The Trump Doctrine

Summary

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode: The Trump Doctrine
Date: March 31, 2016
Host: Dorothy Wickenden
Guest: Evan Osnos

---

Overview

This episode examines the emergence of "The Trump Doctrine": Donald Trump's unconventional and disruptive approach to American foreign policy during his 2016 presidential campaign. Host Dorothy Wickenden and New Yorker staff writer Evan Osnos analyze Trump’s surprising positions on NATO, nuclear weapons, U.S. alliances, and trade—highlighting their significant departure from longstanding Republican and U.S. policy norms. The discussion also delves into the reactions from global leaders, the Republican establishment, and the American public, as well as the broader identity crisis within the Republican Party.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump's Foreign Policy Positions (01:15–04:22)

• NATO and Alliances:

  • Trump described NATO as “obsolete” and criticized the U.S. for bearing the financial burden.

  • He questioned whether U.S. allies, particularly in Asia, should “pay for U.S. protection.”

  • Osnos notes Trump’s vision is “eclectic” and sharply at odds with Republican tradition.

    “He’s outlined what can only be described as an eclectic vision of American foreign policy...completely at odds with the Republican Party’s traditional positions.”
    — Evan Osnos, 02:18

• Nuclear Weapons:

  • Trump suggested allowing South Korea and Japan to acquire nuclear weapons and did not rule out using nukes against the Islamic State.

    “He sort of said, ‘Look, I am unpredictable. I can’t say that I will, and I can’t say that I won’t,’ ...the idea that he even entertains the notion is basically regarded as ludicrous.”
    — Evan Osnos, 03:26

• Decision-making & Consistency:

  • Osnos observes that Trump’s statements often appear unrehearsed and inconsistent, as if he is "working these ideas out for the very first time in public.”

    “You almost hear him working these ideas out for the very first time in public in front of the world.”
    — Evan Osnos, 03:26

2. International Reaction (04:22–06:53)

• Asian Response:

  • Countries like Japan and South Korea take Trump’s comments seriously, despite official attempts to downplay them.

  • Example: The Governor of Osaka publicly prepared for the possibility of a Trump presidency and its ramifications for regional security.

    “The governor of Osaka...said, ‘We have a duty to prepare for the possibility of a Trump candidacy because it would shake the foundation of our security.’”
    — Evan Osnos, 04:46

• China’s Perspective:

  • Trump is not seen as a major figure in China, and most Chinese people are unfamiliar with him.

  • Chinese officials object to Trump’s trade rhetoric but are more perplexed by the unpredictability of U.S. politics—especially the emergence of Trump, which defies their expectations of American political dynasties.

    “Privately, though, I think their biggest bewilderment is that the rules of American politics... no longer seem to be operative.”
    — Evan Osnos, 06:17

3. Republican Foreign Policy Identity Crisis (06:53–10:42)

• Ted Cruz and the Establishment Reaction:

  • Cruz positions himself as less hawkish than Hillary Clinton and closer to traditional Republican themes.

  • Over 100 GOP foreign policy experts publicly declare they will not support Trump due to his erratic stance—swinging “between isolationism and military adventurism.”

    “[Trump’s] vision of American influence swings between isolationism and military adventurism in the space of one sentence.”
    — Evan Osnos, 07:37

• Cross-Party Support for Hillary Clinton:

  • Several prominent Republican officials (e.g., Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Nicholas Burns, Michael Hayden) indicate they would support Hillary Clinton over Trump.

    “If you look at the range of leading Democratic politicians today, Hillary Clinton is certainly closer to the establishment wing of the Republican Party than others...”
    — Evan Osnos, 08:52

• Transformation of Party Identity:

  • The Republican Party’s traditional strength on defense and assertive foreign policy is now in flux, and the parties themselves face a deeper redefinition.

    “The parties themselves...are in the midst of a deep transformation about what it means to be a Republican foreign policy president, and ultimately what a Democrat can do in office.”
    — Evan Osnos, 09:31

4. Public Attitudes on Foreign Wars (10:42–12:25)

• Fatigue with Foreign Engagement:

  • Many Americans show ‘palpable sense of fatigue’ after years of costly wars post-9/11—a sentiment first tapped by Rand Paul and now echoed by Trump.

