issue: Foreign Policy & Defense

At NATO Summit, Allies Avoid Tensions with Trump

Posted on by Alex Terr

The young European officials and defense experts gathered for an informal dinner at an international conference in Europe earlier this month were caustic and unequivocal. “NATO is dead,” one member of parliament from a Central European country declared bluntly. “Why are we bothering to keep up the pretense?”

Others at the table nodded in agreement—no discussion needed. Whether or not Donald Trump someday makes good on his threat to pull out of the alliance, he has already rendered it all but toothless by suggesting, again and again, that he might not defend a NATO member under attack. For skeptical Europeans like the young officials at dinner, it’s a terrifying moment, leaving a largely defenseless Europe to face an aggressive, revanchist Russia. “We should stop wasting energy on NATO,” another parliamentarian, from a second country, agreed. “We need to focus on building an alternative.”

This week, there was none of that skepticism at the annual NATO summit in The Hague. Trump cast a shadow over the meeting even before he arrived, once again raising doubts about his willingness to defend Europe and comply with Article 5 of the NATO charter, stipulating that an attack on one is an attack on all. “Depends on your definition,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One. “There are numerous definitions of Article 5.” The only time Article 5 has been invoked in the past was when allies rushed to help prosecute the war in Afghanistan after 9/11.

Read more in Washington Monthly.

Strikes Without Competent Diplomacy Risk Open-Ended Conflict in the Middle East

Posted on by Alex Terr

Set aside the questionable legality and debatable wisdom of the air strikes ordered by President Trump this past Saturday against Iranian nuclear facilities. Ignore, for a moment, the technical prowess displayed by the U.S. military as well as Trump’s more recent attempts to force a cease-fire between Israel and Iran by shouting loudly on social media. Focus instead on the question of what, exactly, the United States hoped to accomplish with this strike — and how likely it is that the Trump administration will be able to actually attain its stated goals related to Iran’s nuclear program.

But Trump himself has repeatedly muddied the waters about what he seeks to achieve with his Iran policy in general and these strikes in particular. The strikes themselves appear to have been narrowly focused on three key Iranian nuclear facilities, and high-level administration officials like Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State and acting National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, took to the Sunday talk show circuit to assert that the United States did not seek to overthrow Iran’s odious regime through military force. Later that day, however, President Trump wrote a social media post that seemingly called for regime change in order to “MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN.” 

Taking Vance, Hegseth, and Rubio at their words and presuming limited policy objectives focused on curtailing Tehran’s nuclear program, it’s hard to see how this president and administration can actually achieve their goals. American bombs may well have severely degraded Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and it remains to be seen just how severely those capabilities have been degraded — but right now, they do not appear to have been destroyed. 

Israel’s air campaign reportedly set Iran’s ability to build a nuclear bomb back just six months, while one former Trump administration official estimated that this past weekend’s American strikes “will likely set back the Iranian nuclear weapon program two to five years.” What’s more, the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-weapons-grade highly enriched uranium — all 880 or so pounds of it — remains unaccounted for after being moved out of Tehran’s nuclear facilities ahead of anticipated American strikes. Making matters worse, the Trump administration lacks a realistic and credible diplomatic path toward any reasonable, stable endgame that serves American interests and constrains Iran’s nuclear program.

Indeed, Trump himself is the largest obstacle to such a path: he is an untrustworthy and mercurial interlocutor who constantly changes the outcomes he seeks, often overruling his own national security officials via flippant social media posts that declare policies opposed to those publicly articulated by his key advisors. As a result, it’s impossible to know what Trump really wants vis-à-vis Iran — indeed, there’s a good chance that Trump himself does not know what he wants beyond banner headlines and favorable coverage on Fox News — and therefore impossible for the United States to conduct actual diplomacy that might actually restrain (if not eliminate) Iran’s nuclear program. 

Nor does it take much sympathy for Iran’s brutal regime to understand why it might not take Trump’s diplomacy all that seriously. After all, Trump tore up the 2015 nuclear agreement for no good reason in his first term and then attempted to negotiate a return to the deal once back in office. Israel launched its air campaign against the regime just before another round of talks to that end with Trump’s diplomatic envoy were scheduled to begin in Oman. He subsequently attempted to claim credit for the Israeli action before intervening in the conflict with his own set of strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities—an attack top American officials later claimed was strictly limited before Trump indulged in idle speculation about the need for regime change. 

