]: “Under the Trump administration, it's not surprising that people would not want to come here.”
Nick Kristof [23:23]: “What sort of global order is likely to emerge in a post Trump era...”

This comprehensive discussion offers a critical lens on the ramifications of Trump's governance, providing listeners with a nuanced perspective on contemporary global politics and the evolving role of the United States internationally.

Loading summary

Transcript40 lines

[00:01]
Sponsor Voice
This podcast is supported by Saatva. Spring cleaning can be good for your home and your mind. It can boost your mood, sharpen your focus, and fuel productivity. Another way to do all that sleeping well. Voted Best luxury mattress by sleepfoundation.org Every Saatva is handcrafted for a great night's sleep and they cost far less than retail. Save $600 on $1,000 or more at saatva.com NYT.
[00:29]
Podcast Host
This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.
[00:42]
Chris DeMar
My name is Chris demar. I'm the senior International editor at Times Opinion. One of the things my colleagues and I have been watching closely in the first four months of Trump's second term is how world leaders are reacting to this new administration. I wanted to talk about this so called Trump effect with Lydia Polgreen and Nick Kristof, columnists who have reported extensively on America's relationship with the rest of the world. Lydia and Nick, welcome.
[01:10]
Nick Kristof
Hi Nick. Hi Krista.
[01:11]
Lydia Polgreen
Good to be with you.
[01:13]
Chris DeMar
So from my perspective, it looks like there are a few different types of leadership that has emerged in Response to Trump 2.0. There are the emboldened leaders, leaders like Vladimir Putin who are using Trump's foreign policy to advance their own agend, and then there are the defiant leaders, leaders like Canada's Mark Carney who just won a recent election by promising to stand up to Trump. And then there are more kind of opportunistic leaders. I'm thinking about Xi Jinping, who is really seizing this moment to strengthen China's ties in parts of the world that are being negatively impacted by Trump's policies or places that are just feeling very insecure about this moment. So Nick, Lydia, does this taxonomy make sense to you? Does this so called Trump effect line up with what you are seeing in your own reporting?
[02:04]
Nick Kristof
Yeah, well, one of the things that I've been thinking about, Christa, is this sort of cause and effect, right? To what extent is Trump calling the tune or setting the tone? Or to what extent is Trump actually responding to events as they are unfolding and the way that the world is reacting to those events? And I think it's useful to actually think about Russia and Putin in that regard. In some ways, Putin was an outlier before Trump 2.0 in terms of his territorial adventurism, for example, the invasion of Ukraine and really the aspiration to seize the entirety of the country. That's something that Putin had done before Trump came back. The kind of annexations in the west bank that you're seeing from Netanyahu and these other kind of extraterritorial kind of smash and grabs. I've actually been wondering if Trump, in some ways, has been emboldened by the broad either failure to stop or, in the case of Israel, a kind of indifference to the moves that have been happening. It's probably a little bit of both, but I think that we're living in a world that Trump is both shaping but also taking opportunity of himself.
[03:15]
Lydia Polgreen
Yeah, you know, I think that President Trump fundamentally is not particularly ideological. He's a transactional bully. And the truth is that bullying sometimes does work. I mean, he has been able to, in some limited ways, advance American interests. You know, you threaten Panama, and Panama is going to cave and try to transfer management of one of the ports to American interests. You threaten Colombia, and it is going to take people returned from the US and so, you know, in very limited ways, a bully can accomplish things. But I think more fundamentally, what we've seen is Trump really dismantling the entire post World War II architecture and a system that had very much supported American interests. And by abandoning any kind of commitment to human rights, as Lydia suggested, I think that has paved the way for Israel to behave more recklessly in the west bank and in Gaza, for the United Arab Emirates to behave more recklessly in Sudan. Not that it was particularly well behaved before. And so, you know, fundamentally, if the point of foreign policy is to make your country safer, then I think that Trump has, you know, here and there has created some benefits, but overall, we are less safe now. And he has, in particular, by rewarding aggression, in the case of Russia and Ukraine, I think he's created, you know, increased risk of the very worst thing happening, which would be a war in East Asia involving China.