  • Trump’s appeal to “stay at home” Republicans reflects this mood, though without a clear, coherent foreign policy ideology.

    “He has a sense of individual issues that resonate with segments of the public. And one of those issues is this desire for a more reserved foreign policy.”
    — Evan Osnos, 11:19

• Polls on Foreign Policy:

  • Clinton is considered more trustworthy than Trump in handling terrorism, but foreign policy ranks lower on voters’ list of priorities as of March 2016.

5. GOP Schism and Anti-Trump Movements (12:25–16:03)

• Neoconservative Opposition:

  • Neoconservatives are some of the strongest voices in the ‘Stop Trump’ movement, fearing for the party’s future.

    “If you look at the electoral map as it’s shaping up today, Donald Trump would not just lose, but would really be trounced in a general election...we’re right now witnessing potentially the end of the Republican Party as it’s constituted.”
    — Evan Osnos, 13:38

• Republican Party’s Declining Base:

  • The collapse isn’t just about recent tactical errors—the deeper issue is the party’s failure to address the needs of its blue-collar base, leading to alienation and eventual upheaval.

    “The base, the core of the Republican Party was falling away, blue collar workers in these factories were finding themselves abandoned, and it was kind of simmering below the surface.”
    — Evan Osnos, 14:36

• Legacy of the Tea Party:

  • Rather than diffusing unrest, the Tea Party elevated unrealistic expectations that Congress could not fulfill, fueling voter anger and a sense of betrayal by party leadership.

    “So what you had was this steady building of unrealistic expectations among a certain branch of the Republican Party...that was the unrecognized cancer that was eating at the center of the Republican Party’s support.”
    — Evan Osnos, 15:26

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Trump’s Approach:

  “You almost hear him working these ideas out for the very first time in public in front of the world.”
  — Evan Osnos, 03:26

• On Global Anxiety:

  “They have to see that the comments from the leading American Republican candidate are not inconsequential.”
  — Evan Osnos, 04:44

• On the Republican Foreign Policy Divide:

  “[Their] vision of American influence swings between isolationism and military adventurism in the space of one sentence.”
  — Evan Osnos, quoting GOP letter, 07:37

• On the Core GOP Crisis:

  “People weren’t just dissatisfied, they were in fact, willing to overturn the whole enterprise.”
  — Evan Osnos, 15:54

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Trump on NATO and foreign policy divergence: 01:37–03:18
• Nuclear weapons and unpredictability: 03:18–04:22
• International responses—Asia and China: 04:22–06:53
• GOP establishment’s rejection of Trump: 07:22–08:36
• Party realignment and Clinton’s position: 08:36–09:56
• Public fatigue, polls on terrorism, “stay at home” Republicans: 10:47–12:25
• Stop Trump movement and neoconservative response: 12:25–13:53
• Deeper roots of Republican Party division and Tea Party legacy: 14:08–16:03

---

Conclusion

This episode underscores the seismic shift in American—and specifically Republican—foreign policy identity triggered by Trump’s candidacy. The conversation illustrates the unprecedented challenges Trump posed to postwar American alliances, party orthodoxy, and global perceptions of U.S. leadership. Osnos and Wickenden spotlight a Republican Party in turmoil, with its establishment, intellectual class, and core voters deeply divided over what it means to be Republican as Trump’s unpredictable “doctrine” gains traction in the run-up to the 2016 election.

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

This is the Political Scene, a weekly conversation with New Yorker writers and editors about Politics. It's Thursday, March 31st. I'm Dorothy Wickenden, executive editor of the New Yorker. Since the terrorist attacks in Brussels last week, the presidential candidates have been speaking more specifically about foreign policy and homeland security. On Monday, Donald Trump appeared on Fox and Friends.

[Evan Osnos]

NATO is obsolete. We're paying the lion's share. We're spending tremendous amounts of money on something that was many, many decades ago. And the world has changed.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

It's a different place. There's no emphasis on terror with NATO. And frankly, if there is, you need.

[Evan Osnos]

Different countries because it involves different countries.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Evan Osnos is here to talk about the latest turn in traditional party politics. Hi, Evan.