With this shifting set of goals and Trump’s ever-changing impulses, it’s difficult for Iran or any other interested party (such as the European Union or America’s Gulf partners) to put much stock in his administration’s diplomacy. Suppose the United States and Iran strike some sort of deal on Tehran’s nuclear program — what reason does Iran have to believe Trump will stick to it? A temporary accord may be possible, but such an agreement would not likely solve the problems posed by Iran’s nuclear program in any enduring way and may well be pursued by Iran as a way to open up space to recover and rebuild from the current Israeli and American air campaigns. 

Put another way, the path to open-ended conflict between Iran and the United States appears much clearer than the route to a negotiated agreement that constrains Iran’s nuclear program. Think the Iraq no-fly zones of the 1990s on steroids, or a larger version of Israel’s own “campaign between the wars” in Syria during that country’s civil war. At minimum, strikes against Iranian nuclear targets every few years may be needed to keep Tehran’s nuclear program in check — and they may not do the job well enough. Trump himself likely has no real appetite for such a long-term military commitment, but that’s the course his rash decisions and poor policy choices may have set for the United States in the Middle East. We can hope that diplomacy will resume and prove successful when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, but there’s very little reason to believe that Trump and his national security team will be able to get it right.

As America ought to have learned by now, wars — whatever their shape and intensity — are easy to start, but hard to finish.

Trump Courts Chaos With His Middle East Failures

Posted on by Alex Terr

We have no illusions about the brutal regime that rules Iran. It has repressed the Iranian people for more than four decades and declared itself the sworn enemy of the United States and Israel — and acted accordingly. Tehran’s incessant proxy wars against Israel, the United States, and other nations — typically carried out via terrorist groups like Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia extremists in Iraq — are the chief source of the Middle East’s convulsive violence today. 

The air campaign Israel launched against Iran on June 12 appears to primarily target Tehran’s ability to project power throughout the Middle East, including both its nuclear program and larger security apparatus. But an increasing rhetorical focus on regime change by Israeli political leaders risks trading the tactical gains Israel has made against the regime and its nuclear program for an open-ended military effort with an unclear strategic endgame.

Announcing the start of the air campaign against Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Tehran “has taken steps that it has never taken before, steps to weaponize this enriched uranium.” But while Tehran had steadily increased its stockpile of highly enriched uranium in recent years, and the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution declaring Iran to be in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty the day Israeli strikes commenced, neither the IAEA nor American intelligence agencies assessed that Iran was nearing nuclear breakout capacity. Indeed, American and Iranian negotiators were slated to meet in Oman over the weekend to further discuss a de facto return to the 2015 international nuclear deal that President Trump withdrew from during his first term.

Across his two terms in office, President Trump’s Iran and Israel policies have been a disaster: his first term withdrawal from the original nuclear agreement left Iran free to pursue a nuclear program effectively unconstrained, while his administration consistently catered toward the Israeli right. In his second term, Trump’s unconditional support for Prime Minister Netanyahu in Gaza, the West Bank, and elsewhere was unsurprisingly interpreted in Jerusalem as a green light to launch the ongoing air campaign against Iran. 

Trump’s apparent diffidence to his own preferred policy of negotiation and passivity in the face of an apparent Israeli determination to strike Iran left him unwilling or unable to insist that diplomacy be allowed to play out before Israel embarked upon any military action.

Nor is it at all clear what American policy toward the war is now. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued an initial statement seemingly distancing the United States from the Israeli air campaign, but President Trump himself later sent a number of different signals on the war via social media posts and interviews. As a result, the United States has positioned itself as an unassertive bystander to the conflict. No matter what policy one might prefer going forward, however, there’s no good reason to believe the Trump administration could or would execute it with a modicum of competence. 

That makes it difficult to recommend any course of action that goes beyond relying on the U.S. Central Command’s well-developed reflexes and muscle memory to prevent the conflict from expanding to include the United States, its allies, and its regional partners. American missile defense batteries deployed to Israel last year by President Biden have already helped defend Israelis and Palestinians against Iranian retaliatory missile attacks. The same goes for defending American and allied troops as well as Arab partners across the region against possible Iranian strikes. 