[04:57]
Chris DeMar
How does what's happening now feel different than what happened during Trump's first term to both of you?
[05:05]
Nick Kristof
I mean, to me, I think we're seeing a much more fractured and dangerous world in which there is actually a tremendous amount of territorial adventurism happening, a sense that, you know, any actor can go out and try things. And I think at the same time, we're also seeing a hugely diminished appetite from the Trump administration for using hard American strength. I mean, there was a remarkable report in the Times about the assault on the Houthis that essentially concluded that because they couldn't achieve anything very quickly and because it was costing about a billion dollars a month, Trump essentially decided to pull up stakes and say, you know what? We're just gonna declare victory. So it's a really fascinating mixed message. And the message that you're sending to the world is we're gonna. But if we can't get what we want really quickly, then we're actually just gonna try to package whatever we can and salvage it as a, quote, unquote, win and then move on.
[06:05]
Lydia Polgreen
Yeah, I think of this as, you know, Trump's first term squared or maybe cubed or maybe to the power of a Google, you know, and a couple of examples. So in his first term, President Trump apparently raised the possibility of withdrawing from NATO, but he didn't do it, and NATO survived. And these days, look, in Effect, NATO Article 5. The essence of NATO, I think, is realistically dead. If Russia invaded Estonia tomorrow, the US Would not join other countries in intervening to protect Estonia. That kind of collective security, which has been the foundation of the international system since 1945, I think is, in practice, gone. And likewise, if you think about trade now, in his first term, President Trump was often aggressive on tariffs and trade. This time, he launched a trade war with China that, you know, he. He ended up backing down from because from my point of view, he was losing, that he didn't understand China's relative strength. And so that's one reason why I think we're in a more dangerous situation, that he's more aggressive, that he's got aides around him who, instead of constraining him, empower him. But I should also say that Trump does have this deep aversion to being in wars, and that is healthy considering his appetite for being impetuous and reckless. Lydia mentioned his retreat from Yemen, sort of declaring victory and withdrawing. And I at least count my blessings that Trump, for all his recklessness and lack of understanding about other countries, at least he does seem to want to avoid major wars.
[07:57]
Chris DeMar
So let's talk a little bit about, then, the reaction to this place that we're in globally. A lot of our listeners would be familiar with the kind of examples of behavior like Netanyahu's plans for the IDF in Gaza? Or, Nick, as you've written about the gazification of the west bank and, of course, Putin's war of aggression. Can you each talk about other examples that people may be less familiar with that you're worried about in terms of leadership reacting in this way to the Trump administration?
[08:32]
Nick Kristof
So I think we're living in a world where leaders are doing whatever they can get away with, and those who criticize them could also find themselves in exactly the kind of situation that alleged gang members in El Salvador have found themselves. So the standards are shifting in ways that I think are scary. One situation that has been unfortunately, very much out of the headlines that I think is precisely the kind of thing that you're talking about and is a place that both Nick and I have spent a fair amount of time and that's the Democratic Republic of Congo. In eastern Congo, there is a rebel group that is aligned with and essentially controlled by the government of Rwanda. And they have essentially occupied a huge swath of Congolese territory. And there is, I think, real fear that, you know, what is one of the most protracted and deadliest conflicts in the world could lead to, you know, even more catastrophic territorial war in which Rwanda essentially tries to take a huge chunk of this neighboring country. But again, it's interesting in this case it may be that Paul Kagame, the leader of Rwanda, is just as inspired by Netanyahu as he was by Trump. And I say that because, you know, Rwanda claims, and has long claimed that it needs to have control over areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo in order to protect its security, blaming it on the genocide that happened in Rwanda many years ago. And so it is interesting to see this kind of admixture of how these different authoritarian, leading, aggressive rulers, like who's inspiring who. And I think that what Trump does is create an environment where the country that I think thought of itself as the guarantor of the kind of the rules based international order is now led by someone who is playing with exactly the kinds of tactics, tactics that the United States has always tried to keep at bay. And the catastrophic effects of huge territorial disputes on the African continent, for example, the humanitarian crises that that already creates and could create, could they grow, it's just mind boggling.
