Trump buries Biden foreign policy in first 100 days
One hundred days into his new administration, President Donald Trump has reset negotiations with allies and foes across the globe, and experts say one is certain: it is all transactional.
Gone are the days when the U.S. could be drawn to throw its force around the world solely in the name of defending or spreading democracy. Global leaders are learning to speak a new language with U.S. leadership, one that is less about ideology and more about how their interests benefit U.S. interests.
"There is a lot more transactional engagement rather than I think we're ideological-based, policy decisions that were sort of the hallmark of the Biden administration," said Gregg Roman, executive director of the Middle East Forum.
Here is a round-up of how Trump has changed U.S. foreign policy since taking office:
Fox News Poll: The First 100 Days Of President Trump's Second Term
Former President Joe Biden toyed with reviving a nuclear deal with Iran and criticized Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but his administration made little progress toward serious negotiations.
Read On The Fox News App
Trump has now expressed interest in a new nuclear deal. He told Israel the U.S. would not come to their aid in attacking Iran until diplomatic negotiations played out.
As Trump's team met with Iranian counterparts in Oman this weekend for a second round of nuclear talks, he issued another threat: if negotiations whither away, the U.S. would not be dragged by Israel into war with Iran but will be "leading the pack."
An offensive campaign against Yemen's Houthi terrorists launched six weeks ago has struck more than 800 targets and cost nearly $1 billion – a sharp departure from the tit-for-tat retaliatory strikes seen under the Biden administration, when Houthis attacked U.S. naval ships and Western commercial vessels.
"Biden pursued a policy of retaliatory strikes: If you hit us, we'll hit you," said Roman. "What Trump is trying to do is what I call a salting the earth strategy. If you dare challenge American military supremacy or the ability for us to conduct free trade to the bottom of or through the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Yemen, Red Sea, Suez … We will attempt to end your ability to wage war on the United States in its interests."
Us Strikes Kill Hundreds Of Houthi Fighters, Hit Over 800 Red Sea Targets: Central Command
While Biden had promised the U.S. would stand by Ukraine "as long as it takes" in the war against Russia, Trump expressed a desire to see the war come to an end, promising that he could end the war on "day one" of his presidency.
One hundred days in, the war is not over. Negotiations are ongoing, and Trump has jumped between sounding off in frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
As Putin continues to strike even civilian regions of Ukraine, Trump questioned on Saturday whether the Russian leader truly wants peace or is "tapping me along."
He again questioned whether he would need to slap "secondary sanctions" on nations that do business with Russia to starve its war coffers.
On Monday, Russia offered a three-day ceasefire from May 8-10, but the White House was not satisfied. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump wants a "permanent ceasefire."
Trump met face-to-face with Zelenskyy in Rome on Saturday, the first time since their infamous Oval Office spat in February, after slamming Zelenskyy's latest rejection of his peace proposal, one that would have formally ceded Crimea to the Russians.
The Monroe Doctrine is back, analysts say, and Trump wants both Greenland and the Panama Canal under U.S. control.
The proposals drew shock across the world, but at least in Panama, Trump's bold words prompted a proposal to offer the U.S. "first and free" passage for its warships, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this month. It also spurred the proposed sale of two ports of entry from Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison to U.S.-based BlackRock, though that deal has been delayed by Chinese regulatory and political scrutiny.
Efforts to attain Greenland have proved less successful. Tough talk against Denmark and its ownership of Greenland has ratcheted up tensions with the NATO ally and Greenland's leadership has expressed little interest in becoming a part of the U.S.
However, Trump has called out the threat of Russia and China's increasing arctic military capabilities – the shortest range for a missile to travel from Russia to the U.S. would be over the icy island's territory. Trump is also interested in the rare earth mining potential of the massive swath of land.
Trump's threats to pull out of the NATO alliance – or refuse to come to the defense of allies that do not contribute enough military spending – has left nations across the world planning for the contingency that they may have to defend themselves without U.S. aid.
The European Union announced a plan for its nations to spend $840 billion to "re-arm Europe" after Trump halted all aid to Ukraine in March.
Countries like Spain, Belgium and Sweden have all announced plans this year to increase defense spending to meet NATO's 2% target, while eastern European states near Russia's border, including Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland, have announced plans to increase defense spending to around 5%.
Concern over China's hegemonic ambitions bridges the partisan divide, but the Biden White House never considered such drastic measures as 145% tariffs.
Trump has said the goal of the tariffs is to both bring back US manufacturing after decades of offshore production and punish China for intellectual property theft, a massive trade imbalance, and fentanyl flowing from China to the U.S. A free trade push in the early 2000s had wrongly assumed liberal trade policies would bring democratic values and free markets into Chinese borders, his supporters argue.
Trump has insisted that President Xi Jinping wants to cut a deal to lower the soaring tariffs, even as China has rejected the prospect of talks.
It is unclear what sort of realistic concessions the U.S. could get out of a deal, perhaps promises to buy more American-made agricultural products, fuel or other specialty goods.
For now, steep tariffs remain, and China is choking off U.S. supply of critical minerals, which could spell deep trouble for everyday electronics, electric vehicles and defense equipment.Original article source: Trump buries Biden foreign policy in first 100 days
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is flirting with strikes in Iran. That could be a tough sell at home.