It’s also hard to see what influence Trump has with either Israel or Iran at this point. From artificial intelligence-generated fantasies of a Trump-run Gaza to the removal of sanctions against Israeli settlers illegally grabbing Palestinian land in the West Bank, Trump has repeatedly given Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners carte blanche to pursue whatever policies they see fit and abdicated America’s traditional role as an honest broker of peace negotiations — not to mention making the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians all the more difficult to solve. Nor is it likely the Iranians see Trump as a reliable interlocutor: he pulled out of the original nuclear agreement, then failed to restrain Israel while attempting to broker a return to the deal he once scorned, and now proclaims a lack of interest in peace talks. 

Tehran may indeed offer to return to the table in order to relieve Israeli military pressure, but it’s uncertain whether Trump can restrain Israel now that it is in the midst of an air campaign against its chief regional rival — or whether Trump will stick to any deal he himself strikes. As usual, he has been incoherent and inconsistent in his public statements since the start of the conflict.

Whatever successes the Israeli air campaign may achieve in the near term — and they could be considerable — the United States and the world may well find themselves confronted with an Iran more determined than ever to acquire nuclear weapons over the medium-to-long term and few good options to prevent it from doing so. Trump’s diplomatic failures on Iran and Israel will haunt the United States, the Middle East, and the world for years to come.

New PPI Report Calls on Democrats to Reclaim National Security Leadership

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON  —  Amid escalating global tensions, fractured alliances, reckless leadership, and a weakened domestic economy, a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) calls on Democrats to lead the charge for a strategic and sustainable increase in U.S. defense spending to reach $1 trillion annually by 2029. The report argues that a stronger military is essential to safeguarding American interests in a more dangerous world and to counter rising threats from Russia, China, and Iran.

Titled “An Affordable Necessity: The Case for a Larger Defense Budget,” the report by PPI National Security Policy Director Peter Juul critiques the Trump administration’s defense posture as strategically incoherent and fiscally misleading. Despite rhetoric touting military strength and claiming to undo Biden’s “woke” policies, the administration’s budget proposals would underfund key capabilities while overinvesting in ill-conceived projects such as the $175 billion “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative.

“President Trump’s policies are not only misaligned with real strategic needs — they are driving up costs while undermining America’s alliances and industrial base,” said Juul. “Democrats must break from old habits and reclaim their heritage as the party of national security.”

The report recommends a phased increase of $37.5 billion annually over the next four years to rebuild naval and airpower capacity, modernize the nuclear deterrent, and expand munitions production. It also lays out a vision for a notional Democratic defense program focused on deterring authoritarian aggression, supporting allied nations like Ukraine and Taiwan, and securing U.S. technological leadership in military systems.

Key takeaways from the report include:

  • A $1 trillion defense budget by 2029 remains below Cold War-era levels as a share of GDP and is fiscally sustainable within PPI’s broader deficit reduction plan.
  • The U.S. military lacks sufficient capacity — including ships, bombers, and air defense systems — to meet global security commitments.
  • Targeted investments can close gaps in naval shipbuilding, bomber forces, and munitions while avoiding waste on initiatives like the “Golden Dome.”
  • Democrats should reject reflexive budget cuts and instead pursue strategic increases that strengthen alliances and national defense.
  • Curbing the influence of partisan tech moguls and restoring professional leadership at the Pentagon is essential to sound defense policymaking.

Democrats face not just a security imperative but a political opportunity. By advancing a credible, cost-conscious plan to modernize the U.S. military and restore global leadership, they can reestablish public trust and define a forward-looking defense agenda rooted in democratic values and strategic realism.

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI. 

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

An Affordable Necessity: The Case for a Larger Defense Budget

Posted on by Alex Terr

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To protect its essential interests around the globe and defend freedom in the world, the United States needs to devote more resources to its military. Democrats should lead the charge for the required increase in defense spending — and make sure it goes to the right places.

President Trump and his Republican Party talk a very big game when it comes to defense spending, but their own priorities remain unrealistic and misplaced. Despite their proposed funding increase, the Trump administration looks set to slash core military capabilities — including a possible 90,000-soldier cut to the Army — in order to pay for fantasies such as the so-called Golden Dome missile defense system. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has made his focus on fighting domestic culture wars crystal clear and appears to believe that logistics contribute little, if anything, to successful military operations. Meanwhile, Elon Musk has expressed public antipathy toward weapons like the F-35 stealth fighter and favors replacing them with hypothetical drone swarms presumably built by new defense firms founded and owned by Silicon Valley venture capitalists.