[Evan Osnos]

Hi, Dorothy.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So that was a breathtaking statement, although it got a little lost in the attack on Ted Cruz's wife and Trump's comment and retraction about punishing women who get abortions. But we will move along. Tell us a little bit about what in the world he was talking about.

[Evan Osnos]

As is often the case, it's hard to know how much of this is deeply held. And how much of this is sort of ad hoc. But whether he's doing this to position himself away from his Republican rivals or to try to differentiate himself in a general election, he's outlined what can only be described as an eclectic vision of American foreign policy. And so, you know, in addition to calling NATO obsolete, he also says that American allies, for instance, in Asia, should pay for US Protection. He says the United States should be neutral in a conflict in the Middle East. All of these are squarely, thoroughly, I mean, completely at odds with the Republican Party's traditional positions. And it's forced not only Republican voters into an awkward position, but it's really forced the Republican establishment, the foreign policy thinkers who have been so central to American policy over the last generation, to decide whether or not they would still be part of a Republican Party that is led by Donald Trump.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

He also suggested that South Korea and Japan should have access to nuclear weapons and said he wouldn't rule out using nukes on the Islamic State.

[Evan Osnos]

Yeah, this is one of those moments where you see that as it is with domestic issues, in some cases, you almost hear him working these ideas out for the very first time in public in front of the world. We're entering a phase now where I think, analysts and interviewers realize how little Trump really understands about basic facts about our geopolitical situation. And therefore, they can ask him questions and realize that he really doesn't know what he's going to say before he opens his mouth. And so when he was asked recently by the New York Times in a long interview about foreign policy, he was asked whether he would consider using tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle east or even in Europe. And he sort of said, look, I am unpredictable. I can't say that I will, and I can't say that I won't. But the idea that he even entertains the notion is basically regarded as ludicrous. I mean, it's. So I really struggle. Yes, everyone struggles.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So both Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have talked about how alarmed other nations are and totally bewildered at the spectacle of Trump as the Republican frontrunner. You lived in Beijing for years. What do you hear from China?

[Evan Osnos]

Most of the reaction that you're hearing so far comes from elsewhere in Asia. And we often forget that just a couple of syllables from an American politician at his level is treated as very serious in parts of the world where we have a presence. So, for instance, to give you an example, Trump has said that he would require Tokyo and Seoul to pay for the presence of U.S. troops in those countries and the governments have been officially muted. They're trying not to overreact to what Trump says. But as a practical fact, they have to see that the comments from the leading American Republican candidate are not inconsequential. So the governor of Osaka, for instance, which is the third largest city in Japan, he said, look, we have a duty to prepare for the possibility of a Trump candidacy because it would shake the foundation of our security. So even though they might want to say, look, we consider this to be just American political pyrotechnics, they. They can't pretend that this doesn't exist. Countries, whether we're talking about Japan or South Korea or the Philippines or in Europe, frankly, countries that are engaged in this very complicated triangulation between the United States and China, a rising power, and Russia, they have to think about whether or not the United States in a Trump presidency would still be a guarantor of their security, whether in fact, it would live up to the commitments that have been the basis of global security really since the post war era began.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

What about China's response to Trump's trade policy, which has been a centerpiece of his campaign?

[Evan Osnos]

Trump is not big news in China because as much as he talks about China, and he often likes to say that he's got business over there and that he's struck deals with China over the years, he's not a consequential figure. Most people haven't heard of him. The government has made ritual statements that object to Trump's characterization of the trade relationship as being exploitative in the United States. They say that, in fact, it's benefited both sides. Privately, though, I think their biggest bewilderment is that the rules of American politics that they really have come to rely on no longer seem to be operative. I mean, the number one, they look at American politics and they said, the brother of a president, the son of a former president, that person should reasonably become the United States president, because certainly that's how it would work in Chinese politics. And then on top of it now, you have this very unusual figure, somebody who their models never predicted.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And then there's Ted Cruz. There's a big primary coming up next week in Wisconsin, and he seems to be gaining some ground there. He appears to be clearly less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. I was reminded this morning that Ryan Lizza quoted him in a piece for the magazine some months ago at the beginning of the campaign, saying that he closely adheres to Reagan's foreign policy and that, as he put it historically, America has always been reluctant to engage in military force. Cruz also opposed Obama's request to Congress in 2013 to strike Syria.