[10:46]
Lydia Polgreen
I would just add that I think that the single scariest example where President Trump's policy has empowered a foreign leader's potential transgressions involves Xi Jinping in China. You know, my nightmare over the next 10 years would be a war in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea that involves the US And China and potentially becomes a nuclear exchange. And I think that's unlikely, but possible. And I think it is a little bit more likely now than it was say a year ago. And that's because if you think about what constrains Xi Jinping, you know, I think one was the he looked at Russia and Ukraine and he saw that Russia was really hurt and it paid a real economic price. I think that now it is much less clear that Russia is paying a price for its aggression and indeed that it may succeed. Secondly, I think that it was pretty clear that globally, the US Had a lot of soft power and would bring that to bear on China if it was launched a quarantine or something like that around Taiwan. And the U.S. has, you know, just doesn't care about soft power right now. And so I think that makes it a little bit easier for China to pay badly. You know, I don't know what the odds are that there will be something terrible happening there, but I think they're higher than they were before, and that is really scary.
[12:12]
Chris DeMar
Nick, you had mentioned briefly the UAE in Sudan. That's a situation that I'd be interested in hearing you talk a little bit more about and how that's intensified recently.
[12:23]
Lydia Polgreen
Sure. So it's generally thought that the world's worst humanitarian crisis right now is in Sudan and the war, the civil war. And what the US Both under Biden and under Trump, have referred to as genocide in Sudan is being perpetrated in large part because the United Arab Emirates, our pals, are supporting one of the. One of the military branches there which is engaged in particularly brut attacks. And, you know, countries are normally kind of embarrassed when they are supporting a genocide. And indeed, the UAE tried to hide its military transfers to the rapid support forces, this militia. And then when President Trump was elected, I think the UAE thought, okay, you know, the gloves are off now. It doesn't really matter what we do. We're not going to be called out. And indeed, the rsf, this faction, you know, has elevated its campaign of murder and rape and, you know, basically destroyed Zamzam, one of the biggest camps for internally displaced people around the world. So I think in some ways, the Trump administration has created a permission structure where it is okay for other countries to bully as well, to solve territorial disputes, to move in their interests. You also see this not only when armies behave badly, but I think we created a permission structure to ignore humanitarian concerns. And so when President Trump dismantled USAID, then Britain responded with a 40% cut in aid. France followed with cuts as well. And so we're left with a world where the humanitarian needs are particularly great and where the response has been substantially diminished.
[14:24]
Chris DeMar
Well, I'm glad you brought up the UK Because I wanted to talk a little bit about what's happening in that government in the context of a kind of opportunistic response to the Trump administration's actions. Last week, Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer reached what the White House called a historic trade deal. And the announcement was full of theatrics, including a televised call. And it really began back in late February when Starmer handed over an invitation from King Charles to Trump.
[14:56]
Lydia Polgreen
This is a letter from His Majesty the King. It's an invitation for a second state visit. This is really special.
[15:06]
Chris DeMar
So I guess the question is, is this a good way to deal with Trump? Is it politically risky for Starmer to take the approach that he has with the Trump administration?
[15:18]
Nick Kristof
I mean, I think it may be risky, but it's also pretty pathetic that we essentially have world leaders treating the President of the United States like a toddler who needs to be placated with a shiny toy. The latest shiny toy, of course, being a $400 million plane that the government of Qatar is apparently donating, whatever that means, to the United States. I think there's something really sinister and frankly, pathetic about this way of operating in the world. But I think it also becomes the COVID for something very, very potentially dangerous, because it means that the government of the United States, rather than thinking about its broad interests and, you know, peace and security in the world, is really catering to the venal and, frankly, childish desires of one very immature man.