Worse, Trump’s foreign policy threatens America’s own defense industry, which likely means each U.S. dollar will buy less in terms of defense. With his threats to Canadian and Danish sovereignty as well as his attempts to push Ukraine into an effective capitulation while offering unilateral concessions to the Kremlin, he has alienated America’s long- standing NATO allies in Europe — to the point where these traditional friends and allies question whether or not they can or even should rely on American military support. Trump’s blunderbuss tariffs, moreover, threaten American industries that depend on global supply chains and relationships with manufacturers among America’s allies in Europe and Asia. Fewer overseas sales and higher costs for industrial materials and inputs mean the Department of Defense will likely pay more for the weapons it buys for itself from U.S. defense firms. Even worse, ruptured alliances mean the United States will have to shoulder more of the burden for its own national security and spend more on defense than it would need to otherwise.

For their part, Democrats must reject predictable, knee-jerk calls from the left to cut the defense budget as well as claims that even modest increases in defense spending will prove unaffordable. In reality, a steady and significant rise in defense spending up to $1 trillion by 2029 is both warranted and within America’s means. A defense budget that sees an increase of roughly $37.5 billion a year over the next four years would provide the U.S. military with the resources it requires to secure American interests while remaining well within the lower bounds of historical defense spending — no matter the metric chosen to measure it.

It’s hard to make solid policy recommendations given the extraordinary uncertainty the United States and the world face over the next four years — to say nothing of the damage President Trump, Elon Musk, and others in the Trump administration have already done to the U.S. government. But even if it underestimates the scope of the defense policy challenges that will confront the next Democratic administration a modest increase in defense spending dedicated to the right priorities could still yield national security dividends well beyond the initial investment and plant the seeds of a robust national defense program.

As PPI previously argued, a Democratic defense program should pursue three main goals:

  • Deter and defend American allies in Europe and
    the Pacific against aggression from the likes of a belligerent Russia and an increasingly well-armed China.
  • Produce arms, ammunition, and equipment in sufficient quantities to supply the United States, its allies, and nations on the frontlines of freedom like Ukraine and Taiwan.
  • Maintain and modernize America’s aging nuclear deterrent.

Without increased investment in defense, however, America’s military will not be able to attain these three goals. Indeed, the military has too few combat ships and aircraft available to meet the demands placed upon it — and many of these ships and planes have been in service for decades. What’s more, Russia’s war against Ukraine has revealed the limits and weaknesses of America’s own modern defense industry that have only begun to be addressed. Money alone cannot safeguard American national security, of course, but a defense budget that rises to $1 trillion by 2029 will certainly help do so.

A strong defense program along the lines proposed below can help Democrats reclaim their rightful place as the party of national security. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt, after all, who called on the United States to become “the great arsenal of democracy,” and John F. Kennedy who welcomed the responsibility of “defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.” At a time when gangster powers like Russia, China, and Iran press their geopolitical advantage — including through force or its threat — Democrats can and must summon the same spirit today.

Read the full report.

Jacoby for Forbes: Europe Looks For Alternatives To A Changing NATO

Posted on by Alex Terr

Former Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis sums up his concerns about NATO with an image borrowed from quantum mechanics: Schrödinger’s cat.

“We’re in an ambiguous position,” Landsbergis explained in an interview last week. President Donald Trump makes inflammatory statements about the alliance, threatening to walk away unless Europe steps up to carry more of the cost. But then Secretary of State Marco Rubio appears in Brussels or some other forum and calms Europe down—Landsbergis calls it “normalizing the situation.” The upshot: confusion and uncertainty. “NATO is challenged and not challenged at the same time,” the former diplomat says. And in his view, this creates a perfect, bone-chilling opportunity for Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.

It isn’t hard to imagine how the scenario would play out. If Putin can convince the White House that the U.S. will benefit from a better relationship with Moscow—as he apparently has—Trump may hesitate to jeopardize the opportunity, even if a NATO ally is attacked.

Read more in Forbes.