[Evan Osnos]

Well, Cruz is a wild card in this scenario. If Cruz turns out to be a serious challenger for Donald Trump, this will force the Republican foreign policy establishment to decide whether or not they line up with a Cruz presidency. Because what's happening at the moment is that some of the most powerful figures in the Republican foreign policy establishment have basically come out publicly and said that they would never, under any circumstances, support a Donald Trump presidency. What's now up to. More than 100 Republican foreign policy thinkers signed a letter that said that his vision of American influence swings between, and I think their characterization is right, swings between isolationism and military adventurism in the space of one sentence. And so a number of them, including, for instance, Robert Kagan, who was a liberal interventionist, as he calls himself, who supported the war in Iraq, Max Boot, who's a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, they have come out and said that really there's no competition here. They would support a Hillary Clinton candidacy over a Donald Trump candidacy.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Yes. So is Nicholas Burns, who was the undersecretary of state under George W. Bush. He told the Wall Street Journal the same thing because she's for engagement in the world. And Michael Hayden, who was a George W. Bush CIA director, has said that he would support Hillary over any Republican except Kasich.

[Evan Osnos]

Yeah, some of this, I think, is sort of wise career management. They're looking around the corner and they see that we're probably going to have, if all things remain as they are now, we're looking at a Clinton presidency. And it is a surprising fact, I think, that if you look at the range of leading Democratic politicians today, Hillary Clinton is certainly closer to the establishment wing of the Republican Party than others would have been Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren or certainly Bernie Sanders. And the traditional foreign policy and defense problem for Democrats in a presidential election has always been the idea that they are squishy. You know, it's summed up in the image of Michael Dukakis wearing the helmet that became the iconic image of Democratic weakness. And also, by extension, it was the core of Republican strength, that no matter what else Republicans were saying, that may be out of step economically with where Americans are, that they would often come down on the side of the a strong defense, an assertive American presence. Those roles not only are tossed up in the air because of the individual personalities in this race, but even the parties themselves, I think, are in the midst of a deep transformation about what it means to be a Republican foreign policy president, and ultimately what a Democrat can do in office.

[Katie Drummond]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial director.

[Evan Osnos]

I'm Michael Colore, Wired's Director of Consumer, Tech and Culture.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. Our show, Uncanny Valley is all about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond]

At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives. So each week on the show, we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech.

[Evan Osnos]

Right? So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you.

[Katie Drummond]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

One of the questions here is where the public stands on involvement in foreign wars.

[Evan Osnos]

You have a very palpable sense of fatigue after all of these years of the American expenditure of blood and treasure in the Middle east and Afghanistan. The first person to pick up on that as an important element in presidential politics was Rand Paul. Remember, three or four years ago, we were talking about the fact that Rand Paul had identified what became known as the stay at home Republicans. These were people who were just exhausted by the consequence of everything that had come in the years since September 11th. And people call Trump this. He's sort of the lint catcher of politics. He just picks up things all over the place. And he has a sense of individual issues that resonate with segments of the public. And one of those issues is this desire for a more reserved foreign policy. And so he's incorporated that in, but he hasn't incorporated it in as an ideologically coherent position. But, you know, what do we know about what the voters think? At the moment, Trump is doing a little bit better than you might expect among voters when it comes to foreign policy in defense. After the Paris attacks, for instance, there was a poll that showed that Americans say they trust Clinton to handle terrorism over Trump by a margin of 50 to 42. Some other polls have put her lead larger than that. But in the end, foreign policy is not usually the number one issue that people vote on. At the moment, only about 10% of registered voters say that foreign policy is their number one issue. But if we continue to have terrorist attacks between now and November, and if there is, God forbid, something else on American soil, then where the two candidates come down will become a larger piece of the, of the chemistry we keep.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Hearing about the Stop Donald Trump movement, and it actually has a number of different arms. Where do the neocons stand on Trump and how actively involved are they in the Stop Trump crusade?