[16:12]
Lydia Polgreen
I once visited a museum in North Korea that was filled with gifts to the Kim dictators, and it was this incredible monument to the idea of a personality cult. And, you know, I spent much of my career kind of mocking personality cults. They were funny. And then all of a sudden, you see cabinet meetings in the U.S. that sound, frankly, a lot like North Korean cabinet meetings. Because of your leadership, sir, I believe we're making the military great again.
[16:42]
Chris DeMar
I want to thank you for stand standing up to the Chinese Communist Party and fighting for our main streets, for our workers, and for those that make things in America.
[16:52]
Podcast Host
Your first 100 days has far exceeded.
[16:55]
Chris DeMar
That of any other presidency in this country ever. You are overwhelmingly elected by the biggest majority.
[17:04]
Lydia Polgreen
I want to thank you for your vision, for your leadership, for giving me the hundred busiest days of my life and most exciting and most.
[17:14]
Podcast Host
Thank you for your leadership, and thank.
[17:15]
Lydia Polgreen
You for everything you're doing. Very good.
[17:18]
Chris DeMar
Thank you, Marco.
[17:19]
Lydia Polgreen
But I think the politics have it cut both ways, because Mark Carney clearly benefited by standing up to Trump, and Trump seems to have respected that. And so I think it's really hard for other leaders to figure out just what to do and how to handle Trump. But as with universities in America, I don't think that simply caving and rolling over has been particularly effective.
[17:42]
Nick Kristof
Well, and it's interesting because you can tell that Trump has a not even grudging admiration for Claudia Schambaum in Mexico, for example. You know, I think she has a pretty mixed record in terms of giving in on some things, but, you know, talking tough on others. And, you know, there's another word for that, which is just diplomacy, right? I mean, you know, where you agree on hard things, hard unpopular things, quietly, and then you trumpet the big successes. And to me, one of the, this is one of the mysteries of Donald Trump, because on one level, it seems like he's spending an awful lot of time on things that just don't seem critical to American interests. He cares a lot about the Kennedy Center. He cares a lot about the design of the Rose Garden and things that just given that we're facing a world on fire, things that just seem so, so, so trivial. But then at the same time, I mean, I think what we're witnessing this week with Trump in the Middle east and meeting with the leader of Saudi ar, United Arab Emirates, the new interim president of Syria, and there is this kind of off the cuff, it seems, sort of shoot from the gut, we're just gonna do it. Quality, for example, in saying something like, I think we're gonna lift these sanctions on Syria. I mean, that's the kind of thing that clearly is necessary in order for Syria to have a chance to rebuild. And that a previous, perhaps more cautious and deliberative administration like the one that we just had, I think would be much, much more careful and it would much longer time. So whether or not you agree with the process by which Trump, you know, sort of reaches that decision. And I think similarly, we've seen what this kind of call it vigorous action can produce in terms of getting the last living dual citizen hostage held by Hamas released. And, you know, I think it remains to be seen if the Trump administration will in fact reach an agreement to end the slaughter in Gaza that somehow excludes lose the Israeli government that is perpetrating that slaughter. But I think that there is something, I guess I would just use the word vigorous about the way that these events are unfolding. And you compare them with the actions of the Biden administration, and it's hard not to kind of think, wow, were some of these things possible had that administration taken a tougher stance?
[20:14]
Chris DeMar
Being an American out in the world can feel different at different moments depending on what's going on in our country and in other countries. You two are out talking to people in different countries all the time. How does it feel to you today? And are there Any conversations that have stuck with you that you've had in the course of your reporting or your lives that kind of reflect that feeling. And this moment as an American, it's really fascinating, right?