Jacoby for The Bulwark: Three Essential Next Steps on Ukraine

Posted on by Alex Terr

IS DONALD TRUMP GOING TO WALK AWAY from Ukraine? Who knows—only a fool would try to predict. His strategy, if we can call it that, changes from day to day, and his true motives, particularly with regard to Russia, are inscrutable. But all signs suggest that he may be about to give up on his oft-repeated promise to end the war.

As Trump finally recognized and admitted last week on a phone call with European leaders, Vladimir Putin isn’t ready to stop fighting. The Kremlin proved this and then some over the long weekend, hitting Ukrainian cities with nearly a thousand missiles and drones, among the worst attacks of the war. Arrogant and ill-informed, the Russian strongman thinks he’s winning.

The latest burst of Russian violence prompted Trump to criticize Putin: “He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I’m not just talking about soldiers.” But the president also scolded Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky: “Likewise, President Zelensky is doing his Country no favors by talking the way he does. Everything out of his mouth caused problems.” And nothing suggests that Trump is likely to re-engage with the peace process. With no deal in sight, the White House says it’s going to take a back seat as low-level Russian and Ukrainian diplomats launch pro forma talks at the Vatican.

Some Ukrainians will breathe a sigh of relief. Most are tired of fighting, eager to end the war and get on with rebuilding their battered country. But no peace is better than a bad settlement—and what Trump has been pushing for the last few months often struck Kyiv as deeply unfair and unsustainable.

Read more in The Bulwark.

Lewis for Real Clear Markets: Europe Is Toxic for Investors, and the EU Commission Shows Why

Posted on by Alex Terr

Europe has declared itself open for business — unless you’re actually trying to do business there. The European Commission’s latest €500 million fine against Apple, levied under the new Digital Markets Act (DMA), is not only a staggering penalty; it’s a signal flare to global investors that Europe is no longer a place of rule-based predictability, but one where political agendas override legal clarity, engagement, or fairness.

Apple’s offense? Attempting — repeatedly — to comply with a complex, evolving law while facing a Commission that gave them the silent treatment. According to correspondence reported by Politico, Apple spent the better part of 2024 making proposals, requesting guidance, and asking for confirmation that it was on the right side of the law. The Commission’s response: Delay, obfuscation, and ultimately, a massive fine that had seemingly been predetermined months in advance.

Let’s call this what it is: regulatory ambush.

In the Commission’s own words, “it is the sole responsibility of the gatekeepers to come up with product changes.” But how can companies do that when the Commission refuses to say what would or would not be compliant? When Apple proposed rolling back some of its rules, the Commission told them to wait for developer feedback. That feedback came from critics — Spotify, Epic, Match Group — and shortly after, Apple began to suspect, correctly, that it was being set up for a fall.

Read more in Real Clear Markets.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Zelensky’s Big Istanbul Gamble

Posted on by Alex Terr

It was Donald Trump’s idea, but there appeared to be a consensus—the U.S., Ukraine, Europe, and even quasi-neutral Turkey agreeing that Ukraine and Russia should stop shooting and sign on to a comprehensive ceasefire before peace talks began. But as Vladimir Putin has proven again and again, he doesn’t want to stop fighting. He believes he has the battlefield advantage and wants to grab as much of Ukraine as possible before the guns go silent.

Trump responded to Putin’s ceasefire refusal by urging Kyiv to talk anyway and send what everyone assumed would be an exploratory delegation to meet with the Russians in Istanbul. Then, over the weekend, Volodymyr Zelensky upped the ante, committing to appear in person in Turkey and meet with Putin face to face.

It’s classic Zelensky—when in doubt, roll the dice. He’s a gambler who takes big risks, hoping for big rewards. But this could be one of his boldest gambits yet. Terrifyingly, the outcome depends on Trump.

Read more in Washington Monthly.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Poland’s Trump Conundrum—and Vice Versa

Posted on by Alex Terr

Every country, from Canada to Vietnam, is facing the same high-stakes conundrum: Is it wiser to try to placate Donald Trump or to push back against his bullying and outlandish demands?

Arguably, no nation is in a more difficult position than Poland. Historically one of America’s closest European allies, it’s also the country with the most to lose if a revanchist Russia, emboldened by a skewed peace in Ukraine, sets its sights on regaining its traditional sphere of influence not just within the former Soviet Union but also beyond it.