[Evan Osnos]

I think one of the surprises has been that the neocons have actually been some of the most forceful advocates for a Stop Trump campaign. Now, what I don't know is whether they're organizing formally, whether in fact they're raising money against Trump, or whether they are participating in the maneuvering about what might go into a Republican convention to challenge a Trump nomination. By all the public indications, there's more than a sort of sentimental view that Republican thinkers have to do more than just voice their opposition to Trump, because the fate of the party is actually truly in the balance here. There was a piece of by Rich Lowry and the Weekly Standard that argued that we're not just looking at a weak challenge to Hillary Clinton. If you look at the electoral map as it's shaping up today, Donald Trump would not just lose, but would really be trounced in a general election. As he put it, we're right now witnessing potentially the end of the Republican Party as it's constituted. And that sounds really, you know, hyperbolic and. But it's not actually. I mean, they really are confronting a moment in which at the elite level and also certainly at the grassroots level, there really is no longer a coherent sense that the Republican Party is holding.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Together and recriminations are flying. Some say that Jeb should have used his super PAC to crush Trump from the start. Others blame the whole GOP establishment for not listening to voters. Is this all just part of this ferment that we're watching?

[Evan Osnos]

I think it goes back even further than these recent decisions. I mean, it goes really back to some of the decisions that the politics party made, particularly in the Bush administration, about whether or not to hold fast to Reagan era views on free trade and on how you bring about economic growth. The simple fact is that over the last generation, at the time that Paul Ryan and other Republican leaders today were coming up and were holding fast to these really traditional ideas about how you unleash growth, that while that was happening, that the base, the core of the Republican Party was falling away, blue collar workers in these factories were finding themselves abandoned, and it was kind of simmering below the surface.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

But wasn't the Tea Party, which sort of emerged suddenly in what, 2009, wasn't that addressing some of this underlying ferment?

[Evan Osnos]

It was, but then the Tea Party turned out to be, I think, a contributing factor rather than a relief valve. Because what happened was so many of the Tea Party candidates that eventually made it to Congress, they were elected on the basis of promises they simply could not keep, partly because of the nature of our Constitution. I mean, for instance, a lot of those candidates got to Congress by saying that we will roll back Obamacare, and they simply never could do it. They didn't have the votes. In some cases, these things were sort of procedurally impossible. So what you had was this steady building of unrealistic expectations among a certain branch of the Republican Party. And if you go out, I've heard this some Republican campaign events over the course of the last few months. I've heard people stand up over and over again and say, our leadership, meaning the Republican leadership, has lied to us. It's failed us. And that I think in some ways that was the unrecognized cancer that was eating at the center of the Republican Party's support. And it was only now that it became clear that people weren't just dissatisfied, they were in fact, willing to overturn the whole enterprise.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Thank you so much, Evan. Evan Osnos is a staff writer and the author of Age of Chasing Fortune, Truth and Faith in the New China. This has been the political Scene from the New Yorker. You can subscribe to this and other New Yorker podcasts by searching for the New Yorker on your podcast app. You can find more political analysis and commentary from Evan Osnos and others on newyorker.com or on the New Yorker app, available at no extra charge from the App Store and Google Play. Tell us what you thought of this podcast. Rate and review the Politics and More podcast on itunes. This podcast is produced by Alex Barron. For newyorker.com I'm Dorothy Wickenden.

[Katie Drummond]

What the hell is going on right now and why is it happening like this? At Wired, we're obsessed with getting to the bottom of those questions on a daily basis. And maybe you are, Katie. I'm Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired, and I'm hosting our new podcast series, the Big Interview. Each week I'll sit down with some of the most interesting, provocative and influential people who are shaping our right now. Big Interview conversations are fun.

[Evan Osnos]

I want a shark that that eats.

[Katie Drummond]

The Internet, that turns it all off, unfiltered and unafraid.

[Evan Osnos]

So in a lot of ways, I try to be an antidote to the unimaginable faucet of reactionary content that you see online. To the best of my ability, every.

[Katie Drummond]

Week, we're going to offer you the ultimate luxury of our times. Meaning and context. True or false? You, Brian Johnson, the man sitting across from me. One day, at some point as of yet undefined in the future, you will die. False. Tell me more. Listen to the big interview right now in the same place you find WIRED's Uncanny Valley podcast. Subscribe or follow wherever you get your podcasts.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

From.

[Evan Osnos]

PRX.