For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world's problems are not necessarily ours. Iran could be about to test that. President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel's attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon, he wrote on Truth Social that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an 'easy target,' and said, 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' These comments came as CNN reported he's indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump has saber-rattled for effect before, so it's possible this is him employing the 'madman theory' of foreign policy again. But it's also evident that we're closer to a major new military confrontation than we've been in two decades. So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It's complicated. Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions. Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances. A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. American voters favored that 53% to 30% – a 23-point margin. The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disputed Gabbard's account on Tuesday, but it's not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That's particularly because America's last major military foray, into neighboring Iraq, became so unpopular due how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed. Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being. Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis: The same Fox poll showed 57% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans called Iran a 'real national security threat.' A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least 'very' concerned about Iran getting a nuke. And Gallup polling last year showed 93% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a 'critical threat' to the vital interests of the United States. But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high. Pew Research Center polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64%) and Russia (59%) were major military threats than Iran (42%). Pew data last year also found only 37% of Americans said limiting Iran's power and influence should be a 'top priority.' It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China's power and about the same as North Korea's – while also falling below limiting climate change. And back in 2020, just 14% of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64%), while 17% said it wasn't a threat. All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it's likely we'd see these numbers polarize. But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon — in contrast to Israeli warnings — but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported Tuesday. Trump's history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favor of the strike. But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made us less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42%. All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don't have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump's Iran policies. The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don't necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear. But it doesn't mean you think that's imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm's way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today. And there's plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.
Time Magazine
16 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What to Know About the Trump Administration's Reversal on ICE Raids Guidance
U.S. immigration officials will continue conducting immigration raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, marking an apparently rapid reversal of guidance issued last week to exempt those worksites from the Trump Administration's mass deportations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials told staff in a call on Monday that agents must conduct raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, two people with knowledge of the call told The Washington Post. Multiple news outlets, including CNN and Reuters, have since confirmed the news. 'There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE's efforts,' Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Post. 'Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.' Trump's pledge to 'protect our Farmers' President Donald Trump has launched a mass-deportation operation since he took office for a second time in January, sparking outrage from Democratic lawmakers and prompting thousands of demonstrators to take to the streets to protest ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants. Trump has recently faced backlash from agriculture and hospitality executives over his hardline immigration agenda, the Post reported. On Thursday, he posted on Truth Social that 'changes are coming.' 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump said in his post. 'In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!' What changed—or didn't Despite the public pledge, a White House official told the Post at the time that the White House hadn't proposed any real policy changes. But three U.S. officials familiar with the situation told The New York Times that the Administration had instructed ICE officials to mostly halt raids and arrests at those worksites. 'Effective today, please hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels,' Tatum King, a senior ICE official, said in an email that was sent out as guidance to regional leaders of the branch of ICE that typically works on criminal investigations, as reported by the Times. Monday's reversal of that guidance comes after Trump posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he wants to 'expand efforts to detain and deport illegal Aliens in America's largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside.'
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EPA will revisit Biden-era ban on the last type of asbestos used in US
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency told a federal appeals court it will reconsider the Biden administration's ban on the last type of asbestos used in the United States to determine whether it went 'beyond what is necessary." Asbestos is linked to tens of thousands of deaths annually and causes mesothelioma as well as other cancers. It has been largely phased out in the United States. Last year, the Biden administration sought to finish the decades-long fight by banning chrysotile asbestos. At the time, the EPA called it a milestone in the fight against cancer. The EPA on Monday said in a court filing that it would reconsider the Biden administration's rule over roughly the next 30 months. The agency said the Toxic Substances Control Act requires it to evaluate a chemical's risk and the consequences of restricting it. Now, officials will look at whether parts of the ban 'went beyond what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk and whether alternative measures — such as requiring permanent workplace protection measures — would eliminate the unreasonable risk,' according to a court declaration by Lynn Ann Dekleva, a senior official in EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Chrysotile asbestos is found in products like brake blocks, asbestos diaphragms and sheet gaskets and was banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was broadened in 2016. When the ban was announced, there were eight U.S. facilities that used asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali sector for the manufacture of chlorine and sodium hydroxide, chemicals commonly used as water disinfectants. The facilities were given at least five years to make the change. The development was first reported by The New York Times. Advocates blasted the move as weakening prohibitions against a deadly carcinogen. 'This latest move by Administrator Lee Zeldin and EPA is yet another alarming signal that this administration is operating without limits as they dole out favors to polluter lobbyists without regard for the health and well-being of people living in the US,' said Michelle Roos, executive director of the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit. Zeldin has announced dozens of deregulatory actions in the first months of the Trump administration and former top industry officials are in key EPA positions — Dekleva, for example, used to work at the American Chemistry Council, which was among the groups that filed the court challenge against the Biden administration's ban. Recently, the EPA proposed a rollback of greenhouse gas rules for coal plants. The American Chemistry Council said it supports the agency's move to ensure rules 'use a risk-based approach consistent with the best available science.' The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Tuesday. ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit Michael Phillis, The Associated Press