Imagine a spectrum with China on one end and Italy on the other. Beijing has defied Trump’s tariffs and hit back hard with retaliatory levies. Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, the only European leader to attend Trump’s second inauguration, never misses a chance to flatter the 47th president and is angling for a trade deal.

In between, Japan and South Korea say little in public while pursuing bilateral agreements with Washington. Britain and France make nice in the Oval Office but still strive, with charm and diplomacy, to persuade Trump to block Vladimir Putin’s bid to dominate Ukraine. Incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has taken a tougher stance, vowing European “independence from the USA.” So has Canada, where Prime Minister Mark Carney, fresh off a stunning electoral triumph for his once-seemingly-doomed Liberal Party, has accused the American president of “trying to break us so he can own us.”

Both leaders of Poland’s two-headed “cohabitation” government—national conservative President Andrzej Duda and centrist Prime Minister Donald Tusk—were once touted as “Trump whisperers” who could wrangle the U.S. president on behalf of Europe. Neither has managed to capture that mantle—if indeed there is such a thing. Several Polish officials, all of whom I spoke to this month, were wary of the term and requested anonymity as their nation heads into a presidential election.

Read more in Washington Monthly. 

New PPI Report Slams Trump’s First 100 Days of Foreign Policy as Most Disastrous in Modern History

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — In his first 100 days back in office, President Trump has severely undermined the United States’ global standing — alienating key allies, destabilizing the international trade and financial systems, and emboldening America’s adversaries to act without consequence.

As the world fears what Trump may do next, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released “Donald Trump’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad First Hundred Days on Foreign Policy,” a report by Peter Juul, PPI’s Director of National Security Policy. The report outlines the policies that Trump and his team implemented since his inauguration.

“This administration has managed in just 100 days to do what no foreign adversary could: undermine U.S. global leadership, fracture critical alliances, and inject chaos into the core of our national defense,” said Juul.

Juul outlines how the White House has destroyed its reputation in three key ways:

  • An Unprovoked, Irrational, and Destructive Global Trade War: Trump’s global tariffs sparked market turmoil and increased prices for Americans while seeding grave doubts about America’s reliability as a partner.
  • Alienating Allies and Losing Friends: From repeatedly calling Canada “the 51st State” to the proposed annexation of the Danish territory Greenland, the U.S. is pushing even its closest allies away.
  • Ineptitude, Chaos, and Politicization: The Signal chat scandal — coupled with the politically motivated purging of staff — highlights the dysfunction within Trump’s Department of Defense.

Juul warns that if current trends continue, the consequences could be long-lasting, if not irreversible. America’s reliability as an ally, its military effectiveness, and its global standing are all at risk.

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on X.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Donald Trump’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad First Hundred Days On Foreign Policy

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

INTRODUCTION

A president’s first hundred days in office is an arbitrary but nonetheless useful benchmark. It provides a chance to evaluate and make preliminary judgments about a president’s early performance and policy priorities.

In his first hundred days back in office, President Donald Trump has given a masterclass on how to destroy a nation’s reputation and damage its interests around the world. It’s the most disastrous first hundred days for a president since the term passed into popular usage more than nine decades ago — particularly when it comes to national security. Indeed, Trump is personally responsible for three major national security debacles that have defined his first hundred days: launching an unprovoked and irrational trade war with the rest of the world, actively alienating America’s closest and oldest allies while cozying up to dictators and long-time adversaries, and displaying a shocking level of ineptitude in the conduct of foreign affairs as well as a politicization of national defense.

Trump’s foreign policy has already damaged American national security in deep and profound ways. In just over three months, Trump and his preferred policies have made America less secure, less prosperous, and less trusted in the world.

It’s worth taking a closer work to see just how.

Read the full report. 

PPI Statement on Passing of Paul Hofheinz

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) joins friends and colleagues around the world in mourning the passing of Paul Hofheinz, co-founder and president of the Lisbon Council.

“The PPI community mourns the loss of our good friend and frequent partner in Brussels, Paul Hofheinz,” said Will Marshall, President of PPI. “Paul was an American whose passion for European unity and prosperity, as well as stronger transatlantic bonds, led him to found the Lisbon Council, a leading Brussels think tank. He was a rigorous and creative thinker with an open and generous spirit, and his voice will be missed.”

