Aaron Friedberg on the Trump Administration's Surprising China Policy

The second Trump administration’s approach to China so far differs from the more consistently hawkish posture of the first term. To analyze the increasingly dangerous state of our geopolitical situation and the threat posed by China, we are joined again by Princeton professor Aaron Friedberg. According to Friedberg, China continues to strengthen in military, technological, and geopolitical might as it continues to advance its ties to Russia and North Korea. Meanwhile, in Washington, the position seems to be emerging that the US can make a deal with China, as well as draw back from American positions in Europe and elsewhere. As Friedberg puts it, this policy would leave American allies in Europe and Asia more vulnerable to China and Russia—countries that have their own differences but are united by an “ideology that’s anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-democratic. And that’s a pretty powerful force.” Friedberg argues that the various and growing threats to the US and the world order remain ever more interconnected. To counter these threats, the US must increase engagement around the world and strengthen collaboration with allies—rather than “making deals” with adversaries while retreating from global commitments.

Much has happened since we were last joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Anne Applebaum in February, including the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and the Zelensky visit to the White House that provoked an alarmed and last-minute rush to join by European heads of state. In this Conversation, Applebaum shares her perspective on the situation on the ground in Ukraine and the response in European capitals to reduced US support for Ukraine on the battlefield. Drawing on her recent book Autocracy, Inc, out this week in paperback, Applebaum considers the growing authoritarian threat and dangers to liberal democracy on both sides of the Atlantic. As she states, “the farther you go down the road [to authoritarianism], the harder it becomes to turn back.”

How is President Trump’s new tariff regime different from the trade deals of his first term? How might the new tariffs affect American businesses, consumers, and the country's macroeconomic outlook? To discuss, we are joined by Scott Lincicome, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a columnist at The Dispatch. Drawing on his own background as a trade lawyer, Lincicome analyzes the effects of Trump’s tariffs on American firms and consumers. Lincicome shares real-world examples of the knock-on effects of introducing new tariffs without warning, the burden of compliance with complex and untested customs regulations, and how arbitrary exemptions favor large corporations over smaller firms. Lincicome argues that the tariffs could substantially squeeze American consumers in the months ahead—and considers the intended and unintended consequences of the policies could hamper American competitiveness in the years to come.

Six months in, what has the Trump administration done with immigration and deportation—and what have we learned about where it may be headed? To discuss, we are joined, again, by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick. A leading expert on immigration and Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council, Reichlin-Melnick presents an in-depth analysis of the situation that goes beyond the headlines. As he puts it: “We are seeing a pace of enforcement unlike anything we’ve really seen in decades….with [immigration] as the Trump Administration’s top priority. It has surged resources, manpower, and attention to immigration enforcement, with the goal of massively ramping up arrests, detentions, and deportations.”Reichlin-Melnick shares his perspective on the situation on the ground now—as well as how developments such as the massive increase in funding in the reconciliation bill might affect things in the months and years ahead.

What has the Supreme Court done—and not done—to check the Trump administration so far? What are the broader political and constitutional implications? What might the next months and years look like? To discuss these questions we are joined, again, by Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, former special counsel in the Department of Defense, and co-editor of NYU Law’s Just Security blog. According to Goodman, “there are many danger signs coming from the US Supreme Court that they [are] not ready to meet the moment.” As he explains, to this point, the Supreme Court has deferred to the Trump administration on a broad range of issues, including, for example, the use of the military domestically and the militarization of ICE. Goodman also describes the increasing weaponization of the Department of Justice against political opponents. Amidst uncertainty about how the Supreme Court will respond to executive actions that ignore constitutional authorities, and in the absence of pushback by Congress, Goodman argues that civil society must step up to defend the rule of law.

Where do things stand in the war—and what will the future of Iran look like when the fighting stops?To discuss these questions, we are joined again by Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and one of the leading historians and analysts of Iran. Takeyh emphasizes that the Iranian leaders are “traumatized and stunned,” and that “the regime is facing a vast array of problems” from widespread discontent among the people to serious divisions within the elites. He explains that the extent of the apparent collaboration with Israel, including at the highest levels of the state, is itself evidence of the grave threat to the regime from within. Cautioning that much remains unknown and will be dependent on the course of the war, Takeyh reflects on possible paths forward for the regime. “I have always believed that the post Islamic Republic Iran will be substantially better than the Islamic Republic,” he explains. “But the principal challenge moving forward after this is what does a weaker Islamic Republic mean for regional security? Regimes that lose wars tend to behave in very unpredictable ways. Because what the regime will have to do is reconstitute the fear barrier that it relies on for its rule at home.”

What have we learned so far about Donald Trump’s approach to the Middle East in his second term?In this Conversation, Eric Edelman, former ambassador to Turkey and Finland and Under Secretary of Defense,shares his perspective on the president’s recent trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. He presents a tour d’horizon of the highly dynamic and complex situation in the Middle East, not only covering the Gulf States butalso Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Israel. Edelman argues Trump has not been guided by any doctrine or coherent strategyin his foreign policy: “He really believes in transactionalism as a way of life.” The upshot sofar, per Edelman, has been “a very haphazard, incoherent policy in a very dangerous world."

What have we learned about the White House in Trump's second term? How are decisions made in the most consequential areas of national security?During the past week, Trump fired National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. To discuss this and many other matters, we are joined again by John Bolton, who served as National Security Advisor in the Trump White House from 2018 to 2019. Bolton shares the perspective of an insider who understands Donald Trump—and government at a high level of granularity. He describes Waltz’s dismissal as emblematic of a White House in chaos. As he puts it: “more and more decisions will be made in the White House and fewer decisions in the cabinet in the second Trump term than in recent presidencies. That’s the clear message going ahead.” Assessing the price we pay, Bolton states: “[Trump] is burning through decades of effort to build up goodwill, trust, faith, reliance on America. Our friends all over the world are saying, 'You’ve taken leave of your senses.’"

Where do things stand a month after Trump's “Liberation Day” tariffs and the announcements that have followed?  In a thoughtful and wide-ranging Conversation, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers shares his perspective on the economic and political consequences of the tariffs—and the threats to financial markets. According to Summers, our difficulties now go beyond any individual economic policy pronouncement by the Trump administration: “The issue is becoming, in a meta sense, confidence in the United States. When people go in and out of being confident in you, that is alarming. It’s the kind of thing that in a developing country, you’d ask yourself whether they’re going to have to have an IMF program within a few months. We’re too big for an IMF program, but we're at risk of a major kind of a financial incident.” Warning that the administration already has “done a substantial amount of damage,” Summers argues that “we may work our way through this, but only if there’s very substantial alarm and very substantial reversal.”  

What are the likely effects of Trump’s tariffs, and what do they mean for the US economy?  To discuss, we are joined again by Harvard economist Jason Furman, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in President Obama’s second term. According to Furman, Trump’s tariffs represent an enormous "shock to the system” likely to produce both short- and long-term economic pain. Furman considers both the direct and indirect effects of Trump’s policies, including the effects of uncertainty on the economy. Finally, Kristol and Furman discuss whether Congress could push back against an economic agenda likely, in Furman’s words, to produce “many more losers than winners.”