[20:43]
Nick Kristof
Because I think if you go as an American journalist to another country, particularly if it's a developing country, a poorer country, and I think there is a mix of fascination, perhaps even longing to someday go to the United States, and also maybe some resentment of American policy and the way that it plays out. I have to say that that for me, that a lot of the encounters that I've had since Trump was reelected really reflect a kind of diminishment of America's role in the world and a diminishment of the perception of the importance of American actions. I mean, I've spent the last, better part of the last year writing about global migration. And, you know, historically, the United States was the most desirable destination for migrants everywhere. The most ambitious people in the world wanted to come to the United States because that's where all of the opportunity was seen to be. And it's just been very striking to see how quickly that has changed and how quickly people are thinking about different futures elsewhere. And under the Trump administration, it's not surprising that people would not want to come here, risk being kidnapped by ICE and disappeared to some sort of gulag in El Salvador. And I think that that is, to me, the sort of prevailing feeling is this either irrelevance or indifference. And that really changes the valence of what it is to be an American walking through the world.
[22:13]
Lydia Polgreen
It was, I think there was enormous unpopularity of Americans and it was kind of embarrassing to be an American back in the peak of the Iraq war. But I think one difference is that back then, Europeans or others would think that you might well be a, you know, if they didn't read my columns, at least that you might actually be a supporter of that, you know, of the government then and now support for President Trump is so class based that in general, if somebody is educated in the professions in journalism, then there's much more of an assumption that they're a fellow sufferer. And that's not, obviously not a perfect alignment. But I think it's more true now than it was in past periods when there were unpopular American governments. So there's more of a sense of we're all in this mess together, almost an assumption of that at international gatherings. I've joined.
[23:10]
Chris DeMar
So when do you think that this moment sort of ends? What will we need to see before this kind of Trump effect really loses its power across the globe and the world stops reacting to what the United States is doing right now.
[23:24]
Nick Kristof
Well, I think that the global system has been in trouble for a very long time, right? I mean, the, you know, United States, I'm sorry, the United Nations Security Council, you know, has been as much an impediment to achieving any sort of lasting, desirable global outcomes for a very long time now. There has been a need to open up the global system to more countries having greater say in how these big international institutions are run and the need for the US to allow and hopefully manage at least softly, in its favor. That process, I think, has been with us for a long time. And there have been a variety of efforts, from the G20 to reforms of the World bank and the IMF and other things that would create a kind of more inclusive global system that would make the world less dependent on a handful of big jockeying powers, and that multiple presidents are responsible for not investing in that effort. And I sure as hell know that Donald Trump is not going to invest in it. So the moment where there could have been a more sort of natural, peaceful, elegant sharing of power in a way that would have preserved and protected American interests while reducing the burden on the United States to act as the world's policeman, be the guarantor of safety and all that kind of thing, that moment has passed. And I don't think that that moment will come again because you'll never have an America that sits atop the global order in quite the way that it did. So the question that I'm asking myself and that I often talk to the kinds of people that I talk to, is what sort of global order is likely to emerge in a post Trump era, given that we've missed that opportun, I think it's too soon to say I'm going to be watching not just what China does and what Russia does, but I'm going to be watching what Brazil does, what India does. How does Turkey operate in this new world? How strong is the EU as it responds? So I think that this multipolarity offers opportunities, but it's going to take a while for the United States to find a way to live easily within what that new world looks like.
[25:46]
Lydia Polgreen
Like, the question that I, you know, I talk to a lot of Europeans and others about is, can we recover what we had before? Can we rebuild this? And I think the consensus is that we're never going to be able to fully get back what we had, that it's going to be decades before Canada trusts us again the way it once did. NATO will be hard to to recover, but, but you know, I must say, I mean, I remember during the Iraq War how much hostility there was to the us how it just seemed it was going to be so difficult. And then President Obama did actually manage to restore a lot of that. So I think the system has taken a real hit. I think it'll take a long time to recover. We're not going to recover fully, but I don't think that it's all over yet either.
[26:39]
Chris DeMar
Lydia and Nick, this has been a totally fascinating conversation. I'm really grateful to you both for being here and taking the time to talk through all of this with us. Thank you very much for joining.
[26:50]
Lydia Polgreen
Great to be with you.
[26:51]
Nick Kristof
Thanks so much. Krista.
[27:11]
Podcast Host
If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Vishaka Darba, Christina Samulewski, and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin, Alison Bruzek, and Annie Rose Strasser. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Saburo and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Margelocker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The executive producer of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.