“Paul was a wonderful collaborator, generously sharing ideas and insights from Brussels to Washington with PPI over the past 15 years,” said Lindsay Lewis, Chief Executive Officer of PPI. “He was a brilliant thought leader and a spirited debater, always pushing for better policy on both sides of the Atlantic. His leadership, intellect, and friendship will be deeply missed.”

Paul Hofheinz was a visionary leader whose passion for European unity, economic progress, and strong transatlantic ties defined his career. Over the past 15 years, Paul became a valued partner and friend to PPI, helping to forge lasting connections between policymakers in Brussels and Washington and enriching our work with his ideas, insights, and collaborative spirit.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI. 

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Ainsley and Mattinson for The New European: How Populism Gives Youth Wings

Posted on by Alex Terr

As Europe reels from the sudden gear shifts of the US government, it is tempting to see Donald Trump as an outlier, isolated in his endeavour to reshape the world order. But while Trump’s tariffs agenda has mixed support even among Americans, its radicalism has been enabled by a restlessness and yearning for change that is clearly present in Europe, too.

Many progressives took heart from the victory of Labour and Keir Starmer – for whom we have both worked – last July. There was some relief, too, at the election of Freidrich Merz’s CDU in Germany, which might have beaten the Social Democrats but at least denied success to the far right AfD and its troubling political agenda. Yet restlessness with “politics as usual” – seen to be offering the same tired answers – is gaining pace rather than abating.

Voter research that we conducted immediately after Germany’s election, for a project on behalf of the US-based Progressive Policy Institute, offered few crumbs of comfort. We asked voters who had previously supported Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats why they had changed their vote. The answers sounded familiar to us from our campaigns for Labour in the UK, and echoed views we had heard in the US battleground states after the US election last autumn.

Read more in The New European.

How Democrats Can Rebuild Trust on National Security: Five Big Ideas to Start

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

In just about three months in office, the Trump administration has inflicted grievous damage on American national security. From threats to the sovereignty and independence of America’s closest allies to launching an unprovoked global trade war and politically motivated purges of the Pentagon, Trump has left America much weaker, far lonelier in the world, and deeply insecure than at any point in living memory. And matters will only grow worse over the course of Trump’s next three-plus years in office.

Democrats will need to go big and bold to even begin to repair this damage. Here are five ideas on national security that can help Democrats to do just that:

  1. A 350-ship Navy in ten years and a 250-strong bomber force as soon as possible as the core of a strong national defense.
  2. Rebuild the non-defense foundations of national power.
  3. Lift all of Trump’s tariffs, recommit to free trade, and pursue strategic economic cooperation with America’s allies.
  4. Double down on America’s alliances in Europe and Asia.
  5. Fully commit to a free, sovereign, and independent Ukraine.

Read the full piece. 

Jacoby for Forbes: Can Europe Implement Its Ambitious New Rearmament Plan?

Posted on by Alex Terr

When Andrius Kubilius considers Europe today, he thinks about the U.S. in the late 1930s. The former Lithuanian prime minister, now European commissioner for defense and space, sees many parallels. Americans lacked a sense of urgency about Nazi aggression. The U.S. had few reserves of manpower or weaponry. Its arms industry had been weakened by years of underinvestment. Manufacturers, uncertain about future orders, hesitated to ramp up production capacity, and money was in short supply.

In the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt defied this apathy and inaction with the historic defense buildup known as the “Victory Program.” Eighty years later, Kubilius says, Western democracies face a different form of totalitarian aggression. But if America could do it then, Europe can and must do it now. “We have the same responsibility,” the commissioner wrote recently in a personal post, “to define and to implement our ‘Victory Plan.’ This is our moral task. For our grandkids to live also in peace.”

Kubilius is one of the architects of the European Union’s ambitious new rearmament strategy, ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030, approved in principle last month by 26 of the continent’s 27 heads of state. Unlike in the U.S. where it now seems unclear to many whether Russia is a friend or foe, few Europeans are confused about the need for the initiative. Kubilius sums it up with one fact: as things stand today, Russia can produce more weapons in three months than all the NATO member states, including the U.S., can produce in a year.

Read more in Forbes.